The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 30, 1882 1009233599, 9781009233590

This volume is part of the definitive edition of letters written by and to Charles Darwin, the most celebrated naturalis

471 118 24MB

English Pages 768 [769] Year 2023

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 30, 1882
 1009233599, 9781009233590

Citation preview

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF

CHARLES DARWIN

Editors FREDERICK BURKHARDT†  JAMES A. SECORD SAMANTHA EVANS  SHELLEY INNES FRANCIS NEARY  ALISON M. PEARN ANNE SECORD  PAUL WHITE

Associate Editors ANNE SCHLABACH BURKHARDT† ROSEMARY CLARKSON AMPARO GIMENO-SANJUAN MICHAEL HAWKINS ELIZABETH SMITH RUTH GOLDSTONE† MURIEL PALMER

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

This edition of the Correspondence of Charles Darwin is sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies. Its preparation is made possible by the co-operation of Cambridge University Library and the American Philosophical Society. The Advisory Committee for the edition, appointed by the Management Board, has the following members: Gillian Beer Janet Browne Sandra Herbert Randal Keynes Gene Kritsky Steven Wheatley

Tim Birkhead Daniel Grossman Mandy Hill Simon Keynes John Parker

Support for editing has been received from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the British Ecological Society, the Evolution Education Trust, the Isaac Newton Trust, the John Templeton Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Royal Society of London, the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, and the Wellcome Trust. The National Endowment for the Humanities funding of the work was under grants nos. re-23166-75-513, re-2706777-1359, re-0082-80-1628, re-20166-82, re-20480-85, re-20764-89, re-20913-91, re21097-93, re-21282-95, rz-20018-97, rz-20393-99, rz-20849-02, and rq-50388-09; the National Science Foundation funding of the work was under grants nos. soc75-15840, soc-76-82775, ses-7912492, ses-8517189, sbr-9020874, sbr-9616619, ses-0135528, ses-0646230, and ses-0957520. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the editors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the grantors.

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF

C H A RL E S DA RWI N VOLUME 30

1882

SUPPLEMENT TO THE CORRESPONDENCE 1831–80

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467 Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment, a department of the University of Cambridge. We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009233590 DOI: 10.1017/9781009233606 © Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2023 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment. First published 2023 Citation: Burkhardt, Frederick, et al., eds. 2023. The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Vol. 30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ Books Limited, Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library A Cataloging-in-Publication data record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 978-1-009-23359-0 Hardback Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Dedicated to all the individuals and institutions who have so generously made available the letters in their care

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

The completion of this edition has been made possible through the generosity of the Evolution Education Trust together with the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, and the Isaac Newton Trust. The Darwin Correspondence Project also gratefully acknowledges the essential long-term support for the edition provided by the British Academy, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, the Royal Society, and the Wellcome Trust, and by the following donors: Patrons The Evolution Education Trust Golden Family Foundation The Parasol Foundation Trust Jim and Hilary Potter Affiliates Bern Dibner† William T. Golden† Kathleen Smith† Friends Jane Burkhardt Pamela Davis Florence Fearrington† and James Needham† Gerald† and Sue Friedman† John C. Greene Daniel V. Grossman and Elizabeth Scott Andrews Lawrence K. Grossman Shirley Grossman, M.D. Mary S. Hopkins Robert McNeil Michael Mathews Victor Niederhoffer Wendy L. Thompson Daniel J. Wright

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

CONTENTS List of illustrations

viii

List of letters

ix

Introduction

xvii

Acknowledgments

xxxii

List of provenances

xxxvi

Note on editorial policy Darwin/Wedgwood genealogy

xlii xlviii

Abbreviations and symbols

l

THE CORRESPONDENCE

1

Supplement to the Correspondence, 1831–80

151

Appendixes   

bli h d

li

I. Translations

403

   II. Chronology

419

   III. Darwin’s funeral

421

Manuscript alterations and comments

429

Corrigenda

440

Chronological list of letters in supplements

495

Biographical register and index to correspondents

511

Bibliography

625

Notes on manuscript sources

667

Index

671

b C

b id

i

i

ILLUSTRATIONS Charles Darwin by John Collier (1881) A sun of the nineteenth century The action of carbonate of ammonia on the roots of certain plants

bli h d

li

frontispiece facing p. xxiv 95

Letter to John Higgins, 4 December 1859

216

An eccentric pigeon and a ginger-beer bottle

303

Printing block of an autographed letter signed

360

Invitation card to the Jerusalem Chamber

425

Lyric sheet for the anthem

426

Funeral of Mr. Darwin ... Order of Procession

427

The funeral ceremony of Charles Darwin at Westminster Abbey

428

b C

b id

i

i

CALENDAR LIST OF LETTERS

The following list is in the order of the entries in the Calendar of the correspondence of Charles Darwin. It includes all those letters that are listed in the Calendar for the year 1882, and those that have been redated into 1882. The second part includes the letters published in the supplement to this volume. Alongside the Calendar numbers are the corrected dates of each letter. A date or comment printed in italic type indicates that the letter has been omitted from this volume. Letters acquired after the publication of the first edition of the Calendar, in 1985, have been given numbers corresponding to the chronological ordering of the original Calendar listing with the addition of an alphabetical marker. Many of these letters are summarised in a ‘Supplement’ to a new edition of the Calendar (Cambridge University Press, 1994). The markers ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘f ’, ‘g’, ‘h’ and ‘j’ denote letters acquired after the second edition of the Calendar went to press in 1994. 10748. [before Feb 1882] 10897. 18 Mar [1882] 13347f. 27 Feb 1882 13590. [1882?] 13591. [before 2 Feb 1882] 13592. 1 Jan [1882] 13593. 1 Jan 1882 13594. 2 Jan 1882 13595. 2 Jan 1882 13596. 2 Jan [1882] 13597. 3 Jan [1882] 13598. 3 Jan 1882 13599. 4 Jan 1882 13599f. 4 Jan 1882 13600. 6 Jan 1882 13600f. 6 Jan [1882] 13600g. 6 Jan [1882] 13601. 7 Jan 1882 13602. 7 Jan 1882 13603. 8 Jan 1882 13604. 8 Jan 1882 13605. 9 Jan 1882 13606. 9 Jan 1882 13607. 9 Jan 1882 13608. 10 Jan 1882 13608a. 10 Jan 1882

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

13609. 11 Jan 1882 13610. 11 Jan 1882 13611. 12 Jan 1882 13612. 12 Jan 1882 13613. 12 Jan 1882 13614. 12 Jan 1882 13615. 12 Jan 1882 13616. 12 Jan 1882 13617. 13 Jan 1882 13618. 14 Jan 1882 13619. 15 Jan 1882 13619f. 16 Jan [1882] 13620. 17 Jan 1882 13621. 17 Jan 1882 13622. 17 Jan 1882 13623. Cancelled: not to CD. 13624. 18 Jan [1882] 13625. 19 Jan 1882 13626. 19 Jan 1882 13627. 20 Jan 1882 13628. 20 Jan 1882 13629. 20 Jan [1882] 13630. 20 Jan 1882 13631. 21 Jan 1882 13631f. 21 Jan 1882 13632. 21 Jan 1882

List of letters

x 13633. 21 Jan 1882 13634. 21 Jan 1882 13635. 21 Jan 1882 13636. [22 Jan 1882] 13637. 22 Jan 1882 13638. 23 [Jan 1882] 13639. [23 Jan 1882] 13640. 23 Jan 1882 13641. 23 Jan 1882 13642. 24 Jan 1881 13643. 24 Jan 1882 13644. 25 [Jan 1882?] 13645. 25 Jan [1867?]. See Supplement to vol. 24. 13645f. 25 Jan 1882 13646. 27 Jan [1882] 13647. 28 Jan 1882 13648. 28 Jan 1882 13649. 28 Jan 1882 13650. 28 Jan 1882 13651. 30 Jan 1882 13652. 31 Jan 1882 13653. 1 Feb 1882 13654. 2 Feb 1882 13654f. 2 Feb [1882] 13655. 3 Feb 1882 13656. 3 Feb [1882] 13657. [after 3 Feb 1882] 13658. 4 Feb 1882 13659. 4 Feb 1882 13660. 4 Feb 1882 13661. 4 Feb 1882 13661a. 4 Feb 1882 13662. 5 Feb 1882 13663. 5 Feb 1882 13664. 6 Feb 1882 13665. 6 Feb 1882 13666. 6 Feb 1882 13667. 6 Feb 1882 13668. 7 Feb 1882 13669. 7 Feb 1882 13670. 8 Feb 1882 13670a. 8 Feb 1882 13671. 9 Feb [1882] 13672. 9 Feb 1882 13672f. 9 Jan [1882] 13673. 9 Feb 1882 13674. 9 Feb 1882 13675. 10 Feb 1882 13676. 10 Feb 1882 13677. 11 Feb 1882 13678. 12 Feb 1882 13679. 12 Feb 1882 13680. 13 Feb 1882 13681. 13 Feb 1882

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

13682. 13 Feb 1882 13683. 13 Feb 1882 13684. 13 Feb 1882 13685. 13 Feb 1882 13686. 13 Feb 1882 13687. 14 Feb 1882 13688. 15 Feb 1882 13688f. 15 Feb 1882 13689. 16 Feb 1882 13689f. 16 Feb 1882 13690. 16 Feb [1882] 13691. 17 Feb 1882 13691a. 17 Feb 1882 13692. 18 Feb 1882 13693. 20 Feb 1882 13694. 20 Feb 1882 13695. 21 Feb [1882] 13696. 21 Feb 1882 13697. 22 Feb 1882 13697f. 22 Feb 1882 13698. 22 Feb 1882 13699. 22 Feb 1882 13700. 22 Feb 1882 13701. 22 Feb 1882 13702. 23 Feb 1882 13703. 23 Feb 1882 13704. 24 Feb [1882] 13705. 24 Feb 1882 13706. 25 Feb 1882 13707. 25 Feb 1882 13708. 25 Feb 1882 13709. 25 Feb 1882 13709a. 26 Feb 1882 13709f. 25 Feb 1882 13710. 27 Feb 1882 13711. 28 Feb 1882 13711f. 28 Feb [1882] 13712. 2 Mar 1882 13713. 2 Mar 1882 13714. 2 Mar 1882 13715. 3 Mar 1882 13716. Cancelled. 13717. Cancelled. 13718. 6 Mar [1882] 13719. [after 6 Mar 1882] 13720. 8 Mar 1882 13721. 9 Mar 1882 13722. 10 Mar [1882] 13723. 11 Mar 1882 13724. 11 Mar 1882 13725. 12 Mar 1882 13726. 12 Mar 1882 13726f. 13 Mar 1882 13726g. 15 Mar 1882

List of letters 13727. 17 Mar 1882 13728. 18 Mar 1882 13729. 18 Mar 1882 13730. 20 Mar [1882] 13731. 20 Mar [1882] 13732. 22 Mar [1882] 13733. 22 Mar 1882 13734. 23 Mar 1882 13734f. 23 Mar 1882 13735. 23 Mar 1882 13736. 24 Mar 1882 13737. 24 Mar 1882 13738. 24 Mar 1882 13739. 25 Mar 1882 13740. 25 Mar 1882 13741. 26 Mar 1882 13742. 26 Mar [1882] 13743. 26 Mar 1882 13744. 27 Mar 1882 13745. 27 Mar 1882 13746. 27 Mar 1882 13747. 28 Mar 1882 13748. 29 Mar 1882 13748a. 29 Mar 1882 13748f. 29 Mar [1882] 13749. 30 Mar 1882 13750. 30 Mar 1882 13750a. 31 Mar 1882 13751. 1 Apr 1882 13752. 2 Apr 1882 13753. 3 Apr 1882 13754. 3 Apr 1882 13755. 3 Apr 1882 13756. 3 Apr 1882 13757. 3 Apr 1882 13757f. 3 Apr 1882 13758. 4 Apr 1882 13759. 5 Apr 1882 13760. Cancelled: not a letter. 13761. 6 Apr [1882] 13762. 7 Apr [1882] 13763. 7 Apr 1882 13764. 8 Apr 1882 13765. 9 Apr 1882 13766. 10 Apr 1882 13767. 12 Apr 1882 13768. 15 Apr 1882 13768f. 15 Apr 1882 13769. 17 Apr 1882 13769f. [20 Apr 1882] 13769g. Cancelled: third-party letter. 13769h. Cancelled: third-party letter. 13769i. Cancelled: third-party letter. 13769j. 18 Apr 1882

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

SUPPLEMENT, 1831–80 190. 2 Nov 1832 247. [Mar – July 1835] 255. [28 Aug – 5 Sept 1834] 256. [before 13 Oct 1834] 315. [24 Oct 1836] 316. [28 Oct 1836] 324. [21 and 24 Nov 1836] 328. [17 Dec 1836] 383f. [23 Oct 1837] 421a. 18 July 1838 496f. [27 Apr 1839 or earlier] 511f. 24 May 1839 570f. [2 June? 1840] 587f. 12 Feb 1841 598f. 8 May [1841] 609f. 14 Oct 1841 660f. 25 Jan [1843] 754f. 1 June [1844] 857f. 19 Apr [1845] 857g. 16 [Apr 1845?] 967f. 30 Mar 1846 983g. 8 June 1846 1026f. 17 Nov 1856 1090f. 25 May 1847 1153f. 6 Feb [1848] 1189f. 13 July [1848] 1260g. [1849?] 1306f. 3 Mar [1850] 1428f. 25 May [1851] 1430. 2 June [1851] 1438f. 4 July [1851] 1484f. 27 July 1852 1484g. 29 July [1852] 1484h. 31 July 1852 1504f. 7 Mar [1858] 1592f. [early Sept? 1854] 1768. 24 Oct [1842–5 or 1853 or 1855–68?] 1782f. 20 Nov [1855] 1870f. 9 May [1856] 1885f. 1 June [1856] 1900f. 12 June [1856] 1909f. 24 June [1856] 2037g. 7 Jan [1857] 2093f. 22 May [1857] 2181f. 9 Dec 1857 2182f. 13 Dec [1857] 2184f. 15 Dec [1857] 2199f. [c. June 1858 or later] 2201f. 13 Jan [1858] 2204. 15 Jan 1858 2283f. 9 June 1858 2377f. 8 Dec 1858

xi

List of letters

xii 2421. [Mar 1858] 2455f. 29 Apr [1859] 2469f. 15 June 1859 2476f. 13 July [1859] 2476g. 15 July 1859 2476h. 18 July [1859] 2525. 11 Nov [1859] 2563. [25 Feb 1868 or later] 2570f. 4 Dec 1859 2626. [1857–62?] 2633f. 1 Jan [1860] 2649f. 12 Jan [1860] 2652f. 15 Jan [1860] 2660. 21 [  Jan 1860] 2664a. 23 Jan [1860?] 2666f. 29 Jan [1860] 2733f. 27 Mar [1860] 2810f. 18 May [1860] 2836f. 19 June 1860 2837f. 16 June 1860 2840f. 22 June 1860 2861f. [2 July 1860] 2988f. 19 Nov 1860 3035f. 28 Dec [1860] 3040f. [1861] 3052f. [1860–82?] 3062f. 16 Feb [1861] 3117f. 13 Apr [1861] 3125f. 23 Apr [1861] 3150f. [Sept 1831 – May 1861] 3152f. 20 May 1861 3174f. 2 June [1865] 3179f. 11 June [1861–8] 3338f. 3 Dec 1861 3414f. 27 Nov [1861] 3424f. 31 Jan [1862] 3487g. 27 Mar [1862] 3491f. 2 Apr [1862] 3581f. 1 June 1862 3603f. 13 June 1862 3620f. 23 June [1862] 3640f. 3 July [1862] 3691. 20 Aug 1862 3818f. 21 Nov 1862 3897f. [7 Feb 1863 or earlier] 3941f. 24 Jan [1863] 4072f. 2 Apr [1863] 4147f. 8 May 1863 4149f. 9 May 1863 4196f. 31 May 1863 4321f. 23 Oct [1863?] 4361f. 4 Dec 1863 4372. [1876–7] 4375f. [c. 1864]

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

4378f. [c. 10 Apr 1864] 4516f. 31 May 1864 4607f. 4 Sept [1864] 4609g. 7 Sept [1864] 4639f. 2[0–9?] Oct [1871 or 1873?] 4661f. 6 Nov [1864] 4690f. 1 Dec 1864 4735f. [before 3 Jan 1865] 4793f. 26 Mar [1865] 4802f. 3 Apr [1865] 4831f. [9 May 1865] 4843f. 31 May 1865 4918f. [18–22 Oct 1865] 4939f. 22 Nov 1865 4940f. 21 Nov 1865 5075f. [before 10 May 1866?] 5090g. 14 May 1866 5155f. 15 July [1866] 5279f. [16 Nov 1866] 5310f. 17 Dec [1866] 5313f. [before 1868] 5376f. [23 Jan 1867] 5461f. 27 Mar [1867] 5547f. 23 May 1867 5571f. 19 [  June 1867] 5582f. 16 July 1867 5608. 16 Aug [1867] 5620f. [9 Oct 1867] 5646f. 11 Oct [1867] 5749. [1868?] 5771. [before 30 Nov 1876] 5970g. 2 Mar [1868] 5984f. 5 Mar [1860–9] 6142. 23 Apr 1868 6214f. 29 May [1868] 6267g. 4 July 1868 6308. 7 Aug [1868] 6332f. 29 Aug [1868] 6356f. 8 Sept 1868 6371f. 18 Sept 1868 6461f. 16 Nov 1868 6508f. 18 Dec 1871 6524. [1862–5?] 6610f. [after 12 Feb 1869] 6611f. 12 Feb [1870–82] 6624f. 20 Feb [1869] 6645f. 6 Mar 1869 6759f. 27 May 1869 6770f. [after June 1869] 6848f. 2 Aug [1869] 6957f. 27 Oct 1869 6965f. 1 [Nov 1869] 6977f. 8 Nov [1869] 6980. 9 Nov [1869]

List of letters 7007. 24 Nov [1869] 7012f. 26 Nov [1869] 7028f. 13 Dec [1869] 7088f. [1870s?] 7115f. 22 Feb [1870–1] 7131. 14 Mar 1870 7180. 5 May [1870] 7201f. 25 May [1870] 7285. 20 July [1870] 7321f. 17 Sept 1870 7322f. 20 Sept [1870] 7385. 29 Nov 1870 7466f. 30 Jan [1874?] 7555f. [8–10 Mar 1871] 7613f. 23 Mar [1871] 7669f. 8 Apr 1871 7765h. 22 May [1871] 7798f. 3 June 1871 7918g. 28 Aug [1871] 7919f. 31 Aug [1871] 7964f. 23 Sept [1871] 8011f. 17 Oct [1871] 8031f. 26 Oct 1871 8034f. 30 Oct [1871] 8098f. 6 Dec 1871 8105. 12 Dec 1871 8132. 2 [Oct 1842 – Apr 1882] 8135f. [1872 or later?] 8212f. [16 or 23 Feb or 1 or 8 or 15 Mar 1872] 8227f. 29 Feb 1872 8342f. 21 May 1872 8372. 7 June 1872 8379f. 13 June [1872–4] 8383f. 11 June 1872 8404. 11 July [1872] 8404f. 10 July [1872–3] 8406f. 12 July [1872–4] 8435. 26 July [1872] 8460f. 9 Aug [1872–4] 8461. 9 Aug [1872] 8464f. 12 Aug [1872] 8477f. [after 20 Aug 1872?] 8495f. 30 Aug [1872] 8564f. [c. 1 Nov 1872] 8616f. 9 Nov [1872] 8633f. 18 Nov 1872 8649f. [after 26 Nov 1872] 8650f. 27 Nov [1874] 8704. [1873?] 8715f. [after 1871?] 8776a. 19 Feb 1873 8776f. 19 Feb [1873] 8809f. [before 14] Mar 1873 8810f. 14 Mar 1873

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

xiii

8829f. [before 29 Mar 1873] 8839f. 3 April [1873] 8920f. 24 May [1873] 8929. 30 May 1873 8979f. 15 July 1873 8986f. 24 July 1873 9113f. 25 Oct [1873] 9115f. 28 Oct 1873 9126f. 3 Nov 1873 9219. [4 Dec 1874, 10 Dec 1875, 17 Dec 1875, or 12 Jan 1877] 9223f. [before 30 May 1879] 9236f. 10 Jan [1872–4] 9346. 9 Mar [1874] 9381f. 31 Mar 1874 9525f. 1 July [1874] 9534f. 8 July 1874 9580f. 1 Aug 1874 9619. 1 Sept 1874 9627f. 7 Sept [1874] 9632g. [after 11 Sept 1876] 9697f. [25 Oct 1874] 9705f. [before 27 Mar 1875] 9716f. 11 Nov [1874] 9724f. [9 Dec 1874, 14 Dec 1875, or 10 Jan 1877] 9750f. 8 Dec [1874] 9763f. 18 Dec 1874 9790f. 31 Dec [1874–81] 9791. [1874–82] 9795f. 1 Jan [1875] 9803f. [after 6 Jan 1875] 9828f. 23 Jan [1875–82] 9828g. 23 Jan [1875–82] 9859. 17 Feb [1875–8] 9882f. 10 Mar 1875 9905f. 30 Mar 1875 9915. 6 Apr [1876–82] 9917f. 8 Apr [1875–82] 9939f. 18 Apr 1875 9942f. 22 Apr [1875] 9948f. 24 Apr [1875] 9966f. 3 May 1875 9970. 4 May [1875] 9983. 18 May [1875 or 1880] 10001a. 29 May [1879] 10055f. 10 July 1875 10115f. 11 Aug 1875 10121f. 14 Aug [1875] 10124f. 18 Aug 1875 10132f. 22 Aug 1875 10136f. 27 Aug [1875–81] 10169f. 24 Sept 1875 10179g. 1 Oct [1875] 10234f. 1 Nov [1877–9?]

List of letters

xiv 10260f. 16 Nov [1875?] 10289g. 7 Dec 1875 10305f. 18 Dec [1875] 10331g. 29 Dec 1875 10339. [1876?] 10423f. 21 Mar 1876 10451. 14 Apr 1876 10510f. 19 May 1876 10524f. [before 2 June 1876?] 10535h. 8 June 1876 10544. 22 June [1875–81] 10552. 30 June [1875–81] 10559f. 9 July 1876 10561f. 18 July 1876 10594. 11 Sept 1876 10659f. 31 Oct [1876] 10681f. 20 Nov 1876 10685. 22 Nov [1876] 10687f. 24 Nov 1876 10739f. 31 Dec 1876 10745. [1876] 10754. 17 [1877?] 10759f. [7 July? 1877] 10770f. 4 Jan 1877 10834f. 7 Feb 1877 10852f. 19 Feb 1877 10873f. 2 Mar [1877] 10887f. 10 Mar 1877 10891f. 13 Mar 1877 10945g. 29 Apr 1877 10973. 27–8 May [1877] 10989f. 7 June 1877 11028f. [Nov 1874 – May 1880] 11062. 18 July [1875–81] 11176f. 10 Oct 1877 11212f. 27 Oct [1876] 11249f. 23 Nov 1877 11260f. 30 Nov [1876] 11267. 2 Dec [1856] 11271f. 8 Dec [1842–81] 11301. [after 16 Oct 1875?] 11306f. [1878] 11313. [1842–82?] 11337a. 28 Jan [1873] 11385. [Sept 1877 or later] 11412f. 11 Mar [1878] 11468. 10 Apr [1876] 11478f. 17 Apr [1878] 11523f. [before 24 May 1878] 11549. 9 June [1875–81] 11561f. 21 June [1878?] 11567. 26 June 1878 11590. 4 July [1877?] 11670. 20 Aug [1878]

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

11674. 23 Aug [1878] 11686. 3 Sept [1878] 11711f. [before 18 Apr 1878] 11727f. 24 Oct 1878 11748f. 19 Nov 1878 11874f. 12 Feb 1879 11912. 3 Mar [1878] 11970f. [after 2 Apr 1879] 11992. 13 Apr 1879 12034f. [before 6 May 1879] 12077. [1 Aug 1878] 12081f. 4 June 1879 12283f. [before 12 Nov 1879] 12337f. 19 Nov 1879 12379. [1870–81] 12385. [1871–82] 12386. [1871–82] 12387. [1871–82] 12389. [after 22 July 1878] 12411f. 8 Jan 1880 12419. 12 Jan [1872?] 12638f. 17 June 1880 12967. 1 Jan [1877?] 13103a. [after 2 Apr 1880] 13210. 18 June [1880] 13289a. 18 Aug [1880?] 13770f. 30 Apr [1856–68] 13770g. 19 Mar [1860–1?] 13770h. [1840–77?] 13770j. 8 Dec [1861–8] 13772. 21 Mar [1843–82] 13772f. 16 Mar [1843–82] 13772g. 11 Dec [1873–5?] 13776. 10 [Oct 1842 – Apr 1882] 13781. 16 May [1869–81] 13792. [Oct 1874 – Apr 1882] 13799. 22 Feb [1863 or later] 13799f. [1850–4?] 13806. 8 Feb [1871–82] 13811. [Nov 1874 – Apr 1882] 13814. [1846–54] 13815. 1 May [1880?] 13816a. 22 [Jan 1844 – Mar 1882] 13820. 19 July [1875–81] 13821. 1 Feb [1846?] 13822. 14 Dec [1859–71] 13825. 21 Feb [1863 or later] 13825g. [22 Nov 1866 – 14 Dec 1871] 13829. [after 24 Nov 1859] 13835. 18 Sept [1875–81] 13836. 8 Sept [1877–80?] 13839a. 22 May [1860–81] 13840. 27 Nov [1871–80?] 13848. [1860–82]

List of letters 13855a. [1871–82] 13858. [after 1836?] 13864. [Feb 1838 – Feb 1841?] 13864a. [1878 – Nov 1880] 13864f. [1861–82] 13865. 1 Mar [1843–82] 13866a. 2 May [1869 or later] 13867. 7 Aug [1843–68?] 13867g.[1842–82] 13875. [1860–82?] 13876. [1860–82?] 13886. 27 Sept [1871–81] 13887. 18 Nov [1871–81] 13889a. 31 [Jan 1875–82] 13889b. 3 Feb [1875–82?] 13889f. [after June 1857] 13892. [1853–72?] 13925f. [1839–82]

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

xv

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

INTRODUCTION

In 1882, Darwin reached his 74th year. Earthworms had been published the previous October, and for the first time in decades he was not working on another book. He remained active in botanical research, however. Building on his recent studies in plant physiology, he investigated the reactive properties of roots and the effects of different chemicals on chlorophyll by examining thin slices of plant tissue under a microscope. When not experimenting, he was busy engaging with readers on Earthworms, the relationship between science and art, and the intellectual powers of women and men. He fielded repeated requests for autographs, and provided financial support for scientific colleagues or their widows facing hardship. Darwin had suffered from poor health throughout his adult life, but in February he began to feel more weak than usual. To Lawson Tait, he remarked, ‘I feel a very old man, & my course is nearly run’ (letter to Lawson Tait, 13 February 1882). His condition worsened in March. Regular walks grew difficult, and by early April, he was being carried upstairs with the aid of a special chair. The end came on 19 April. Plans were made for a burial in St Mary’s churchyard in Down, where his brother Erasmus had been interred in 1881. But some of his scientific friends quickly organised a campaign for Darwin to have greater public recognition. In the end, his body was laid to rest in the most famous of Anglican churches, Westminster Abbey. Botanical observation and experiment had long been Darwin’s greatest scientific pleasure. The year opened with an exchange with one of his favourite correspondents, Fritz Müller. The men discussed the movement of leaves in response to light, and the comparative fertility of crosses between differently styled plants (letter from Fritz Müller, 1 January 1882, and letter to Fritz Müller, 4 January 1882). These were topics that Darwin had been investigating for years, but he was always keen to learn more. One line of research was new: ‘I have been working at the effects of Carbonate of Ammonia on roots,’ Darwin wrote, ‘the chief result being that with certain plants the cells of the roots, though not differing from one another at all in appearance in fresh thin slices, yet are found to differ greatly in the nature of their contents, if immersed for some hours in a weak solution of C. of Ammonia’. Darwin’s interest in root response and the effects of different chemical substances followed from his previous work on insectivorous plants and the physiology of movement. The results of this research were published in two papers, ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll’ and ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on roots’, read at the Linnean Society of London on 6 and 16 March, respectively.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xviii

In January, Darwin corresponded with George John Romanes about new varieties of sugar cane produced by grafting. In 1880, Darwin had been sent details of experiments performed in Brazil by the politician and farmer Ignacio Francisco Silveira da Motta. More documents were sent the following year from Brazilian farmers and the director of parks and gardens in Rio de Janeiro, Auguste François Marie Glaziou (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 20 October 1880, and Correspondence vol. 29, letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 28 December 1881). Darwin had a long-running interest in such cases, and Romanes had made numerous attempts to produce hybrids through grafting root vegetables such as potatoes, carrots, and beets. Romanes’s experiments had been conducted to lend support to Darwin’s theory of pangenesis (see Correspondence vol. 23 and Variation 2: 357–404), but they had met with little success. He was eager to write up the results on Brazilian cane, with Darwin providing a detailed outline: ‘I had no intention to trouble you about preparing the paper,’ Darwin wrote, ‘but you seem to be quite untirable & I am glad to shirk any extra labour’ (letter to G. J. Romanes, 6 January 1882). The finished paper, ‘On new varieties of the sugar-cane produced by planting in apposition’, was read at the Linnean Society on 4 May, but not published. Darwin carried on with botanical work in spring. He tried to obtain cobra poison, probably intending to test its effects on chlorophyll (letter to Joseph Fayrer, 30 March 1882). He received a specimen of Nitella opaca, a species of freshwater green algae, and applied more carbonate of ammonia to its roots. ‘The grains swell & then exhibit the contained particles of starch very clearly,’ he wrote to Henry Groves, the botanist who had supplied the specimen. ‘Some of the grains become confluent, occasionally sending out prolongations. But my observations are hardly trustworthy … how little we know about the life of any one plant or animal!’ (letter to Henry Groves, 3 April 1882). He wrote to an American in Kansas for seeds of Solanum rostratum, the flowers of which are asymmetric, thus facilitating cross-fertilisation. Darwin’s aim, he said, was just to ‘have the pleasure of seeing the flowers & experimentising on them’ (letter to J. E. Todd, 10 April 1882). While enthusiasm drove him, deteriorating health made it increasingly difficult to work: ‘I find stooping over the microscope affects my heart’ (letter to Henry Groves, 3 April 1882). Darwin’s last book, Earthworms, had been published in October 1881. It proved to be very popular, with reviews appearing in a wide range of journals and newspapers (see Correspondence vol. 29, Appendix V). The conservative Quarterly Review, owned by Darwin’s publisher John Murray, carried an anonymous article on the book in January 1882. The reviewer’s assessment was mixed: ‘we still remain convinced of the prematureness … of what is commonly … styled the Darwinian theory of Evolution. But this difference of opinion … is no obstacle to our entertaining the highest admiration for those researches themselves’ (Quarterly Review, January 1882, p. 179). Darwin commented at length on the review to Murray. He was pleased by ‘the few first pages … which [were] highly complimentary, indeed more than complimentary.’ ‘If the Reviewer is a young man & a worker in any branch of Biology,’ Darwin continued, ‘he will assuredly sooner or later write differently about

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xix

evolution’ (letter to John Murray, 21 January 1882). The author was in fact the clergyman and professor of ecclesiastical history Henry Wace. Darwin was confident that the theory of evolution would prevail, even if natural selection remained less widely accepted. ‘Literally I cannot name a single youngish worker who is not as deeply convinced of the truth of Evolution as I am, though there are many who do not believe in natural selection having done much,—but this is a relatively unimportant point. Your reviewer is in the position of the men who stuck up so long & so stoutly that the sun went round the earth’. Particular points in Earthworms were taken up by individual readers. James Frederick Simpson, a musical composer, had provided Darwin with observations on worm behaviour, such as the rustling noise made when dragging leaves into their burrows (Correspondence vol. 29, letter from J. F. Simpson, 8 November 1881). He remarked on the ‘far reaching inferences & hypotheses’ of the book, and was inspired to continue his observations: ‘I have watched with great interest lately the building up of a “tower” casting in our little garden. Morning by morning it shows a new deposit of its viscid-“lava” on the summit, whence it rolls down the sides’ (letter from J. F. Simpson, 7 January 1882). The agricultural chemist Joseph Henry Gilbert was struck by the benefits of worms to soil composition. He asked Darwin about the nitrogen content in the castings, and whether worms might bring the element up from lower depths through burrowing. Darwin regretted that he had not studied deep sections of earth, but speculated: ‘worms devour greedily raw flesh & dead worms … And thus might locally add to amount of nitrogen … I wish that this problem had been before me when observing, as possibly I might have thrown some little light on it, which would have pleased me greatly’ (letter from J. H. Gilbert, 9 January 1882, and letter to J. H. Gilbert, 12 January 1882). In Earthworms, p. 305, Darwin had remarked on the creatures’ remarkable muscular power. This was confirmed by one of his correspondents. A clerk, George Frederick Crawte, recounted a violent contest between a worm and a frog: ‘when I first discovered them half the worm had disappeared down the frog’s throat. I watched them for a quarter of an hour and during that time the tussle was pretty severe. The worm on several occasions threw the frog on its back, and, though apparently unable to disengage itself, the annelid seemed to have rather the best of the fight’ (letter from G. F. Crawte, 11 March 1882). The battle apparently ended in a draw, with both combatants the worse for wear. Darwin’s writing on human evolution continued to attract interest. His 1876 article ‘Biographical sketch of an infant’, based on observations of his first child, William, was republished in a collection of papers on infant development edited by the American educator Emily Talbot (Talbot ed. 1882). His letter to Talbot written the previous year (Correspondence vol. 29, letter to Emily Talbot, 19 July 1881) was also published in the Journal of Social Science, together with other materials, including extracts from the diary of Bronson Alcott, who, like Darwin, had made detailed observations of his children, one of whom became the famous writer Louisa May Alcott. The importance of Darwin’s work in inspiring future research was sounded

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xx

by the American publisher, Allen Thorndike Rice: ‘This line of investigation, I am confident, will be pursued here with all the characteristic ardor and acuteness of the American intellect— indeed it is very probable that it will become a veritable craze. What I apprehend, however, is that, having become a craze, it will have the fate of all crazes: that it will be overdone, and ridiculed out of existence by the flippant witlings of the newspaper press’ (letter from A. T. Rice, 4 February 1882). Rice looked to Darwin to provide the ‘movement’ with urgently needed guidance, offering generous payment for an article in his journal, North American Review. Darwin nearly always declined such offers, and this was no exception. Another American, Caroline Kennard, had written on 26 December 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29) to ask Darwin whether he agreed with the commonly held view that women were intellectually inferior to men. Darwin referred her to Descent of man, where he argued that among ancestral humans and savages, males had evolved superior strength, courage, and energy, as well as higher powers of reason, invention, and imagination, as a result of their battle with other males during maturity for the possession of females; and that in civilised societies, these powers were reinforced by continued rivalry between men, and their role as providers for the family. In his letter, he conceded that there was ‘some reason to believe that aboriginally … men & women were equal’. But such equality, he insisted, required women to become ‘regular “bread-winners’’’ and this would have dire consequences: ‘we may suspect that the early education of our children, not to mention the happiness of our homes, would in this case greatly suffer’ (letter to C. A. Kennard, 9 January 1882). Kennard’s reply must be read in full to be appreciated. The gist of her counter-argument was that many women were, in practice, already ‘bread winners’, as well as educators, household managers, and partners in business, though seldom recognised as such. Which of the partners in a family is the breadwinner where the husband works a certain number of hours in the week and brings home a pittance of his earnings (the rest going for drinks & supply of pipe) to his wife; who, early & late, with no end of self sacrifice in scrimping for her loved ones, toils to make each penny tell for the best economy and besides, to these pennies she may add by labor outside or taken in? … The family must be righteously maintained … Let the ‘environment’ of women be similar to that of men and with his opportunities, before she be fairly judged, intellectually his inferior, please. (Letter from C. A. Kennard, 28 January 1882.) Darwin had a less heated discussion with the painter John Collier on the topic of science and art. He had sat for Collier in 1881 for a portrait commissioned by the Linnean Society. Collier sent Darwin a copy of his Primer of art (Collier 1882), which seemed to follow Darwin’s views on the aesthetic sense of animals, and its role in the selection of mates. ‘Will not your brother-artists scorn you for showing yourself so good an evolutionist’, Darwin joked. ‘Perhaps they will say that allowance must be made for him, as he has allied himself to so dreadful a man, as Huxley’ (letter

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxi

to John Collier, 16 February 1882). Collier had married Thomas Henry Huxley’s daughter Marian. He returned the joke: ‘I am in hopes that my brother artists will not read the work in question if they did my character amongst them would be gone for ever and I should be classed (most unjustly) as a scientific person’. The two men also agreed on the deficiencies of Huxley’s argument that animals were conscious automata, and that human consciousness might be analogous to the smoke coming out of a steam engine, of no practical use. ‘There must be something wrong in a theory which nobody really believes in with regard to himself except in some strained & unnatural sense— Would my actions be the same without my consciousness?’ (letter from John Collier, 22 February 1882; T. H. Huxley 1881, pp. 199–245). Huxley used arguments about automatism in debates over vivisection, attempting to undermine claims of animal suffering. Darwin had taken a strong interest in the vivisection debate in 1875, and had even testified before a Royal Commission that experiments performed without regard for animal suffering were reprehensible (see Correspondence vol. 23, Appendix VI). But he also strongly supported experimental physiology as a discipline. In February he contributed a large sum (£100) to the ‘Science Defence Association’, an organisation made up largely of medical professionals interested in promoting physiological research. ‘I feel a deep interest in the success of the proposed Association,’ he wrote to William Jenner, ‘for I am convinced that the benefits to mankind to be derived from basing the practice of medicine on a solid scientific foundation cannot be overestimated’ (letter to William Jenner, 20 March [1882]; see also letter from T. L Brunton, 12 February 1882, and letter to T. L. Brunton, 14 February 1882). Darwin continued to delight in his children’s accomplishments. In a letter to Anthony Rich, he shared several of his sons’ achievements. Leonard had been appointed to observe the transit of Venus on an expedition to Queensland, Australia. George’s recent work had been highly praised by his scientific peers. A lecture by Robert Stawell Ball that was printed in Nature declared George ‘the discoverer of tidal evolution’ (Nature, 24 November 1881, p. 81). Darwin boasted to Rich: ‘George’s work about the viscous state of the earth & tides & the moon has lately been attracting much attention, & all the great judges think highly of the work … I believe that George will some day be a great scientific swell’. Darwin also mentioned George’s heavy workload as an examiner for the mathematical tripos at Cambridge, and his plans to take a long trip to Jamaica ‘for complete rest’ (letter to Anthony Rich, 4 February 1882). Horace had settled in Cambridge with his wife, Ida, and continued to build up his scientific instrument company, but his biggest news was the birth of his first child (Erasmus Darwin) on 7 December 1881. Finally, Darwin had a second grandchild to spoil and gloat over. Although Darwin had been plagued by illness for much of his adult life, the last decade or so had seen relative improvement. His reply to a correspondent about the effects of tobacco and alcohol on intellectual work reveals his daily regimen: ‘I drink 1 glass of wine daily and believe I should be better without any, though

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxii

all Doctors urge me to drink some or more wine as I suffer much from giddiness. I have taken snuff all my life and regret that I ever acquired the habit, which I have often tried to leave off and have succeeded for a time. I feel sure that it is a great stimulus and aid in my work. I also daily smoke 2 little paper cigarettes of Turkish tobacco. This is not a stimulus, but rests me after my work, or after I have been compelled to talk, which tires me more than anything else. I am now 73 years old’ (letter to A. A. Reade, 13 February 1882). Over the month of February, Darwin started to feel more poorly than usual. An entry in his diary for 7 March records: ‘I have been for some time unwell’ (Darwin pocket diary, 1882, Down House MS). On a visit to Down in early March, Henrietta learned that her father had been experiencing some pain in the heart after his regular walks. Several days later he had a ‘sharp fit’ while on the Sandwalk, and was no longer able to take his daily strolls (Henrietta Emma Litchfield, ‘Charles Darwin’s death’, DAR 262.23: 2, p. 2). His physician for some years was the prominent London practitioner Andrew Clark. On 9 March, Darwin wrote in his diary, ‘Dr. Clark came to see me on account of my heart’. He was prescribed morphia pills, as well as a ‘Simple Antispasmodic’ and a ‘Glycerin Pepsin mixture’ (letters to W. W. Baxter, 11 March 1882 and 18 March [1882]). Detailed instructions followed on diet, reduced activity, and medications. The treatments were not for Darwin’s usual stomach troubles and nausea. The antispasmodic (possibly amyl nitrate) and morphine lozenges were for severe chest pain (see Colp 2008, pp. 116–20). ‘On rising’, Clark wrote, ‘sponge with tepid or warm water dry quickly and use as little exertion as possible … Especially avoid lifting straining going upstairs when it can be avoided hurrying or doing anything which will bring on the chest pain. Short of this walk about gently’ (letter from Andrew Clark, 17 March 1882). Darwin’s family and close friends grew worried. Letters were sent to George, who was soon to return from Jamaica. ‘Mother keeps very well’, wrote Henrietta, ‘tho’ she is depressed for Father. I am afraid he is a good deal depressed about himself ’ (letter from H. E. Litchfield to G. H. Darwin, 17 March 1882 (DAR 245: 319)). Emma wrote ten days later: ‘You will find F. rather feeble & unwell. We had Dr Clark to see him about 3 weeks ago, as he had been a good deal plagued with dull aching in the chest’ (Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, [c. 28 March 1882] (DAR 210.3: 45)). Huxley urged Darwin to consult another physician. ‘Ever since I met Frank at the Linnean,’ he wrote, ‘I have been greatly exercised in my mind about you … What I want you to do is to get one of the cleverer sort of young London Doctors such as Brunton or Pye Smith to put himself in communication with Clark & then come & see you regularly … you really ought to have somebody in whom dependence can be placed to look after your machinery (I daren’t say automaton) critically’ (letter from T. H. Huxley, 25 March 1882). Darwin was very grateful for the advice, and returned the joke about automata: ‘Your most kind letter has been a real cordial to me.— I have felt better today than for 3 weeks & have had as yet no pain.— Your plan seems an excellent one … Dr Clark’s kindness is unbounded to me, but he is too busy to come here … I wish to God there were more automata in the world like you’ (letter to T. H. Huxley, 27 March 1882).

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxiii

Darwin did not improve. He continued to make brief entries in his diary: ‘very tired’, ‘only traces of pain’, ‘slight attack’ (Darwin pocket diary, 1882, 6, 7, 10 April 1882). Some days he was able to walk in the garden, or spend time in the drawingroom. As he grew weaker, however, he could no longer mount the stairs to his bedroom: ‘He certainly finds being carried upstairs (in a carrying chair Jackson fetched yesterday) a benefit & he escaped pain entirely yesterday’ (letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, 6 April 1882 (DAR 210.3: 46)). Despite his declining condition, Darwin continued to answer scientific correspondents, and fielded requests for money and autographs. He wrote to Adolf Ernst about an earthworm from Venezuela (letter to Adolf Ernst, 3 April 1882). He sent a cheque for a memorial to the late George Rolleston (letter to H. N. Moseley, 7 April 1882). He wrote twice to an American autograph collector and his two sisters, who requested separate notes so that each Darwin signature could be framed and hung in their respective bedrooms. When his initial reply in February went missing, the appeal was renewed with more urgency: ‘Oh, Mr Darwin, I beseech of you in behalf of my dear sisters & everything that is sacred to me, as well as my own great desires, grant us this our modest request!’ (letter from J. L. Ambrose, 3 April 1882). Darwin immediately sent another set of cards, each signed ‘your well-wisher’ (letter to J. L. Ambrose, 15 April 1882). The last letter that he wrote was to the vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, enclosing a subscription for the portrait of William Cavendish, the duke of Devonshire and chancellor of the university (letter to James Porter, 18 April 1882). The final attack came on the night of 18 April, and carried him off the next day. Henrietta immediately wrote to George, who had visited Down on 11 April (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). ‘Father was taken very ill last night with great suffering … Mother said he was longing to die & he sent us all an affectionate message. He told her he was not the least afraid to die. Mother is very calm but she has cried a little’ (letter from H. E. Litchfield to G. H. Darwin, [19 April 1882] (DAR 245: 320)). It was left to Emma to convey the sorrowful news to his closest friends. She wrote to Joseph Dalton Hooker the day after Darwin’s death. ‘Our hopes proved fallacious & on Tuesday night an attack of pain came on accompanied with fainting— It was a terrible time till all was over (about 15 hrs) but the faintness & sickness & exhaustion were worse than the pain, which I hope were never very violent’ (letter from Emma Darwin to J. D. Hooker, [20 April 1882]). In the coming weeks, Emma found great comfort in her family. ‘It is always easier to write than to speak,’ she wrote to Leonard, ‘& so though I shall see you so soon I will tell you that the entire love & veneration of all you dear sons for your father is one of my chief blessings & binds us together more than ever. When you arrived on Thursday in such deep grief I felt you were doing me good & enabling me to cry, & words were not wanting to tell me how you felt for me— Hope [Wedgwood] expresses a feeling that I should not be pitied after what I have possessed & have been able to be to him’ (letter from Emma Darwin to Leonard Darwin, [21? April 1882] (DAR 239.23: 1.13)). She also found relief in some of Darwin’s letters, remarking to William: ‘I have been reading over his old letters. I have not many we were so

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxiv

seldom apart, & never I think for the last 15 or 20 years, & it is a consolation to me to think that the last 10 or 12 years were the happiest (owing to the former suffering state of his health which appears in every letter) as I am sure they were the most overflowing in tenderness’ (letter from Emma Darwin to W. E. Darwin, 10 May 1882 (DAR 219.1: 150)). Letters of condolence arrived from Darwin’s scientific friends, correspondents, and admirers. One of the most touching was from John Lubbock, whose interest in natural history at an early age was encouraged by Darwin. He wrote to Francis: ‘I say nothing about the loss to Science for all feeling of that kind is swallowed up by my sorrow that I shall never see him again. For thirty years & more your father has been one of my kindest & best friends & I cannot say how I shall miss him. Out of his immediate family no one will mourn his loss or cherish his memory more than I shall. I have just come from the Linnean when we adjourned as a small tribute of respect’ (letter from John Lubbock to Francis Darwin, 20 April 1882 (DAR 215: 10n)). Lubbock was among the group of friends who sought public recognition for Darwin in the form of a ceremony and burial in Westminster Abbey. The event was attended by many dignitaries, leading clergymen, politicians, and presidents of scientific societies, as well as immediate and extended family and several of the Down House servants. Details of the funeral can be found in Appendix III. Lengthy obituaries flooded the British and international press. Personal reminiscences from colleagues and friends were published. More polemical tributes also quickly appeared. The American satirical magazine Puck carried a full-page colour illustration of Darwin as a ‘sun of the nineteenth century’, piercing the gloomy clouds of priest-craft and bibliolatry.

While Darwin’s death brings 1882 to an early close, this volume contains a supplement of nearly 400 letters. Many of these were discovered since the publication of volume 24, which contained the most recent supplement, while others were given broad date ranges, often because they are incomplete. The supplement covers nearly the whole period of Darwin’s career, offering glimpses of his activity at different stages of life. There are a few letters from the Beagle voyage, including detailed instructions for inland travel from Buenos Aires, noting where to catch fish, where to find lodging, and what types of vegetation and potentially dangerous animal life to expect, such as jaguars, deadly snakes, centipedes, and spiders. The instructions were from Charles Lawrence Hughes, a fellow pupil of Darwin’s at Shrewsbury School who had been a clerk in Buenos Aires but was forced to return to England because of ill health. ‘I would strongly recommend you to go some distance into the country to some Estancia,’ wrote Hughes, ‘as the scenery &c. will amply repay your trouble’ (letter from C. L. Hughes, 2 November 1832). Darwin made the journey on horseback up

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxv

the river Uruguay to Rio Negro in November 1833. Darwin also received a detailed map that he used to travel inland from Santiago in 1834, making observations of geological uplift (letter from Thomas Sutcliffe, [28 August – 5 September 1834]). His investigations were assisted by notes and a diagram of an old sea wall in Valparaiso, where he had witnessed an earthquake in 1835 (letter from R. E. Alison, [March– July 1835]). Darwin’s return from the voyage was eagerly awaited by his family, including his cousin Emma Wedgwood. In a long letter to her sister-in-law Fanny, Emma wrote, ‘We enjoyed Charles’s visit uncommonly ... Charles talked away most pleasantly all the time we plied him with questions without any mercy ... Caroline looks so happy & proud of him it is delightful to see her’ (letter from Emma Wedgwood and Louisa Holland to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [21 and 24 November 1836]). Another batch of letters provides glimpses of Darwin’s scientific life in the 1840s: his duties as secretary of the Geological Society, his work on geology, coral reefs, and barnacles. We see how he initiated correspondence to more established figures, seeking information or specimens. Hard at work on cirripedes, he wrote to the geologist Wilhelm Dunker to request fossil specimens from Germany: ‘As my name will probably be unknown to you, I may mention, as a proof that I am devoted to Natural History, that I went as Naturalist on the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the World & collected in all branches of Nat. History. I trust to your kindness to forgive my intruding myself on you’ (letter to Wilhelm Dunker, 3 March [1850]). In the mid-1850s, Darwin was slowly preparing his ‘big book’ on species, trying to gather more varieties of pigeons and other domestic animals for study. He wrote to the gentleman expert Edward Harcourt, a specialist on birds and a pigeon breeder: ‘Skins are on their road to me sent by Mr. Murray from Persia, & I hope to get all the breeds from India & China. Any assistance of this nature would be invaluable; but I know it is much too troublesome to expect you yourself to skin birds for me, & I fear there is little chance of your being able to find anyone who could skin; but if this were possible, & you could hear of any breeds of Pigeon, believed to have been long kept in Ægypt, I would gratefully, with your permission, repay you for their purchase & skinning. … Any observations on any of the domestic animals, as Ducks, Poultry, Rabbits (the skeletons of which I am collecting with great pains) … would be very interesting to me’ (letter to E. W. V. Harcourt, 24 June [1856]). In a follow-up letter, Darwin hinted at the central role that domestic pigeon breeds and their common descent from the rock dove would play in the first chapter of Origin: ‘I have found Blue birds with the foregoing characters, in all the Breeds, & it is one of my arguments, that all [pigeons] have descended from the Rock’ (letter to E. W. V. Harcourt, 13 December [1857]). In May 1857, Darwin wrote to the secretary of the Royal Society, William Sharpey, with recommendations for annual medals. He strongly supported Charles Lyell for the Copley, the Royal Society’s highest award, revealing the degree to which he valued the work of the eminent geologist. ‘It is my deliberate conviction that the future Historian of the Natural Sciences, will rank Lyell’s labours as more influential

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxvi

in the advancement of Science, than those of any other living man, let him be who he may; & I do not think I am biassed by my old friendship for the man … The way I try to judge of a man’s merit is to imagine what would have been the state of the Science if he had not lived; & under this point of view I think no man ranks in the same class with Lyell’ (letter to William Sharpey, 22 May [1857]). There are a few letters shortly after the publication of Origin. Huxley had written a number of glowing reviews of the book, including a high-profile article in The Times. Darwin sent him a copy of the second edition, adding: ‘You have been beyond all or nearly all the warmest & most important supporter … I am beginning to think of, & arrange my fuller work; & the subject is like an enchanted circle; I cannot tell how or where to begin’ (letter to T. H. Huxley, 21 [January 1860]). Darwin’s former mentor at University of Cambridge, John Stevens Henslow, was not a transmutationist, but the men remained on the best of terms. Darwin invited him to visit Down for lively discussion: ‘I shall be particularly glad to hear any of your objections to my views, when we meet’ (letter to J. S. Henslow, 29 January [1860]). Origin would bring Darwin much more into the public eye. A Polish landowner and collector heaped praise upon him and requested an autograph: ‘I … have been filled with esteem and admiration for your great genius, which has glittered and gleamed like a blessed light in today’s science … I would preserve this script like a holy relic among my valuables, as a keepsake for the Fatherland and its descendants, as a sign, of how deeply and highly the Poles know how to value great minds’ (letter from Aleksander Jelski, [1860–82]). In 1863, the final blow was dealt to Darwin’s theory on the origins of the ‘parallel roads’ of Glen Roy. In one of his earliest geological publications, he had argued that the terraces running along the sides of a glen in Scotland were the remains of ancient seashores left behind by gradual elevation of the land (‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’). An alternative theory of ice dams causing glacial lakes was presented by Thomas Francis Jamieson in a paper to the Geological Society. Darwin was a referee for the paper and he wrote offering full support and praise for its author: ‘I heartily congratulate you on having solved a problem which has puzzled so many and which now throws so much light on the grand old glacial period. As for myself, you let me down so easily that, by Heavens, it is as pleasant as being thrown down on a soft hay-cock on a fine summer’s day. There are other men who would have had no satisfaction without hurling us all on the hard ground and then trampling on us. You cannot do the trampling at all well—you cannot even give a single kick to a fallen enemy!’ (letter to T. F. Jamieson, 24 January [1863]). From 1863 to 1865, Darwin suffered the most extended period of poor health in his life. ‘The doctors still maintain that I shall get well,’ he wrote to Alfred Russel Wallace, ‘but it will be months before I am able to work’ (letter to A. R. Wallace, [c. 10 April 1864]). To the physician Henry Holland, he remarked, ‘I shall never reach my former modicum of strength: I am, however, able to do a little work in Natural History every day’ (letter to Henry Holland, 6 November [1864]). Writing to the clergyman and naturalist Charles Kingsley, he was more gloomy: ‘One of

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxvii

the greatest losses which I have suffered from my continued ill-health has been my seclusion from society & not becoming acquainted with some few men whom I should have liked to have known’ (letter to Charles Kingsley, 2 June [1865]). In the years following Origin, a number of Darwin’s friends, Huxley, John Lubbock, and Charles Lyell, each addressed the question of human descent. Darwin had been particularly disappointed with Lyell’s Antiquity of man, which failed to extend the theory of evolution to humans. In letters, however, Lyell had been a strong advocate of common descent. In 1867, Lyell expressed his enthusiasm for Darwin’s decision to take up the subject. ‘I shall be very curious to read what you will say on Man & his Races’, Lyell wrote. ‘It was not a theme to be dismissed by you in a chapter of your present work [Variation]. You must have so much to say & gainsay. … I am content to declare, that any one who refuses to grant that Man must be included in the theory of Variation & Natural Selection, must give up that theory for the whole of the organic world (letter from Charles Lyell, 16 July 1867). In the same year, Darwin made a rare declaration on the origins of life to the chemist George Warington, who was keen to reconcile science with religion. It seems to me perfectly clear that my views on the Origin of Species do not bear in any way on the question whether some one organic being was originally created by God, or appeared spontaneously through the action of natural laws. But having said this, I must add that judging from the progress of physical & chemical science I expect … that at some far distant day life will be shewn to be one the several correlated forces & that it is necessarily bound up with other existing laws. But … this belief, as it appears to me, would not interfere with that instinctive feeling which makes us refuse to admit that the Universe is the result of chance. Darwin added that religious belief was, in his view, a private matter. ‘It is not at all likely that you wd wish to quote my opinion on the theological bearing of the change of species, but I must request you not to do so, as such opinions in my judgment ought to remain each man’s private property’ (letter to George Warington, 11 October [1867]). Respecting the privacy of religious belief, especially when views bordered on heterodoxy, often led to the suppression of material from printed editions of correspondence. Portions of a long letter from Lyell to Darwin containing his views on prayer and the afterlife were removed from the published version of Lyell’s Life, letters and journals by Lyell’s sister-in-law Katherine (see K. M. Lyell ed. 1881, 2: 445– 6). A complete draft and contemporary copy have only recently been discovered. Writing just six months before his death, Lyell was remarkably frank to his old friend: I have been lying awake last night thinking of the many conversations I have had with the dear wife I have lost, and of the late Mr. [Nassau]

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxviii

Seniors saying that as he was not conscious of having existed throughout an eternity of the past, how could he expect an eternity of the future. If according to this view, death means annihilation, may we not give up all discussion about prayer, for would there be anything worth praying for, there being no future life. I can easily conceive an eternal omnipresent and omniscient mind coexistent with Matter, and Force, and like them indestructible, but … all this carries us into the unknowable and incomprehensible, and I must not make you my father confessor. (Letter from Charles Lyell, 1 September 1874.) Darwin’s fame continued to grow, and he attracted many admirers in Germanspeaking countries. In 1869, his birthday was celebrated by an article in the Viennese newspaper Neue Freie Presse. The Austrian librarian Ferdinand Maria Malven informed Darwin that his name was ‘here and everywhere in Germany as worshiped as that of our ever-lamented immortal Humboldt’ (Correspondence vol. 17, letter from F. M. Malven, 12 February [1869]). An extract from Darwin’s reply to Malven was published in a later issue of the newspaper: ‘Since my boyhood I have honoured Humboldt’s name, and it was his works that awoke in me the desire to see and investigate tropical countries; so I consider it a great honour that my name should be connected with that of this leader of science, but I am not so weak as to assume that my name could ever be placed in the same class with his’ (letter to F. M. Malven, [after 12 February 1869]). Accompanying this extract was the comment that it gave the lie to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s famous dictum, ‘Nur die Lumpe sind bescheiden’ (Only nobodies are modest). Darwin gradually built up a strong network of correspondents among German naturalists, some of whom drew substantially on his theory. In 1869, Hermann Müller (brother to Fritz) sent Darwin his recent work on the co-adaptive structures of insects and flowers, ‘Die Anwendung der Darwin’schen Lehre auf Blumen und blumen-besuchende Insekten’ (The application of Darwinian theory to flowers and flower-visiting insects; H. Müller 1869). Darwin was full of admiration and suggested further lines of research: ‘The importance of butterflies, who do not consume pollen, for flowers never occurred to me, and your considerations explain the enormous development of nocturnal species. It seems very odd to me, that there should be no nocturnal nectar-drinking Diptera or Hymenoptera. Has anyone investigated the stomach contents of bats?’ (letter to Hermann Müller, 14 March 1870). One of Darwin’s other great loves, dogs, was indulged by George Cupples, a writer and experienced deerhound breeder. He offered Darwin a puppy of the large hunting breed. Darwin could not refuse, and christened the dog ‘Bran’. ‘I am delighted to hear about the Dog; but as I said before you have been too generous to make me such a present. I do not feel worthy of it, except so far that when I know a dog, I love it with all my heart & soul.— … I should be very grateful for a few instructions about food & name of Father or near relatives that we may Christian him … Any hints, if necessary, about teaching him to be quiet & not attack men or

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxix

animals wd. be advisable. I can assure you, we will all make much of him’ (letter to George Cupples, 20 September [1870]). Despite Darwin’s insistence that natural selection was less important than the general acceptance of evolution, he continued to engage with critics of his work, and to defend particular aspects of his theory. He discussed the gradual development of pedicellariae (small pincer-like appendages in echinoderms) with the Swiss-born zoologist Alexander Agassiz: ‘Over & over again I have come across some structure, & thought that here was an instance in which I shd. utterly fail to find any intermediate or graduated structure; but almost always by keeping a look out I have found more or less plain traces of the lines through which development has proceeded by short & easy & serviceable steps’ (letter to Alexander Agassiz, 28 August [1871]; see also Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Alexander Agassiz, [before 1 June 1871]). Agassiz’s view that the pedicellariae were modified spines, and were thus of benefit to the animals throughout their development, was used by Darwin against his most aggressive critic, St George Jackson Mivart, who claimed that the organs were useless unless fully formed, and so could not have evolved by natural selection (see Origin 6th ed., pp. 191–2). Darwin was often asked to support social and political causes. He expressed his willingness to lend his name to the Committee for Securing a Medical Education to the Women of Edinburgh, in support of Sophia Jex-Blake. ‘I have the honour to acknowledge, on the part of Mrs Darwin & myself, the request that we should agree to our names being added to the General Committee for securing medical education to women. I shall be very glad to have my name put down, or that of Mrs Darwin but I should not like both our names to appear’ (letter to Louisa Stevenson, 8 April 1871). It was Darwin’s name that was entered on the list. Jex-Blake eventually obtained an MD from Dublin and went on to practise medicine in Edinburgh. Women’s education was often linked to other causes by reformers. Some feminists supported what they believed to be a progressive form of eugenics, with improved conditions for women allowing them to exercise more power over the choice of mates, and so be better able to shape the future of the nation and the human race. Darwin’s views on eugenics, a term coined by his cousin Francis Galton, were mixed, partly owing to the complexity of his views on heredity. His belief in human improvement was tested by Henry Keylock Rusden, an Australian public servant and writer who supported women’s emancipation, but also eugenic measures to eliminate the unfit. Rushden sent Darwin several pamphlets that advocated a ban on reproduction for lunatics, and the permanent incarceration of convicted criminals, even their use in medical experiments. Darwin was partially in agreement: ‘I have long thought that habitual criminals ought to be confined for life, but did not lay stress enough until reading your essays on the advantages of thus extinguishing the breed. Lunacy seems to me a much more difficult point from its graduated nature: some time ago my son, Mr G. Darwin, advocated that lunacy should at least be a valid ground for divorce’ (letter to H. K. Rusden, [before 27 March 1875]). In Descent of man, p. 103, Darwin had noted that humans were the only species that showed sympathy for all living creatures, including the weak, ‘the imbecile, the maimed,

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxx

and other useless members of society’. He regarded this as the highest measure of ‘humanity’, a result of ‘sympathies grown more tender and widely diffused’. But he also cited Galton and others for the observation that the poor and degraded seemed to reproduce earlier and thus in greater numbers than the wise and prudent (Descent, pp. 173–4). Progress, Darwin warned, was not preordained. It was with great relief that Darwin finished his work on human evolution, and was able to spend the remaining years of his life on less controversial subjects. Letters from the last years of Darwin’s life show his increasing attachment to Francis, as father and son worked together on botanical experiments. Francis went to Germany in the summer of 1878 for more experience in physiological botany. Many letters were exchanged in the period when he was away. Darwin showed how much he missed having his son to work with, writing almost daily to share his results. ‘I have made yesterday & day before some observations which have surprised me greatly. The tendrils of Bignonia capreolata (as described in my book) are wonderfully apheliotropic, & the tips of quite young tendrils will crawl like roots into any little dark crevices. So I thought if I painted the tips black, perhaps the whole tendril wd be paralysed. But by Jove exactly the reverse has occurred … Having no one to talk to, I scribble this to you’ (letter to Francis Darwin, [1 August 1878]). The last years also saw Darwin return to work on earthworms, reconnecting with correspondents who had undertaken observations years earlier. In 1871, he had asked Henry Johnson to observe the thickness of mould covering the Roman remains at Wroxeter (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter to Henry Johnson, 23 December 1871, and Earthworms, pp. 221–8). Darwin resumed contact in 1878. On receiving Darwin’s letter, Johnson’s daughter, who assisted him in observations, described her father’s glee: ‘How much more lasting is the friendship between two men than two women! My father’s very warm feeling for you is not lessened by absence & he gloats over yr. books & any word of you he hears— When yr. letter came I saw such a glow of pleasure on his dear old face & with as much joy as if announcing a legacy … he said “Darwin is still at wormbs”’ (letter from Mary Johnson, [after 22 July 1878]).

With volume 30, the Correspondence of Charles Darwin is now complete. In the future, when new letters or missing parts of letters are found, these can be added to the digital version of the edition (www.darwinproject.ac.uk). The entire corpus will also be available through the nineteenth-century scientific correspondence website, epsilon.ac.uk, where it may be explored together with the letters of Darwin’s contemporaries. Both sites will be maintained by Cambridge University Library. This project was begun in 1974, a time when other Darwin manuscripts, especially the early notebooks on species, diaries, and marginalia, were also being carefully

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Introduction

xxxi

transcribed and published. The principles of meticulous textual scholarship are laid out in a preface to the first volume of the series (Correspondence vol. 1, pp. xxv–xxix). Also briefly mentioned is the decision to publish both sides of the correspondence. At the time, this was unusual, and it is still not standard practice in editions of letters. In retrospect, however, this was perhaps the most important editorial decision that was made, for it completely transformed the edition into a series of exchanges, rather than a one-sided affair. In the Victorian period, formal participation in science was highly restricted. Institutions of higher education, membership in learned societies, and positions of scientific employment were open to very few. Correspondence was by no means egalitarian, but it was a far more inclusive space for participation. Darwin gained enormously from this, expanding his network to include men and women from diverse classes, backgrounds, beliefs, and occupations. His letters show that the same interest, respect, and enthusiasm were shown to any correspondent who engaged seriously with his work, offered some careful observation, a new specimen, a comment, or a criticism. Through Darwin’s Correspondence, thousands of other lives, diverse perspectives, and divergent points of view have found a place. After Darwin’s death, one of his correspondents wrote a letter of condolence to the family. She had once ‘daringly addressed’ him on the subject of ‘how far heredity is limited by sex’, and the constraints that women faced in the pursuit of science (Correspondence vol. 23, letter from Charlotte Papé, 16 July 1875). She now addressed Francis, who could best appreciate the botanical tribute she made to his father: ‘I trust you, who once, years ago, when I was living in England, were kind enough to give a detailed reply to a question daringly addressed to your great father, will not now despise, among the mourning voices of the civilised world, the sorrowful utterance of an insignificant and unknown woman, but let it be like a little flower laid on the grave of him for whom nothing was too great and nothing too small’ (letter from Charlotte Papé to Francis Darwin, 21 April 1882, DAR 215: 7k).

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The editors are grateful to the late George Pember Darwin and to William Darwin for permission to publish the Darwin letters and manuscripts. They also thank the Syndics of Cambridge University Library and other owners of manuscript letters who have generously made them available. Work for this edition has been supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Wellcome Trust. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Mellon Foundation provided grants to match NEH funding, and the Mellon Foundation awarded grants to Cambridge University that made it possible to put the entire Darwin correspondence into machine-readable form. Research and editorial work have also been supported by grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the British Ecological Society, the Isaac Newton Trust, the Jephcott Charitable Trust, the John Templeton Foundation, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Parasol Foundation Trust, the Royal Society of London, and the Wilkinson Charitable Foundation. The Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft provided funds to translate and edit Darwin’s correspondence with German naturalists. Since 2010, funding sufficient to complete the entire edition has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, the Evolution Education Trust, and the Isaac Newton Trust. We are extremely grateful for this unprecedented long-term support. We particularly wish to acknowledge the role of the Evolution Education Trust, without whose imaginative and generous support so distinguished a consortium could not have been established. Cambridge University Library, the American Philosophical Society (APS), Harvard University, and Cornell University have generously made working space and many services available to the editors; the American Council of Learned Societies has provided invaluable administrative and strategic support. Since the project began in 1975, the editors have been fortunate in benefiting from the interest, experience, and practical help of many people, and hope that they have adequately expressed their thanks to them individually as the work proceeded. English Heritage has responded most generously to requests for information and for material from the collections at Down House, Downe. We are particularly grateful to past and present curators, Olivia Fryman, Laura Houliston, Annie

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 002

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Acknowledgments

xxxiii

Kemkaran-Smith, Sarah Moulden, Frances Parton, Cathy Power, and Tori Reeve. The late Richard Darwin Keynes kindly made available Darwin family material in his possession. The late Ursula Mommens provided letters and other materials that belonged to her grandfather, Francis Darwin. The Cornford family have generously made available letters written by William Erasmus Darwin and Henrietta Litchfield. Institutions and individuals all over the world have given indispensable help by making available photocopies or digital images of Darwin correspondence and other manuscripts in their collections. Those who furnished copies of letters for this volume can be found in the List of provenances. The editors are indebted to them, and to the many people who have provided information about the locations of particular letters. The editors make daily use of the incomparable facilities of Cambridge University Library and have benefited greatly from its services and from the help and expertise of its staff, particularly the staff of the Manuscripts and Reader Services departments. We are especially grateful to the University Librarian, Jessica Gardner, and to her predecessors Anne Jarvis, Peter K. Fox, and Frederick W. Ratcliffe, and to the Keeper of Archives and Modern Manuscripts, Katrina Dean, and her predecessors Suzanne Paul and Patrick Zutshi, for their generous support. Other members of the library’s staff who frequently respond to the editors’ requests are: Marjolein Allen, Wendy Aylett, Jim Bloxam, Frank Bowles, Mark Box, Louise Clarke, Colin Clarkson, Jacqueline Cox, Maureen Dann, Amélie Deblauwe, Emily Dourish, Anna Johnson, Judith Leigh, Scott Maloney, Charlotte Marriott, Błazej Mikuła, Domniki Papadimitriou, Maciej Pawlikowski, Adam Perkins, Ben Perks, Nicholas Smith, Rachael Smither, Anne Taylor, Ngaio Vince-Dewerse, John Wells, and Jill Whitelock. The fetchers in the Rare Books reading room have also patiently dealt with the editors’ often complex requirements, as have the staff of the Map Room. The editors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Marten L. Leavitt of the American Philosphical Society Library, Rodney Dennis, Jennie Rathbun, and Susan Halpert of the Houghton Library, Constance Carter of the Science Division of the Library of Congress, and Judith Warnement, Lisa DeCesare, and Jean Cargill of the Gray Herbarium of Harvard University, who have all been exceptionally helpful in providing material from the collections in their charge. In Britain, the editors have received assistance from Will Beharrell, Lynda Brooks, Isabelle Charmantier, Gina Douglas, Liz McGow, Vida Milovanovic and of the Linnean Society of London; and from Lorna Cahill, Michele Losse, Virginia Mills, and Kiri Ross Jones of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. We would also like to thank Anne Barrett, college archivist at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, and Louisiane Ferlier and Keith Moore of the Royal Society; successive librarians and archivists of Christ’s College, Cambridge; Simon Chaplin, head of the Wellcome Library, Wellcome Trust; and Sarah Rayner and John Hodgson at The John Rylands Library. We owe a considerable debt to the staff of the American Council of Learned Societies for their help and advice since the Project began. We particularly thank the

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 002

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Acknowledgments

xxxiv

president, Joy Connolly, former president, Pauline Yu, vice president, James Shulman, former vice president, Steven Wheatley, and Kelly Buttermore, for their generosity and unfailingly warm welcome. Among the others who advise and assist the editors in their work are Nick Gill, Randal Keynes, David Kohn, Gene Kritsky, Jim Moore, Garry J. Tee, and John van Wyhe. The editors are also pleased to acknowledge the invaluable support of the members of the Project’s Advisory Committee. Among the many research resources on which we rely, special mention should be made of the Biodiversity Heritage Library (www.biodiversitylibrary.org), the Darwin Manuscripts Project (www.amnh.org), and Darwin Online (darwin-online.org.uk). From 2009 to 2013 we were fortunate to work with a group of colleagues based at Harvard under the direction of Professor Janet Browne and supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Science Foundation. We are grateful to the History of Science Department at Harvard for providing space and facilities, and to Janet Browne for making her time and expertise available. For help with particular enquiries in volume 30 the editors would like to thank, besides those already mentioned, Chris Albury, Mel Bach, Kevin Baker, Sabina Beauchard, Dr Elizabeth Blackburn, Laura Brassington, Kate Bond, Christine Chua, Dr Christian Clarkson, Colin Clarkson, Olenka Dmytryk, Dr Florian Englberger, Rob Faulkner, Ned Friedman, James Hall, Martin Hewitt, Rachel Hosker, Dr Knighton, Peter Knowles, Caroline Lam, Sarah Lindberg, Loredana Mastrototaro, Pamela McIntyre, Dr Alex Menez, Keith Moore, Sandra Palomino, Suzanne Reynolds, Catherine Ross, Nicola Samuel, Alistair Sponsel, Adam Stackhouse, the Victoria & Albert Museum, the Wedgwood Museum, Jan Westerblad, Oscar Westerblad, Helen Wickstead, Simon P. Wilson, and John van Wyhe. We have relied heavily on expert technical assistance both from external consultants and from colleagues in Cambridge University in developing and maintaining our electronic resources, including our typesetting systems, and in making the correspondence available over the World Wide Web. We are particularly grateful to our colleagues Hal Blackburn, Iain Burke, Mary ChesterKadwell, Andrew Corrigan, Jennie Fletcher, Wojciech Giel, Lesley Gray, Huw Jones, Philip Jones, John Norcott, Jay Pema, Tuan Pham, Tristram Scott, Zhipeng Shan, Merina Tuladhar, and Tomasz Waldoch of Cambridge University Library. For past help, we particularly thank Maarten Bressinck, Simon Buck, Anne Clarke, Matthew Daws, Peter Dunn, Robin Fairbairns, Patricia Killiard, Chris Martin, John Norman, Martin Oldfield, and Grant Young. This volume has been typeset using Adobe InDesign. Thanks are also due to all former staff and associates of the Darwin Correspondence Project, including: Doris E. Andrews, Katie Ericksen Baca, Geoff Belknap, Sarah Benton, the late Charlotte Bowman, Heidi Bradshaw, Pamela J. Brant, Janet Browne, P. Thomas Carroll, Finlay Clarkson, Stefanie Cookson, Andrew Corrigan, Henry Cowles, Sheila Dean, Sophie Defrance, Mario

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 002

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Acknowledgments

xxxv

Di Gregorio, Rhonda Edwards, Deborah Fitzgerald, Kate Fletcher, Megan Formato, Hedy Franks, Jane Mork Gibson, Nick Gill, Philippa Hardman, Joy Harvey, Arne Hessenbruch, Thomas Horrocks, Dorothy Huffman, Rachel Iliffe, Andrew Inkpen, Christine M. Joyner, Thomas Junker, Rebecca Kelley, Joan W. Kimball, Barbara A. Kimmelman, David Kohn, Jyothi Krishnan-Unni, Gene Kritsky, Sam Kuper, Kathleen Lane, Sarah Lavelle, Margot Levy, Robert Lindsey, Jean Macqueen, Nancy Mautner, Anna K. Mayer, William Montgomery, Eleanor Moore, Leslie Nye, Perry O’Donovan, Ann Parry, Stephen V. Pocock, Duncan Porter, John A. Reesman, Marsha L. Richmond, the late Peter Saunders, Andrew Sclater, Myrna Perez Shelton, Tracey Slotta, Jessee Smith, Kate Smith, the late Sydney Smith, Alison Soanes, Emma Spary, Alistair Sponsel, Nora Carroll Stevenson, Edith Stewart, Zuzana Jakubisinowa Toci, Jenna Tonn, Jonathan R. Topham, Charissa Varma, Tyler Veak, Ellis Weinberger, Béatrice Willis, Sarah Wilmot, Jeremy Wong, and Rebecca Woods. We also thank our project colleague, Sally Stafford. We are most grateful to Helen Taylor for providing the index to the current volume. Copyright statement We gratefully acknowledge the families and estates of letter authors for permission to include their works in this publication, and particularly the Darwin family for permission to publish the texts of all letters written by Charles Darwin. We make every reasonable effort to trace the holders of copyright in letters written by persons other than Darwin where copyright permission is required for publication. If you believe you are a rights holder and are concerned that we have published or may publish in the future material for which you have not given permission and which is not covered by a legal exception or exemption, we would be most grateful if you would contact us in writing by post or email. Darwin Correspondence Project Cambridge University Library West Road Cambridge United Kingdom CB3 9DR Email: [email protected] The editors are grateful to the executors of Alfred Russel Wallace’s literary estate for permission to publish in this edition such letters by Wallace as remain in copyright. All intellectual property rights in such letters, including copyright in the typographical arrangement, remain with the executors. For more information visit https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/wallace-literary-estate.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 002

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

PROVENANCES

The following list gives the locations of the original versions of the letters printed in this volume. The editors are grateful to all the institutions and individuals listed for allowing access to the letters in their care. Access to material in DAR 261 and DAR 263, formerly at Down House, Downe, Kent, England, is courtesy of English Heritage. Ader Nordmann (dealers) Académie royale de Belgique (Bibliothèque et Archives), Brussels, Belgium Aguttes (dealers) Alexander Historical Auctions (dealers) B. Altman (dealer) American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Antiquariat Inlibris (dealers) Archive of the University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Archives de l’Académie des sciences, Paris, France The Argyll Papers, Inveraray Castle, Inveraray, Argyll and Bute, Scotland Auckland Star (publication) Robert F. Batchelder (dealer) Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, Germany Belfast News-Letter (publication) Biblioteca Academiei Române, Bucharest, Romania Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea, Ferrara, Italy Bibliothèque de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Paris, France Bloomsbury Auctions (dealers) Bodleian Libraries, Oxford, England Bonhams (dealers) Bonhams, New York (dealers) Brandeis University, Robert D. Farber University Archives and Special Collections Department, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA Brandes Autographs (dealers) The British Library, London, England Bromley Historic Collections, Bromley Central Library, Bromley, Kent, England Brown University, John Hay Library, Providence, Rhode Island, USA

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 003

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Provenances

xxxvii

Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club (publication) Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England Cheffins (dealers) Christie’s, London (dealers) Christie’s, New York (dealers) Cleveland Health Sciences Library, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Clifton College, Bristol, England Colby College Libraries, Waterville, Maine, USA Cornford Family Papers (Cambridge University Library DAR 275) CUL. See Cambridge University Library Jane da Mosto (private collection) DAR. See Cambridge University Library Downing 1890 (publication) Duke’s, Dorchester (dealers) Duke University, Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Durham, North Carolina, USA eBay (dealers) English Heritage, Down House, Downe, Kent, England Erbengemeinschaft Alberts (private collection) Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany Estate of the late Mr D. Evans (private collection) Expression 2d ed. (publication) Famous Notables (dealers) Felter 1902 (publication) Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, England Forum Auctions (dealers) Fraser’s Autographs (dealer) Gardeners’ Chronicle (publication) Geological Society of London, Piccadilly, London, England Glenbow Museum, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Glasgow City Archives, Glasgow, Scotland Dr John Goodacre (private collection) Göteborgsposten (publication) Charles Hamilton Galleries Inc. (dealer) Peter Harrington (dealer) Harvard University, Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Harvard University, Department of Psychology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Harvard University, Houghton Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Haslemere Educational Museum, Haslemere, Surrey, England Heritage Auctions (dealers) Heritage Book Shop (dealers)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 003

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Provenances

xxxviii

Hermitage Fine Art, Monaco (dealers) Herne Bay Historical Records Society, The Seaside Museum Herne Bay, Herne Bay, Kent, England Hindman (dealers) George Houle Autographs (dealer) Hull University Archives, Hull History Centre, Kingston upon Hull, England The Huntington Library, San Marino, California, USA Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA L. Huxley 1918 (publication) Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Archives, London, England Institut de France, Bibliothèque, Paris, France International Autograph Auctions (dealers) The John Rylands Library, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana, St Gallen, Switzerland Karpeles Manuscript Library Museums, Santa Barbara, California, USA Kent and Sussex Courier (publication) King’s College London Archives, London, England Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Copenhagen, Denmark Gene Kritsky (private collection) D. & E. Lake Ltd (dealers) Lanier family (private collection) Lawrences Auctioneers (dealers) Leeds University Library Special Collections, Leeds, Yorkshire, England Leiden University Libraries, Leiden, The Netherlands Librairie du Manoir de Pron (dealers) Librairie la 42ème Ligne, Paris (dealers) Lincolnshire Archives, Lincoln, England Stuart Lutz Historic Documents (dealer) K. M. Lyell ed. 1881 (publication) McConnochie 1901 (publication) McGill University Library, Montreal, Canada Dr Robert McLennan-Smith (private collection) Dr Jeremy J. C. Mallinson (private collection) Malmö Museer, Malmö, Sweden Donald R. Markey (private collection) Marshall Rare Books (dealers) Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Medical Times and Gazette (publication) Milestones of Science Books (dealers) Minnesota Historical Society, St Paul, Minnesota, USA Möller ed. 1915–21 (publication) Morgan Library and Museum, New York, New York, USA

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 003

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Provenances

xxxix

Museo Nacional de Antropología, Madrid, Spain Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany Národní Muzeum, Prague, Czech Republic The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel National Library of Russia, St Petersburg, Russia National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Wales National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland National Sunday League [1860] (publication) Natural History Museum, Library and Archives, London, England Neue Freie Press (Vienna) (publication) Newcastle University Special Collections, Newcastle upon Tyne, England Nicols 1883 (publication) Nicols 1885 (publication) 19th Century Shop (dealer) Jeremy Norman (dealer) North East Wales Archives (Ruthin), Ruthin, Clwyd, Wales Northwestern University Libraries, Charles Deering McCormick Library of Special Collections, Evanston, Illinois, USA Observer (publication) Ovens and Murray Advertiser (publication) Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, England Princeton University Library, Princeton, New Jersey, USA Private collections whose owners wish to remain anonymous Steven Raab (dealer) Raptis Rare Books (dealers) B. W. Richardson [1882] (publication) Rockhampton Bulletin (publication) G. J. Romanes 1882 (publication) Romero de Tejada 1982 (publication) Josh B. Rosenblum (private collection) Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England Royal Institution of Great Britain, London, England RR Auction (dealers) Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek (SLUB), Dresden, Germany St George’s College Library, Quilmes, Argentina Nate D. Sanders Auctions (dealer) David Schulson (dealer) Scotsman (publication) Sheffield City Archives, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England Shrewsbury School, Taylor Library, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England Smithsonian Libraries and Archives, Washington DC, USA

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 003

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Provenances

xl

Société Géologique de Belgique, Liège, Belgium Sotheby’s (dealers) Sotheby’s, New York (dealers) Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, Germany J. A. Stargardt (dealer) State Darwin Museum, Moscow, Russia Stockholms Auktionsverk (dealers) Gerard A. J. Stodolski (dealer) Surrey History Centre, Woking, Surrey, England Swann Auction Galleries (dealers) The Times (publication) Transactions of the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of Mauritius (publication) Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England UCL Library Services, Special Collections, London, England Union College Special Collections and Archives, Schenectady, New York, USA Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany University Archives (dealers) University of Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library: Special Collections, Birmingham, England University of British Columbia Library, Rare Books and Special Collections, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada University of California, Berkeley, The Bancroft Library, Berkeley, California USA University of Chicago Library, Special Collections Research Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections, Edinburgh, Scotland University of Kansas, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, Department of Special Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, USA University of New Hampshire, Special Collections and Archives, Durham, New Hampshire, USA University of Oklahoma Libraries History of Science Collections, Norman, Oklahoma, USA University of Otago, Special Collections, Dunedin, New Zealand University of Rochester, Special Collections and Preservation, Dept of Rare Books, Rochester, New York, USA University of Southern California Libraries, Special Collections, Feuchtwanger Memorial Library, Los Angeles, California, USA University of the Witwatersrand, Historical Papers Research Archive, Johannesburg, South Africa Uppsala University Library: Manuscripts and Music, Carolina Rediviva, Uppsala, Sweden V&A / Wedgwood Collection, Wedgwood Museum, Barlaston, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, England Ms Caroline Waid (private collection) Washington State University Libraries, Manuscripts, Archives and Special

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 003

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Provenances

xli

Collections, Pullman, Washington, USA William Patrick Watson (dealer) Jeff Weber (dealer) Alan Wedgwood (private collection) Wellcome Collection, London, England West Berkshire Museum, Newbury, Berkshire, England The Whiting family (private collection) John Wilson (dealer) Dominic Winter Auctions (dealer) Winterbourne House and Garden, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England Xiling Yinshe Auction Company (dealers) Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, Connecticut, USA Yudelevich Levy and Castro Le Fort eds. 1995 (publication) Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin, Berlin, Germany

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 003

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

A NOTE ON EDITORIAL POLICY

The first and chief objective of this edition is to provide complete and authoritative texts of Darwin’s correspondence. For every letter to or from Darwin, the text that is available to the editors is always given in full. The editors have occasionally included letters that are not to or from Darwin if they are relevant to the published correspondence. Volumes of the Correspondence are published in chronological order. Occasional supplements have been published containing letters that have come to light or have been redated since the relevant volumes of the Correspondence appeared. Letters that can only be given a wide date range, in some instances spanning several decades, are printed in the supplement following the volume containing letters at the end of their date range. The first such supplement was in volume 7 and included letters from 1828 to 1857; the second was in volume 13, and included letters from 1822 to 1864; the third was in volume 18, and included letters from 1835 to 1869; the fourth was in volume 24, and included letters from 1838 to 1875; the last is in this volume, and includes letters from 1831 to 1880. Dating of letters and identification of correspondents In so far as it is possible, the letters have been dated, arranged in chronological order, and the recipients or senders identified. Darwin seldom wrote the full date on his letters and, unless the addressee was well known to him, usually wrote only ‘Dear Sir’ or ‘Dear Madam’. After the adoption of adhesive postage stamps in the 1840s, the separate covers that came into use with them were usually not preserved, and thus the dates and the names of many recipients of Darwin’s letters have had to be derived from other evidence. The notes made by Francis Darwin on letters sent to him for his editions of his father’s correspondence have been helpful, as have matching letters in the correspondence, but many dates and recipients have had to be deduced from the subject-matter or references in the letters themselves. Transcription policy Whenever possible, transcriptions have been made from manuscripts. If the manuscript was inaccessible but a photocopy or other facsimile version was available, that version has been used as the source. In many cases, the editors have had recourse to Francis Darwin’s large collection of copies of letters, compiled in

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 004

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Editorial policy

xliii

the 1880s. Other copies, published letters, or drafts have been transcribed when they provided texts that were otherwise unavailable. The method of transcription employed in this edition is adapted from that described by Fredson Bowers in ‘Transcription of manuscripts: the record of variants’, Studies in Bibliography 29 (1976): 212–64. This system is based on accepted principles of modern textual editing and has been widely adopted in literary editions. The case for using the principles and techniques of this form of textual editing for historical and non-literary documents, both in manuscript and print, has been forcefully argued by G. Thomas Tanselle in ‘The editing of historical documents’, Studies in Bibliography 31 (1978): 1–56. The editors of the Correspondence followed Dr Tanselle in his conclusion that a ‘scholarly edition of letters or journals should not contain a text which has editorially been corrected, made consistent, or otherwise smoothed out’ (p. 48), but they have not wholly subscribed to the statement made earlier in the article that: ‘In the case of notebooks, diaries, letters and the like, whatever state they are in constitutes their finished form, and the question of whether the writer ‘‘intended’’ something else is irrelevant’ (p. 47). The editors have preserved the spelling, punctuation, and grammar of the original, but they have found it impossible to set aside entirely the question of authorial intent. One obvious reason is that in reading Darwin’s writing, there must necessarily be reliance upon both context and intent. Even when Darwin’s general intent is clear, there are cases in which alternative readings are, or may be, possible, and therefore the transcription decided upon must to some extent be conjectural. Where the editors are uncertain of their transcription, the doubtful text has been enclosed in italic square brackets. A major editorial decision was to adopt the so-called ‘clear-text’ method of transcription, which so far as possible keeps the text free of brackets recording deletions, insertions, and other alterations in the places at which they occur. Darwin’s changes are, however, recorded in the back matter of the volume, under ‘Manuscript alterations and comments’, in notes keyed to the printed text by paragraph and line number. All lines above the first paragraph of the letter (that is, date, address, or salutation) are referred to as paragraph ‘0’. Separate paragraph numbers are used for subscriptions and postscripts. This practice enables the reader who wishes to do so to reconstruct the manuscript versions of Darwin’s autograph letters, while furnishing printed versions that are uninterrupted by editorial interpolations. The Manuscript alterations and comments record all alterations made by Darwin in his letters and any editorial amendments made in transcription, and also where part of a letter has been written by an amanuensis; they do not record alterations made by amanuenses. No attempt has been made to record systematically all alterations to the text of copies of Darwin letters included in the correspondence, but ambiguous passages in copies are noted. The editors believe it would be impracticable to attempt to go further without reliable information about the texts of the original versions of the letters concerned. Letters to Darwin have been transcribed without recording any of the writers’ alterations unless they reflect significant changes in substance or impede the sense; in such cases footnotes bring them to the reader’s attention.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 004

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Editorial policy

xliv

Misspellings have been preserved, even when it is clear that they were unintentional: for instance, ‘lawer’ for ‘lawyer’. Such errors often indicate excitement or haste and may exhibit, over a series of letters, a habit of carelessness in writing to a particular correspondent or about a particular subject. Capital letters have also been transcribed as they occur except in certain cases, such as ‘m’, ‘k’, and ‘c’, which are frequently written somewhat larger than others as initial letters of words. In these cases an attempt has been made to follow the normal practice of the writers. In some instances that are not misspellings in a strict sense, editorial corrections have been made. In his early manuscripts and letters Darwin consistently wrote ‘bl’ so that it looks like ‘lb’ as in ‘albe’ for ‘able’, ‘talbe’ for ‘table’. Because the form of the letters is so consistent in different words, the editors consider that this is most unlikely to be a misspelling but must be explained simply as a peculiarity of Darwin’s handwriting. Consequently, the affected words have been transcribed as normally spelled and no record of any alteration is given in the textual apparatus. Elsewhere, though, there are misformed letters that the editors have recorded because they do, or could, affect the meaning of the word in which they appear. The main example is the occasional inadvertent crossing of ‘l’. When the editors are satisfied that the intended letter was ‘l’ and not ‘t’, as, for example, in ‘stippers’ or ‘istand’, then ‘l’ has been transcribed, but the actual form of the word in the manuscript has been given in the Manuscript alterations and comments. If the only source for a letter is a copy, the editors have frequently retained corrections made to the text when it is clear that they were based upon comparison with the original. Francis Darwin’s corrections of misreadings by copyists have usually been followed; corrections to the text that appear to be editorial alterations have not been retained. Editorial interpolations in the text are in square brackets. Italic square brackets enclose conjectured readings and descriptions of illegible passages. To avoid confusion, in the few instances in which Darwin himself used square brackets, they have been altered by the editors to parentheses with the change recorded in the Manuscript alterations and comments. In letters to Darwin, square brackets have been changed to parentheses silently. Material that is irrecoverable because the manuscript has been torn or damaged is indicated by angle brackets; any text supplied within them is obviously the responsibility of the editors. Occasionally, the editors are able to supply missing sections of text by using ultraviolet light (where text has been lost owing to damp) or by reference to transcripts or photocopies of manuscript material made before the damage occurred. Words and passages that have been underlined for emphasis are printed in italics in accordance with conventional practice. Where the author of a letter has indicated greater emphasis by underlining a word or passage two or more times, the text is printed in bold type. Paragraphs are often not clearly indicated in the letters. Darwin and others sometimes marked a change of subject by leaving a somewhat larger space than

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 004

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Editorial policy

xlv

usual between sentences; sometimes Darwin employed a longer dash. In these cases, and when the subject is clearly changed in very long stretches of text, a new paragraph has been started by the editors without comment. The beginnings of letters, valedictions, and postscripts are also treated as new paragraphs regardless of whether they appear as new paragraphs in the manuscript. Special manuscript devices delimiting sections or paragraphs, for example, blank spaces left between sections of text and lines drawn across the page, are treated as normal paragraph indicators and are not specially marked or recorded unless their omission leaves the text unclear. Occasionally punctuation marking the end of a clause or sentence is not present in the manuscript; in such cases, the editors have inserted an extra space following the sentence or clause to set it off from the following text. Additions to a letter that run over into the margins, or are continued at its head or foot, are transcribed at the point in the text at which the editors believe they were intended to be read. The placement of such an addition is only recorded in a footnote if it seems to the editors to have some significance or if the position at which it should be transcribed is unclear. Enclosures are transcribed following the letter. The hand-drawn illustrations and diagrams that occur in some letters are reproduced as faithfully as possible and are usually positioned as they were in the original text. In some cases, however, it has been necessary to reduce the size of a diagram or enhance an outline for clarity; any such alterations are recorded in footnotes. The location of diagrams within a letter is sometimes changed for typesetting reasons. Tables have been reproduced as close to the original format as possible, given typesetting constraints. Some Darwin letters and a few letters to Darwin are known only from entries in the catalogues of book and manuscript dealers or mentions in other published sources. Whatever information these sources provide about the content of such letters has been reproduced without substantial change. Any errors detected are included in footnotes. Format of published letters The format in which the transcriptions are printed in the Correspondence is as follows: 1. Order of letters. The letters are arranged in chronological sequence. A letter that can be dated only approximately is placed at the earliest date on which the editors believe it could have been written. The basis of a date supplied by the editors is given in a footnote unless it is derived from a postmark, watermark, or endorsement that is recorded in the physical description of the letter (see section 4, below). Letters with the same date, or with a range of dates commencing with that date, are printed in the alphabetical order of their senders or recipients unless their contents dictate a clear alternative order. Letters dated only to a year or a range of years precede letters that are dated to a particular month or range of months, and these, in turn, precede those that are dated to a particular day or range of dates commencing with a particular day.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 004

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Editorial policy

xlvi

2. Headline. This gives the name of the sender or recipient of the letter and its date. The date is given in a standard form, but those elements not taken directly from the letter text are supplied in square brackets. The name of the sender or recipient is enclosed in square brackets only where the editors regard the attribution as doubtful. 3. The letter text. The transcribed text follows as closely as possible the layout of the source, although no attempt is made to produce a type-facsimile of the manuscript: word-spacing and line-division in the running text are not adhered to. Similarly, the typography of printed sources is not replicated. Dates and addresses given by authors are transcribed as they appear, except that if both the date and the address are at the head of the letter they are always printed on separate lines with the address first, regardless of the manuscript order. If no address is given on a letter by Darwin, the editors have supplied one, when able to do so, in square brackets at the head of the letter. Similarly, if Darwin was writing from an address different from the one given on the letter, his actual location is given in square brackets. Addresses on printed stationery are transcribed in italics. Addresses, dates, and valedictions have been run into single lines to save space, but the positions of line-breaks in the original are marked by vertical bars. 4. Physical description. All letters are complete and in the hand of the sender unless otherwise indicated. If a letter was written by an amanuensis, or exists only as a draft or a copy, or is incomplete, or is in some other way unusual, then the editors provide the information needed to complete the description. Postmarks, endorsements, and watermarks are recorded only when they are evidence for the date or address of the letter. 5. Source. The final line provides the provenance of the text. Some sources are given in abbreviated form (for example, DAR 140: 18) but are listed in full in the List of provenances unless the source is a published work. Letters in private collections are also indicated. References to published works are given in author–date or shorttitle form, with full titles and publication details supplied in the Bibliography at the end of the volume. 6. Darwin’s annotations. Darwin frequently made notes in the margins of the letters he received, scored significant passages, and crossed through details that were of no further interest to him. These annotations are transcribed or described following the letter text. They are keyed to the letter text by paragraph and line numbers. Most notes are short, but occasionally they run from a paragraph to several pages, and sometimes they are written on separate sheets appended to the letter. Extended notes relating to a letter are transcribed whenever practicable following the annotations as ‘CD notes’. Quotations from Darwin manuscripts in footnotes and elsewhere, and the text of his annotations and notes on letters, are transcribed in ‘descriptive’ style. In this method the alterations in the text are recorded in brackets at the places where they occur. For example: ‘See Daubeny [‘vol. 1’ del] for *descriptions of volcanoes in [interl] S.A.’ ink means that Darwin originally wrote in ink ‘See Daubeny vol. 1 for S.A.’ and then

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 004

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Editorial policy

xlvii

deleted ‘vol. 1’ and inserted ‘descriptions of volcanoes in’ after ‘for’. The asterisk before ‘descriptions’ marks the beginning of the interlined phrase, which ends at the bracket. The asterisk is used when the alteration applies to more than the immediately preceding word. The final text can be read simply by skipping the material in brackets. Descriptive style is also used in the Manuscript alterations and comments. Editorial matter Each volume is self-contained, having its own index, bibliography, and biographical register. A chronology of Darwin’s activities covering the period of each volume and translations of foreign-language letters are supplied, and additional appendixes give supplementary material where appropriate to assist the understanding of the correspondence. References are supplied for all persons, publications, and subjects mentioned, even though some repetition of material in earlier volumes is involved. If the name of a person mentioned in a letter is incomplete or incorrectly spelled, the full, correct form is given in a footnote. Brief biographies of persons mentioned in the letters, and dates of each correspondent’s letters to and from Darwin in the current volume, are given in the Biographical register and index to correspondents. Where a personal name serves as a company name, it is listed according to the family name but retains its original order: for example, ‘E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung’ is listed under ‘S’, not ‘E’. Short titles are used for references to Darwin’s books and articles and to collections of his letters (e.g., Descent, ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’, LL). They are also used for some standard reference works and for works with no identifiable author (e.g., Alum. Cantab., Wellesley index, DNB). For all other works, author–date references are used. References to the Bible are to the authorised King James version unless otherwise stated. Words not in Chambers dictionary are usually defined in the footnotes with a source supplied. The full titles and publication details of all books and papers referred to are given in the Bibliography. References to archival material, for instance that in the Darwin Archive at Cambridge University Library, are not necessarily exhaustive. Darwin and his correspondents writing in English consistently used the term ‘fertilisation’ for the processes that are now distinguished as fertilisation (the fusion of female and male gametes) and pollination (the transfer of pollen from anther to stigma); the first usage known to the editors of a distinct term for pollination in English was in 1873 (letter from A. W. Bennett, 12 July 1873 (Correspondence vol. 21)). ‘Fertilisation’ in Darwin’s letters and publications often, but not always, can be regarded as referring to what is now termed pollination. In the footnotes, the editors, where possible, have used the modern terms where these can assist in explaining the details of experimental work. When Darwin or his correspondents are quoted directly, their original usage is never altered. The editors use the abbreviation ‘CD’ for Charles Darwin throughout the footnotes. A list of all abbreviations used by the editors in this volume is given on p. l.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 004

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

The Wedgwood and Darwin Robert Waring Darwin = Susannah Wedgwood 1766–1848 1765–1817 Henry Parker = Marianne 1788–1856 1798–1858 Robert 1825–1907 Henry 1827–92 Francis 1829–71 Charles 1831–1905 Mary Susan 1836–93

Caroline Sarah = Josiah III (Jos) 1795–1880 1800–88 Sophy Marianne 1838–9 Katherine Elizabeth Sophy (Sophy) 1842–1911 Margaret Susan 1843–1937 Lucy Caroline 1846–1919

Susan Elizabeth 1803–66 Erasmus Alvey 1804–81

Charles Robert = Emma 1808–96 1809–82

Charles Langton = Emily Catherine (Catherine) 1801–86 1810–66

Sara Price Ashburner Sedgwick = William Erasmus 1839–1902 1839–1914 Anne Elizabeth 1841–51 Mary Eleanor Sept.–Oct. 1842 Richard Buckley Litchfield = Henrietta Emma (Etty) 1843–1927 1832–1903 George Howard 1845–1912 Elizabeth (Bessy) 1847–1926 Amy Richenda Ruck = Francis (Frank) 1850–76 1848–1925 Bernard Richard Meirion 1876–1961 Leonard 1850–1943

= Horace Ida Farrer 1851–1928 1854–1946 Erasmus 1881–1915 Charles Waring 1856–8

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Families up to 1882 Josiah Wedgwood II = Elizabeth (Bessy) Allen 1764–1846 1769–1843 Sarah Elizabeth (Elizabeth) 1793–1880 Mary Anne 1796–8 Charles Langton = Charlotte 1801–86 1797–1862 Edmund 1841–75 Henry Allen = Jessie Wedgwood 1804–72 (Harry) Frances Mosley = Francis 1799–1885 Louisa Frances 1834–1903 (Frank) (Fanny Frank) Caroline Elizabeth (Carry) 1807–74 1800–88 1836–1916 Godfrey 1833–1905 John Darwin 1840–70 Amy 1835–1910 Anne Jane 1841–77 Cicely Mary 1837–1917 Arthur 1843–1900 Clement Francis Rowland Henry 1840–89 1847–1921 Laurence 1844–1913 Hensleigh = Frances Emma Elizabeth Constance Rose 1846–1903 (Fanny) Mackintosh 1803–91 1800–89 Mabel Frances Frances 1852–1930 (Fanny) Frances Julia (Snow) 1806–32 1833–1913 James Mackintosh (Bro) 1834–64 Ernest Hensleigh 1838–98 Katherine Euphemia (Effie) 1839–1931 Alfred Allen 1842–92 Hope Elizabeth (Dot) 1844–1935

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

ABBREVIATIONS AL ALS DS LS LS(A) Mem pc (S) TLS

autograph letter autograph letter signed document signed letter in hand of amanuensis, signed by sender letter in hand of amanuensis with additions by sender memorandum postcard signed with sender’s name by amanuensis typed letter signed

CD CUL DAR del illeg interl underl

Charles Darwin Cambridge University Library Darwin Archive, Cambridge University Library deleted illegible interlined underlined TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

[some text] [some text] [some text] ⟨ ⟩ ⟨some text⟩ ⟨some text⟩

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 006

‘some text’ is an editorial insertion ‘some text’ is the conjectured reading of an ambiguous word or passage ‘some text’ is a description of a word or passage that cannot be transcribed, e.g., ‘3 words illeg’ word(s) destroyed ‘some text’ is a suggested reading for a destroyed word or passage ‘some text’ is a description of a destroyed word or passage, e.g., ‘3 lines excised’

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Portrait of Charles Darwin by John Collier, 1881. By permission of the Linnean Society of London.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 00

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF CHARLES DARWIN 1882

To G. H. Darwin   [1882?]1 My dear G. The enclosed has arrived this morning. I will write card to Mr Hill2 saying that his letter has been forwarded to you, & that you will send it to the Solicitor who manages the business or the agent.— But will an agent take any notice of another agent? Yours | C. D As Mr Hill has written twice, would it not be fair to give him the Solicitor’s address? DAR 210.1: 116 1 2

The date is conjectured from the letter’s position in a roughly date-ordered series in the archive. Mr Hill has not been identified.

From Fritz Müller   1 January 1882 Blumenau, Sa Catharina, Brazil January 1st. 1882 My dear Sir! I received last week your kind letter of Novbr. 13, in which you ask me the name of the plant, of which I sent you seeds some months ago. I must confess, that I do not remember well, what seeds they were, but I think they were those of our sensitive Mimosa; if so, you will see it as soon as the first leaves appear.1 In your “Movements of plants” (pg. 308) you say, that the cotyledons of Bauhinia (grandiflora) would probably have closed completely at night, if the seedlings had been kept in a warmer place, and to me also this appeared to be most probably.2 Now we have presently very hot weather, (about 25oC. at night, 30oC or more at noon), but the cotyledons of some very young seedings of Bauhinia grandiflora do not sleep at all!— In Bauhinia brasiliensis I observed lately a curious fact; in bright sunshine the two halves of the leaves rise up more or less, as they do also at night; now I met with a plant, which, after having been exposed for hours to the rays of the sun, had suddenly been overshadowed by a large tree and in this plant the two

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

2

halves of the leaves had descended beneath the horizontal plan, which they use to form during the day, forming with the horizon angles varying from about 15o to nearly 45o.3 I enclosed some fresh seeds of a long-styled plant of Pontederia crassipes, which I had legitimately fertilised with pollen from the long stamens of mid-styled plants.4 Wishing you a very happy new year I am | dear Sir with the deepest respect | Yours very sincerely | Friz Mülller DAR 106: C19 1

2

3

4

The seeds were probably of Mimosa pudica (shame plant); Müller had sent flower heads with what CD described as ‘brown seeds somewhat sculptured on their sides’ (Correspondence vol. 29, letter to Fritz Müller, 13 November 1881). See Movement in plants, p. 308; CD had described the plant as a ‘Bauhinia from St. Catharina in Brazil’. Müller evidently knew that the species was Bauhinia grandiflora (a synonym of B. aculeata subsp. grandiflora). CD had reported, based on information from Müller (probably contained in a now missing section of the letter from Fritz Müller, 28 February 1881, Correspondence vol. 29), that the leaves of Bauhinia brasiliensis did not sleep (see ibid., letter to Nature, 14 April [1881]). The movement of the leaves upward was an example of movement CD had called paraheliotropism: movement of leaves during the day to reduce intense illumination (Movement in plants, p. 419). The downward movement was more typical of sleep (nyctitropic) movement. Müller discussed the movement of leaves in a brief notice in Kosmos, May 1882 (F. Müller 1882). Müller had written to CD about heterostyly in Pontederia crassipes (a synonym of Eichhornia crassipes) and sent flowers in a now missing letter of 2 December 1881 (see letter to Fritz Müller, 4 January 1882). CD referred to crosses made using pollen of the same form of flower in dimorphic or trimorphic plant species as illegitimate, and those fertilised by pollen of a different form as legitimate (see ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’, p. 186).

To G. J. Romanes   1 January [1882]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 1st 1881 My dear Romanes I send the M.S. but as far as I can judge by just skimming it, it will be of no use to you.— It seems to bear on transitional forms.2 I feel sure that I have other & better cases, but I cannot remember where to look to.— I shd.  have written to you in a few days on the following case. The Baron de Villa Franca wrote to me from Brazil about 2  years ago, describing new vars.  of sugar-cane which he had raised by planting 2 old varieties in apposition.— I believe (but my memory is very faulty) that I wrote that I cd not believe in such a result & attributed the new varieties to the soil &c.—3 I believe that I did not understand what he meant by apposition. Yesterday a packet of M.S. arrived from the Brazilian Legation, with a letter in French from Dr Glass, Director of the Botanic Garden,4 describing fully how he first attempted grafting vars. of Sugar Cane in various ways & always failed, & then split stems of 2 varieties bound them together & planted them, & thus raised some new & very valuable varieties, which like crossed plants

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

3

seem to grow with extra vigour, are constant & apparently partake of the characters of the 2 varieties. The Baron, also, sends me an attested copy from a number of Brazilian cultivators of the success of this plan of raising new varieties.— I am not sure whether the B. Legation wishes me to return the Documents, but if I do not hear in 3 or 4 days that they must be returned, they shall be sent to you, for they seem to me well deserving your consideration.5 Perhaps if I had been contented with my hyacinth bulbs being merely bound together without any true adhesion or rather growth together, I shd. have succeeded like the old Dutch-man.—6 There is a deal of superfluous verbiage in the documents, but I have marked with pencil where the important part begins.— The attestations are in duplicate. Now after reading them will you give me your opinion whether the main parts are worthy of publication in Nature: I am inclined to think so, & it is good to encourage science in out of the way parts of the world. Keep this note till you receive the documents, or hear from me.— I wonder whether 2 vars. of wheat cd. be similarly treated? no, I suppose not from the want of lateral buds.— I was extremely interested by your abstract on suicide.—7 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin I got the other day the Dec. Nor of the 19th Century with your Article,8 but one thing has come so quickly on the back of another that I have not yet got time to read it quietly.— P.S. I have just had a note from Grant Allen, calling my attention to capital fact about Sexual Selection in Voyage of the Vega Vol. 2 p. 97.9 American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.609) 1 2 3

4

5

6

7

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to G. J. Romanes, 6 January 1882. CD wrote ‘1881’ in error. The manuscript has not been identified. Ignacio Francisco Silveira da Motta, baron de Vila Franca, was a Brazilian politician and farmer. The observations on new varieties of sugar cane produced by ‘apposition’ (grafting) had been enclosed in the letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 20 October 1880 (Correspondence vol. 28). CD’s reply to the 1880 communication has not been found. ‘Dr Glass’ was Auguste François Marie Glaziou; his letter has not been found. The packet was enclosed with the letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 28 December 1881 (Correspondence vol. 29); however, none of the enclosures have been found. Romanes had performed extensive grafting experiments on root vegetables in an effort to produce hybrids; the experiments were designed to test CD’s hypothesis of pangenesis (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 23, letter from G. J. Romanes, 14 January 1875). For more on the production of sugar cane by graft hybrids, see ‘Grafting sugar cane’, Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) 127 (1897): 221–3. CD had discussed claims that hyacinths had been grafted by joining two half-bulbs of different colours together, and that the colours sometimes blended, in Variation 1: 395. ‘Succeeding like the old Dutchman’ may refer to a case of hyacinth grafting described in ‘an old French Book, published in Amsterdam’ (Saint-Simon 1768); see Correspondence vol. 11, letter to Thomas Rivers, 7 January [1863]. There are a few undated notes on experiments with feather hyacinth and cauliflower, one of which mentions cutting hyacinth in two, in DAR 206: 17–18. Romanes’s review of Suicide; an essay on comparative moral statistics (Morselli 1881) was published in Nature, 29 December 1881, pp. 193–6.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

4 8

9

Romanes did not publish in the December 1881 issue of Nineteenth Century; CD probably means the article ‘The scientific evidence of organic evolution’, which appeared in the December 1881 issue of Fortnightly Review (Romanes 1881); a copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. The letter from Grant Allen has not been found; see, however, the letter to Grant Allen, 2 January 1882. The Vega expedition (1878–80) was a Swedish research expedition that explored the polar sea above Siberia; The voyage of the Vega round Asia and Europe (Nordenskiöld 1881, 2: 97) describes a Scotch collie from the expedition that was preferred by a female to other local dogs kept by the Chukchi people along the Behring Strait.

To Grant Allen   2 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 2d. 1882 My dear Sir I thank you for sending me the Cornhill, as your article has interested me much.—1 Many years ago I thought it highly probable that petals were in all cases transformed stamens. I forget (excepting the water-lily) what made me think so; but I am sure that your evolutionary argument never occurred to me, as it is too striking & apparently valid ever to be forgotten.—2 I cannot help doubting about petals being naturally yellow: I speak only from vague memory, but I think that the filaments are generally white or almost white, & surely it is the filament which is developed into the petal.3 I remember some fine purple & bright yellow filaments, but these seemed to me to serve by adding colour to the whole flower. Is it not the pollen alone which renders most stamens yellow at a cursory glance? You may possibly like to hear that I have described cases (& others have been described) when an excessively poor soil has rendered a flower double. I can hardly doubt that any great change of conditions (which has so strong a tendency to cause sterility) tends to render a flower double.—4 Close interbreeding has a slight tendency in this direction, as has according Gärtner, a hybrid origin.—5 With many thanks for the pleasure which your article has given me, I remain | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin I suppose that you know H. Müllers Alpen-Blumen, as it contains much about colour of flowers & orders of visting insects.6 I much doubt Wallace’s generalisation about much modified parts being splendidly coloured, except in so far that both have been acted on by the same cause, viz sexual selection.—7 That is an excellent case in the Voyage of the Vega, which I am reading, but have not yet got so far.8 In former times it wd. have been worth its weight in gold to me.— Cleveland Health Sciences Library (Robert M. Stecher collection) 1 2 3

h

d i

0 0

The letter from Allen has not been found. He sent his article ‘The daisy’s pedigree’, which appeared in the August 1881 issue of Cornhill Magazine (Allen 1881). Allen wrote: ‘petals … are merely specialised stamens, which have given up their original function of forming pollen, in order to adopt the function of attracting insects’ (Allen 1881, p. 175). Allen claimed that the inner florets of the daisy evolved through a flattening and lengthening of the yellow corolla, and that the first rays or petals would also have been yellow (see Allen 1881, p. 180). CD briefly discussed petaloid stamens (or filaments) in Orchids, pp. 294 and 303, noting that in the

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

4

5

6

7

8

5

Marantaceae, even fertile stamens are sometimes petaloid. See also Correspondence vol. 9, letter to J. D. Hooker, 10 November [1861]. In a letter to Gardeners’ Chronicle, [late August 1843] (Correspondence vol. 2; Shorter publications, pp. 165–6), CD had discussed cases of double flowers appearing in the poorest soil, noting that the origin of double flowers had often been attributed to excess food: ‘Is it, then, too bold a theory to suppose that all double flowers are first rendered by some change in their natural condition, to a certain degree, sterile; and that their vessels being charged with organizable matter in excess, (which would be greatly formed by high cultivation,) it is converted into petals …?’ For more on double flowers, see Variation 2: 167–8, 171–2, 200. Karl Friedrich von Gärtner; CD annotated the discussion of double flowers in his copy of Gärtner 1849, pp. 567–9 (see Marginalia 1: 289). By ‘close interbreeding’, CD meant plants fertilised with their own pollen (see Variation 2: 127). Hermann Müller gave many examples of insects attracted to flowers of different colours in Alpenblumen, ihre Befruchtung durch Insekten: und ihre Anpassungen an dieselben (Alpine flowers, their fertilisation through insect agency and adaptations for this; H. Müller 1881, pp. 479–533). Alfred Russel Wallace had been critical of CD’s theory of sexual selection and had presented various alternatives, such as protective mimicry and concealment; in males, he argued, bright colours were a sign of vitality, whereas females were often less conspicuous for the sake of protection (see A. R. Wallace 1878, pp. 217–18, Correspondence vol. 15, letter from A. R. Wallace, 26 April [1867], Correspondence vol. 25, letter from A. R. Wallace, 23 July 1877). The voyage of the Vega round Asia and Europe (Nordenskiöld 1881, 2: 97). On the case of sexual selection, see the letter to G. J. Romanes, 1 January [1882] and n. 9.

To V. O. Kovalevsky   2 January [1882]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 2d 1881. My dear Sir I thank you for the Photograph & your kind new year wishes, which I very heartily return.2 I hope that your [illeg] affairs prosper, & I am well assured that you deserve that they shd. prosper.— As for myself I am fairly well, but feel very old with failing strength. My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Postmark: JA 2 | 82 Smithsonian Libraries and Archives (Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology MSS 405 A. Gift of the Burndy Library) 1 2

CD misdated the letter; the year is established by the postmark. Kovalevsky had sent a photograph of Aleksey Ivanovich Butakoff; it has not been found (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from V. O. Kovalevsky, 30 December 1881).

From Arthur de Souza Corrêa1   2 January 1882 Brazilian Legation | 2a. Granville Place. | W. | London. 2 janvier 1882. Monsieur, J m’empresse d’accuser réception de votre aimable lettre du 31 Décembre que je ne manquerai pas de transmettre au Baron de Villa Franca.2 Les documents que je vous ai remis vous sont destinés en toute proprieté, et je serais très heureux de

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

6

voir réalisée votre intention de leur donner publicité dans un journal scientifique Anglais, sous votre haut patronage.3 Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, avec mes remerciements reitérés pour toute l’obligeance avec laquelle vous avez bien voulu accueillir les communications que le Baron de Villa Franca vous a adressées par mon intermédiare, l’assurance de mes sentiments de respect et de haute considération A. de Souza Corrêa DAR 160: 284 1 2

3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. CD’s letter has not been found. It was a reply to the letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 28 December 1881 (Correspondence vol. 29), which contained observations by Ignacio Francisco Silveira da Motta, baron de Vila Franca, on a new variety of sugar cane. The documents have not been found; see letter to G. J. Romanes, 1 January [1882].

To G. J. Romanes   3 January [1882]1 Down Beckenham Jan 3d. My dear Romanes I have heard from the Brazilian Legation that the documents were intended for me. & the Secy.  feels sure that the Baron wd be gratified by the statements being published.—2 Pray, therefore, let me hear what you think about the whole story— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Please return the documents & you can have them hereafter if you think fit.— American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.610) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 2 January 1882. See letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 2 January 1882 and n. 2. CD had received documents on new varieties of sugar cane from Ignacio Francisco Silveira da Motta, baron de Vila Franca; they were enclosed in the letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 28 December 1881 (Correspondence vol. 29). See also letter to G. J. Romanes, 1 January [1882].

From H. C. Sorby   3 January 1882 Broomfield | Sheffield Jan 3/82. My dear Darwin I very much wish I could give a more satisfactory report but perhaps what I have been able to do may be of some use to you. Besides the cause you suggest the blue colour 〈mi〉ght have been due to two other causes.1 A colouring matter in a dilute acid state might have been already present in that peculiar molecular state into which so many pass when diluted, where they cease to have any colour. Of course I mean quite independent of mere weakening of the solution. If such were the case

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

7

it might turn blue when the acid neutraliz〈ed〉 but at the same time would also turn red when such a strong acid as hydrochloric is added. This is not the case so I do not think any material amount of a coloured substance is present. In the second place a colouring matter might have been formed by oxidization when the acid neutralized, as I reasoned previously. And here I am bothered. When boiled with alcohol some thing is 〈5 or 6 words〉n water which appears to pass so rapidly into a brown substance with curious shade of green that the real change is quite hidden. There may be a red pigment also formed which would be changed to blue by an alkali but the deep brown colour disguises the effect too much to enable me to be certain On the whole the facts differ a good deal from what I had observed with flowers &c but then I had made very few experiments with colourless stems.2 Before being able to give any more confident opinion I should have to work out the whole thing as an independent inquiry. Much as I should like to do this, I cannot well undertake it since I have already promised to do as much as I shall be able to finish before I leave home again. In any case however what I have done will as far as it goes remove some doubts and will make your supposition more probable. Until examined as I have done the question was as I have explained open to several different explanations. Wishing you a happy new year and trusting that you will be able to throw further light on the interesting facts to which you have called my attention I remain | Yours very truly | H. C. Sorby DAR 177: 220 CD annotations 1.8 I do not think … present. 1.9] scored red crayon 1.9 coloured … present.] underl red crayon 1.10 oxidization] ‘oxidization’ pencil 2.1 On the whole … flowers] scored red crayon 1

2

No letters from CD to Sorby on this subject have been found. In December 1881, Sorby had replied to a query from CD about colour changes in plants; he had described the changes arising from oxidisation, and from exposure to acidic and alkaline solutions (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from H. C. Sorby, 28 December 1881). Sorby had observed plant pigments using a modified microspectroscope that he first developed to examine mineral specimens. His research interests included the optical and chemical properties of chlorophyll, colour changes in autumn leaves, and comparisons between the colouring matter of plants and simple forms of animal life. See Sorby 1871 and Sorby 1873.

From W. E. Darwin   4 January 1882 Bank, Southampton, Jan 4th 1882 My dear Father, I send you the account of sale of L.S.W. & purchase of G.W. Stock, the latter is 12 per cent higher, so that I am sorry to say you must send me a cheque for £77. 5—1 Your affect son | W. E. Darwin Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 105)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

8 1

CD’s Investment book (Down House MS) records the sale of 5000 shares of the London & South Western Railway and the purchase of 5000 shares of the Great Western Railway on 4 January 1882; the sale realised £6925 and the purchase cost £7002 5s., leaving a difference to pay of £77 5s.

To Fritz Müller   4 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan. 4th 1882. My dear Sir I must write a few lines to thank you for your letter of Dec. 2d, though I have nothing particular to say.1 Your appreciation of Balfour’s book has pleased me excessively, for though I could not properly judge of it, yet it seemed to me one of the most remarkable books which has been published for some considerable time.—2 He is quite a young man & if he keeps his health, will do splendid work. He is the younger brother of a Scotch man A. Balfour M.P. of immense fortune & nephew to a very grand gentleman, the Marquis of Salisbury.3 He has a fair fortune of his own, so that he can give up his whole time to Biology. He is very modest & very pleasant, & often visits here, & we like him very much. Your Pontederia case is very curious: when writing the Origin, of Species what a fine instance it wd. have been of one species beating out another, & under the apparent disadvantage of the mid-styled form alone having been introduced.4 As you speak of the seedlings varying I suppose that you feel sure that a suspicion which crossed my mind, of hybrid origin is groundless.— It is also very odd about the seeding & the appearance of the long-styled form. I never saw such oddlycoloured petals which arrived quite brightly coloured.5 Your Janira seems a very curious & interesting case; & with what exquisite clearness, you have drawn all its exterior organs.6 I have been working at the effects of Carbonate of Ammonia on roots, the chief result being that with certain plants the cells of the roots, though not differing from one another at all in appearance in fresh thin slices, yet are found to differ greatly in the nature of their contents, if immersed for some hours in a weak solution of C. of Ammonia.7 My dear Sir | yours ever sincerely | Charles Darwin I remember once suggesting to you to write ‘a Journal of a naturalist in Brazil’ or some such title, & give in it a resume of your endless & most interesting observations; I wish that my suggestion would bear fruit.8 P.S— I have just had to look to Bentham & Hookers Genera, & this has reminded me that I do not at all know whether I have completed your set. If you care to have any parts not sent, I beg you to let me hear.— Hooker tells me that they have nearly completed the Monocotyledons, & that the Palms, Grasses & Orchideæ were fearfully hard work. The Palms took 2 years.—9 The British Library (Loan MS 10: 58)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882 1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

9

Müller’s letter of 2 December 1881 has not been found. CD had received two copies of A treatise on comparative embryology (Balfour 1880–1) and arranged with Francis Maitland Balfour to send the spare copy to Müller as a gift from Balfour (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to F. M. Balfour, 6 July 1881, and letter from F. M. Balfour, 10 July 1881). Arthur James Balfour and Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, third marquess of Salisbury. In Origin, pp. 60–79, CD discussed the natural checks to increase on species and varieties. In his now missing letter of 2 December 1881, Müller had evidently discussed a species of Pontederia (pickerel-weed) in which only one form had been introduced to an area (see letter from Fritz Müller, 1 January 1882 and n. 4). The species was probably P. crassipes (a synonym of Eichhornia crassipes, common water hyacinth); Müller later discussed it in a short paper, ‘Einige Eigenthümlichkeiten der Eichhornia crassipes’ (Some characteristics of Eichhornia crassipes; F. Müller 1883). Müller had probably sent seeds of crosses between long- and mid-styled plants of Pontederia crassipes with his letter of 2 December 1881 (see letter from Fritz Müller, 1 January 1882). Müller’s description of a species he identified as belonging to the isopod genus Janira was evidently in his now missing letter of 2 December 1881. Müller later described and figured the species in his paper ‘Descripção da Janira exul, crustaceo isopode do estado de Santa Catharina’ (Description of Janira exul, an isopod crustacean from the state of Santa Catharina; F. Müller 1892). Janira was a genus with only marine species, but Müller’s species was found in fresh water and was notable for its distinctive antennae. The results of CD’s research were published in ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on roots’. In his letter of 22 April [1867] (Correspondence vol. 15), CD had suggested that Müller should write a book of ‘miscellaneous observations on all branches of natural history’, noting that such books were very popular in England. CD repeated the suggestion in a letter of [9 February 1876] (Correspondence vol. 24). See Correspondence vol. 29, letter from J. D. Hooker, 27 October 1881. Genera plantarum (Bentham and Hooker 1862–83) was a systematic work undertaken by Joseph Dalton Hooker and George Bentham in 1860 (see Stearn 1956). Monocotyledones was the heading of the final part of Genera plantarum (Bentham and Hooker 1862–83, 3 (2): 448). The Orchideae (a synonym of Orchidaceae, orchids) was a large section completed by Bentham in August 1880, after which he worked on the Cyperaceae (sedges), finished in October 1880; the Gramineae (a synonym of Poaceae, grasses) formed the last section, which Bentham finished in late 1881 (Stearn 1956, p. 130; Bentham 1881). Hooker was working on palms (Palmae, a synonym of Arecaceae); see Bentham and Hooker 1862–83, 3 (2): 870–948. CD had sent earlier parts to Müller (see Correspondence vol. 14, letter to Fritz Müller, [late December 1866 and] 1 January 1867).

To Theodor Eimer   6 January [1882]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan. 6th 1881. Dear Sir I am much obliged to you for your kindness in having sent me your work on the variation of the wall-lizard and for another paper.—2 Please accept my thanks and believe me | dear Sir | yours very faithfully | signed: Charles Darwin Copy CUL: Library Correspondence 1953: ref. 1273 1

h

d i

The transcription of this letter is from a handwritten copy made in 1953. A note on the copy says that the letter was addressed to ‘Prof. Dr. Th. Eimer’ and postmarked 1882. CD misdated the letter 1881.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

10 2

The paper on the wall lizard (Lacerta muralis, a synonym of Podarcis muralis) is Eimer 1881a. The other paper is probably Eimer 1881b; a copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Eimer had sent a previous work on lizards in 1874 (Eimer 1873–4; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Theodor Eimer, 12 December 1874).

To Hyacinth Hooker   6 January [1882]1 Down Beckenham Jan— 6th Dear Lady Hooker I have much pleasure in sending 5—5—0 in aid of your subscription for poor Mrs Fitch..— If you want more, I beg you to apply to me again; for it would require a great many letters before I could “treat you as a troublesome person”.2 Believe me dear Lady Hooker | Yours truly obliged | Charles Darwin Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (JDH/2/2/1 f. 313) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Hyacinth Hooker, 7 January 1882. Hannah Fitch was the wife of Walter Hood Fitch, a botanical artist at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, who illustrated several of Joseph Dalton Hooker’s works. A cheque for £5 5s. to ‘L Hooker to Mrs Fitch Charity’ is recorded in CD’s Account books–cash account (Down House MS) on 6 January 1882. No previous letter from Hyacinth Hooker on this matter has been found.

To G. J. Romanes   6 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 6th 1882 My dear Romanes I had no intention to trouble you about preparing the paper, but you seem to be quite untirable & I am glad to shirk any extra labour. It is shabby of me, but I gladly accept your offer to prepare a paper for Linn. Soc. if you think fit, & an abstract for Nature. I can thus send copies to the Baron & Dr. Glass.— By the way I cannot remember which of the two started the plan so this must be left in the dark.— As it wd appear so odd the sending of a document signed & stamped without some explanation, I think it is quite necessary that the paper shd. be presented with some such statement as I have written down.1 As it can do no harm I have scribbled down the headings of the sort of paper which I shd. have made, had I not shabbily allowed you to undertake the task.2 I quite agree about the Microscope & Grant Allen3 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin [Enclosure] Mr. Darwin received, as he informs me, about two years ago a letter from the Baron de Villa Franca in Brazil, stating that he had raised new varieties of the Sugar-Cane

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

11

by planting distinct varieties in apposition. As far as Mr Darwin can remember he expressed in answer his doubts whether the growth in close apposition of two varieties could possibly affect the character of the buds produced by either variety; & he thought it more probable that the new variety was due to bud-variation, which might be favoured by the conditions to which the cuttings had been subjected & is in itself an interesting fact.4 Recently he has received through the Brazilian Legation a letter from the Baron, enclosing one from Dr Glass, Superintendent of the Bot. Garden at Rio de Janeiro, in which he minutely describes the process adopted, a translation of which will be immediately given. The Baron also encloses a statement by eight land-owners & distinguished men in Brazil, made before a public notary, testifying to the fact that new & valuable varieties have been raised by this process.5 The subject is interesting because so few cases &c &c Enlarge a little on physiological importance.— Potatoes Hyacinth Blotched trees &c Vines Dr G. describes in detail with diagrams his attempts at first to graft together 2 varieties of the Sugar-cane & that he always failed, notwithstanding that he succeeded with another Monocotyledon, viz Dracaena— Then Translation Then Summary of the notices drawn up before the public Notary.— (Then a brief Summary of the whole) Perhaps a short discussion on the physiological importance of case wd. come in here best; but it is on the other hand advantageous to attract reader’s attention early in the day— Would it not be adviseable to express a hope that Dr. Glass would describe minutely the differences between the 2 joined varieties & the detailed character of the consequent new form? The increased vigour of the new varieties thus raised, like cross-fertilised vars., deserves notice.— American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.611), DAR 207: 4 1

2 3

h

d i

The letter to which this is a reply has not been found; see, however, the letter to G.  J.  Romanes, 1 January [1882]. CD had received documents on the production of new varieties of sugar cane from Ignacio Francisco Silveira da Motta, baron de Vila Franca (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 28 December 1881). ‘Dr Glass’ was Auguste François Marie Glaziou. From these documents, CD and Romanes prepared a paper, ‘On new varieties of the sugar-cane produced by planting in apposition’, which was sent to the Linnean Society of London on 6 April 1882; it was read on 4 May 1882, but not published (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1880–2): 30–1; Linnean Society, SP register, reference 2371). According to the Proceedings, the paper was ‘Communicated by the late Charles Darwin’. No copy of the paper has been found. For CD’s outline of the proposed paper, see the enclosure. CD had suggested giving Grant Allen a microscope (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to G. J. Romanes, 8 December 1881).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

12 4 5

CD’s reply to Ignacio Francisco Silveira da Motta, baron de Vila Franca, has not been found. The statement from the Brazilian landowners has not been found.

From Hyacinth Hooker   7 January 1882 Royal Gardens, | Kew. Jan. 7/82 Dear Mr. Darwin You are most kind & I am most delighted to be able to send poor Mrs. Fitch such a nice little purse of money. Thank you many times too for saying I may apply to you again should it be necessary. I hope there may be no occasion for me to do so; but still I fear that as Fitch grows older & more blind he will grow poorer.1 How he & his family manage to get on is a mystery to us; for in his better days he spent all his gains & has nothing laid by to fall back upon. He has been foolish & improvident no doubt; but he has done a great deal of good work in his day & has been a hard worker too. Yours gratefully & sincerely | Hyacinth Hooker. My love, please, to your ladies. DAR 104: 244–5 1

Hannah Fitch was the wife of Walter Hood Fitch, a botanical artist at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see letter to Hyacinth Hooker, 6 January [1882] and n. 2).

From J. F. Simpson   7 January 1882 59 Norfolk Terrace | Bayswater W. | London January 7. 1882 Dear Sir With very great pleasure have I completely perused the vol you kindly sent me on “Worms”.1 There are many interesting sections which suggest far reaching inferences & hypotheses. I have however scarcely any hope of being able to string together some which have occurred to me,—other circumstances hindering. All I can do now,—which will bespeak the careful interest of my study of the vol,—might be to give you a memo of several printers’ &c slips which you might desire to have corrected in a newer Edition. There were certainly one or 2 paragphs which I did not see the force of at first, & for my own benefit I have interlineated what I took to be the construction of the passage. It would be egotistic ill taste to name such, except to say—they are at your command, with the assumed chance of my being entirely wrong. The eloquent summary of the last chapter is very striking, &, I imagined, contains several new facts not found in the pre-going pages, particularly the first part of the last sentence on page 311.2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

13

I have watched with great interest lately the building up of a “tower” casting in our little garden. Morning by morning it shows a new deposit of its viscid-“lava” on the summit, whence it rolls down the sides. I protected it some days ago with flower pot sticks. In spite of the recent very heavy rains, it goes on augmenting, & I think, if I sliced it fairly off the normal surface of the ground, it would measure nearly 2 inches high, & this too in spite of the loss from the rain washing part of it away every day. The distinctness of the castings on summit suggests a “colony” of worms. I picked up a recent casting about 7 or 8 days ago. It had already hardened. I was astonished at its cohesion. The pebbly corrugation was plain & natural, bespeaking a recent casting. It withstood a comparative effort to pull its pebbles asunder. I dropped it (perhaps from a foot high) upon some hard earth in a flower pot but it did not break. I left it there. Several times subseqtly I examined it. In spite of heavy rain it still held well together but was losing size gradually. Every disintegration of outer pebbles always revealed among the inner ones, those bits of stony fragments of which you speak. There still remains of it, a firmly bound-together accretion. I have been a little puzzled by the different nature of the distribution of castings on a flat & on a slope. On a few square feet of front ground the castings on the level are &c & not all over  ; but on the slope the

in lines & angles

honeycombed surface is equally covered almost over its entire area. An explanation occurs to me which seems to answer one of your queries in part. It is as to their instinct in reference to burrowing at right angles (p. 270) as the shortest course for bringing up earth.3 This may be undetermined, but if they do not burrow at right angles, still, by preferring slopes they find the advantage of such an “economy” in another sense—i.e. the angle of the sloping ground being more convenient to eject earth upon than throwing it up perpendicularly as would be the case on a level. I could not decide on the weight of evidence as to the purposes &c of plugging &c (p. 63) in my mind until I came to p. 116, where the “respiration” point (lines 11 to 13) seems to settle the argument most conclusively.4 Recent science & travel seems to qualify p 232 somewhat, considering Prof Ball’s recent calculations as to pre-historic “Waves of the Sea”; as also p 238, the “Vega’s” Voyage (also see Prof Plummer’s paper “Goodword’s Dec 1881) seems to establish a great deal of cosmic dust as falling in the Arctic regions.5 I fear, Sir, I have troubled you too much upon these little points. You must forgive me the trespass on your valuable time & permit me to remain | Yours very faithfully | J. F. Simpson To C. Darwin Esq F.R.S. | Down, Beckenham A postscript enclosed. “Worms” P.S. Mema of Errata &c or queries. p. 63— par. ending “herbage” requires note of interrogation(?).

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

14 p. 72 p. 73 p 89 p 110, p 117

p 119. p 166.

p 209 p 223. —

last line but 3. line 3.

Query read the reffs in both places as to Common steel needles (experimental), not the needles of the pine leaves previously referred to. line 19. “apex over” (dividing) "  15. “found here”—query at Down. "  19 &c Par. beginning “When a worm” explains a process which has to be guessed at in reading the top par. of same page (“as soon as &c”) dates at bottom, query referring to several years observations, or query in year 1880. bottom. “A space was selected &c” query “The space of the first square yard was selected &c”, otherwise the implication seems to run that the two square yards were contiguous. “The old broken walls (query “of a former edifice”) &c Table No 8—query the thickness in this case an “average”? is not stated. (compare 39 inches as against 7 ins at opposite ends) Shop Leasows”; has a redundant double commas. (Excuse noting so small a point. It looks strange)

p 258.

line 4. “on each of acre &c”,

p 282

line 10 “dintintegrated”

“of ”

“t”6

p—

line 20—“to rather lines of ” &c seemed a little puzzling to find out the compared connection p 292, last line; “on the northern &c” query the upper northern &c p 296. line 15. “disppeared”, “i” wanting6 p 312, line 6.  par.  beginning “They can therefore learn (but) little &c ..... world, and (yet) it is &cc. Query suggested bracketed words. With very respectful Compliments. 2nd P.S. | A little newspaper Extract from todays “Bayswater Chronicle” may be ventured to be enclosed & explained.7 A writer last week in the same columns adopted the rather questionable feeling of throwing derision upon a certain class of people who draw rather free inferences from what they read in favour of some cherished idea or persuasion. It is a trait common to all human beings according to their respective “bent” &c, & to attack it in an unseemly manner is unworthy of a scientific man. Hence arose my few lines signed “A Community of Worms”, which the Editor seems unwisely to have sent specially on. I am in no dread of any one reading the first writer’s rejoinder. It is unkind, & the arrogance he speaks of was on his side in his first letter. The only notice I take of his gratuitously uncalled for rejoinder is to tell the Editor that I do not bow

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

15

down to his friend’s scientific dicta on any “infallibility” grounds, & (as he seems to be a primed geologist of the rigid Lyell school)8 that very recent science is tearing the old geologically computed periods into shreds. I am of course but a very Empirical observer &c, & under such comments it is as well to be as pachydermatous as possible, with all one’s faults. J.F.S. DAR 177: 170 CD annotations 12.1 P.S. … referred to. 14.3] crossed blue crayon 14.3 previously referred] del blue crayon 15.1 p 89 … over] del blue crayon 15.1 p 89 … &c”) 17.3] crossed blue crayon 15.1 p 89 … 1880. 18.2] crossed blue crayon 17.2 of same … &c”) 17.3] del blue crayon 18.1 dates … &c 20.1] crossed blue crayon 20.1 former edifice] del blue crayon 21.1 p 223 … &c 25.1] crossed blue crayon 1 2

3 4

5

6 7 8

CD had sent a copy of the fifth thousand of Earthworms, which included observations by Simpson (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from J. F. Simpson, 1 December 1881 and n. 1). In his conclusion to Earthworms, CD emphasised the value of worm activity for horticulture. The last sentence on p. 311 reads: ‘Many seeds owe their germination to having been covered by castings; and others buried to a considerable depth beneath accumulated castings lie dormant, until at some future time they are accidentally uncovered and germinate.’ CD had noted the advantages of excavation ‘at right angles to an inclined surface’ in Earthworms, p. 270. CD suggested that worms lined their burrows with little stones and seeds to prevent their bodies coming in close contact with the cold soil, as ‘such contact would perhaps interfere with their respiration which is effected by the skin alone’ (Earthworms, p. 116). In Earthworms, pp. 232–3, CD discussed the role of wind, rain, and rivers as causes of denudation alongside ocean waves; he also cited a number of geological works on the accumulation of dust in certain conditions, including meteoric dust (Earthworms, pp. 236–8). Robert Stawell Ball had recently argued that ancient tides were substantially more powerful owing to the closer proximity of the moon to the earth (see Ball 1881, pp. 103–4). On cosmic dust, see Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld’s The voyage of the Vega round Asia (Nordenskiöld 1881, 1: 324–31). Good Words (1881), contained an article on meteors by John Isaac Plummer, with remarks on the accumulation of meteoric dust (Plummer 1881, p. 853). The spelling and grammatical mistakes on pp. 258 and 282 were corrected in Earthworms (sixth thousand), pp. 261, 285. The enclosure from the Paddington, Kensington and Bayswater Chronicle has not been found. Charles Lyell had argued that geological phenomena should be explained solely by the action of causes still in operation, and at their current intensities. On Lyell’s role in these debates about geological causes, see Secord 1997.

To the Darwin children   8 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 8th. 1882 Circular of Distribution of 3034£, according to the scale in my present will.—1 N.B. next year the amount will be less, as there are a good many Railway calls,2 & I intend for the future to give away 500£ or 600£ annually for science.—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

16

£ William. Bessy George  Francis Leonard Horace R. B. Litchfield

492 287



779 492 492 492 492 287.—3

So William please send this circular to Henrietta & she to Horace. The others have seen it here.— I do not know whether the money will be distributed at once or in a week’s time after money on Deposit has been placed to my current account. Ch. Darwin DAR 185: 60 1

2 3

CD had made a new will in September 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to W. M. Hacon, 11 September 1881). He had begun distributing his surplus income to his children in 1880 (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter to the Darwin children, 10 January 1880). CD held shares in about ten railway companies (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS)). William Erasmus Darwin, Elizabeth Darwin, George Howard Darwin, Francis Darwin, Leonard Darwin, and Horace Darwin. Bessy’s share was sent to William to deposit or invest, making his total £779. Henrietta Emma Litchfield’s share went to her husband, Richard Buckley Litchfield.

From J. W. Judd   8 January 1882 Hurstleigh, | Kew— 8th. Jany. 1882. Dear Mr. Darwin, I am very glad to find that in the current number of ‘Nature’ your son has given us his views on the points of geological theory touched upon by Mr. Ball in his lecture. Without such an explanation as your son has given, I cannot but think that the speculations were calculated to do—mischief.1 When Mr. Ball says the phenomena he so graphically described took place not less than 50 millions of years ago many would infer that it might not be much more than that time ago.2 Now, however willing one may be to concede an increase of intensity in the existing forces during past time—yet when we see the Cambrian strata with thousands of feet of excessively fine sediments, everywhere abounding with the tracks & borings of soft bodied creatures, it is hard to believe that they are the result of the action of such terrific grinding mills as are described to us.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

17

Unless the average height of the land were much greater than at present, terrestrial life would have been almost impossible with tides of 600  feet. What, however, seems to me to be the strongest argument against excessive tides at these early periods is the existence of such grand estuarine deposits as those of the Carboniferous period. Now the action of tides, as De la Beche so well pointed out, is quite antagonistic to the formation of deltas.3 I find it very hard to believe that such grand delta-deposits as those of the Coal-measures could possibly have been formed with tides of even double the height of those of the present day—as your son more modestly suggests. I am very glad to see that your son dwells on the importance of the subaerial forces in producing denudation in contradistinction to that of the sea—4 I very much doubt whether Ramsay would approve of Hull’s application of his ideas about ‘plains of Marine denudation’—5 It has always seemed to me that the supposed proofs of such plains of Marine denudation are not very strong, for the generally uniform height of mountains in a district like the Highlands may very well be accounted for if we remember that the higher we go the more powerful become the forces of atmospheric erosion. I was so interested by my recent conversation with you upon this subject, that I hope you will forgive my troubling you with this letter. Hoping you are better than when I saw you in town6 I remain, | Yours very faithfully | John W. Judd P.S. I am sure that all geologists will unite with me in thanking your son for the very fair and clear manner in which he has put the matter before the public. DAR 168: 89 1

2 3 4

5

6

h

d i

In a lecture published in Nature, Robert Stawell Ball argued that tidal forces played a much larger role in shaping geological formations in the past, owing to the closer proximity of the moon to the earth (see Ball 1881, pp. 81, 102–4); he drew partly on George Howard Darwin’s recent work on tidal theory (G. H. Darwin 1878c). George responded with a short article in Nature, 5 January 1882 (G. H. Darwin 1882); he criticised some of Ball’s speculations, especially on tidal waves of over 600 feet, and added that his own estimates of tides two or three times those of the present were probably excessive. See Ball 1881, p. 82. Henry Thomas De la Beche; on the formation of deposits in estuaries and the adverse action of tides, see De la Beche 1846, pp. 15–17. George noted that most geologists at that time attributed denudation to a variety of factors, including air, rain, rivers, and oceanic waves. In earlier geological times, he remarked, the more rapid alternation of day and night would probably lead to stronger storms and greater rainfall, and the increased rotation of the earth would produce more violent trade winds. He concluded that there was no geological evidence for the extreme tidal forces described by Ball, and suggested that such forces might have occurred in ‘pregeological periods’ (G. H. Darwin 1878c, p. 213). Edward Hull’s response to Ball was published in Nature, 22 December 1881, pp. 177–8; he used Andrew Crombie Ramsay’s study of denuded planes, formed from uneven and ‘most obdurate rocks over hundreds or thousands of square miles’ to support Ball’s theory of a ‘stupendous tidal grindingengine’ in early geological times. Ramsay had emphasised subaerial rather than marine forces in his work on denudation (see Ramsay 1878, pp. 31–6, 341–3, 496–9, Correspondence vol. 12, letter from A. C. Ramsay, 10 July 1864 and n. 3, and Correspondence vol. 17, letter to A. C. Ramsay, 3 February [1869]). CD was in London from 13 to 20 December 1881 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

18

From W. E. Darwin   9 January [1882]1 Jan 9 My dear Father, I have the account of your splendid division which I will send on2 I am sorry to hear of your alarm about fire, I will look out the circular tonight & let you hear all about the hand engine.3 Sara4 has had sad news from America: the brother of the Mrs Ashburner who lives in London has just committed suicide  That will make the third brother who has committed suicide & Mrs A & her two sisters have tried to do it.5 It is very horrible for poor Mr A. as his son is dejected and out of health, and Mrs A may have another attack.6 I have cut the F.R.S. out of the inscription7 What a capital letter of George’s in Nature.8 Your affect son | W. E. Darwin Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 112) 1 2 3

4 5

6 7

8

The year is established by references to the Ashburners (see n. 5, below). CD wrote about the division of his surplus income in the letter to the Darwin children, 8 January 1882. William had bought a hand-operated fire-pump in 1881 and advised CD to get one (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from W. E. Darwin, 13 January [1881]). A fire-pump was installed in Down House in February (letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, [20 February 1882] (DAR 210.3: 40)). Sara Darwin. A letter from Emma Darwin to H. E. Litchfield, 10 January 1882 (DAR 219.9: 283), mentions ‘Wm’s sad acct of the misfortune in Mrs Sam Ashburner’s family’. Mrs Ashburner was Anne Mead Ashburner; her brother John Sargent Barstow committed suicide on 25 December 1881. Of nine brothers, only one is reported to have committed suicide: Gideon Forrester Barstow (Massachusetts, town and vital records, 1620–1988; Ancestry.com, accessed 14 July 2021). Anne had two surviving sisters: Eleanor Forrester Condit and Catherine Andrew Barstow. Annie and Samuel Ashburner had two adult sons; the son in question was probably George, who was a student (age 27) living with his parents in Kensington, London. The inscription was for Erasmus Alvey Darwin’s gravestone and the FRS (fellow of the Royal Society) referred to his father Robert Waring Darwin (1766–1848). See Correspondence vol. 29, letter from G. H. Darwin, 15 October 1881. George Howard Darwin’s short article on the geological importance of tides was published in Nature, 5 January 1882 (G. H. Darwin 1882; see letter from J. W. Judd, 8 January 1882 and nn. 1 and 4).

From J. H. Gilbert   9 January 1882 Harpenden, | S.t Albans, Jan 9 1882 My Dear Mr. Darwin— What will you have thought of me for delaying so long to thank you for your kind present of a copy of your remarkable book on the production of vegetable mould by earthworms?1 I sincerely hope you have not thought so badly of me as I seemingly deserve!

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

19

The truth is, that the first hurried turning over of the leaves convinced me that there was so much of special interest & importance to us, that I was led to postpone, until I had more leisure, the careful reading of the book—and alas!—I postponed also writing to thank you, little thinking that I should leave an immediate duty so long unfulfilled. In fact, waiting for “a more convenient season” has had its usual result! I am, however truly sorry and ashamed, so hope you will forgive me? I did indeed commence a letter to you some weeks ago, but I see it is now out of date, so must begin again. Allow me now to say a few words on the points of special interest to us in your work. The evidence of long continued experiments, of various kinds, leads us to conclude that, at any rate in many cases, ordinary arable culture tends to a gradual reduction of the stores of nitrogen within the soil. In the case of permanent grass-land on the other hand, not only is more nitrogen yielded in the crops without artificial supply of it, than from arable land under like conditions, but the percentage of nitrogen in the surface soil remains at a considerably higher level; and in the case of newly laid down grass this level is rapidly approached. Careful comparison of this gain with the amounts estimated to be supplied from external sources, has at any rate suggested the question—whether there be not some other, and not explained source? For example— how far may it be due to the roots of the perennial vegetation bringing up stores from lower depths?— how far to a greater condensation, or utilisation, of combined nitrogen from the atmosphere by the above ground growth the year round?— further, there is the improbable supposition that the free nitrogen of the air becomes a source of combined nitrogen, either by the intervention of the humic matter of the soil, or directly through the agency of vegetation itself ?2 That the roots of some plants do bring up stores from below, and leave a residue near the surface seems indeed very probable. But admitting this, some further explanation of the facts would still seem to be wanting. How far have earth worms influenced the result? Of course, so far as their nutriment, or the soil they pass through their bodies, whether as food or otherwise, is derived from above ground growth, or within the range of our surface samples (9 inches), their action would not explain any gain or accumulation. But if the evidence were clear that they bring up much from below the depth of our samples of surface soil, the fact would be of considerable interest and importance. From your description I gather that your soil and subsoil are very similar to those at Rothhamsted—that is, that you have below the surface soil some feet of stiff reddish yellow clay, resting upon chalk. Now, may I ask whether your observations would lead you to conclude that, under such circumstances, much of the matter of the castings would be derived from the clay-subsoil? Small as is their percentage, the actual quantity of nitrogen and carbon in such a subsoil is very large; but their chemical condition is not satisfactorily determined, and without some direct

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

20

evidence on the point, it seems difficult to suppose that, excepting in the case of comparatively recent vegetable residue, they would exist in a condition to serve as food for worms? If so used, or if passed through the body for other purposes, and transported from below to the surface, practically the whole of the nitrogen would be voided, and so we should have a useful agency in the formation, and the maintenance, of permanent pasture, so far as the nitrogen is concerned. In the case of old grass land we of course only want time enough to accomplish the higher percentage of nitrogen in its surface soil than in that of arable land, whether with or without the aid of earthworms; but, in the case of newly laid down grass the proof of their agency would be of much interest. On this point I may mention that several weeks ago, I had a portion of my lawn brushed quite free of worm-casts, and then, after 2 or 3 weeks, had those collected which had been accumulated over several square yards of surface; these were dried, and found to contain in that state 0.35 of Nitrogen. This is from 212 to 3 times as much as we find in our ordinary arable surface soil; more than in our ordinary pasture surface soil; but less than in rich Kitchen garden mould. Supposing a quantity equal to 10 tons in the dry state were annually deposited on an acre, this would represent a manuring of 78(1) lbs of Nitrogen per acre per annum. Obviously, so far as this nitrogen is derived from surface growth, or surface soil, it is not a gain to the latter; but so far as it is derived from below it is so.3 May I ask whether your observations enable you to explain its source? Hoping you will pardon, not only my long delay in writing, but this long story at last, I am My Dear Sir, Yours very sincerely | J. H. Gilbert (1) This is very much more than in the annual yield of hay per acre without nitrogenous manure. DAR 165: 45 CD annotations 8.1 On this … dry state 8.7] scored red crayon 8.6 equal] after interl ink ‘of Casting’ 8.8 this nitrogen 8.9] ‘this’ altered ink to ‘the’ 8.9 is derived] ‘is’ after interl ink and del ink ‘in the worm casting’ 8.9 surface soil] ‘surface’ after interl ink ‘from’ 8.10 it is so] ‘so’ below interl ink ‘a gain’ 8.10 May] after closing square bracket ink 9.1 Hoping … at last, 9.2] crossed blue crayon Top of letter: ‘Dr Gilbert’ blue crayon 1

2

h

d i

0 0

Gilbert’s name appeared on CD’s presentation list for Earthworms (Correspondence vol. 29, Appendix IV); he had replied to CD’s query about the acidity of vegetable mould (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to J. H. Gilbert, 5 February 1881, and letter from J. H. Gilbert, 22 February 1881). Gilbert had worked for many years in collaboration with John Bennet Lawes at an experimental station on Lawes’s Rothamsted estate in Hertfordshire. One of their long-running experiments involved the measurement of nitrogen in different soils under cultivation, and the comparison of nitrogen assimilation by plants grown in different conditions, including free nitrogen from the atmosphere (see Lawes et al. 1860).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882 3

21

CD quoted Gilbert’s measurements of the proportion of nitrogen in worm-castings in Earthworms (1882), pp. 244–5.

From Gottlieb Haberlandt1   9 January 1882 Graz, am 9. Januar 1882 Hochverehrter Herr! Nachdem vor Kurzem meine Abhandlung über die vergleichende Anatomie des assimilatorischen Gewebesystems der Pflanzen” in Druck erschienen ist, erlaube ich mir, Ihnen hochverehrter Herr, ein Exemplar dieser Schrift mit der Bitte zu übersenden, dieselbe als ein bescheidenes Zeichen meiner aufrichtigsten Verehrung und Dankbarkeit freundlichst entgegennehmen zu wollen.—2 Als ich mich mit diesen vergleichend anatomischen Untersuchungen beschäftigte, wurde es mir immer klarer, in welch erfolgreicher Weise sich die Principien Ihrer Lehre auf den anatomischen Bau der Pflanzen anwenden lassen. Ich hoffe, es werde mir wenigstens einigermassen gelungen sein, von Neuem zu zeigen, dass auch auf pflanzenanatomischem Gebiete den Anhängern Ihrer Lehre die Zukunft gehört! Noch eine zweite, kleinere Abhandlung erlaube ich mir Ihnen heute zu übersenden. Dieselbe trachtet bezüglich eines schwierigen entwickelungsgeschichtlichen Punktes die Kluft zwischen den Kry〈pto〉gamen und Phanerogamen zu ü〈berbrücken〉 und so einen abermaligen Bewe〈is für〉 die Continuität der phylogenetischen Entwickelung des Pflanzenreiches herzustellen.3 Mit der Versicherung meiner auzgezeichnetsten Hochachtung und aufrichtigsten Verehrung bleibe ich, | Hochverehrter Herr | Ihr dankbar ergebener | G Haberlandt DAR 166: 15 1 2

3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. CD’s copy of Vergleichende Anatomie des assimilatorischen Gewebesystems der Pflanzen (Comparative anatomy of the assimilatory tissue systems of plants; Haberlandt 1881) is in the Darwin Library–Down. See Correspondence vol. 29, letter from Gottlieb Haberlandt, 5 January 1881. CD’s copy of Haberlandt 1880, a paper on the growth of apical cells in phanerogams, is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

To C. A. Kennard   9 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan. 9th. 1882 Dear Madam The question to which you refer is a very difficult one.1 I have discussed it briefly in my “Descent of Man”. I certainly think that women though generally superior to men to moral qualities are inferior intellectually; & there seems to me to be a great difficulty from the laws of inheritance, (if I understand these laws rightly) in their becoming the intellectual equals of man.2 On the other hand there is some reason to

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

22

believe that aboriginally (& to the present day in the case of Savages) men & women were equal in this respect, & this wd.  greatly favour their recovering this equality. But to do this, as I believe, women must become as regular “bread-winners” as are men;3 & we may suspect that the early education of our children, not to mention the happiness of our homes, would in this case greatly suffer. I have written this letter without any care of style, as it is intended solely for your private use.— Dear Madam | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin DAR 185: 29 1 2

3

Kennard had asked CD whether he agreed with the view that women were intellectually inferior to men; see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from C. A. Kennard, 26 December 1881. On the comparative mental and moral powers of women and men, see Descent 2: 316–29. By ‘laws of inheritance’, CD means his theory that certain traits emerge only on maturity in a particular sex and are often transmitted only, or in a higher degree, to offspring of the same sex, and that males and females mature at different rates. He argued that among ancestral humans and savages, males had evolved superior strength, courage, and energy, as well as higher powers of reason, invention, and imagination, as a result of their battle with other males during maturity for the possession of females; and that in civilised societies, these powers were reinforced by continued rivalry between men, and their role as providers for the family. The moral superiority of women, he argued, was rooted in maternal instincts. CD’s views in Descent had been cited by a writer who believed in the intellectual inferiority of women (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from C. A. Kennard, 26 December 1881 and nn. 1 and 2). In Descent 2: 326, 329, CD remarked that among savage and barbarous peoples, women worked ‘at least as hard as men’, and that in order for a civilized woman to reach same standard as a man, ‘she ought, when nearly adult, to be trained to energy and perseverance, and to have her reason and imagination exercised to the highest point; then she would probably transmit these qualities to her adult daughters’.

To T. H. Farrer   10 January 1882 Down Beckenham Jan. 10th 1882 My dear Farrer.— I have just received the enclosed & I think it proper to forward it to you, whether or not you read it.1 Will you be so kind as to forward it to Mr Caird,2 if this appears to you a proper & desirable step.— The badness of the varieties which we raised last year is explained by Mr Torbitt’s unfortunate blunder of having used the pollen of a curious, but plainly diseased variety.—3 My dear Farrer | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Surrey History Centre (T. H. Farrer papers 9609/4/1/16 (part) by permission of Emma Corke) 1 2 3

h

d i

0 0

CD had enclosed a letter from James Torbitt; it has not been found, but see the letter to James Torbitt, 10 January 1882 and n. 2. James Caird had worked with CD and Farrer to obtain financial assistance for Torbitt’s potato experiments. Torbitt had sent potatoes to CD, Farrer, and Caird in March 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from James Torbitt, 10 March 1881).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

23

To James Torbitt   10 January 1882 Down, Jan 10, 1882 My dear Sir I am sorry to hear that you have been unwell, and a failure of energy must be a new and distressing sensation to you.1 Upon the whole I hope that you are contented with your results, but it was a most unfortunate chance your having used the pollen of the weakly varieties. My gardener reported to me that these varieties were not attacked by the disease or only slightly, but that the yield was not good and the potatoes poor.2 I have not strength sufficient to attend to the deseased varieties which you are so kind as to offer me. Those which you say that you will send shall be planted. It is very noble conduct of you to return the subscription, if trade continues to improve. As far as I am concerned, I am quite content to remain unpaid, as I gave the money for what I considered to be an excellent object.3 I will forward your letter to Mr. Farrer and ask him if he thinks fit to forward it to Mr. Caird.4 With all good wishes, I remain, my dear Sir | Yours very faithfully Ch. Darwin. You can use my name or not, just as you think fit, in any application to Government; but the Government seems very slow even in moving in such affairs.5 Copy DAR 148: 130 1 2

3

4 5

Torbitt’s letter has not been found. Torbitt had been trying to breed potato varieties that were resistant to blight; he had sent CD potatoes for planting in March 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from James Torbitt, 10 March 1881). CD’s gardener was Henry Lettington. CD had helped raise subscriptions to support Torbitt’s experiments (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter to James Torbitt, 6 March [1880]); he had also given Torbitt £100 (see Correspondence vol. 26, letter to James Torbitt, 31 March 1878). See letter to T. H. Farrer, 10 January 1882. Thomas Henry Farrer and James Caird had worked with CD to obtain financial assistance for Torbitt in previous years (see Correspondence vols. 26 and 28). Torbitt had previously applied for government support (Correspondence vol. 28, letter from James Torbitt, 15 December 1880).

To F. J. Cohn   11 January 1882 Down. | Beckenham Kent (&c) Jan. 11th. 1882. My dear Sir. I thank you cordially for the gift of your new & very handsome work.—1 I see by looking at the table of contents, that there is much which will interest me greatly. If I could read German easily I believe that I should never read a book in any other language, so much is published in your country which is valuable to me. Believe me with much respect | Yours sincerely. | Charles Darwin. Copy DAR 143: 270

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

24 1

Cohn sent Die Pflanze. Vorträge aus dem Gebiete der Botanik (The plant: lectures from the field of botany; Cohn 1882). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Library–Down.

From Raphael Meldola   11 January 1882 The Epping Forest and County of Essex | Naturalists’ Field Club. 21 John Street, | Bedford Row, W.C. Jan. 11/82 My dear Mr. Darwin, I hope you will kindly excuse a little trouble which I am about to put you to in asking you to be so good as to lend me Weismann’s pamphlet on the Daphniidæ which he published some 2 or 3 years ago & which you were so kind as to lend me on a former occasion.1 I should not thus presume to trespass upon that kindness which you always manifest in giving assistance where wanted were it not that Dr. Weismann is just now in Naples & I have no other means of getting his paper.2 I am preparing an essay on the very difficult subject of “Alternation of Generations” by way of an annual address to this Club— it is for this purpose that I require to refer to this paper.3 I would willingly call & fetch the paper any Saturday afternoon or Sunday if you do not like to trust it through the post. I have just been reading your really charming work on the earthworm—4 what important agents in bringing about changes in surface geology these little creatures appear to be! Our Club, as you are no doubt aware, has sustained a very heavy loss by the death of Sir Antonio Brady. We are going to publish a memoir of him in our next part of Transactions.5 I hope you received & approve of our last part.6 Yours very faithfully, | R. Meldola. P.S. Weismann’s “Studies” were long ago completed so far as I am concerned. They are dreadfully slow in printing the last part. I am daily expecting the proof of your Prefatory Notice.7 DAR 171: 141 1

2 3

4 5 6

h

d i

0 0

August Weismann’s paper ‘Ueber die Schmuckfarben der Daphnoiden’ (On the decorative colours of daphnids; Weismann 1878) had focused on the bright spots of colour present in some species of water fleas, and whether these occurred in both sexual and parthenogenetic broods (for more on Weismann’s research in this area, see Churchill 2015, pp. 134–6). CD’s copy of the paper is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Meldola had previously borrowed the paper from CD (see Correspondence vol. 26, letter from Raphael Meldola, 13 June 1878). Weismann had gone on a trip to Naples and Sicily (Churchill 2015, p. 180). Meldola’s talk, ‘The phenomena of cyclical propagation in the animal kingdom’, was delivered to the Epping Forest and County of Essex Naturalists’ Field Club on 28 January 1882; the full text of the talk was not published, but see Meldola 1882, p. 196. Meldola had introduced the term ‘cyclical propagation’ to replace ‘alternation of generations’. Earthworms. Antonio Brady had died on 12 December 1881; the memoir on him appeared in Transactions of the Essex Field Club 3 (1882–3): 94–101. CD had been elected an honorary member of the Epping Forest and County of Essex Naturalists’ Field Club when it was formed in 1880 (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from William Cole, 14 February 1880), and received their Transactions.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882 7

25

Meldola’s translation of August Weismann’s Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie (Weismann 1875–6) was published in three parts between 1880 and 1882 (Weismann 1880–2). In 1880, CD had written a short prefatory notice for Meldola’s translation, to be published when the final part was in press.

From Francis Darwin to Raphael Meldola   12 January 1882 12.i | 82 Dear Sir My father is very glad to lend you Weismann, and hopes that you will keep it as long as it is of any use to you1 Yours faithfully | Francis Darwin Oxford University Museum of Natural History (Hope Entomological Collections 1350: Hope/Westwood Archive, Darwin folder) 1

Meldola had requested a copy of August Weismann’s paper on daphnids (Weismann 1878; see letter from Raphael Meldola, 11 January 1882 and n. 1).

To J. H. Gilbert   12 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 12th 1882 My dear Dr. Gilbert. I have been much interested by your letter, for which I thank you heartily.1 There was not the least cause for you to apologize for not having written sooner, for I attributed it to the right cause, i.e. your hands being full of work.— Your statement about the quantity of nitrogen in the collected castings is most curious, & much exceeds what I shd. have expected.2 In lately reading one of your & Mr Lawe’s great papers in Phil. Trans. (the value & importance of which cannot in my opinion be exaggerated)3 I was struck with the similarity of your soil with that near here; & anything observed here would apply to your land. Unfortunately I have never made deep sections in this neighbourhood so as to see how deep the worms burrow, except in one spot & here there had been left on the surface of the chalk a little very fine ferruginous sand, probably of Tertiary age: into this the worms had burrowed to a depth of 55 & 61. inches.— I have never seen here red castings on the surface, but it seems possible (from what I have observed with reddish sand) that much of the red colour of the underlying clay wd be discharged in passing through the intestinal canal.— Worms usually work near the surface, but I have noticed that at certain seasons, pale-coloured earth is brought up in large quantities from beneath the overlying brackish mould on my lawn; but from what depth I cannot say. That some must be brought up from a depth of 4 to 5 or 6 ft is certain, as the worms retire to this depth during very dry & very cold weather. As worms devour greedily raw flesh & dead worms, they wd devour dead larvæ eggs &c &c in the soil, & thus they might locally add to the amount of nitrogen in the soil,—though not of course if the whole country is considered. I saw in your paper something about the difference in the amount of

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

26

nitrogen at different depths in the superficial mould,4 & here worms may have played a part.— I wish that this problem had been before me when observing, as possibly I might have thrown some little light on it, which would have pleased me greatly. Believe me dear Dr Gilbert | Yours sincerely Ch. Darwin Rothamsted Research (GIL13) 1 2 3

4

See letter from J. H. Gilbert, 9 January 1882. See letter from J. H. Gilbert, 9 January 1882 and n. 2. Gilbert and John Bennet Lawes had jointly authored a paper on the sources of nitrogen in plants and a series of studies on soil experiments; these were published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Lawes et al. 1860, and Lawes et al. 1879–99, part 1). On the percentage of nitrogen at different depths of soil, see Lawes et al. 1879–99, part 1: 301, 372.

From J. D. Hooker   12 January 1882 Royal Gardens Kew Jany 12/82 Dear Darwin Mr Jackson has been here this morning & submitted his plan of organization for the new Steudel, which we have approved.1 We must now come on your bounty, & trouble you for a cheque made out to me (or Mr Jackson) or order & crossed “Capital & Counties Bank Limited.”2 The Dyer’s enjoyed their visit to you vastly.3 Ever Yrs | J D Hooker. DAR 104: 175 1

2 3

CD had offered to provide £250 a year for Benjamin Daydon Jackson to produce a new catalogue of all known plants. The previous such work was by Ernst Gottlieb Steudel (Steudel 1841). See Correspondence vol. 29, letters from J. D. Hooker, 17 December 1881 and 22 December 1881. A cheque for £250 to ‘Sir J Hooker Catalogue’ is recorded in CD’s Account books–cash account (Down House MS) on 13 January 1882. William Turner Thiselton-Dyer and his wife, Harriet Anne Thiselton-Dyer, stayed at Down from 7 to 9 January 1882 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

To T. H. Huxley   12 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 12th 1882 My dear Huxley, Very many thanks for Science & Culture, & I am sure that I shall read most of the Essays with much interest. With respect to Automatism, I wish that you could review yourself in the old, & of course forgotten, trenchant style, & then you would have answer yourself with equal inciseness; & thus by Jove you might go on ad infinitum to the joy & instruction of the world.1 Ever yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

27

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Archives (Huxley 5: 370) 1

Science and culture and other essays (T. H. Huxley 1881) contained the address ‘On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history’ (T. H. Huxley 1874). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Library– Down.

From F. B. Sanborn   12 January 1882 American Social Science Association, | Boston,1 January 12, 1882. Charles Darwin, Esq. | Beckenham, (Orpington) | Kent. England. Dear Sir: I have the honor to send you some recent publications of this Association, and to ask that you will give us the pleasure of enrolling you among our Corresponding Members.2 You were elected at the General Meeting held last year in Saratoga, but I have delayed writing you until I could send you in print the transactions of the Department of Education, at which your letter to Mrs. Talbot. was read.3 We have now printed not only your letter, but the interesting paper contributed by you to Mind, in 1877, and some other papers, a portion of which will be new to you.4 Mrs. Talbot is pursuing her enquiries into Infant Developement with zeal and success, and they have awakened much interest in America, which your careful observations will do much to guide in the right channel.5 Mr Alcott, now 82 years old, is considering whether he shall not edit and publish his observations on his daughters, from 1831, to 1843.6 Yours very truly, | F. B. Sanborn | General Secretary of the American Social Science Association. DAR 177: 29 1 2 3

4

5 6

h

d i

The letter is written on American Social Science Association notepaper, which lists the association’s officers and committee members. CD was proposed as an honorary member of the American Social Science Association at the general meeting on 6 September 1881 (see Journal of Social Science 14 (1881): 34). The enclosures have not been found; CD evidently sent them to William Erasmus Darwin (see letter to W. E. Darwin, 9 February 1882). CD had replied to a letter from Emily Talbot about the study of infant development (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to Emily Talbot, 19 July 1881). CD’s letter was read at the general meeting as part of the report of the secretary of the education department (see Journal of Social Science 15 (1881): 6–8). CD’s paper, ‘Biographical sketch of an infant’, was reprinted in Journal of Social Science 15 (1881): 33–40, together with other papers, including Talbot’s translation of extracts from William Preyer’s Die Seele des Kindes (The mind of the child; Preyer 1882; Journal of Social Science 15 (1881): 44–8). For her studies of infant development, see Talbot ed. 1882. Bronson Alcott never published his observations on children; however, extracts from his diary were printed in Journal of Social Science 15 (1881): 8–10. His four daughters were Anna Bronson Alcott, Louisa May Alcott, Elizabeth Sewall Alcott, and May Alcott.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

28

From Leslie Stephen   12 January 1882

13 Hyde Park Gate South Thursday | 12.1.82

My dear Mr Darwin, I am very glad to hear from you if only to know that you have forgiven our noisy invasion on Sunday.1 I am afraid that the noise prevented me from explaining myself quite clearly. The trustees of the Aberdeen lectureship have not (I believe) put out any public notice. They are making enquiries privately; and one of them (Sir. John Clark) spoke to me.2 He mentioned Graham3 as a man worth considering amongst others: but Graham is not, nor is any one else, a Candidate in the ordinary sense.— I do not know what the trustees mean to do—whether to advertize or simply to take the man whom they think best after a private enquiry. I wrote to Clark as soon as I got home; and told him of your high opinion of Graham.4 & I hope to see him (ie. Clark) in a day or two and to talk a little more about it. He sent me a reply, however, from which I infer that they (the trustees) are still very undecided; that they have some hopes of getting some popular name— such as Max Müller5—to start the thing & that meanwhile they have been going over a good many names scientific as well as philosophical. I dont know whether I explained that the lectureship is for 3 years & that Clark told me it would be worth about £600— I think, £600 in all not yearly. I will let you know if I hear anything more about it. The tramps had a most agreeable expedition on Sunday & shall, I hope, be grateful to me; though I should be sorry to earn their gratitude by giving you too much trouble. I apologise also to Mrs Darwin. I am afraid that we must have marked her carpets with rather a large solution from the superficial strata of the district. Believe me to be | Yours very truly | L. Stephen DAR 177: 256 1

2

3 4 5

Stephen had visited Down with a walking group known as the Sunday Tramps on 8 January (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). For more on the group, see ODNB s.v. ‘Sunday Tramps’ and Correspondence vol. 29, letter to Francis Darwin, 16 and 17 May 1881 and n. 10. The Aberdeen lectureship was for three years; the subject area was history, archaeology, or physical or natural science, and the lectures had to support a theistic point of view. John Forbes Clark was one of the trustees. For details of the lectureship, see Educational Times, 1 October 1881, p. 263. William Graham. CD had praised Graham’s book The creed of science (Graham 1881; see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to William Graham, 3 July 1881). Friedrich Max Müller. The lectureship was awarded to George Gabriel Stokes (ODNB).

From T. H. Farrer   13 January 1882 Abinger Hall, | Dorking. | (Gomshall S.E.R. | Station & Telegraph.) 13 Jan/82 My dear Mr Darwin I hardly think it is worth while to send the inclosed to Caird—but will mention it to him next week.1

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

29

As regards the potatoes sent to me—those which were for eating we found very poor. Those which were for seed have produced abundantly but we have not tried them yet. They have not resisted disease better than other kinds which Payne has grown2 Sincerely yrs | T H Farrer It was a pleasure to see Ida looking so bright & well but Horace wants a holiday   I could not see more beauty in the baby than in others, nor any likeness3 DAR 164: 105 1

2 3

CD had enclosed a letter from James Torbitt with his letter to T. H. Farrer, 10 January 1882; it has not been found. James Caird had worked with CD and Farrer to obtain financial assistance for Torbitt’s potato experiments. Torbitt had sent potatoes to Farrer and Caird in March 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from James Torbitt, 10 March 1881); Farrer’s gardener was George Payne. Horace and Ida Darwin’s first child, Erasmus Darwin (1881–1915), was born on 7 December 1881.

From William Trelease   14 January 1882

912 Wallace St., Cambridge. Mass., Jan. 14, 1882.

Dear Sir: I take the liberty of sending you a short article on Oxalis violacea, which may interest you.1 Since it was published I have received a note from Prof. J. E. Todd2 of Beloit, Wis. (perhaps 100 miles from Madison), stating that in an examination of 25–30 plants in that region, last spring, he found but the two forms described. Perhaps one of the most convincing facts is that in table III the pollen grains from the two sets of stamens differ in average diameter less than 1.5 μ, the corresponding difference in table IV being but 1.3 μ; while the grains from the long stamens of III and the short stamens of IV (which should correspond, approximately, in a trimorphic species) differ by about 5.45 μ, In case the species really is trimorphic, the long stamens of the long-styled flower, and the short stamens of the short-styled flower—have become displaced considerably, so that the mid-styled form (if ever found) should have an intermediate length of styles, not far from 3.4  mm.3 As it is, the two forms are so constructed that either length of pistils is fertilized by pollen from two sets of stamens one of which is slightly longer the other slightly shorter than itself. This suggests to me that the dimorphism has been derived from a previous trimorphic state, by compensating modifications of the long stamens of the long-styled form, and the short stamens of the short-styled form, and their pollen—, after the mid-styled form had for some reason become extinct. When studying the flowers I was struck by the differently-placed nectar found in the two forms.4 As yet I am not fully convinced whether the nectar is secreted by the petals or stamens; both organs are said to be nectariferous in Oxalis, by different writers, and I was unable to satisfy myself as to the species in question. Very respectully, | Wm. Trelease. DAR 178: 180

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

30 1

2 3 4

Trelease sent his paper ‘The heterogony of Oxalis violacea’ (Trelease 1882). Heterogony denoted the condition of flowers in which both male and female organs varied in length; CD used the term heterostyled (see Forms of flowers). Oxalis violacea is violet wood-sorrel. James Edward Todd. Trelease mentioned several cases reported by CD in Forms of flowers, pp. 180–4, of trimorphic species, only two forms of which had been found in certain districts (Trelease 1882, pp. 18–19). See Trelease 1882, p. 19.

From J. F. Simpson   15 January 1882 59 Norfolk Terrace | Bayswater, London January 15. 1882 Dear Sir In venturing to send the enclosed, pray do not return it or reply in any way. On second thoughts, I thought a “rejoinder” was required.1 There is a touching kindness of tone in your letter2 which I shall not impair by troubling you I hope unnecessarily— Believe me, Sir, | yours faithfully, &c | J. F. Simpson C. Darwin Esq F.R.S. P.S. I notice in new no. of Mind (p 97–100) some interesting reffs to your hypothesis on Music but have no idea of the original reference itself.3 A few ideas on what constitutes the reality & the charm of music, & how it comes about I put in Essay form recently, & which seems only narrowly to have escaped a chance of appearing in one of the first Quarterlies. I still hope my chance is not lost, as the Editor asked me to write him again. Another high opinion has been gratifying on it (in MS) as a philsp.l Enquiry. I am not disposed to seek a second channel for it, so far, or as yet, but if it were likely—such as it is, worth or no worth—to be of service, or if any of your sons were engaged in any such line of study, my humble MS. is at command.4 Mr Cyples’ definitions on music seem to me to be as ample as they are true; indeed his work, generally, gives one very great satisfaction in perusal.5 DAR 177: 171 1 2 3

4

h

d i

0 0

The enclosure has not been found; it was probably an issue of the Paddington, Kensington and Bayswater Chronicle containing a letter by Simpson (see letter from J. F. Simpson, 7 January 1882 and n. 7). CD’s letter has not been found. CD’s views on the origin of music from primitive courtship were discussed in an article by Edmund Gurney in the January 1882 issue of Mind. Gurney argued that CD’s ‘theory of the primeval use of Music under conditions of sexual excitement’ helped explain the ‘discriminating and autocratic character of the musical faculty’ in humans, namely, why ‘certain progressions of sound’ were experienced as pleasurable, and why the emotions aroused by music were so powerful and difficult to analyse, consisting in a ‘gradual fusion and transfiguration of desires of primitive loves’ (Gurney 1882b, pp. 97–8). For CD’s theory, see Descent 2d ed., pp. 566–73; see also Correspondence vol. 24, letter to Edmund Gurney, 8 July 1876. No article by Simpson on music has been identified.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882 5

31

In An inquiry into the process of human experience, William Cyples explained the ‘marvellous effects’ of music as ‘its random but multitudinous summonses of the efferent-activity, which at its vague challenges stirs unceasingly in faintly tumultuous irrelevancy. … Music arouses aimlessly, but splendidly, the sheer, as yet unfulfilled, potentiality within us’ (Cyples 1880, pp. 743).

From W. E. Darwin   16 January [1882]1 Basset, | Southampton. Jan 16 Dear Father, When at Col Atherley’s at Shanklin he produced a pinch of snuff of a super-fine quality called the Somerset Mixture   As you like a variety I have told Fribourg & Treyer to send you a tin.2 I am glad to find George is really going to Jamaica.3 Please thank Mother for her card; Miss D. was not considered experienced enough, & was not very strong in accounts4 Your affect son | W.ED Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 106) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the reference to George’s trip to Jamaica (see n. 3, below). Francis Henry Atherley resided at Landguard Manor, Shanklin, Isle of Wight. Fribourg & Treyer was a tobacconist at 34 Haymarket, St James, London (Evans [1921]). George Howard Darwin left for Jamaica at the beginning of February, arriving on the 15th ( letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, [20 February 1882] (DAR 210.3: 40)). The card from Emma Darwin has not been found; Miss D. has not been identified.

From A. B. Mitford   17 January 1882 12, Whitehall Place. S.W. 17th. January 1882. Sir, Sir Joseph Hooker having reported to this office that you have offered to provide funds for the preparation in the Royal Gardens, Kew, of a new edition of Steudel’s Nomenclator, I am directed by the First Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Works, &c, to convey to you the thanks of this Department for your liberality and public spirit in the matter, and to express to you his appreciation of the compliment paid to the Kew Establishment in—entrusting it with the supervision of the work.1 I am, | Sir. | Your obedient Servant | A. B. Mitford. | Secretary. Charles Darwin Esqre. F.R.S. c/o Sir Joseph Hooker K.C.S.I | Royal Gardens | Kew. LS DAR 171: 180

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

32 1

This letter was enclosed with the letter from J. D. Hooker, 19 January 1882. CD had arranged with Joseph Dalton Hooker to pay £250 a year for a new catalogue of all known plants; the previous such work was by Ernst Gottlieb Steudel (Steudel 1841; see letter from J. D. Hooker, 12 January 1882 and n. 1). The first commissioner of works was George John Shaw-Lefevre.

From William Ogle   17 January 1882 Jan. 17. 1882 Dear Mr. Darwin, I have given myself the pleasure of sending you a copy of a translation of the “De Partibus” of Aristotle;1 and I feel some self-importance in thus being a kind of formal introducer of the father of Naturalists to his great modern successor. Could the meeting occur in the actual flesh, what a curious one it would be! I can fancy the old teleologist looking sideways and with no little suspicion at his successor, and much astounded to find that, while there was actually no copy of his own works in the house and while his views were looked on as mere matters of antiquarian curiosity, Democritus whom he thought to have effectually and everlastingly squashed, had come to life again in the man he saw before him!2 I have, however, such faith in Aristotle as a real honest hunter after truth, that I verily believe, that, when he had heard all you have to say on your side, he would have given in like a true man, and have burnt all his writings; and this pray do, if it so please you, with the one volume of them which I send you. Believe me | Yours truly | W. Ogle. DAR 173: 10 1 2

Ogle sent his translation from the Greek of Aristotle’s On the parts of animals; it contained an introduction and notes by Ogle (Ogle trans. 1882). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Library–Down. In his introduction, Ogle presented the contrasting views of Democritus and Aristotle on the nature and causes of animal form (see Ogle trans. 1882, pp. i–v). Democritus and CD were often linked, particularly by opponents, as supporters of evolutionary materialism.

To William Ogle   17 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan. 17th 1882 My dear Ogle I am very much obliged to you for your gift of your Aristotle. By turning over the pages I suspect that your Introduction will interest me more than the text, notwithstanding that he was such a wonderful old fellow.—1 Pray believe me | Yours sincerely & obliged | Charles Darwin DAR 261.5: 18 (EH 88205916) 1

h

d i

0 0

See letter from William Ogle, 17 January 1882. Ogle sent his translation of Aristotle’s On the parts of animals (Ogle trans. 1882).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

33

From V. O. Kovalevsky   18 January [1882]1 Paris, 11 Rue de la Tour | des Dames 18 January Dear Sir! I have received Your very kind letter yesterday, and I and my wife are quite ashamed of being spoken in such kind terms by the greatest of living naturalists.—2 The trifle I send You is a copy from a Russian genre-picture by Swertchkoff and is simply gilt and oxydised silver, it was made by Sasikoff, who is a sort of Russian Elkington3 We had the intention of going to Cannes for three weeks for a holiday “basking in the sun” as my brother with all his children is staying this winter in Villafranca, but unhappily a telegram from Moscow stopped us, and we remain a certain time in Paris, till all is clear ahead and we may have our minds at rest.—4 I began here, at the Institut, a party move to get some Darwinians in, and hope to succeed,—5 one of these days I will make a public communication on some very strange and new fossil mammal from the Eocene, but this fossil beast is only a pretense to admister some good blows to the mammals of the Instituts,—as no Frenchman dares to do it, so some of my friends have put me on this business.6 I hope to return once more to London and see the Electrical Exibition,7 in this case, if convenient, I will call upon You at Down. I have a great service to beg of You,— is it not possible to have, for a few day the paper of Your son, George about the Moon,8 I could not get it in London as it is out of print,— if Your son has some spare copies I will feel most obliged if he may spare one for me. My wife presents You her best compliments, and believe me | Dear Sir | Your most truly | W. Kowalevsky DAR 169: 100 CD annotations 2.1 copy] underl pencil 2.1 Russian … Swertchkoff] underl pencil End of letter: ‘A New Year gift 1882 from the palæontologist W. Kowalevsky’ pencil 1 2 3

4

5

h

d i

The year is established by reference to the electrical exhibition (see n. 7, below). CD’s letter has not been found. He had last met Kovalevsky and his wife, Sofia Vasilyevna Kovalevskaya, in London in December 1880 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to V. O. Kovalevsky, 1 and 6 January 1881). See Correspondence vol. 29, letter from V. O. Kovalevsky, 30 December 1881. Nikolai Yegorovich Sverchkov was best known for his paintings of horses and horse and carriage scenes. Sazikov was a Russian jewellery firm. George Richards Elkington was a leading manufacturer of silver plate. Kovalevsky’s brother was Alexander Onufrievich Kovalevsky. Alexander’s wife was Tatiana Kirillovna Semenova, whom he married in 1867, and their children were Vera, Vladimir, and Lidia. V. O. Kovalevsky was an associate professor at Moscow University. Villefranche-sur-Mer is on the French Riviera near Nice; a research laboratory was established there in 1882 (see letter from Jules Barrois, 6 March [1882] and n. 3). CD’s views remained highly controversial among French scientists, especially within the Institut de France; although he had been elected a corresponding member of the botanical section in 1878, he had failed to be elected to the zoological section six times (see Corsi and Weindling 1985 and Stebbins 1988).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

34 6

7 8

Kovalevsky published eight monographs on the palaeontology of ungulates showing their adaptation to their environment (see Vucinich 1988, pp. 62–8). He had previously commented on the opposition to Darwinism in France in his letter of 19 August [1871] (Correspondence vol. 19). The International Electric Exhibition opened on 25 February 1882 at the Crystal Palace in London (The Times, 24 February 1881, p. 8). The paper was probably G. H. Darwin 1879b; Sofia Kovalevskaya was interested in George Howard Darwin’s work on the rotation of elastic bodies (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter to G. H. Darwin, 9 December [1880] and n. 3).

From J. D. Hooker   19 January 1882 Royal Gardens Kew Jany 19/82 Private Dear Darwin The enclosed requires no answer. The history of it is this— I, as a matter of course, informed the Board of your munificent offer, showing what a grand aid it would be to our own work, as well as to Science in general, & how honorable to Kew.1 The 1st. Commr2—(one of your d—d Liberals)—wrote a characteristically illiberal & ill-bred minute on it; addressed to me, in effect warning me against your putting the Board to any expense!— & this though I expressly stated, that “your offer involved the Board in no expense or other responsibility whatever”.— I flared up at this, & told the Secretary,3 who I saw on the subject) that the F. C. rather than send me such a minute, should have written a letter of thanks to you— I suppose that this shamed him, & he has taken me at my word, though I did not seriously contemplate such action. I have no friend to Kew in Shaw Lefevre— he has not answered either my Memorandum begging for an “enquiry” into the want of aid & appliances at Kew, or the private letter in which, a month afterwards, I begged him to consider it.—& I am now obliged to take steps to get it sent on to the Treasury. Ever affy yrs | J D Hooker. DAR 104: 176–7 1 2 3

The enclosure was the letter from A. B. Mitford, 17 January 1882. CD had agreed to pay £250 a year for a new catalogue of all known plants (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 12 January 1882 and n. 1). The Board of Works was the Government body that supervised the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; the first commissioner of works was George John Shaw-Lefevre. Algernon Bertram Mitford was secretary to the Board of Works (see letter from A. B. Mitford, 17 January 1882).

From Melchior Neumayr1   19 January 1882

Wien 19.1.82

Geehrtester Herr! Vor wenigen Tagen erhielt ich durch einen Diener der Reichsanstalt Ihr überaus interessantes Buch über die Bildung der Ackerkrume durch die Regenwürmer.2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

35

Erlauben Sie mir Ihnen meinen besten Dank für diese gütige Zusendung auszusprechen. Ich habe mich sofort an das Studium des Buches gemacht und werde eine Besprechung derselben an das neue Jahrbuch für Geologie schicken.3 Wie ich aus dem Stempel der Sendung ersehen habe, muss das Buch schon seit einigen Monaten hier sein, ohne dass mir dasselbe zugestellet wurde; schon einigemale ist mir das mit Sachen geschehen, welche mir unter der Adresse der geologischen Reichsanstalt zugeschickt worden sind,4 und ich bin daher so frei, Ihnen diejenige Adresse mitzutheilen, durch welche mich Alles rasch erreicht: Prof. M. Neumayr Vienna Universität. Ich bitte Sie zu entschuldigen dass ich erst jetzt schreibe, allein es ist dieses ohne meine Schuld, da ich das Buch erst jetzt erhalten habe. Mit dem aufrichtigsten Danke und mit dem Ausdrucke ausgezeichnetster Hochachtung | Ihr | ganz ergebener | M. Neumayr DAR 172: 18 1 2 3 4

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Neumayr’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Earthworms (Correspondence vol. 29, Appendix IV). Neumayr’s review appeared in Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaeontologie (1882) 2: 45–7. CD had sent the book to the Geologische Reichsanstalt (Geological Institute); however, Neumayr was director of the Institut für Paläontologie at the University of Vienna (OBL).

From W. C. Brooks   20 January [1882]1 Closebrooks | Antibes | Alpes-Maritimes 20th. January Dear Sir, Before leaving home, we read with the greatest interest your book on worms. I find here numbers of the Tower like worm casts which you describe as being found also at Nice.2 Under second cover by 〈34 line〉nd one 〈34 line〉 many here.— 〈34 line〉 you to 1 〈3 line〉 that the Revd. J. Michie, of the Manse, Bridge of Dinnât, Aboyne, Aberdeenshire walking in his garden saw the gardener suddenly plunge his spade into the earth and throw up a mole. When he asked ho〈34 line〉 m〈34 line〉 I 〈34 line〉 saw a worm 〈    〉 suddenly out of the ground3 With the highest regards | Believe me | Yours truly | W Cunliffe Brooks | of 5 Grosvenor Square | London DAR 160: 323 1 2

h

d i

The year is established by the reference to Earthworms, which was published in October 1881 (Freeman 1977). CD discussed the tower-like worm-castings found near Nice, France, in Earthworms, pp. 106–8, 117.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

36 3

John Grant Michie. CD observed in Earthworms, p. 28, that worms emerged from their burrows when the soil was violently disturbed; he added that many believed worms fled their burrows when pursued by moles.

To J. D. Hooker   20 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan. 20th 1882 My dear Hooker. It is a funny affair, but I fear this Catalogue will give you a deal of bother.—1 You are the man to bring high officials down on their marrow-bones.2 I suppose such men think that we are fools to spend time & money about weeds. Ever yours affectionately | Ch. Darwin P.S. | I sent £250 because you forgot to specify any sum, & I thought that a largish one might save you trouble.— DAR 95: 545 1 2

CD had agreed to pay £250 a year for a new catalogue of all known plants (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 12 January 1882 and n. 1). See letter from J. D. Hooker, 19 January 1882.

From J. D. Kendall   20 January 1882 Roper Street, Whitehaven. | J. D. Kendall | Civil Engineer 20th Jan 1882 s Cha Darwin Esq. Sir./ A few years ago an idea occurred to me which I have several times since submitted to the Criticism of Anatomists but hitherto without being able to elicit from them anything positive either for or against the idea. I therefore take the liberty of describing it to you as it seems to me to have an important bearing on the Question of the “Descent of Man” and so far as I know it is quite new. When a man is walking at a moderate speed with his arms freely swinging by his side his right arm moves forward with his left leg and his left arm simultaneously with his right leg. This alternate movement is gone through also by the limbs of Quadrupeds. In them however it is essential but in man it is not and does not in any way assist in his locomotion but is frequently a hindrance unless prevented. Witness the position of the Arms in men who are running quickly, they are then drawn up and held closely to the side. Men without arms or with only one arm can moreover walk quite easily so that it seems to me that the movement of the upper limbs alternately with the lower in the way just mentioned is due to a rudimentary structure once more fully developed when the upper limbs like the lower were used for the purposes of progression as a child even now uses them before it has learned to walk—1

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

37

Such is the idea. Possibly you may see in it what I only think I see. Yours truly | J. D. Kendall DAR 169: 5 1

CD discussed rudimentary organs, including remnants of muscles regularly present in lower animals but greatly reduced in humans, in Descent 1: 17–33; see also 1: 143–4 on the modification of hands and arms as the progenitors of human became more erect.

To G. J. Romanes   20 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan. 20th 1882. My dear Romanes I fully see the propriety of Mr Croom Robertsons proposal, & agree to all that you propose.—1 Nevertheless I do not myself see the advantage of waiting till the other half-payment is made, & I shd. have thought it better to make the present or testimonial at once.2 I do not, however, wish for one moment to oppose my judgment on such a point against that of Mr Robertson’s.— Ever yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.612) 1

2

George Croom Robertson had worked with Romanes to raise money by subscription to support Grant Allen and his family during a period of illness in 1879 (see P. Morton 2005, pp. 81–2). See also letter from G. C. Robertson to G. J. Romanes, 21 January 1882. CD and Romanes had agreed to give Allen a microscope (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 6 January 1882 and n. 3). Allen was repaying the money that had been raised by subscription (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to G. J. Romanes, 8 December 1881 and n. 1).

To G. H. Darwin   21 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Jan 21 1882 My dear George, As soon as you have 5 minutes to spare, read what follows. Kowalevsky writes “I have a great service to beg of you, is it not possible to have for a few days the paper of your son George about the moon, I could not get it in London as it is out of print, if your son has some spare copies I will feel most obliged if he may spare one for me”.1 If you can do so, I also should be particularly obliged. He is now Prof of Geology at Moskow and no doubt his wife will be able to explain your paper to him.2 His address is 11 Rue de la Tour des Dames Paris

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

38

where he will remain for some days. If you cannot spare a copy let me have the reference to send him. I hope you are not utterly dead with your work. | Yours affectly | Ch. Darwin LS DAR 210.1: 113 1 2

Vladimir Onufrievich Kovalevsky had requested the paper in his letter to CD of 18 January [1882]. The paper was probably G. H. Darwin 1879b. Sofia Vasilyevna Kovalevskaya was interested in George’s work on the rotation of a viscous or elastic body (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter to G. H. Darwin, 9 December [1880] and n. 3).

To J. W. Ellis   21 January 1882 January 21, 1882. To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor of the City of London. My Lord: We, the undersigned, consider that there should be a public expression of opinion respecting the persecution which the Jews of Russia have recently and for some time past suffered. We therefore ask your lordship to be so good as to call, at your earliest convenience, a public meeting for that purpose at the Mansion House, and that you will be good enough to take the chair on the occasion.1 We are your lordship’s faithful servants— A. C. Cantuar. Shaftesbury. J. London. C. J. Gloucester and Bristol. J. Manchester. F. Leveson Gower. Arthur Otway. Jas. Martineau. Samuel Morley. M. Biddulph. B. Jowett. H. D. M. Spence. Charles Magniac. W. J. R. Cotton. James Clarke Lawrence.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

Henry Edward, Cardinal Manning. Scarsdale. Mount-Temple. J. F. Oxon. Edmond Fitzmaurice. Elcho. Donald Currie. Henry Richard. W. St. John Broderick. J. J. Stewart Perowne. F. W. Farrar. W. Page Roberts. J. G. Hubbard. John Lubbock. W. Lawrence. Erasmus Wilson.

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882 John Tyndall. Matthew Arnold. F. A. Inderwick.

39

Charles Darwin. A. McArthur. C. McLaren.2

Observer, 22 January 1882, p. 5 1

2

The Observer printed with the memorial the following response from Ellis: ‘In accordance with the influentially signed memorial, which I append, I have convened a public meeting to be held in the Egyptian Hall of the Mansion House on Wednesday, the 1st February, at three o’clock.’ For more on the Mansion House meeting and the British reaction to the anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia, see Monaco 2013, pp. 146–51. In addition to CD, the signatories were Archibald Campbell Tait, archbishop of Canterbury, Henry Edward Manning, cardinal-archbishop of Westminster, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, seventh earl of Shaftesbury, John Jackson, bishop of London, Alfred Nathaniel Holden Curzon, fourth Baron Scarsdale, Charles John Ellicott, bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, William Francis CowperTemple, Baron Mount-Temple, John Fielder Mackarness, bishop of Oxford, James Fraser, bishop of Manchester, Edmond Fitzmaurice, Frederick Leveson-Gower, Francis Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas, Lord Elcho, Arthur Otway, Donald Currie, James Martineau, Henry Richard, Samuel Morley, William St John Brodrick, Michael Biddulph, John James Stewart Perowne, Benjamin Jowett, Frederic William Farrar, Henry Donald Maurice Spence, William Page Roberts, Charles Magniac, John Gellibrand Hubbard, William James Richmond Cotton, John Lubbock, James Clarke Lawrence, William Lawrence, Erasmus Wilson, John Tyndall, Matthew Arnold, Alexander McArthur, Frederick Andrew Inderwick, and Charles Benjamin Bright McLaren.

To John Murray   21 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 21. 1882— r My dear M Murray I am much obliged for the Quarterly. I have read the few first pages of the article on my worm-book, which are highly complimentary, indeed more than complimentary. If the Reviewer is a young man & a worker in any branch of Biology, he will assuredly sooner or later write differently about evolution.1 Literally I cannot name a single youngish worker who is not as deeply convinced of the truth of Evolution as I am, though there are many who do not believe in natural selection having done much,—but this is a relatively unimportant point. Your reviewer is in the position of the men who stuck up so long & so stoutly that the sun went round the earth. There are several other articles which I shall be glad to read, especially that on Lyell.— I liked the book so much that I was quite sorry when I finished it. Nevertheless in my opinion, it could have been greatly improved if about 100 pages had been struck out of each volume.2 Pray believe me | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42153 ff. 51–52)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

40 1

2

The article on Earthworms appeared in the Quarterly Review for January 1882, pp. 179–202; the author was Henry Wace (Wellesley index). He remarked: ‘we still remain convinced of the prematureness … of what is commonly … styled the Darwinian theory of Evolution. But this difference of opinion … is no obstacle to our entertaining the highest admiration for those researches themselves’ (Quarterly Review, January 1882, p. 179). Charles Lyell’s sister-in-law Katharine Murray Lyell had published a selection of his letters in two volumes in November 1881 (K. M. Lyell ed. 1881). The book was reviewed in the Quarterly Review for January 1882, pp. 96–131.

From G. C. Robertson to G. J. Romanes   21 January 1882 31, Kensington Park Gardens. | W. 21.1.82 Dear Romanes, I return Mr. Darwin’s letter.1 I will set about speaking to the subscribers to the fund as I have opportunity, but from what I know of Allen I am still inclined to think that he would appreciate the acknowledgment more if it came to him after his payment of the second instalment.2 He is extremely sensitive on the matter, and if he should be unable to complete the payment as soon as some time ago he hoped, he would feel it more because of what he would consider the new obligation. When his original “debt” (as he thinks it) is wiped off, he will be in the mood to regard the new gift or testimonial in the light that we should like.3 At all events, it might be well to delay till after I (or you) have seen him. He is coming up to lecture at the Lond. Institution on the 6th. & will stay here for a day or two then.4 The subscribers number 15, without Trübner.5 Would it not be the best plan to agree to ask for an equal contribution from each, since it will only be very small even for a rather superior microscope? I suppose a very good one might be got for about £20, but you will know. Yours ever | G Croom Robertson DAR 176: 187 1 2

3

4

h

d i

0 0

See letter to G. J. Romanes, 20 January 1882 and n. 1. Grant Allen was repaying money that had been raised by subscribers to support him and his family in 1879 during a period of illness (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to G. J. Romanes, 8 December 1881 and n. 1). CD and Romanes had agreed to give Allen a microscope (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to G. J. Romanes, 8 December 1881). Robertson evidently proposed that the microscope be a gift from the original subscribers and that the gift be postponed (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 20 January 1882). Romanes forwarded Robertson’s letter to CD, adding at the top of the letter: ‘Do not trouble to answer or return if you agree with contents—G. J. R.’ Allen’s lecture ‘An English weed’ was given at the London Institution on 6 February 1882 (Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 3 February 1882, p. 10). The London Institution was founded in 1806 to promote science, literature, and the arts; it had a library, reading rooms, and a large lecture theatre. Francis Darwin had given a botanical lecture there in 1878 (see Correspondence vol. 26, letter to Francis Darwin, [21 November 1878], n. 6).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882 5

41

Nicholas Trübner’s firm had published Allen’s recent book The colour-sense (Allen 1879).

From James Sinclair   21 January 1882 Farmers Gazette | Dublin | 23 Bachelors Walk, | Dublin. January 21, 1882. Dear Sir, I hope you will pardon the liberty I take in addressing you. You may perhaps remember that in the month of May last year I sent you a copy of a little pamphlet of mine on Polled Cattle receipt of which you were pleased to acknowledge with an intimation that you would read it on your return from the country for which you were then about to start.1 Since that time I have removed from Scotland to Ireland. In conjunction with Mr. Macdonald, Editor of the “Irish Farmers Gazette,” I purpose writing a detailed history of the Polled Aberdeen or Angus breed of cattle.2 We have considerable difficulty in satisfactorily accounting for the origination of the peculiarity of wanting horns which characterises the breed & can find no better explanation of it than that given by you in Animals & Plants under Domestication—viz—“spontaneous variation”.3 I have thought however that in your wide & minute investigations into the subject of natural history you have have come across more examples of the occurrence of the peculiarity than we are aware of and I know that in your desire to assist scientific truth you will not consider it too great a presumption if I humbly prefer the request for aid in our attempted solution of the difficulty. I would therefore esteem it a very great favour if you would kindly write a few lines informing me of the instances you have met of live stock being hornless & your opinion as to the cause of the peculiarity. I need not say that we would be honoured by having your permission to acknowledge in our forthcoming volume the gratitude of ourselves & of the breeders of this variety of cattle for your aid & for giving us the benefit of your unique experience. I have again to apologise for troubling you and my only excuse is the consideration to which I have already referred. Yours with much respect | James Sinclair. Dr. Charles Darwin F.R.S. &c. DAR 177: 174 1

2 3

h

d i

The article was published anonymously as ‘Origin and early progress of our breeds of polled cattle’, in the Banffshire Journal, 12 April 1881, p. 7; 3 May 1881, p. 7; 17 May 1881, p. 7; 7 June 1881, p. 7. An offprint is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. CD’s reply to Sinclair has not been found. James Macdonald co-authored the History of polled Aberdeen or Angus cattle (Macdonald and Sinclair 1882). CD discussed domestic breeds of cattle in Variation 1: 79–93; he briefly mentioned a hornless breed from Paraguay (1: 88–9), and remarked: ‘It is probable that some breeds, such as the semi-monstrous niata cattle, and some peculiarities, such as being hornless, &c., have appeared suddenly from what we may call a spontaneous variation’ (1: 92).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

42

From H. Y. Thompson   21 January 1882 26A. Bryanston Square. W. | London Jan 21 1882 Sir— Mr. Moorhouse of Manchester1 told me the other day that he had frequently seen lapwings beat the ground with their tails in order as he believed to get worms to rise to the surface of the ground: & having got him to put his experience in writing I shewed his letter this evening to Mr. Farrer,2 who said it might be as well to send it on to you for what it might be worth. Pray do not be at the trouble of acknowledging it or of returning the letter. Mr. Moorhouse had not seen your book, but he had evidently in early life been a close observer of the habits of worms.3 I am faithfully yours | H. Y Thompson Charles Darwin Esq etc etc DAR 178: 110 1 2 3

Probably Christopher Moorhouse, a solicitor to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, of which Thompson was director. The letter from Moorhouse has not been found. Thomas Henry Farrer had contributed many observations to CD’s Earthworms. CD had mentioned that worms often left their burrows when the ground was beaten; he added the new information to Earthworms (1882), p. 28: ‘Bishop Stanley states (as I hear from Mr. Moorhouse) a young peewit kept in confinement used to stand on one leg and beat the turf with the other leg until worms crawled out of their burrows.’ The northern lapwing or peewit is Vanellus vanellus. Bishop Stanley was Edward Stanley; he described a lapwing beating the turf with its leg to draw out worms in Stanley 1854, p. 337.

From G. H. Darwin   [22 January 1882]1 Trin. Coll. Sunday night My dear Father, I have done nothing about the books from Queen Ann St. as I can’t get Clark & Liveing to settle where these are to go to.2 I daresay they will do so sometime & then the residue can be sold for what they will fetch. I am beginning to see the end of my work & have only 4 or 5 lbs weight left. I have had 40 lbs of M.S. altogether,—a greater weight than any “additional exr.” ever had before. Glaisher, like the good fellow that he is, has relieved of nearly the whole of one paper, otherwise I shd. have been in despair & I am leaving him as custodian of my interests in the matter of the Prof.ship but I think it probable that nothing may happen.3 I have just heard this morning that another paper of mine (read last June) is ordered to be printed in the Phil. Trans. Stokes wants to know if I can correct

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

43

their proofs in Jamaica—& I suppose I can if I have the M.S. by me.4 My proofs always come at wrong times— one set I corrected in Paris—another on Dartmoor & Plymouth. It is rather difficult in case one shd. want to refer to a book. Frank Balfour has been at Capri nursing a man sick of typhoid & nothing has been heard of him for some time.5 Foster is not at all easy about him— he shd. be in Sicily but no answers come to letters addressed there. Miss Balfour wrote to me to inquire & I cd. only answer what I heard from Foster. I suggested her telegraphing to Gerald who is I believe at Florence6   I think it is more probable that he has been delayed & not got to Messina rather than anything wrong. I shall go to London on Friday morning & in all probability come to Down on Sat. if I can get my business done—then Sthton7 on Wedn. & sail Thursday noon— if my cold will let me. Mary’s enthusiasm for the baby is quite comic, but Ida will have told you.8 Yours affectionately | G H Darwin DAR 210.2: 102 1 2 3

4

5 6 7 8

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from G. H. Darwin, 23 January 1882. In 1882, the Sunday preceding 23 January was 22 January. George was an executor of Erasmus Alvey Darwin’s estate, and was clearing his house at Queen Anne Street in London. The books were for John Willis Clark and George Downing Liveing. George was an examiner for the mathematical tripos in the University of Cambridge (see letter to Anthony Rich, 4 February 1882). James Whitbread Lee Glaisher was a fellow and lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge (ODNB). George intended to apply for the position of Plumian Professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy at Cambridge University, in the event of James Challis’s death (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from G. H. Darwin, 17 November 1881). George’s paper ‘On the stresses caused in the interior of the earth by the weight of continents and mountains’ (G. H. Darwin 1881b) had been read at the Royal Society of London on 16 June 1881. George Gabriel Stokes was secretary of the Royal Society. George left for Jamaica on 2 February 1882 (see letter from W. E. Darwin, 2 February [1882] and n. 3). Francis Maitland Balfour was nursing a Cambridge student, William Hay Caldwell, in Naples (see M. Foster and Sedgwick eds. 1885, 1: 19). Michael Foster, Alice Blanche Balfour, and Gerald William Balfour. Southampton. Ida and Horace Darwin’s first child, Erasmus, was born on 7 December 1881. Mary was probably Mary Dibley, a housemaid to Horace and Ida in 1881, and possibly a nursemaid to Erasmus (letter from Elizabeth Darwin to H. E. Litchfield, 27 August 1882 (DAR 219.8: 39)).

To F. B. Sanborn   22 January 1882 [Down.] [Accepts election as a corresponding member of the American Social Science Association]1 B. Altman (dealer) (3 October 1982) 1

h

d i

The original letter has not been found; the details are taken from the catalogue description.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

44

From G. H. Darwin   [23 January 1882]1 Trin Coll Monday mg. Dear Father It is rather difficult to know wh.  paper Kovalevsky wants to see as there are 5 papers on same subject, but I have sent a copy of the biggest wh. contains most about moon’s motion.2 The others are in Phil Trans for 79, 80, 81 & two short ones besides in Proceedings for those years3 Yours affec | G H Darwin DAR 210.2: 103 1 2

3

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to G. H. Darwin, 21 January 1882. In 1882, the Monday following 21 January was 23 January. See letter to G. H. Darwin, 21 January 1882. Vladimir Onufrievich Kovalevsky had requested George’s paper ‘about the moon’ in his letter to CD of 18 January [1882]. Sofia Vasilyevna Kovalevskaya was interested in George’s work on the rotation of a viscous or elastic body. The longest of George’s papers was G. H. Darwin 1879b, published in 1880. George is referring to the dates of publication of his papers in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. G. H. Darwin 1878b and G. H. Darwin 1878d were both published in 1879; G. H. Darwin 1881a was published in 1881. The shorter papers in the Proceedings were G. H. Darwin 1879a and G. H. Darwin 1880.

From G. H. Darwin   23 January 1882 Trin. Coll. Camb. Jan 23. 82 My dear Father, I enclose a letter from Ball wh.  it might amuse you to see.1 Fancy his placing reliance on Haughton’s wild speculations. I’m sorry he has not referred to my protest & I have told him so.2 I looked over my last paper today & have been enjoying a little idleness this afternoon. We have the drudgery of adding marks before us yet, but that is nothing.3 Yours aff. | G H Darwin I have taken my ticket for Jamaica4 I am sorry to hear that Challis is worse. I hope he may live until I get away. I will go whatever happens.5 My cold shows some signs of moderating at last. DAR 210.2: 104 1 2

3

h

d i

0 0

The letter from Robert Stawell Ball has not been found. George had been highly critical of Samuel Haughton’s views on geological time (see G. H. Darwin 1878a and Correspondence vol. 26, letter from G. H. Darwin, 28 January 1878 and nn. 1 and 2). CD had refereed a paper by Haughton for the Royal Society of London’s Proceedings and described Haughton’s estimation of geological time as ‘extremely wild’ (Correspondence vol. 26, letter to G. G. Stokes, 28 April 1878). George was an additional examiner for the mathematical tripos in the University of Cambridge (see letter from G. H. Darwin, [22 January 1882]).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882 4 5

45

George left for Jamaica on 2 February 1882 (see letter from W. E. Darwin, 2 February [1882] and n. 3). George intended to apply for the position of Plumian Professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy at Cambridge University, in the event of James Challis’s death (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from G. H. Darwin, 17 November 1881).

To Emil Holub   23 January 1882 Down, Beckenham, | Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan 23d 1882— Dear Sir I received a few days ago your very kind card & this morning the handsome present of the 2d. Edit of your fine book of Travels. I thank you sincerely for this gift, & shall be extremely glad to add this work to my Library, though I read it with much interest, shortly after the 1st Edit: appeared.—1 Permit me, as an old man, to tell you how heartily I admired your noble zeal for Science, which led you several times under such difficulties to expose yourself to much hardship & danger for the sake of adding to our knowledge of nature.2 Believe me that you have my true good wishes for your future success & happiness, & I remain, Dear Sir, | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin Národní Muzeum, Prague 1 2

The card has not been found. A copy of the second edition of Seven years in South Africa (Holub 1881b) is in the Darwin Library–Down. The first edition was also published in 1881 (Holub 1881a). Holub described various dangers during his travels, such as evading a lion that attacked the camp at night (Holub 1881a, 1: 27–9).

To G. J. Romanes   23 [January 1882]1 Down. 23d My dear Romanes I am very glad about the microscope.— H. Spencers plan wd. have quite destroyed the graciosity of the little present.—2 I am better, but am no great shakes & weak enough.— Ever yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin I hope that you will be able soon to read the Sugar Cane paper.—3 American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.613) 1 2

3

h

d i

The month and year are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to G. J. Romanes, 6 January 1882. CD and Romanes had agreed to give Grant Allen a microscope, but were deliberating about when to present the gift (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 20 January 1882). No correspondence mentioning Herbert Spencer in connection with the matter has been found. See letter to G. J. Romanes, 6 January 1882 and n. 1.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

46

From James Williams   24 January 1882

Mining Directory Office, | Hayle, Jany. 24th. 1882.

C. Darwin Esqre./ Sir, I hope you will excuse the liberty, I now take, in addressing you, if I could have gained the information I required I would not have presumed to trouble you, The information I require, is, are the three Kingdoms i.e. The Animal, the Vegetable, and the Mineral so nearly merged one in the other so as not to be able to draw the line,1 I have had for answer yes, and no, which is correct, I have made some important discoveries in the mineral kingdom and am desirous of going further I am, | Sir | yours most obediently | Ja.s Williams DAR 201: 42 1

Carl von Linné had followed the conventional division of nature into three kingdoms in his influential Systema naturæ per regna tria naturæ (Linnaeus 1758–9). Ernst Haeckel and others had proposed a new kingdom for unicellular organisms between Animalia and Plantae, the Protista (see Haeckel 1866, 1: 203–6). Some of CD’s work on plants raised questions about the animal–vegetable boundary; there were also ongoing debates about the classification of pre-Silurian forms of life, such as Eozoon canadense (see letter from T. G. Bonney, 5 February 1882, n. 4).

From W. E. Darwin   25 January 1882

Bank, Southampton, Jany 25th 1882

My dear Father, I have just paid the total succession duty for you on the Lincoln Farm & No 6 Q. A. St £66.18.5. Will you please send me a cheque for the amount, as the Lawyers say it should be paid by you & not by the estate.1 Your affect son | W. E. Darwin Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 107) 1

William was an executor of Erasmus Alvey Darwin’s will. CD had inherited the Lincoln property and the house on Queen Anne Street in London (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to W. E. Darwin, 13 September [1881]). The lawyers handling the estate were Salt & Sons of Shrewsbury. A cheque for £66 18s. 5d. to ‘W. E. Darwin (Succession Duty, Invested)’ was recorded in CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS) on 26 January 1882.

To G. J. Romanes   25 [January 1882]1

Down 25th

My dear R. The enclosed received this morning. Possibly they may be worth taking to the Linn. Soc.—2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

47

I quite agree about the Grant Allen affair—3 Yours very sincerely | C. Darwin American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.569) 1 2

3

The month and year are established by the references to the Linnean Society and the Grant Allen affair (see nn. 2 and 3, below). The enclosure has not been found; it probably related to the paper that Romanes planned to present at the Linnean Society on graft hybrids of sugar cane (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 6 January 1882 and nn. 1 and 2). CD and Romanes had agreed to give Grant Allen a microscope, but were considering when to present the gift (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 20 January 1882 and n. 2).

From Edith Evans   27 January [1882]1 7, Clarendon Villas, | Park Town, Oxford. January 27th Dear Sir, I take the liberty of writing to you about a curious kind of cat, of which I heard from a friend, the Revd. James Roy of Montreal, who has since written me all the particulars he can remember; they are as follows:— “It is more than twenty years since I lived where those curious cats were, so that I cannot tell whether any of them exist now or not. Whether they ever had kittens or not, I cannot now say, as my recollection of the facts is somewhat dim. The cats lived in various parts of the valley of the Ottawa, and were all of them cat-shaped in head and fore-quarters, and rabbit-shaped in the hind quarters and tail. They leaped like rabbits, had a strange, hoarse cry, and had the reputation of being capital mousers. With one single exception, they were all of the color of what we call Maltese cats, a bluish-grey or mouse color, with, sometimes, spots of white, generally on the breast. The one exception was of a tortoise-shell hue, having at least three colors, black, white and yellow. I remember that I had an impression that they were a cross between rabbits and cats; but I have now no means of knowing whether my impressions were correct or not.”2 I wonder much whether it is possible for there to be a cross between animals of such opposite habits or whether there can be some other explanation of these curious creatures. If it is not asking too great a favour I should be extremely interested to know your opinion; possibly these rabbit-cats may be familiar to you. I Trusting to the interest of the subject as my apology for the liberty I have taken in addressing you, | I remain, Sir, | Yours truly, | Mrs. J. Gwenogfryn Evans. Charles Darwin, Esq,. DAR 201: 9 1 2

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Edith  Evans, 28 January 1882. The description is similar to nineteenth-century accounts of the Manx cat, which some believed to be a hybrid of a rabbit and cat (see, for example, Train 1845, pp. 20–1).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

48 To Edith Evans   28 January 1882

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Jan. 28th. 1882. Dear Madam, You may lay aside the notion as preposterous, of a hybrid having been raised between a cat and rabbit. The tortoise-like colouring of the one individual almost shows that the animal was a cat & of the tailless breed. It has been stated (whether accurately I know not) that the hind legs in this breed are of unusual length.1 I beg leave to remain, | Madam | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 144: 12a 1

See letter from Edith Evans, 27 January [1882] and n. 2.

From Emil Holub   28 January 1882 Vienna the 28 of January 1882 Dear Sir. Having returned from Munnich, where I delivered a lecture before the Anthropological Society, I found myself honoured by the receipt of Your most esteemed letter!1 May I pray, to accept from me my utmost thanks for the kind and sincere wishes towards my new journey. As I intend to visit England before starting I would, if permitted, pay a visit to Down, to inquire if I cannot anything do for you during my new travel in South and Central Africa. Being requested by my german publisher, to write my book in a more “popular” style, I had to restrain with regard to scientific matters.2 But at present I am publishing together with some savants a few scientific essays. I take the liberty to send you to day the one, which I finished a few weeks ago.3 May I pray to accept it from me? May I also pray to forgive me that I have taken up so long Your most valuable time? With this most sincere request | and the expression of my utmost esteem | I remain | Your obedient servant | Emil Holub Esq To Charles Darwin Esq | Down. | Beckenham Kent. P.S. I have sent the book by to days mail DAR 166: 261 1 2 3

h

d i

0 0

See letter to Emil Holub, 23 January 1882. Holub had sent CD a copy of the second English edition of Seven years in South Africa (Holub 1881b). The German edition was published by Alfred Hölder (Holub 1881c). Holub sent Beiträge zur Ornithologie Südafrikas (Contributions to the ornithology of South Africa; Holub and Pelzeln 1882).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

49

From C. A. Kennard   28 January 1882 Brookline Mass. U.S.A Jan. 28—1882— Mr. Darwin Dear Sir, I thank you for your very kind reply to my letter of inquiry as to your opinion of the comparative intellectual abilities of the sexes—1 I believe you are supported in your ideas of the greater moral qualities of woman— Before quite deciding as to her condition intellectually will you excuse me if I remind you that recent results from efforts for her higher education, in your own country and in this, are very flattering and encouraging: and are opening for women avenues for individual improvement and for the general enlightenment of her sex—and therefore, of necessity (according to the laws of heredity) for the advancement of the human race intellectually. Her enlightened intellect, united with her wholesome moral nature, can then with the aid of man (for in nature the male & female must work in sympathy together, you have taught us—)—ordain, in a manner hitherto unthought of or practised upon, for the propagation of the best and the survival of the fittest in the human species. The laws of heredity have been closely watched in the lower animals, and tendencies toward improvement encouraged and toward deterioration guarded against; while in marriages and the begetting of offspring, the perpetuation of the best physical, intellectual and moral tendencies in the human race have been mostly unheeded and neglected— In reply to your argument that “women must become as regular “bread-winners” as are men”; have they not been and are they not largely, bread-winners; though unrecognized generally as such?2 Partners in business—share money profits and why should not partners in marriage—where the wife, by her labor and economy does her full part toward husbanding for the future? In the unceasing demand upon the head of a household, for executive ability, fixedness of purpose, and courage of execution, are not women possessed of the same kind of qualities which would grow with the using into as apparent & grand results as are accorded to men of business, government officials, & army officers and statesmen who all expect compensation for services rendered? And why be anxious for the “education of our children” and “the happiness of our homes”, if women become bread winners? when in this country five sixths of the educators are women and acknowledged ‘breadwinners’, beside improving the condition of their homes and adding happiness thereto— Which of the partners in a family is the breadwinner where the husband works a certain number of hours in the week and brings home a pittance of his earnings (the rest going for drinks & supply of pipe) to his wife; who, early & late, with no end of self sacrifice in scrimping for her loved ones, toils to make each penny tell for the best economy and besides, to these pennies she may add by labor outside or taken in?

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

50

Dr. Walker, once president of Harvard College3 said that, of the young men who had been by personal effort, assisted through that college, three fourths had been, by efforts of women. And we know it has been the custom for Mothers & sisters to help their sons & brothers, by every possible effort, to an education (Whoever heard of a brother assisting a sister through college while he druged & toiled? One young woman I know who receives pay for nursing the sick and gives the half of it to a brother who is learning to engrave. Is she less a bread-winner than he—or less than the other brother who, though younger than herself, by aid of the Father & herself received an education which she longed for and that enabled him to rank with our most prominent clergymen? The family must be righteously maintained  Let the ‘environment’ of women be similar to that of men and with his opportunities, before she be fairly judged, intellectually his inferior, please.— Excuse this great liberty and I am your obliged | Caroline A Kennard DAR 185: 31 1 2 3

See letter to C. A. Kennard, 9 January 1882 and n. 2. See letter to C. A. Kennard, 9 January 1882 and n. 3. On American women’s responses to evolutionary theory and CD’s theory of sexual selection, see Hamlin 2014. James Walker.

To G. J. Romanes   28 January 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Jan. 28th 1882 My dear Romanes I feel bound to do what Mr Mc.Alister wishes, though it seems to me superfluous.—1 A page or two is all that I shall be able to write, & it will not be well done, but I will do my best, & no man can do more than that.— Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.614) 1

CD may have met Donald MacAlister at the recent visit of the Sunday Tramps (letter from Leslie Stephen, 12 January 1882). On the membership of the Tramps, see ODNB s.v. ‘Sunday Tramps’. No other correspondence with Romanes about MacAlister has been found; the piece of writing has not been identified.

From H. M. Baynes   30 January 1882 Rose Cottage, | The Vale: | Hampstead. N.W. 30th. Jany. 1882. Dear Sir, May I venture to tell you of a remarkable case of inheritance manifested in early infancy?

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

January 1882

51

As a youth I had, for a long time, a trick of putting my thumb between the first & second fingers of the right hand, generally whilst reading, but more or less upon all occasions. Our baby, which was born on the 24th. May last year, was noticed by his mother,1 as early as the beginning of August, to place & keep the right thumb between the same fingers of the right hand. This he has frequently done since. Is not this a clear case of instinctive predisposition manifested in visible action?2 With the profoundest respect for your scientific achievements, | Believe me, Dear Sir, | Yours very sincerely | Herbert: Morton: Baynes Charles Darwin Esq. F.R.S. etc. DAR 160: 99 1 2

Baynes’s wife was Isabella Jane Baynes; his son was Maudslay Baynes. CD discussed cases in which peculiar habits or gestures were inherited in Variation 2: 5–7 and Expression, pp. 33–4 n. 8.

From Raphael Meldola   31 January 1882

21, John Street, | Bedford Row. W.C. Jan. 31/82

My dear Mr. Darwin, Herewith I send the proof & MSS. of the Prefatory Notice which you were good enough to write for my edition of Weismann’s “Studies”.1 If on reading this preface, which you wrote some two years ago, you see any way of enlarging it, I should be most grateful & my publishers have urged me to ask you to do so, as it would considerably enhance the value of the book. So far the work has been a complete failure I hear from a financial point of view, but for this I was of course prepared. I am very much obliged to you for the loan of Weismann’s paper on the Daphnids— I must beg leave to keep it for some time longer as I am still working at Alternation of Generations.2 Yours very truly, | R. Meldola. DAR 171: 142 1

2

In 1880, CD had written a short prefatory notice for Meldola’s translation of August Weismann’s Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie (Weismann 1875–6); the translation was published in three parts between 1880 and 1882 (Weismann 1880–2). CD had sent Weismann’s paper ‘Ueber die Schmuckfarben der Daphnoiden’ (On the decorative colours of daphnids; Weismann 1878); see letter from Raphael Meldola, 11 January 1882 and nn. 1 and 3.

To D. W. Thompson   [before February 1882]1 Dear Sir I am glad to hear that Dr H. M approves so highly of your Trans of his work. & I sincerely hope that you may be successful in finding a P.— As stated in my book on

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

52

C. F. the appearance of Dr Muller work in English it wd be a great boon to natural Science.—2 It contains a vast amt of most curious & interesting matter, & is of high value as giving full reference to everything which has been published in relation to the fertilisation of Flowers.— It is the standard work on this subject. Thanks to the new matter which Dr M. intends to add the English edition will be more valuable even than the German one.—3 The parts of the translation which I have read seem to me remarkably clear & the style does not appear like a Translation You are perfectly welcome to show this letter which expresses my deliberate conviction to anyone Dear S | Yrs t. | C. D. ADraftS DAR 202: 87 1 2

3

The date is established by the date of CD’s preface to H. Müller 1883a (see n. 2, below). No letter from Thompson about the translation of Hermann Müller’s Die Befruchtung der Blumen (H. Müller 1873) has been found. CD had recommended its English translation in Cross and self fertilisation, p. 6 n. See also Correspondence vol. 26, letter from Hermann Müller, 25 September 1878). Thompson’s translation was published by Macmillan and Co. under the title Fertilisation of flowers; it included a preface by CD dated 6 February 1882 (H. Müller 1883a, p. x). In the translator’s preface to H. Müller 1883a, Thompson wrote: ‘I have incorporated a large mass of Dr. Hermann Müller’s recent observations, of which he sent me full notes; and I have also added further details … taken from his own and other writings.’

From Anthony Rich   1 February 1882 Chappell Croft, | Heene, Worthing. Feby 1—82 My dear Mr. Darwin, Having got through the first month of the new year, and reached my 78th. birth day, which event took place some time or other during last night, it seems time that I should write to you and enquire how the pains and pleasures of life are distributing themselves towards you and your belongings. Not that I have been altogether without tidings of you since you wrote to me from Cambridge; for I learnt from the R.E. at Chatham, when he was so good as to send me a most excellent photograph with your signature below it, that you might fairly boast of enjoying unusually good health; and since that time I have constantly pictured you to myself as resting from your late labours, while partaking of an ample share of ease cum dignitate at Down.1 For myself I have been a good deal troubled these late months with an ailment which I am destined to bear with me to the last, and to bear it as best I can. It does, I think, besides an irritating uneasiness, induce a sort of inertness of mind, which makes all kinds of exertion physical or mental seem to be oppressive. And thus I fear that common duties, which ought to be performed, get neglected. If ever this happens in your case I feel sure that your good nature will forgive it.— But this is prosing indeed!— Oh! if I only had some news to give you, about myself, or any body

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

53

else whom I knew you knew. What a godsend that would be for this sheet!— That heavy gale which passed over England last autumn, was not particularly vicious hereabout.2 It left no evil traces in its passage through my shrubs and trees. But it produced a curious effect in one way upon my lawn, which it entirely covered with the dead leaves of a couple of pine trees (P. Insignis)3 that were blown out from under their branches, so that upon looking from my dressing room window in the morning it seemed as if the green grass had been turned brown by a thick dressing of mould. I had just read what you wrote about the way in which worms drag the needles, two in a sheath, of the P. Austriaca into their burrows, and went out to examine how they would tackle those of the P. Insignis, three in a sheath. During the night they had dragged in very many, almost all of them in the way you represented with the P.A. by the foot stalk, which forms rather a large knob in the leaves of these young and healthy trees—4 Three, however, I found drawn in, or rather attempted to be drawn in, by the point. In each case a single needle had been seized and drawn about an inch into the burrow, the sheath standing bolt upright with the other two needles fixed firmly in the ground by their points, and considerably bent down by the light draught of the one which had been pulled into the burrow. One other remark I should like to venture suggested by your book on Earth Worms, which I have read over again with great interest this winter—about the “ledges on hill sides”, and their origin. Many years ago I used to travel daily up and down the first twenty miles from London on the S.W. Ry.5 which passes through a deepish cutting near about Wandsworth Common. After a continuance of wet weather there were constantly extensive slips of earth from top to bottom on the sloping sides; and the mold always lodged itself in ridges, exactly as on the Downs, which I had so often puzzled myself over, while attempting to explain their raison d’être to myself. After one of these slips the workmen would come and smoothe the surface down again. But after a time, with another succession of wet weather would come another slip over the same surface and leaving the earth in the same ridges. Having observed this action repeatedly it occurred to my mind that these ridges performed the part of buttresses in building, falling by some mechanical law, and if left alone instead of being smoothed off, that they would support the earth on the slope above, and prevent further slipping. Is it not possible that the ridges on the downs have been formed in this simple way at the time when the chalk downs were rising out of the water and still wet before they became indurated and covered over with grass? I have carried that notion in my mind for many years, but have never met with any one to whom I could suggest it. The temptation, however, to inflict it upon you after reading what you have said upon the subject was irresistable. I have written upon the back of the sketch, which you flattered me by expressing a wish to possess, a due notification that it is to belong to you—and I am proud that you should think it worth having.—6 The tenants—a Marine Company of Insurance—of two houses on our Mons Sacra, the Hill of Corn, sent me the other day the Report of their half yearly

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

54

meeting—by which I find that they declared a dividend at the rate of £2712 per cent for the half year’s gains.7 Mrs. Huxley sent me a very friendly letter after her return from the Lakes in the Autumn, and promised that I should hear from her again—a promise towards which I am looking forwards with hope and faith.8 Please to present my respects to Mrs. Darwin, and cordial good wishes to all of your sons who may be within sound of your voice9—and believe me to be | My dear Mr. Darwin | Very truly yours | Anthony Rich DAR 176: 153 CD annotations 1.30 In each … burrow, 1.31] scored pencil Bottom of fifth page: ‘XX’ pencil End of letter: ‘73° B Coy | Wm.— book— Physiology’10 pencil 1

2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10

CD’s letter to Rich has not been found. The Darwins stayed with their son Horace in Cambridge from 20 to 27 October 1881 (Correspondence vol. 29, Appendix II). The Royal Engineer at Chatham was CD’s son Leonard Darwin. The photograph was probably one made by Leonard in 1878 (DAR 225: 119). Cum dignitate: with dignity (Latin). A report of the damage caused by the gale that struck the British Isles on 14 October 1881 was published in The Times, 15 October 1881, p. 5. Pinus insignis (a synonym of P. radiata) is the Monterey pine, a species native to California and Mexico. Pinus austriaca (a synonym of P. nigra) is the Austrian or black pine, a species occurring from southern Mediterranean Europe to north-west Africa. CD had discussed the methods used by worms to draw pine needles into their burrows in Earthworms, pp. 70–4. The London and South Western Railway. Rich had worked as an artist in Rome for some time but gave it up when he became ill (see Correspondence vol. 27, letter to W. E. Darwin, 10 January [1879] and n. 2). The sketch has not been identified. The Marine Insurance Company had premises in Leadenhall Street, in the Cornhill area of London (Post Office London directory 1878). Rich owned property in the area, which evidently included these premises; he had bequeathed all this property to CD in recognition of CD’s contribution to science (see Correspondence vol. 26, letter from Anthony Rich, 7 December 1878). Mons sacra (correctly, mons sacer): sacred mountain (Latin). Henrietta Anne Huxley. Rich had added a codicil to his will in 1881 bequeathing his house to Thomas Henry Huxley (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from T. H. Huxley, 6 March 1881). Rich had received a visit from CD’s son George Howard Darwin (see Correspondence vol. 27, letter to W. E. Darwin, 10 January [1879] and n. 2). CD’s annotations are notes for his reply to Rich of 4 February 1882.

From T. G. Bonney to W. E. Darwin   [before 2 February 1882]1 British Association for the Advancement of Science, 22, Albemarle Street, | London, W. 188 To turn to quite another matter   May I ask you a question which I hope you will not think impertinent— An American publication called “Science” states that

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

55

your Father on being shown by a certain Dr Hahn a series of microscopic slides of what the latter believes to be organic structures in meteorites &c (they are nothing of the kind only mineral simulations, not unfamiliar to microscopic petrologists,) exclaimed “Almighty God what a wonderful discovery   Wonderful” After a pause of silent reflection he added “Now reaches life down”—2 I don’t believe the story—but should like to be able to apply to it in print the epithet “apocryphal” in a review of a kindred subject which I am writing.3 Do you think I may do so? T G Bonney Incomplete DAR 160: 247 CD annotations 1.5 microscopic] underl pencil 1.5 microscopic … Wonderful” 1.6] scored pencil 1 2

3

The date and recipient are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from W. E. Darwin, 2 February [1882]. Otto Hahn. The account, ‘Mr. Darwin on Dr. Hahn’s discovery of fossil organisms in meteorites’, was published in Science, 27 August 1881, p. 410: ‘No sooner had Mr. Darwin peered through the microscope ... when he started up from his seat and exclaimed: “Almighty God! what a wonderful discovery! Wonderful! ... Now reaches life down!’’’ See letter from T. G. Bonney, 5 February 1882 and n. 2. A refutation of Hahn’s story appeared in the March 1882 issue of Philosophical Magazine (5th ser. 13: 218 n.) in an unsigned review of An old chapter of the geological record with a new interpretation (King and Rowney 1881). It quoted the article in Science and concluded: ‘A story so circumstantial one would think must needs be true; but we have the best authority for characterizing it as simply fabulous.’

From W. E. Darwin   2 February [1882]1 Royal Southern Yacht Club Feb 2nd My dear Father, I told Prof: Bonney that I was sure the story was apocryphal but I thought it worrth while sending on; for you to send him a card to say it was so.2 I hope your cold is better. G. is just off & is brisk.3 He has a lovely day. Your affect son | W. E D Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 108) 1 2

3

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from T. G. Bonney, 5 February 1882. Thomas George Bonney had asked William Erasmus Darwin to confirm that an account of CD’s reaction to a supposed discovery of organic structures in meteorites by Otto Hahn was apocryphal (see letter from T. G. Bonney to W. E. Darwin, [before 2 February 1882]). For CD’s reaction to Hahn’s work, see Correspondence vol. 28, letter to Otto Hahn, 20 December 1880. George Howard Darwin had just sailed from Southampton for Jamaica; he arrived in Jamaica at St Thomas on 15 February 1882 (letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, [20 February 1882] (DAR 210.3: 40)).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

56

To Raphael Meldola   2 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 2d 1882 r Dear M. Meldola I am very sorry that I can add nothing to my very brief notice, without reading again Weismann’s work & getting up the whole subject by reading my own & other books, & for so much labour I have not strength.1 I have now been working at other subjects for some years, & when a man grows as old as I am, it is a great wrench to his brain to go back to old & half-forgotten subjects. You would not readily believe how often I am asked questions of all kinds, & quite lately I have had to give up much time to do a work, not at all concerning myself, but which I did not like to refuse.2 I must, however, somewhere draw the line, or my life will be a misery to me.— I have read your Preface & it seems to me excellent.3 I am sorry in many ways, including the honour of England as a scientific country, that your Translation has as yet sold badly.— Does the Publisher or do you lose by it? If the Publisher,, though I shall be sorry for him, yet it is in the way of business; but if you yourself lose by it, I earnestly beg you to allow me to subscribe a trifle, viz ten guineas, towards the expense of this work, which you have undertaken on public grounds.—4 Pray believe me | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Essex Naturalists Field Club, Meldola papers) 1

2 3 4

See letter from Raphael Meldola, 31 January 1882. In 1880, CD had written a short prefatory notice for Meldola’s translation of August Weismann’s Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie (Weismann 1875–6); the translation was published in three parts between 1880 and 1882 (Weismann 1880–2). CD’s copy of the work is in the Darwin Library–Down. The ‘work’ may refer to some writing CD mentioned in the letter to G. J. Romanes, 28 January 1882. Meldola’s preface (Weismann 1880–2, pp. vii–xiv) was dated November 1881. Weismann 1880–2 was paid for by subscription (see Correspondence vol. 27, letter from Raphael Meldola, 6 February 1879). CD’s Classed account book (Down House MS) records a payment of £1 10s. on 7 May 1880 to ‘Sampson Low for Weisman’; no further payments are recorded. CD evidently did not know whether the publisher, Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, had arranged with Meldola to publish at their expense or on commission. In the latter case, Meldola could have lost money if sales were poor.

From Raphael Meldola   3 February 1882 21, John Street, | Bedford Row. W.C. Feb. 3/82 My dear Mr. Darwin, I am really deeply grateful for the very kind appreciation which you show towards my humble efforts to promote the cause of the great principle of Evolution & I cannot sufficiently express how greatly I am touched by your generous offer to subscribe towards the expense of producing my translation of Weismann.1 There is not however any need for me to tax your kindness— the loss (if any) will be borne by

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

57

the publishers, & even if I had to bear it myself I am happily in such circumstances that I should think it a sum well worthy of sinking in such a good cause. Pray accept however my warmest thanks for the offer. I hope you will not think me improper in suggesting one little donation which would be very gratefully accepted—viz. a copy of your last work on the earthworm for the library of the Essex Field Club.2 We are beginning to get a tolerable collection of books & pamphlets by way of a start &, apart from the value of the work itself, the example set by you would be a most valuable precedent for other naturalists to promote our cause. You will see by the last part of our Transactions that we have done good work & are now I think worthy of support.3 One other little matter of a personal nature & I will not trespass any further upon your time. It has long been my desire to get into the Royal Society & I have I think published a sufficient number of papers in chemistry, physics & biology to warrant my becoming a candidate. I have devoted the greatest part of my life to labours in various branches of science & could get my certificate of membership signed by many well known chemists, physicists & biologists. I hear however that it is customary for the first steps to be taken by someone other than the candidate himself— if you would (at your leisure, there is not the slightest hurry, I am young & can afford to wait!) kindly take my cause in hand I can assure you that I should in no way discredit your recommendation.4 With the most sincere thanks, | I remain, Yours very faithfully, | R. Meldola. DAR 171: 143 1

2 3

4

See letter to Raphael Meldola, 2 February 1882 and nn. 1 and 4. CD offered to contribute 10 guineas (£10 10s.) to support the publication of Meldola’s translation of August Weismann’s Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie (Weismann 1880–2). Meldola was president of the Epping Forest and County of Essex Naturalists’ Field Club. The Transactions of the Epping Forest and County of Essex Naturalists’ Field Club began publication in January 1881. The last part of the Transactions was the Journal of Proceedings, which contained reports of the club’s ordinary, field, and other meetings. CD had been elected an honorary member of the club in 1880 (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from William Cole, 14 February 1880, and letter to William Cole, 17 February 1880). CD proposed Meldola for fellowship in the Royal Society of London in February 1882; Meldola was elected in June 1886 (Royal Society Archives GB 117, EC/1886/10).

From F. W. Surman   3 February [1882]1 40 Lupus Street | Pimlico S W Feb 3rd.

Sir I have this morning seen a lady (Miss Astley) who is in wants of a butler for a few weeks as her present butler is going to take a few weeks rest, Miss A. will refer to you for my character2 I am Sir | yours obediently | F. W. Surman DAR 202: 123

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

58 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to F. W. Surman, 22 December 1881 (Correspondence vol. 29). CD had unsuccessfully tried to help Surman get a position as an attendant at the British Museum in December 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to F. W. Surman, 22 December 1881). Miss Astley was Gertrude Susan Astley; her butler was William Jennings.

To G. S. Astley   [after 3 February 1882]1 [Down.] Legacy (I have seen a good deal of Surman & I know that my brother thought very highly of his character in all ways, viz honesty, sobriety &c &c. So that he left him a Legacy to which to which I added, as I felt so much obliged for his attention to my brother—2 He is in every way a good servant— (He brought moreover a first rate character to my brother) from his former place, which he had held for some years. ADraft DAR 202: 123v 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from F.  W.  Surman, 3 February [1882]. Frederic William Surman had been butler to Erasmus Alvey Darwin until Erasmus’s death on 26 August 1881. On CD’s addition to the legacy, see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to Albert Günther, 19 December 1881 and n. 1.

To J. D. Cooper   4 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Febr 4th. 1882. My dear Sir Will you be so good as to make on wood copies of the cuts enclosed in blue lines in Plate to enclosed paper.— Figs 1 & 2 to stand along side one another in upper line & Fig 3 (viz a, b, c, d, e,) in lower lines— Then, a, b, c &c, could stand rather closer together.—1 They must be fac-similes, the dark & pale purple being represented by darker & lighter shading.— The lines must all be delicate, as all are greatly magnified.2 Be so kind as to put them in hand as soon as you possibly can, as I want them for a paper soon to be read before Linnean Soc.y. Fig I & 2 & 3 might be given in type; but a & b, in fig. 2, & a, b, c, d, & e in Fig 3 must be engraved.— Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

59

Fig 1

Fig. 2

a

b

Fig. 3

b

a

c

d

e

I wish the pamphlet to be returned.—3 I shall soon have another sketch to be engraved.4 American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.615); DAR 28.2: B1a 1

2 3

4

h

d i

The woodcuts were illustrations for CD’s paper ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll’, which was read before the Linnean Society on 6 March 1882. The three figures appear in ibid., p. 263, and are as specified here by CD. A manuscript copy of the illustrations (in ink) is in DAR 28.2: B1a; these are pasted into a draft of ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll’. The ‘pamphlet’ was an article by Francis Darwin, ‘The process of aggregation in the tentacles of Drosera rotundifolia’ (F. Darwin 1876a). The article included a colour plate (ibid., plate 23) showing the process of aggregation; the plate contains the figures specified by CD (see also n. 1, above). CD probably refers to the illustrations for his paper ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on roots’ (illustrations on p. 254). Pencil drawings for these are in DAR 28.2: A1a–b.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

60

To Emil Holub   4 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb 4th. 1882 Dear Sir I am much obliged for the gift of your beautifully got-up book on the ornithology of S. Africa, & for your other essays.1 Whenever you come to England I shall be much pleased to see you here, & if you will inform me, I can tell you the best manner to reach this house.—2 I remain, Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin Národní Muzeum, Prague 1

2

See letter from Emil Holub, 28 January 1882. Holub sent Beiträge zur Ornithologie Südafrikas (Contributions to the ornithology of South Africa; Holub and Pelzeln 1882). He had already sent the second English edition of Seven years in South Africa (Holub 1881b; see letter to Emil Holub, 23 January 1882). See letter from Emil Holub, 28 January 1882.

From A. T. Rice   4 February 1882 The North American Review, | New York, N.Y. February 4 1882 Dear Sir: The subject of the gradual unfolding of the mental faculties in infants, the first systematic observations of which were, I believe, made by yourself, possesses a singular interest for me, and I am not at all surprised to see that it is attracting the attention of scientific amateurs on this side of the water in a very extraordinary degree.1 You will have been informed of the action taken by the Education department of the American Social Science Association, which has published a collection of Essays on Infant Development intellectual and physical, and has issued a circular recommending the observation and registration of the several phases of development as they progressively appear in the infant.2 This line of investigation, I am confident, will be pursued here with all the characteristic ardor and acuteness of the American intellect— indeed it is very probable that it will become a veritable craze. What I apprehend, however, is that, having become a craze, it will have the fate of all crazes: that it will be overdone, and ridiculed out of existence by the flippant witlings of the newspaper press. Now as researches and observations of this kind are of the highest value, both for what they are in themselves, and more especially for the promise they hold out of affording us a solid scientific basis for educational theory and practice, it is not to be permitted that such studies should fail from misdirection. If the man who first put into our hands the clue to guide us through this labyrinth would, out of the abundance of his acquired knowledge, indicate the directions in which research promises to be fruitful, much would be gained. In a word, the multitude of willing but very unskilled workers need to have the task that is required of them defined with all possible clearness.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

61

Permit me to say that this “movement”—for it has already almost attained the proportions of a movement—urgently calls for guidance from you; and that it will afford great satisfaction to many on this side of the Atlantic if you will consent to make the Review the organ for conveying your ideas upon this subject to the minds of our American students of science.3 I allow myself therefore to hope that you may be induced to give my proposal a favorable consideration, and that we may, at an early date, have the satisfaction of publishing such a contribution from your pen. Believe me, dear Sir, | yours very truly, | A. Thorndike Rice | Editor. Charles Darwin Esq D.C.L. P.S. If you will pardon the mention of an honorarium, I will venture to say that we shall be happy to pay £80 sterling for a MS. of from 20 to 25 pages.—9000 to 12000 words. DAR 176: 134 1

2

3

CD’s paper ‘Biographical sketch of an infant’ was published in the July 1877 issue of the journal Mind: a Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy. CD had kept notes on his children’s development from the birth of his first child, William Erasmus, in December 1839 (see Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix III). The American Social Science Association published Papers on infant development (Talbot ed. 1882); CD’s ‘Biographical sketch of an infant’ was reprinted in it, as was the circular (ibid., pp. 32–40; 50–2). See also Correspondence vol. 29, letter to Emily Talbot, 19 July 1881, and this volume, letter from F. B. Sanborn, 12 January 1882, nn. 2 and 3. Rice was the owner and editor of the the North American Review (ANB).

To Anthony Rich   4 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 4th. 1882 r My dear M Rich It is always a pleasure to me to receive a letter from you. I am very sorry to hear that you have been more troubled than usual with your old complaint.1 Anyone who looked at you would think that you had passed through life with few evils, & yet you have had an unusual amount of suffering. As a turnkey remarked in one of Dickens’ novels “Life is a rum thing”.2 As for myself I have been better than usual until about a fortnight ago, when I had a cough, & this pulled me down & made me miserable to a strange degree; but my dear old wife insisted on my taking Quinine, & though I have very little faith in medicine, this, I think, has done me much good.3 Well we are both so old that we must expect some troubles: I shall be 73 on Feb. 12th. I have been glad to hear about the pine-leaves & you are the first man who has confirmed my account that they are drawn in by the base with a very few exceptions.4 With respect to your Wandsworth case I think that if I had heard of it, before publishing, I would have said nothing about the ledges; for the Grisedale case, mentioned in my book & observed whilst I was correcting the proof-sheets, made me feel rather doubtful. Yet the Corniche case shows the worms at least aid in making

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

62

the ledges. Nevertheless I wish I had said nothing about the confounded ledges.5 The success of this worm-book has been almost laughable. I have, however, been plagued with an endless stream of letters on the subject; most of them very foolish & enthusiastic, but some containing good fact, which I have used in correcting yesterday the “Sixth Thousandth”.6 Your friend George’s work about the viscous state of the earth & tides & the moon has lately been attracting much attention, & all the great judges think highly of the work.7 He intends to try for the Plumian Professorship of Mathematicks & Nat. Philosophy at Cambridge, which is a good & honourable post of about 800£ a year. I think that he will get it, when Challis is dead & he is very near his end; but G. says he does not care much about it, as it will interfere with his own original work.8 He has all the great men Sir W. Thompson, Adams, Stokes &c on his side.—9 He has lately been chief examiner for the mathematical Tripos, which was tremendous work; & the day before yesterday he started from Southampton for a 5 weeks tour to Jamaica for complete rest to see the Blue Mountains & escape the rigour of the early spring.10 I believe that George will some day be a great scientific swell. The war-office has just offered Leonard a post in the Government survey at Southampton & very civilly told him to go down & inspect the place & accept or not as he liked. So he went down, but has decided that it wd not be worth his while to accept, as it wd. entail his giving up his expedition (on which he had been ordered) to Queensland in Australia to observe the Transit of Venus.11 Dear old William at Southampton has not been very well, but is now better. He has had too much work—a willing horse is always overworked—& all the arrangements for receiving the Brit. Assoc.  there this summer have been thrown on his shoulders, other idle men having shirked the work.—12 But good Heavens, what a deal I have written about my sons. I have had some hard work this autumn with the microscope; but this is over, & I have only to write out two papers for Linnean Society.—13 We have had a good many visitors; but none who wd have interested you, except probably Mrs. Ritchie, the daughter of Thackeray, who is a most amusing & pleasant person.—14 I have not seen Huxley for some time, but my wife heard this morning from Mrs. Huxley, who wrote from her bed, with a bad account of herself & of several of her children; but none I hope are at all dangerously ill.15 Farewell my kind good friend— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Many thanks about the picture, which if I survive you & this I do not expect, shall be hung in my study as a perpetual memento of you.—16 DAR 92: A44–7 1 2 3 4 5

h

d i

0 0

See letter from Anthony Rich, 1  February  1882. Rich had described his ailment as inducing an ‘inertness of mind’. CD probably misremembered a statement by the character Mr Roker, the warder at Fleet prison, in Charles Dickens’s Pickwick papers (Dickens 1837, p. 447), ‘What a rum thing time is, ain’t it, Noddy?’ At this time, quinine was a fairly common ingredient in home remedies such as Warburg’s tincture. See letter from Anthony Rich, 1 February 1882 and n. 4. In his letter of 1 February 1882, Rich had described earth slippage on slopes near Wandsworth Common and speculated that the cause might not be worm-related. CD had described a case of slippage in the

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

6

7

8

9 10

11

12 13 14

15 16

63

Corniche Road, Nice, in which worm activity seemed to be involved (see Earthworms, pp. 276–8), and another in Grisedale, Westmorland, in which no such activity was present (ibid., pp. 281–3). A fifth thousand of Earthworms with several corrections had been published in December 1881. A sixth thousand, with corrections, was published in 1882; a seventh thousand, corrected by Francis Darwin, also appeared in 1882 (Earthworms (1882)). George Howard Darwin had been praised as the ‘discoverer of tidal evolution’ by Robert Stawell Ball in a lecture, the text of which appeared in Nature, 24 November 1881 (Ball 1881, p. 81; see also Correspondence vol. 29, letter to G. H. Darwin, 8 June [1881]). For George’s recent work on the viscous state of the earth and tides, see, for example, G. H. Darwin 1880 and G. H. Darwin 1881a. James Challis was Plumian Professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy at the University of Cambridge. Although he was reported to be near death in November 1881, Challis did not die until December 1882 (ODNB; see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from G. H. Darwin, 17 November 1881). William Thomson, John Couch Adams, and George Gabriel Stokes. The written examinations of the mathematical tripos took place over several days, beginning on the first Tuesday after 30 December, which in 1882 was 3 January; George was an additional examiner (Cambridge University Reporter, 24 May 1881, p. 589; Cambridge University calendar 1882). George arrived in Jamaica on 15 February 1882 (letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, [20 February 1882] (DAR 210.3: 40)). The Blue Mountains are the longest mountain range in Jamaica, extending almost thirty miles on the eastern part of the island. Leonard Darwin took part in the expedition to observe the transit of Venus on 5 December 1882 from the station at Jimbour, on the Darling Downs in Queensland, Australia. On the day, clouds prevented the team from making any observations. For Leonard, it was the second time he was at a location where the transit could not be observed due to cloudy conditions; in 1874, he had been photographer to the expedition to New Zealand (see Airy ed. 1881, p. 484; see also Correspondence vol. 22). A report on all the British expeditions was published in Nature, 21 December 1882, pp. 177–9. William Erasmus Darwin. The British Association for the Advancement of Science held their annual meeting for 1882 in Southampton, from 23 to 30 August. The papers were ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on roots’ and ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll’. Anne Isabella Ritchie, the daughter of William Makepeace Thackeray, had visited Down with her husband, Richmond Thackeray Willoughby Ritchie, from 21 to 23 January 1882 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Thomas Henry and Henrietta Anne Huxley (see letter from Anthony Rich, 1 February 1882 and n. 8). The picture was one drawn by Rich, but no further details have been found (see letter from Anthony Rich, 1 February 1882 and n. 6).

To S. H. Vines   4 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb 4th 1882 r My dear M. Vines In two or three days I shall put together my notes about the action of C.  of Ammonia on roots, & tell you this as it would vex me much not to use any information which you might be willing to communicate to me.1 But the probability is great that your multifarious work has prevented you from making any observations, & in this case do not let me add to the trouble which I have already caused you by answering this note. I will understand silence to mean that you have nothing to communicate. Believe me | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin DAR 185: 80

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

64 1

Vines had hoped to make observations on the granular cells in roots that resulted from the application of carbonate of ammonia (ammonium carbonate; (NH4)2CO3); see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from S. H. Vines, 24 November [1881]. CD’s paper, ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on roots’, was read at the Linnean Society on 16 March 1882.

From T. G. Bonney   5 February 1882

23 Denning Road, | Hampstead, N.W. Feb 5. 1882

My dear Sir I am greatly obliged to you for the trouble which you have taken in writing to me on the subject of the statement in Science1   Either Dr Hahn or the writer of that paragraph, is as I suspect, a person of vivid imagination and inaccurate habits— I disbelieved it when I read it from à priori reasons, but in contradicting a statement one likes to have something better than one’s own conception of the possible or impossible in another person—2 I saw a few of Dr Hahns slides but did not look at many because I saw enough to perceive it would be a waste of time, as he clearly could not distinguish between mineral and organic structures. Such as I saw were not unfamiliar to me as a microscopic petrologist and very different to those organic structures with which occasional work with foraminifera and their slices of sedimentary rocks had acquainted me.3 As regards Eozoon, though I admit the question is not without its difficulties, I think the evidence in favour of its being an organic structure is rather strong—4 The particular direction my researches have taken have made me very familiar with olivine rock serpentine, devitrified glassy rocks, and many kinds of metamorphic sedimentary rocks, and I have very rarely seen structures at all parallel.5 The structure most nearly and commonly paralleled is the ‘nummuline layer’ of the ‘proper wall’—6 I have occasionally seen structures something like—though the resemblance is but distant—to the canal system—and of course one has sometimes rocks irregularly banded with more than one mineral Now there seem to me two strong arguements in favour of the organic origin— One. that Carpenter Dawson &c positively assert that you have the ‘canal system’ sometimes preserved by infiltration with more than one mineral (in one case with three) I have seen nothing like this in a mineral imitative structure, and it seems to me most improbable that it can occur except in an organism—7 The other: that supposing you get to some minerals or rocks—a sort of chamber like banding— in others occasionally (but seldom) something like the nummuline layer, in others (very rarely) a rude approximation to the canal system— the chance of these three structures being found, and rather persistently, in a large mass of rock is extremely small, unless, seeing they do meet in certain organisms, the specimen has had an organic origin.— Still I think that it is more prudent to wait for further evidence before building any theories on Eozoon as a foundation— With many thanks for your kindness in writing | I am Dear Sir | Very faithfully yours | J. G Bonney DAR 160: 246, 248

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882 1 2

3 4

5

6 7

65

CD’s letter has not been found, but see the letter from T. G. Bonney to W. E. Darwin, [before 2 February 1882] and n. 2, and the letter from W. E. Darwin, 2 February [1882] and n. 2. Otto Hahn had sent CD a copy of Die Meteorite (Chondrite) und ihre Organismen (Meteorites (chondrites) and their organisms; Hahn 1880). Hahn believed he had found various organisms in a stony (chondritic) meteorite. CD had told Hahn that if his observations were verified by several judges, he would have made ‘one of the most remarkable discoveries ever recorded’ (Correspondence vol. 28, letter to Otto Hahn, 20 December 1880). The journal Science had reported that Hahn visited CD to show him microscopic slides and claimed that CD, on viewing these, exclaimed, ‘what a wonderful discovery!’ (Science, 27 August 1881, p. 410). Foraminifera are single-celled protists with tests or shells. In 1864, John William Dawson identified samples taken from pre-Silurian strata in eastern Canada as fossilised Foraminifera; he named the species Eozoon canadense, the ‘Dawn animal from Canada’ (Dawson 1864). Further samples were sent to William Benjamin Carpenter, an expert on Foraminifera, who confirmed Dawson’s interpretation (Carpenter 1864). CD added information on the discovery of Eozoon canadense to Origin 4th ed., p. 371, as substantiating his claim, made in Origin, p. 307, that life existed before the Silurian period. The interpretation of the samples as pre-Silurian fossils remained controversial, however (see, for example, Carpenter 1866 and King and Rowney 1866), and by the end of the century, comparisons with similar, more recent, formations indicated that the samples were mineral in origin (see O’Brien 1970 and Schopf 2000). Olivine is a mineral series in which iron and magnesium substitute for one another in the same crystal structure. Devitrified glassy rocks are those in which spherulites (small, rounded, crystalline structures) have formed in silica-rich glassy rocks like obsidian. The ‘nummuline layer’ referred to the Tertiary strata where Foraminifera of the genus Nummulites were found. Carpenter had argued that the ‘canal system’ corresponded with similar canals in recent specimens of Foraminifera such as Polystomella (a synonym of Elphidium) and Calcarina (Carpenter 1864, p. 64).

To Raphael Meldola   5 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb 5 1882 Dear Mr. Meldola I have asked Mr Murray to send a copy of my worm-book to you, marked for the Club.—1 I shall be happy to propose you for the R.  Soc, but I require a good deal of information. No, I believe the best plan will be to enclose a paper for you to fill up the blanks.— It is usual to give a pretty full list of all publications.2 You are probably aware that no one on the Council can sign & I know personally wonderfully few scientific men. I must therefore get you to suggest names & addresses of some chemists, physicists & naturalists (& there is no impropriety in your doing this), amounting to 6 in number of whom 3 must personally know you. I can suggest only Mr Stainton & Sir J. Lubbock; but whether they will sign I cannot say as some men are very chary of their signatures. So I had better have 6 or 7 names besides my own.—3 I suppose that you are aware that very rarely anyone is elected until the 2d or 3d year.—4 My dear Sir | In Haste | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Very many thanks for your kind note Oxford University Museum of Natural History (Hope Entomological Collections 1350: Hope/Westwood Archive, Darwin folder)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

66 1 2

3

4

See letter from Raphael Meldola, 3 February 1882 and n. 2. The copy of Earthworms was for the Epping Forest and County of Essex Naturalists’ Field Club. See letter from Raphael Meldola, 3 February 1882 and n. 4. The ‘Certificate of a candidate for election’ had to be filled in by Meldola and signed by CD and others supporting his election to the Royal Society of London. Henry Tibbats Stainton did not sign the certificate. The other signatories (in order of signing) were Norman Lockyer; Greville Williams; Charles Romley Alder Wright; Henry Walter Bates; John Lubbock; William James Russell; Thomas Spencer Cobbold; George James Symons; Edward Frankland; John Perry; Francis Galton; George John Romanes; Charles Edward Groves, all ‘from personal knowledge’. John Wesley Judd signed ‘from general knowledge’. The signatures after Lubbock’s were added after the form was first submitted by CD (see letter to Raphael Meldola, 23 February 1882). Meldola’s application was resuspended (that is, resubmitted) four times before he was elected in 1886 (Royal Society Archives GB 117, EC/1886/10).

From Joseph Hewett   6 February 1882 The Gresham Club | London. E.C. 6: Feb: 1882 Sir, In your “Cross Fertilization” I note you advise sowing flower seeds in contiguity grown in different localities.1 Should I obtain a similar benefit by mixing part home grown and purchased cereals—if so I shall try oats. If you have time for a very brief reply I shall esteem it a favour, in which case please address me to Perry Shed Farm Erith, Kent. I must apologize for the liberty I am taking which I hope you will pardon— Yours faithfully | Joseph Hewett. C. R. Darwin Esqre. DAR 166: 195 1

See Cross and self fertilisation, p. 459.

From Henry Johnson   6 February 1882 Trindle Road Dudley Feby 6th. 82 C. R Darwin Esqre. Dear Sir, I have recently purchased & read with intense interest your recent Work on “The formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms”.—1 For the very great pleasure your Book has afforded me I beg to offer you a fine Slab of Sandstone from the Coal Measures of this District literally covered with fossil Annelide tracts, and Casts.2 The Slab is about 4ft 6 in Square and about 2 inches

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

67

thick, and if you will do me the favor of its acceptance I will forward it carriage paid to any address you are pleased to give me. I have smaller slabs down to 2 ft square but should like you to have the largest.— While I am writing you upon this subject may I ask you if you know of any Geologist in London who would come down to Dudley on the 20th. of this month and give the members of the Dudley Institute of Mining Engineers a Popular Lecture upon the Life found in the Rocks from the Cambrian Slates up to the London Clay?3 Simply confining himself to a short description of all the series of deposits with the progressively developed life found in them without further comment than those facts. We would give him £10.10.0 (he paying his own travelling expences) for the one evening. I shall be glad to hear from you at your convenience.| & remain Yours faithfully. | Hy Johnson Copy DAR 146: 468 1 2 3

Earthworms. For a description of the coal measures of the area near Dudley in South Staffordshire, see Jukes 1859, pp. 16–105. No record has been found of the proposed talk.

From Raphael Meldola   6 February 1882 21, John Street, | Bedford Row. W.C. Feb. 6/82 My dear Mr. Darwin, I return the form for admission into the R.S. filled in as fully as the space will permit.1 I enclose also a list of F.R.S. friends to whom I am more or less known & most of whom would probably sign my certificate. I am well aware that I shall have to wait for a few years, but I can “bide my time” & in the meanwhile hope to go on adding to my list of discoveries.2 I am indeed grateful to you for your kindness in this matter. I have not given a detailed list of my papers, but can supply titles if necessary. I have also to thank you on behalf of the “Essex Field Club” for your kind donation to our Library.3 Our Librarian will acknowledge formally shortly.4 In great haste, | Yours very truly, | R. Meldola. DAR 171: 144 1

h

d i

Meldola refers to the ‘Certificate of a candidate for election’ for his application for fellowship of the Royal Society of London. Candidates filled in a section of the form listing their qualifications and publications. The form was then signed by the proposer and sent round to other supporters before being submitted to the Council of the Royal Society. If a candidate was not successful, the form could be resuspended (that is, resubmitted) in subsequent years.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

68 2

3 4

The list of friends has not been found, but see the letter to Raphael Meldola, 5 February 1882 and n. 3. Meldola’s form was resuspended four times and he was elected in June 1886 (Royal Society Archives GB 117, EC/1886/10). See letter to Raphael Meldola, 5 February 1882 and n. 1. The donation was a copy of Earthworms. No letter from Alfred Lockyer, the librarian of the Epping Forest and County of Essex Naturalists’ Field Club, has been found.

From S. H. Vines   6 February 1882 Christs College— | Cambridge— Feb. 6. 1882— My dear Dr. Darwin— I am sorry to say that I have really to contribute on the “aggregation” in the cells of roots— I made a few observations, just to get an idea of the appearances, but my time has been so fully occupied that I have not been able to go fully into the matter—1 Moreover it occurred to me that the time of year was not at all favourable for observations of this kind, unless, of course, the plants were grown in warmth— These reasons combined led me to postpone the matter till the summer— I have been working very hard at the new edition of Sachs, and I am glad to say that the first two books of it are now in the press—so that only the Physiology remains to be done, a sufficiently arduous undertaking even by itself—2 To make the new edition of any value, much has to be added and altered, and it is a serious and anxious matter to do this, especially as the book covers such a wide range of topics— However, I console myself by thinking that the result will be at least better than nothing— Yours very faithfully | Sydney H. Vines. DAR 180: 7 1 2

See letter to S. H. Vines, 4 February 1882 and n. 1. Vines was preparing a new English edition of Julius Sachs’s Text-book of botany (Sachs 1882) based on the last German edition (Sachs 1874). It contained an appendix with new material.

From William Horsfall   7 February 1882 30 Petworth Street, Cheetham, | Manchester, Feb. 7. 1882 Dear Sir I venture to ask you the following questions:— I occasionally find the so-called opponents of Evolution point to the Trilobite, which existed from the Silurian to the Mountain Limestone without change as a fact subversive of Evolution. But is not this a case of “persistence” under favourable conditions, and as such an additional proof of the truth of Evolution?1 And, as the ocean is and has been less liable to be affected by climatal changes than the land, might not such instances be expected to occur more frequently in the former than upon the latter?

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

69

I have seen it stated by a writer whom I believed to be an authority, but whose name I cannot remember, that there are minute organisms which are animal at one period of their existence and vegetable at another. As I am unable to authenticate this statement, and think it doubtful, will you kindly say whether it is, or is not true? I know that it is impossible to name as distinctly animal or distinctly vegetable many of the lower organisms.— hence Prof. Haeckel’s division of the Protista.2 I am fully aware of the value of your time, and should you think my questions trivial, pray set this note aside. I cannot, however, conclude without thanking you for the noble work you have performed in the cause of science, and, with the highest respect, subscribe myself, Yours sincerely | Wm. Horsfall Dr. Chas. Darwin F.R.S. &c: &c:. Copy DAR 145: 359 1

2

Trilobita is an extinct class of arthropods that lived in the Palaeozoic era, first appearing in the Cambrian period. The fossil record of the trilobites was often used to oppose evolution, but not usually in terms of persistence (see ‘Trilobites’, Nature, 22 January 1874, pp. 228–9, and Dawson 1873, pp. 94–5). Ernst Haeckel was the first to create a third kingdom, Protista, to add to Animalia and Plantae, and placed it between the other two kingdoms (see Haeckel 1866, 1: 203–6).

To Henry Johnson   7 February 1882

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Feb 7 1882

Dear Sir I am pleased to hear that my book on earth-worms has interested you; and I thank you for your very kind offer of the slab of sandstone with annelid tracks.1 Will you be so good as to address it as follows:— C. Darwin Orpington Station S. E Ry With respect to the lecture I live so retired a life that I cannot advise you. But if you think fit you can write to Prof Judd FRS (whom I look at as the most able of living geologists) and using my name ask for advice.2 I do not suppose that he has time to lecture himself, but I am not sure of this, and he could advise you. His address is School of Science, S. Kensington Again thanking you I remain dear Sir, yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS McGill University Library, Rare and Special Collections, Osler, Art and Archives 1 2

h

d i

See letter from Henry Johnson, 6 February 1882. Johnson had just read Earthworms. John Wesley Judd was professor of geology at the Royal School of Mines (ODNB). Johnson had asked CD to recommend someone who could speak to the Dudley Institute of Mining Engineers (letter from Henry Johnson, 6 February 1882).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

70

To Edward Frankland   8 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 8th 1882.— Dear Professor Frankland. Will you be so kind as to look at the enclosed, & if think that Mr. Meldola deserves the honour of being elected F.R.S, he would, I do not doubt, be much gratified by your signature. If for any reason you object to sign, I will mention the fact to no one, that I have sent the Certificate to you.— In order to save time & writing many notes, will you have the kindness to forward the Certificate (together with this note which will thereby do double duty) to 〈Mr〉 Norman Lockyer for his approval or rejection, as I believe he 〈is〉 often at Kensington.—1 〈I〉 enclose an addressed envelope for 〈the〉 Certificate & remain | Dear P〈ro〉fessor Frankland | Yours very faithfuly | Charles Darwin The John Rylands Library, The University of Manchester (Frankland Collection) 1

Norman Lockyer signed the ‘Certificate of a candidate for election’ that CD was circulating as the proposer of Raphael Meldola for fellowship of the Royal Society of London (see letter to Raphael Meldola, 5 February 1882 and nn. 2 and 3). Frankland evidently signed at a later date (see letter to Raphael Meldola, 23 February 1882).

To William Horsfall   8 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Feb 8: 1882 Private Dear Sir, In the succession of the older formations the species and genera of Trilobites do change, and then they all die out.—1 To any one who believes that geologists know the dawn of life (i.e. formations contemporaneous with the first appearance of living creatures on the earth) no doubt the sudden appearance of perfect Trilobites and other organisms in the oldest known life-bearing strata would be fatal to evolution. But I for one, and many others, utterly reject any such belief. Already three or four piles of unconformable strata are known beneath the Cambrian; and these are generally in a crystalline condition, and may once have been charged with organic remains.2 With regard to animals and plants, the locomotive spores of some algæ, furnished with cilia, would have been ranked with animals if it had not been known that they developed with algæ.3 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch: Darwin. P.S. I am obliged for your very courteous expressions in regard to my work. W. Horsfall Esq. Copy English Heritage, Down House (Scrapbook)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882 1 2 3

71

See letter from William Horsfall, 7 February 1882 and n. 1. Several orders and genera of trilobites had been identified by this time (see, for example, Barrande 1871). In geology, an unconformity is a is a large gap in the stratigraphic record resulting from erosion or non-deposition. See letter from William Horsfall, 7 February 1882 and n. 2. At this time algae were all classified within the kingdom Plantae; modern classification systems now place some groups within new kingdoms, Chromista (brown algae) and Bacteria (blue-green algae), while others remain in Plantae (red algae).

To W. E. Darwin   9 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 9th 1882 My dear old W. It is great news about the house.1 In my opinion the question turns on whether, as far as you can see, you wd like to live in your present house for a good many years; for if so, the extra outlay of 20£ per annum for 8 years is no consideration, against the comfort of adding & doing what you like to the place.— There is much in feeling the place is your own, & this your mother feels strongly.— The price seems to me high, but this merely shows that the site is valued, The only wisdom that I can extract from your mother is “that money does not signify a bit”. I am not very well, so no more. Your affectionate Father | Ch. Darwin P.S I have received as Hon member of the American Assoc of Social Science a volume of its Journal, & a vol. of the Proceedings of a Conference held at Boston.—2 Wd you or Sara3 care for these 2 volumes— they are of no use to me. DAR 210.6: 185 1 2 3

The owner of the house that William rented had offered to sell it to him (letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, 10 February [1882]; DAR 210.3: 39). See letter from F. B. Sanborn, 12 January 1882 and nn. 2 and 3; Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, who was the general secretary of the American Social Science Association, had sent the publications. Sara Darwin.

From Anton Dohrn   9 February 1882 Stazione Zoologica | di | Napoli February 9th. 1882. Dear Mr. Darwin! Permit me to confer once more the Zoolog. Station’s and my own kindest congratulations for the return of Your birthday, and to tell You, that the Zool. Station is steadily growing in all its different departments.1 It has been my desire from the very beginning to erect a physiological Department along with the manifold arrangements to favour the progress of morphological Science,—but it is only now, that I can really say, this desire is going to be fulfilled.2 A very fine locality has been got, outside the great building of the Station, which has no more room enough for all the different branches of the whole undertaking.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

72

It will be connected by two tubes for conducting seawater with the main building and offer thus every facility for experiments both chemical and physical. I hope to be able thus to offer to Physiologists a new opportunity for the special study of Torpedo, and to receive in exchange their cooperation in many questions, which interest Morphologists more specially.3 The other fields of our activity are well progressing. Four volumes of the Fauna & Flora of the Gulf of Naples are in course of execution in print and plates, and new ones are begun in study.4 The Zool. Jahresbericht has had its second year, and though I have failed to gain the cooperation and amalgamation of the Brit. Record Association I have succeeded in getting support from Continental Academies, Societie’s and Governments.5 I am sorry, that the animosity against this literary Enterprise of ours has moved a critic in the Annals and Magazine to overstep largely the boundaries of fair criticism, but I am afraid, he will regret that himself much more, than the Zool. Station.6 I take the liberty to send You a small paper of mine with statements regarding the formation of the Mouth and Hypophysis in Teleostians.7 You recollect perhaps that in a former pamphlet I tried to explain the Origin of Vertebrates in another way, than it was generally understood.8 I always felt bound to give statements of fact for the support of my views, but could not find among other occupations time and energy enough to follow them up. Even now I have had to postpone studies in this direction, but I hope, what I have published may lead to a new inspection by others of the facts, which I believe to have ascertained in Fishes. It was very curious, that when I happened to assist the Meeting at York Professor Owen should have read a paper, whereby he gave his assent to similar views. He seemed not to be aware, that they had already formed the object of continued discussions, and that since Cuvier and Geoffroy de St Hilaire several important attempts had been made to state and solve the problem, whose importance he most distinctly pointed out.9 It is even sometimes comical, to see how every involution on the back of invertebrates is suspected by some people to be homologous with the supposed ancient or the present Vertebrate mouth, as if this question could be treated with any chance of success, if not only the mouth but the whole of the organization were to be taken in account and to be reduced or derived to and from the supposed ancestor. I have heard to my sincerest regret, that by the fault of my Publisher You have after all paid the subscription for the first year of the Fauna & Flora, whilst I had asked it as a privilege from Your side to accept the Volumes from the Zool. Station as a gift. I hope, that now my orders are better respected, and that You will accept my excuse.10 I was glad to have met Your Sons George and Horace at York, and to hear both from them and from Mr. Balfour, who lately visited us here, that your health was comparatively good.11 Please accept my kindest wishes and regards which I present to Yourself Mrs. Darwin and all Your family, and which I would gladly have offered orally last year, had I not been afraid of disturbing You. Yours | most respectful | Anton Dohrn To | Charles Darwin Esq. | Down.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

73

DAR 162: 222 1 2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

10 11

CD’s 73d birthday was on 12 February 1882. The main building of the Zoological Station housed the morphology department and, from 1876, a botanical department. The physiology department, opened in 1882, was housed in a rented building nearby. (Groeben 1985, p. 10.) Torpedo, a genus of elasmobranch (cartilaginous) fishes, was popular as a research subject. Francis Maitland Balfour had studied the development of its spinal nerves during a visit to the station in 1875 (Balfour 1875). The monograph series Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte began publication in 1880 (see Chun 1880 and Emery 1880). In 1881, three monographs were planned, but only two were published (Dohrn 1881a, Solms-Laubach 1881); the next monograph appeared out of sequence in 1883 (see Grassi 1883, p. [v]). The volumes published in 1882 were Mayer 1882 and Berthold 1882. Two other volumes had been planned for publication in 1882, but appeared later (see Dohrn 1881a, p. [v]). The Zoologischer Jahresbericht, initially edited by Julius Victor Carus, was intended to provide an annual overview of work in zoology. The Zoological Record was a British publication jointly sponsored by the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Zoological Society of London, and was primarily devoted to taxonomy. Dohrn’s attempt to combine the publications was unsuccessful (Heuss 1991, pp. 170–1). The criticism in Annals and Magazine of Natural History has not been identified. Dohrn’s paper, ‘Studien zur Urgeschichte des Wirbelthierkörpers’ (Studies on the prehistory of the vertebrate body; Dohrn 1881b), focused on the development of the mouth and pituitary gland in teleost (bony) fishes. CD’s copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Dohrn had proposed that vertebrates originated from annelids in his paper ‘Der Ursprung der Wirbelthiere und das Princip des Functionswechsels. Genealogische Skizzen’ (The origin of vertebrates and the principle of functional change. Genealogical sketches; Dohrn 1875). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. For more on the controversy surrounding Dohrn’s theory, see Maienschein 1994 and Correspondence vol. 23, letter from Anton Dohrn, 7 February 1875, and letter to Anton Dohrn, 24 May 1875. Richard Owen had delivered a paper, ‘On the homology of the conario-hypophysial tract, or of the so-called “pineal” and “pituitary glands”’ (Owen 1881a), to the biology section of the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at York from 31 August to 7 September 1881. Owen had referred only to the work of Georges Cuvier and Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Dohrn refers to the monograph series Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden MeeresAbschnitte (see n. 4, above). George Howard Darwin, Horace Darwin, and Francis Maitland Balfour.

From Edward Frankland   9 February 1882 Science and Art Department | South Kensington Feb. 9/82 Dear Mr. Darwin Mr. Meldola is, in my opinion, a most promising young chemist and I am glad to see from his certificate that he is also known to biologists, but I think he is still rather too young both in age & work to be brought forward at the Royal Society with a fair chance of success, at all events as regards his chemical claims. Under the shadow of your name however I should probably have waved this objection if I had not recently declined, on the same grounds, to bring him forward when requested to do so by a particular friend of mine.1 I forward the certificate to Mr. Lockyer.2 Believe me | Yours sincerely | E. Frankland DAR 164: 212

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

74 1

2

In spite of the objections stated here, Frankland did sign the ‘Certificate of a candidate for election’ for Raphael Meldola’s fellowship of the Royal Society of London, but at a later date, as his name appears after that of John Lubbock, whose signature was the last obtained by CD (see letter to Raphael Meldola, 23 February 1882). The application was resuspended (that is, resubmitted) four times before Meldola was elected in 1886 (Royal Society Archives GB 117, EC/1886/10). The friend Frankland mentions has not been identified. Norman Lockyer’s name appears just after CD’s on Meldola’s certificate.

To Trübner & Co.   9 February [1882]1 Down, Beckenham, Kent Feb. 9th Mr Ch. Darwin encloses a P. l order & wd be obliged for the International Sc. Direct. to be sent to him by Post.—2 American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.616) 1 2

The year is established by the publisher’s stamp, recording the receipt of the letter. CD ordered the International scientists’ directory, an American annual, for 1882. The directory was published under this name in 1882, but in other years also appeared under the title Naturalists’ directory.

To G. Clinch   10 February 1882 Down | Beckenham Kent (&c) Feb 10th 1882. Dear Sir. I have often noticed insects adhering to the bud scale of Æsculus, but I believe that their death is as accidental as when for instance they fly over the fumarole of a volcanic mountain.1 I do not believe a single instance of a structure can be named which has been developed exclusively for the good of other organisms—though there are plenty of cases of structure developed for the organism’s own good, which are taken advantage of by others.— The viscid scales are believed by botanists to protect the bud from insects, or against an excess of light or against moisture & they have no doubt been developed for some such purpose, whether or no birds eat the captured insects, about which I cannot avoid feeling some doubts.— Dear Sir. | Yours faithfully. | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 143: 260 1

h

d i

0 0

The correspondent has not been further identified, but may be George Clinch (1860–1921), a geologist and antiquarian who lived in West Wickham, about four miles from Down. No letter mentioning buds has been found. Winter buds of Aesculus hippocastanum (horse-chestnut) have three or more overlapping scales (modified stipules); the sticky resin produced by the scales seals the bud, protecting primordial leaf tissue during overwintering.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

75

To [Greville Williams?]1   10 February 1882

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Feb. 10th 1882

Dear Sir I hope that you will excuse the liberty which I take in sending the enclosed certificate for Mr. Meldola, with whom I believe you are personally acquainted.2 If you think that he is a fit person for election in the course of a few years, I hope that you will sign the enclosed & return it to me in the enclosed envelope.— But if you object to do so for any reason, the circumstance shall be mentioned to no one. I remain Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Wellcome Collection (MS.7781/1–32 item 20) 1

2

The correspondent is conjectured from the order of his signature on Raphael Meldola’s certificate, just below that of Norman Lockyer, who signed around 8 February 1882 (see letter to Edward Frankland, 8 February 1882 and n. 1; see also n. 2, below). Williams signed the ‘Certificate of a candidate for election’ for Raphael Meldola’s fellowship of the Royal Society of London. For a list of all the signatories, see the letter to Raphael Meldola, 5 February 1882, n. 3. Meldola had been employed as an industrial chemist from 1871 to 1873 at the Star Chemical Works, where Williams was a partner (ODNB).

From Henry Johnson   11 February 1882

Trindle Road Dudley Feby 11th. 1882.

Dear Sir, I thank you for your kind reply of the 7th. inst. The Slab is on its way to the address you gave, where it will reach on Monday evening I should expect.1 If you will set the packing case against the wall & take out the screws the slab will have its back towards you and then a couple of stout men will easily wriggle it out of the case. The face of the slab rests upon cut chaff. I hope you will receive it quite safe and sound. If you attempt to carry it by the four corners in a horizontal position I should be afraid it would break through the middle. I have enclosed you a few particulars of it & shall be glad to hear from you whether it is worth your acceptance. I will communicate with your friend Proffessor Judd and thank you very much for permission to use your name.2 I am, | Dear Sir, | Yours faithfully, | Hy. Johnson Charles Darwin Esq. FRS &c. [Enclosure] —Annelid Slab.— The slab is from the Coal Measures of the South Staffordshire Coal field and lies about the centre of the Coal-field.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

76

The Bed from which it was taken is peculiar there being no other like it in the Coal field. It is highly adapted for grinding edge tools, cutlery, and used largely at Sheffield and such Towns and indeed over the civilized World. The power in cutting even steel is immense— The Bed lies about 12 yds above the “Thick or 10 yard Coal” is itself about 10 yds thick and has a bearing of soil & Red & Yellow Clay of about 6 yds lying on the top of it. The deposit of Rock is confined to a space of about 1 mile long, and about 50 to 60 yards wide, in the shape of a long narrow Boat slightly dipping all roads towards the centre. The Slabs with the markings are often found about 2 or 3 inches thick but sometimes 12 a yard thick, & lie at different altitudes in the bed, but always with the markings upwards.— The markings are associated in the same bed, but not in contact with (?) anthocosia & a few varieties of ferns, but are of very rare occurance and in a somewhat imperfectly preserved state. H. J. Feby 11th. 1882. Copy DAR 146: 469 1 2

See letter to Henry Johnson, 7 February 1882. CD had accepted Johnson’s offer of a slab of sandstone with fossil annelid worm tracks. CD had suggested that Johnson contact John Wesley Judd to recommend someone who could speak to the Dudley Institute of Mining Engineers (see letter to Henry Johnson, 7 February 1882 and n. 2).

From T. L. Brunton   12 February 1882 50, Welbeck Street, | Cavendish Square. W. Feby 12th. 1882 Dear Mr. Darwin For a long time I have had nothing particular to tell you about the Science Defence or as it is now to be called Science Advancement Association.1 You may have thought it languishing but at last it is beginning to take form. The Presidents of the Colleges of Physicians & Surgeons have agreed to call a meeting at the College of Physicians & a preliminary meeting has been held in order to draw up a programme for discussion at the general meeting.2 There are two different opinions as to the constitution of the Association. The one is that it should be a very limited body of representative men, medical & non-medical not exceeding fifty in all. Such a body it is said would be better able to deal with the questions which arise & would have more influence with the Home Secretary than a large body. My own view is entirely different. We ought I think to have an association embracing as members every medical man throughout the country if possible &

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

77

as many others not of the medical profession as are interested in the progress of medicine. Let each pay a small subscription as I think he will take more interest in the association if he does so. The Association should be constituted very much on the plan of the British Association.3 There might be a general committee of selected men to aid in the work of the Association throughout the country & a small body of members to form a Council. The Council of the Association according to my scheme would fulfil the duties which the whole association of 50 members in the other scheme would perform. It seems to me that if it is wished to found a Society for the advancement of Medicine corresponding in Character to the Royal Society the limited scheme is the best but for the foundation of an Association to diffuse a knowledge of the utility of experiment amongst people in general the wide scheme is best. There will be another preliminary meeting very shortly to discuss this & I should be very greatly obliged if you would kindly say what you think of the two schemes   If you merely say whether you prefer the wide or narrow scheme it will be sufficient. I enclose the draft of proposed resolutions.4 At the last preliminary meeting we only got over the first two. I have no other copy so I should like it again when you have finished with it. The next meeting will be on Wednesday week & I may be able to get another copy so there is no hurry for it. I have been making observations on my baby but the only one of much interest is that it will not go to sleep without something in its hand.5 I find that other babies are the same so I suppose that it is inherited from an arboreal ancestor who could only go to sleep with safety when clinging to a branch. I need hardly say that if I can be of any service in the way of getting either books or information to aid your work I shall be only too happy. Believe me yours very faithfully | T Lauder Brunton Chas. Darwin Esq [Enclosure] Private and confidential. (Proof.) DRAFT OF PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS. 1. That with the view of bringing the legitimate influence of the Medical Profession more effectively to bear on the promotion of those exact Researches in Physiology, Pathology and Therapeutics, which are essential to sound progress in the Healing Art, an Association be formed, to be called “The Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research;” and that the co-operation of enlightened persons, not of the medical profession, be invited. 2. That the Association consist of representative members of the medical profession and of other persons desirous of promoting the above objects. 3. That the Presidents for the time being of the Royal College of Physicians of London and of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, be the permanent ex officio Presidents of the Association; and that each of them be requested to nominate annually eight Fellows of their respective Colleges and

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

78

eight other persons, not necessarily members of the medical profession to be members of the Council of the Association, in addition to the following, who shall be ex officio members: viz.— The President for the time being, of the General Council of Medical Education and Registration, the Master of the Society of Apothecaries, of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in Scotland and Ireland, of the Medico-Chirurgical Society, Dublin, Edinburgh, & Glasgow? of the British Medical Association, of the Pathological Society, of the Medical Society cal Society, of the Epidemiological Society, of the Obstetrical Society, Society of Medical Officers of Health, Hunterian, Harveian, &c., &c. The Chairman of the Council and of the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the British Medical Association, the Regius Professors of Medicine and Surgery in &c., (this list to be subject to consideration in detail). 5. That the President for the time being of the Royal College of Physicians of London, and the President for the time being of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, shall be alternately, for the term of one year, ex officio, Chairman of the Council, and shall each, on entering upon such term, nominate a Vice-Chairman, such nominated Vice-Chairman to re-eligible. That the Council be authorised to invite the co-operation of corresponding members in the principal towns in the United Kingdom   The quorum of the Council shall be six. 4. That registered medical men who are desirous of promoting the above objects be eligible admitted as members of the Association on the nomination of an ordinary or corresponding member. 7. That the Council shall have the entire control of the business of the Association, and the entire management of any funds contributed for its general objects, or for any special purpose; and shall at their meeting in each year appoint a Secretary Treasurer, who shall be re-eligible. 8. That it shall be the principal duty of the Council, in every fitting way, to encourage original research by competent men, and to further the extension of Exact Scientific Knowledge in the fields of enquiry specified in Resolution I. That with this object, the Council shall take note of, and carefully and judiciously strive to lessen or remove any hindrances which may appear to them to be operating adversely to the spread of medical knowledge, either as impediments merely passive, or as obstacles traceable to the ignorance or prejudice of the ill-informed. That the working of the Act 39 & 40 Vict., cap. 77,6 shall engage the anxious and watchful attention of the Council, and may rightly become the ground of interpos〈itio〉n on their part, under certain circumstances. 9. That no steps of a public nature shall be taken by the Council, and no publication shall be issued by them, or under their authority, unless ordered at a meeting convened after due notice, at which twelve members at the least shall be present, and five-sixths of those present shall concur, the consent in writing of the President of the year being also requsite. That no annual subscription be required, but that members of the Association are invited to give such aid as they may desire to the general purposes of the Association or towards special expenses incurred.7 10. That the above ten Resolutions shall constitute the Fundamental Rules of the Association, and shall not be liable to alteration, except by the written consent of three-fourths of the entire Council, after consideration at a meeting called for the specified object, on a fortnight’s notice, DAR 160: 348–9

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

79

CD annotation 3.3 for … best. 3.4] scored red crayon 1

2 3

4 5 6 7

CD had discussed the proposed Science Defence Association with Brunton when he was in London in December 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to T. L. Brunton, 17 December 1881). The fund was to be established for the aid of physiologists who might face prosecution for practising vivisection. On the subscription fund, see British Medical Journal, 19 November 1881, p. 834. On CD’s earlier involvement in the vivisection debates, see Correspondence vol. 23, Appendix VI. William Jenner was president of the Royal College of Physicians of England; Erasmus Wilson was president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. The British Association for the Advancement of Science had a wide membership; for the association’s rules , see, for example, Report of the 51st Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1881): xxv–xxxi. The Association for the Advancement of Medical Research was formed in April and had its first meeting on 20 April 1882, one day after CD died (see Boddice 2021, pp. 39–40). Brunton’s daughter, Elsie, was born on 12 August 1881 (Baptism register of St Thomas’s, Marylebone, London (London Metropolitan Archives p89/tms/003 p. 57)). The Cruelty to Animals Act (An Act to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals (39 & 40 Vict. c. 77)) was enacted on 15 August 1876. CD’s contribution of £100 was recorded in the list of subscribers of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Research (see Boddice 2021, p. 40).

From Max Steffen   12 February 1882 Halle a/Saale Febr. 12th. 1882. Sir! On the 75th. return of your birth-day seven German students drink on your health in the old Teutonic manner.1 Albrecht von Bockelmann, stud. rer. nat. Theodor Bombe, stud. phil. et geogr. Hermann Engelmann, stud. phil. Arthur Petry, stud. rer. nat. et geogr. H. Scheer, stud. rer. nat. B. Schmidt2 stud. phil. Max Steffen, stud. phil. ApcS DAR 177: 253 1 2

In fact, CD turned 73 on 12 February 1882. Bockelmann was a student of natural sciences (stud. rer. nat. is the abbreviation of the Latin ‘studiosus rerum naturalium’, typically used in German-speaking countries). Bombe was studying philosophy and geography. Engelmann, Hermann Scheer, and Bernhard Schmidt were students of philosophy. Petry was a student of natural sciences and geography.

To W. B. Carpenter   13 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 13th 1882 r My dear D. Carpenter If you ever attend the voting days at the Athenæum Club, may I beg for your vote & influence in favour of a personal friend of mine Mr. Albert Dicey.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

80

He is a barrister & has written a law book, which has been highly commended from the Bench.—1 I hope that you are fairly well. We are both growing old men, & I feel as old as Methusalem Excuse me for troubling you & believe me, yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Mr Dicey will be balloted for on the 20th.2 DAR 261.6: 8 (EH 88205925) 1 2

Albert Venn Dicey. See letter to John Tyndall, 13 February 1882 and nn. 1 and 2. Ordinary members of the club were elected by ballot of members present on the day of voting; Dicey was elected in 1882 (Waugh [1888]).

From Emma Darwin to F. J. Hughes   13 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb 13 1882 My dear Mrs Hughes Charles desires me to join him in thanking you for your very kind, & especially for your expression of sympathy in the loss we have had, which is felt as much by the sons & daughter to whom Erasmus was more than most uncles are—1 Charles begs me to say that he has not the least objection to the sentence in which you refer to him & he begs you will use whatever words you prefer.—only it looks a little like praising himself if you put it exactly in the way you propose viz. “I know from my cousin that he also gained his views by his (wonderfully acute) observations &c— If the words I have marked were omitted it would not have the effect I think—2 I often think of the happy days at Penally, & now my sister is gone there is no one to whom I can recall old times.3 I very often used to hear of you— Will you give my kind remembrances to Mrs Fox & her son Charles whom we saw here4 & believe me with C’s kindest regards sincerely | E. Darwin University of British Columbia Library, Rare Books and Special Collections (Pearce/Darwin Fox collection RBSC-ARC-1721-1-15) 1 2

3 4

h

d i

0 0

No letter of condolence from Hughes has been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL. Erasmus Alvey Darwin had died on 26 August 1881. In her book, Harmonies of tones and colours developed by evolution (Hughes 1883, p. 9), Hughes wrote that she asked CD whether he gained his views on evolution from his ‘wonderfully acute observations’ rather than from the ideas of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. See also Correspondence vol. 28, letter to F. J. Hughes, 5 May 1880 and n. 2. Penally, near Tenby in Wales, was the home of Hughes and her husband, John Hughes, who was vicar there. Emma’s sister Elizabeth Wedgwood had died in 1880. Ellen Sophia Fox and Charles Woodd Fox. Charles visited Down in April 1881 (letter from Emma Darwin to H. E. Litchfield, [11] April 1881; DAR 219.9: 261).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

81

To Anton Dohrn   13 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 13th. 1882 My dear Sir I must write a few lines to thank you for your very kind note.—1 I am extremely glad to hear of the great success in all ways of your Institution, & it is very good news about the physiological department.— I daresay that you are aware that Owen has lately published a paper in Proc. or Journal of the Linnean Soc. on the Brain in relation to the mouth &c.—2 I may be very unjust but I cannot avoid the suspicion that the original idea was borrowed from you.—3 I have got one very bad piece of news to tell you, that F. Balfour is very ill at Cambridge with Typhoid Fever, I suppose caught whilst nursing his friend in Italy.4 I hope that he is not in a very dangerous state; but the fever is severe. Good Heavens what a loss he would be to Science & to his many loving friends.— Whenever you come to England again I hope that you will find time to pay us a little visit With cordial good wishes.— | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München (Ana 525. Ba 707) 1 2

3 4

See letter from Anton Dohrn, 9 February 1882. In his paper, ‘On the homology of the conario-hypophysial tract’ (Owen 1881b), Richard Owen had discussed homologies of these organs in vertebrates and annelids. Owen referred to Dohrn’s work on the subject, but gave different reasons for homologising the organs, based not on ancestral forms, but on the relative positions of the central parts of the nervous and vascular systems (ibid., p. 146). Dohrn had criticised Owen’s earlier discussion of the topic (Owen 1881a) for failing to consider contemporary research (see letter from Anton Dohrn, 9 February 1882 and n. 9). See letter from Anton Dohrn, 9 February 1882 and n. 8. While on holiday in Europe, Francis Maitland Balfour had stopped in Naples to see a student of his, William Hay Caldwell; on finding Caldwell was ill with typhoid, Balfour stayed to nurse him. On returning to England in January 1882, Balfour himself became ill with the disease (see M. Foster and Sedgwick eds. 1885, 1: 19).

To A. A. Reade   13 February 1882 Down, Beckenham, Kent Feb. 13, 1882

Private Dear Sir I have marked this note as private, as the details are too personal for the Public.1 I drink 1 glass of wine daily and believe I should be better without any, though all Doctors urge me to drink some or more wine as I suffer much from giddiness. I have taken snuff all my life and regret that I ever acquired the habit, which I have often tried to leave off and have succeeded for a time. I feel sure that it is a great stimulus and aid in my work. I also daily smoke 2 little paper cigarettes of Turkish tobacco.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

82

This is not a stimulus, but rests me after my work, or after I have been compelled to talk, which tires me more than anything else. I am now 73 years old.2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 147: 292 1

2

Reade’s letter, to which this is a response, has not been found, but in Reade ed. 1883, p. ii, Reade explained that he had asked several people engaged in intellectual work whether they used alcohol or tobacco, and whether they found it a help or hindrance in their work. In spite of CD’s having marked his response ‘Private’, Reade published it, omitting the first sentence, after CD’s death, first in Field Naturalist and Scientific Student, 1 June 1882, p. 24, and later in Reade ed. 1883, p. 38. The transcription that appeared in both these publications differed slightly from this copy made, presumably from the original, by Francis Darwin. In Reade ed. 1883, Reade dated the letter 9 February 1882; in Field Naturalist it was undated. CD’s 73d birthday was on 12 February 1882.

From Hugo Schneider   13 February 1882 Handed in at the Berlin Office at 13.12.45 PM.1.4 .M. Received here at 1.45 .M. From Schneider Gernsalemeistr 63 To Master Charles Darwin Down Near Beckenham My Heartfelt Congratulations and best wishes for many happy returns of the day1 Telegram Postmark: FE 18 82 DAR 177: 61 1

CD’s birthday was 12 February; he was 73 in 1882.

To Lawson Tait   13 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb 13th 1882 My dear Sir I must write one line to thank you & Mrs Tait for your very kind note on my birthday.—1 I feel a very old man, & my course is nearly run.— I remain— | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Shrewsbury School, Taylor Library 1

h

d i

0 0

The note from Lawson and Sybil Anne Tait has not been found. CD’s birthday was 12 February; he was 73.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

83

To John Tyndall   13 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 13th 1882 My dear Tyndall If you attend the voting days at the Athenæum Club, will you be so very kind as to give your vote & influence in favour of my friend Mr. Albert Dicey.— He married one of the Bonham Carters.1 He is a Barrister & has published a valuable law book.—2 Forgive me for troubling you & believe me | My dear Tyndall | Yours ever sincerely | Ch. Darwin DAR 261.8: 32 (EH 88205970) 1 2

Albert Venn Dicey had married Elinor Mary Bonham-Carter in 1872. Ordinary members of the club were elected by ballot; Dicey was elected in 1882 (Waugh [1888]). The book was Law of domicil (Dicey 1879).

To T. L. Brunton   14 February 1882 Down | Beckenham— Kent— Feb 14. 1882 Dear Dr. Lauder Brunton I am very much obliged for your information in regard to the association, about which I feel a great interest.1 It seems to me highly desirable that the association should include as many medical and scientific men as possible throughout the whole country, who could illumine those capable of illumination on the necessity of physiological research; but that the Assocn. should be governed by a Council of powerful men not too many in number— Such a council as representing a large body of medical men would have more power in the eyes of vote=hunting politicians than a small body representing only themselves— From what I see of country practitioners, I thinks that their annual subscription ought to be very small— But would it not be possible to add to the rules some such statement as the following one:— “That by a donation of £.... or of any larger sum from those who feel a deep interest in the progress of medical science, the donor shall become a life member”. I for one would gladly subscribe £50  or £100— If such a plan were approved by the leading medical men of London two or three thousand pounds might at once be collected; and if any such sum could be announced as already subscribed when the programme of the Assocn. is put forth, it wd have, as I believe, a considerable influence on the country, & would attract the attention of country practitioners. The Anti-corn Law League owed much of its enormous power to several wealthy men laying down £1000;2 for the subscription of a good sum of money is the best proof of earnest conviction— you asked for my opinion on the above points, and I have given it freely, though well aware that

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

84

from living so retired a life my judgement cannot be worth much. Have you read Mr. Gurney’s article in the Fortnightly and Cornhill?3 They seem to me very clever though obscurely written; & I agree with almost everything that he says, except with some passages which appear to imply that no experiments shd be tried, unless some immediate good can be predicted, & this is a gigantic mistake contradicted by the whole history of science— Believe me dear Dr. Brunton | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S. | That is a curious fact about babies; I remember hearing on good authority that very young babies when moved are apt to clutch hold of anything, & I thought of your explanation; but your case during sleep is a much more interesting one.4 Very many thanks for the book which I much wanted to see; it will be sent back to-day, as from you, to the Society.5 DAR 160: 353–353/1 1 2

3

4 5

See letter from T. L. Brunton, 12 February 1882 and n. 1. Brunton had written about the proposed Science Defence Association. Formed in 1839, the Anti-Corn Law League was a group that agitated for repeal of the Corn Laws of 1815, and promoted free trade. Although the group had wide support among the general populace, much of its financial backing came from rich Manchester mill owners. For more on the league, see Pickering and Tyrrell 2000. Edmund Gurney had written an article in the Fortnightly Review, 15 December 1881, on the ethics of animal experiments (Gurney 1881) and another in the Cornhill Magazine, February 1882, responding to essays supporting vivisection that appeared in Nineteenth Century, December 1881 (Gurney 1882a; Paget et al. 1881). See also Correspondence vol. 29, letter to James Paget, 3 December 1881. In his letter of 12 February 1882, Brunton mentioned that his baby daughter, Elsie, would not go to sleep without something in her hand. There is no mention of a book in the letter from T. L. Brunton, 12 February 1882.

From J. L. Ambrose   15 February 1882

New York Feb 15, 1882.

Chas Darwin Esq. Respected Sir: It has been my desire for some time past, as well as that of my two sisters, to obtain from you, if possible, your autograph, but a lack of courage on my part has prevented the asking of that great favor until now. It is now however for that purpose that I address you, & would respectfully ask if you will be so kind as to write your name and the date on each of the 3 cards which I beg to enclose herewith? Will you please do that for us? One is for myself & the others are for each of my two sisters—1 This is the first time I have ever asked for anything of this sort, & have hesitated long before doing so in this instance, but my dear sisters’ frequent & earnest reminders, & my own great desires at last conquered me; hence this letter— We are fully cognizant of the fact that we are asking a great deal of a gentleman whose time must be as much occupied as yours must be, but we sincerely hope & trust that you will give this request a few moments of your kind & favorable consideration & your compliance therewith.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

85

Both myself & sisters are all ardent admirers of yours, as was my sainted father, which must be our excuse for the making of this request by a youth to a gentleman so much above him— If you will oblige us with the so much desired autograph (& we fervently hope you will) it is our intention to place each of them in handsome little frames and hang them up in our respective rooms where they will always be pleasant to look at as the writing of a gentleman for whom our father’s admiration was so great, & for whom in consequence we cherish such a deep feeling— In a letter which you sent to a friend of ours some time ago for his collection of letters from distinguished people you signed yourself “Your well-wisher”—2 Will you please also add that on each of our respective cards? We are especially desirous of having you add the date. Will you please not forget that? I enclose herewith an addressed envelope for reply— We shall certainly look anxiously in each incoming mail soon for a reply from you, & sincerely trust you will not allow us to look in vain— Apologizing for the great liberty I have taken, & with the hope that I may be honored with a reply ere long, I remain, | Your humble Servant, | James L. Ambrose. DAR 201: 2 1 2

The correspondent and his family have not been identified. The friend mentioned was probably Edward William Bok (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to E. W. Bok, 10 May 1881). CD had signed his letter ‘Your well-wisher’.

From John Tyndall   15 February 1882

Peckforton, | Tarporley. 15th. Feb. 82.

My dear Darwin If it be next Monday I will give your friend a plumper—but if last, alas! I have been out of town.1 I go to London today and will run down to the Club to see how matters stand Ever yours | John Tyndall John Wilson (dealer) (n.d.) 1

See letter to John Tyndall, 13 February 1882. CD was soliciting friends to vote for Albert Venn Dicey’s membership of the Athenaeum Club. Dicey’s membership was balloted on Monday 20 February 1882 (see letter to W. B. Carpenter, 13 February 1882). Plumper: a vote cast at an election for a single candidate when the voter has the right to vote for two or more (OED).

To John Collier   16 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 16th. 1882 r My dear M. Collier I must thank you for the gift of your Art Primer, which I have read with much pleasure.1 Parts were too technical for me who could never draw a line, but I was

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

86

greatly interested by the whole of the first part. I wish that you could explain why certain curved lines & symmetrical figures give pleasure. But will not your brotherartists scorn you for showing yourself so good an evolutionist.— Perhaps they will say that allowance must be made for him, as he has allied himself to so dreadful a man, as Huxley.2 This reminds me that I have just been reading the last volume of essays.3 By good luck I had not read that on Priestly & it strikes me as the most splendid essay which I ever read. That on automatism is wonderfully interesting, more is the pity say I, for if I were as well armed as Huxley I would challenge him to a duel on this subject.—4 But I am a deal too wise to do anything of the kind, for he would run me through the body half-a-dozen times with his sharp & polished rapier, before I knew where I was.— I did not intend to have scribbled all this nonsense, but only to have thanked you for your present. I remain | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Everybody whom I have seen & who has seen your picture of me is delighted with it. I shall be proud some day to see myself suspended at the Linn. Soc.y.5 The Morgan Library and Museum, New York (Heineman Collection MA 6513) 1 2

3

4

5

Collier sent a copy of A primer of art (Collier 1882). The first section of Collier 1882 was about the definition of art and how it evolved from the earliest times. Collier attributed a love of beauty to many non-human animals and attributed the preference of birds for mates with brighter plumage to their sense of beauty (ibid., p. 2). Collier was the son-in-law of Thomas Henry Huxley, having married Marian Huxley in 1879 (ODNB). Science and culture and other essays (T. H. Huxley 1881) was a collection of essays, most of which had first been published in literary magazines, or were addresses or lectures delivered to various audiences. See letter to T. H. Huxley, 12 January 1882. The essay on Joseph Priestley had first been published in Macmillan’s Magazine in 1874 (T. H. Huxley 1881, pp. 94–127). CD also refers to the essay ‘On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history’ (ibid., pp. 199–245). Collier had painted a portrait of CD to hang in the meeting room of the Linnean Society (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from G. J. Romanes, 25 May [1881], and letter to G. J. Romanes, 27 May 1881). See frontispiece to this volume.

To K. M. Lyell   16 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 16th. 1882 My dear Mrs. Lyell In the last number of Kosmos there is a short, but worthy article on your Life of Lyell.1 The Journal is devoted to Evolution, so it is chiefly to this subject to which the review is directed, but the unknown Reviewer evidently appreciates fully Lyell’s lofty position, & the interest of your book.— He hopes that a German Translation may appear.— If you cannot easily see a copy & if you care to read the short review, I can lend you the number.—2 I was quite sorry when we came to the end of your book, & shd have liked a good deal more. Here is candour!!! Nevertheless I still think that a good many letters

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

87

might have been omitted with advantage. All followers & admirers of Lyell ought & will feel grateful to you for having published this life of him.— Pray believe me | Dear Mrs Lyell | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Christie’s, London (dealers) (16–23 May 2019, lot 8) 1 2

See Kosmos, February 1882, pp. 393–6. Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. was published in 1881 (K. M. Lyell ed. 1881; see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to K. M. Lyell, 20 November 1881). CD had a subscription to Kosmos; his unbound copies of the journal are in the Darwin Library–CUL.

To Giuseppe Merighi   16 February [1882] Dear Sir— My observations on the geology of S. Africa have no value. They relate only to the junction between the clay-slate & the granite.— They were published at the end of my “Geolog. Observations on Volcanic Islands”.—1 I do not possess any duplicate copy.— Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Down, Beckenham, Kent Feb. 16th— ApcS Postmark: FE 16 82 Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea, Ferrara (MS II:423) 1

See Volcanic islands, p. 151. No letter from Merighi on South African geology has been found; he has not been identified.

To H. W. Bates   17 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 17th. 1882 My dear Bates Will you be so good as to sign the enclosed Certificate for Mr. Meldola, who does not expect to be elected until 2 or 3 years have elapsed?—1 Please return in enclosed envelope.— But if for any reason you object, I will mention the fact to no one. I shall ask Sir J. Lubbock if he will sign & then send it in the R. Soc.y.—2 My dear Bates, Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Cleveland Health Sciences Library (Robert M. Stecher collection) 1

2

h

d i

Bates signed the ‘Certificate of a candidate for election’ for Raphael Meldola’s fellowship of the Royal Society of London. For a list of the other signatories, see the letter to Raphael Meldola, 5 February 1882 and n. 3. The application was resuspended (that is, resubmitted) four times before Meldola was elected in 1886 (Royal Society Archives GB 117, EC/1886/10). John Lubbock was the last to sign the form before it was submitted by CD, as proposer. Other signatures were evidently added when the form was resuspended.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

88

To Max Steffen   17 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 17th 1882 Dear Sir I hope that you will express to your fellow-students my thanks for their kind good wishes on my birth-day. I sincerely, hope that you may all be successful in your several careers, & all fairly happy.—1 Believe me | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin Gene Kritsky (private collection) 1

See letter from Max Steffen, 12 February 1882. CD’s birthday was 12 February; he was 73.

From W. D. Crick   18 February 1882 111 Overstone Road | Northampton Feb 18. 82. Dear Sir In your “Origin of Species” 6th. edition, page 345 you mention a Dytiscus being caught with an Ancylus adhering to it, to day while hunting for water beetles I secured a female Dytiscus marginalis with a small bivalve that I think is Sphærium corneum very firmly attached to its leg, as if the leg had been thrust between the open valves which had then closed upon it and held it fast,1 I thought this might be interesting, and if you would care to see the specimens should be pleased to forward them to you Yours truly | W. D. Crick. C Darwin Esq. DAR 205.3: 263 1

Dytiscus is a genus of diving beetles in the family Dytiscidae; the common English species, Dytiscus marginalis (great diving beetle), is large, with adults measuring up to 35mm. Ancylus is a genus of very small freshwater pulmonate gastropods in the family Planorbidae (ramshorn snails). Sphaerium corneum is the European fingernail clam; it measures about 9 to 11mm.

To John Brown   20 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 20th 1882 Dear Sir As I have been informed that you have generously offered to collect subscriptions for Mrs. Cupples, in order to set her up in a small shop, I have taken the liberty of enclosing 40 £ for this purpose.—1 With much respect I beg leave to remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin National Library of Scotland (Acc. 6289/23)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882 1

89

On 19 February 1882, CD recorded a payment of £40 under the heading ‘Dr Brown for Mrs Cupples— Charity’. In 1872, Anne Jane Cupples had provided CD with information on the expressions of dogs that howled to music (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from A. J. Cupples to Emma Darwin, 8 November [1872]). In 1877, CD had written to the the Royal Literary Fund in support of Cupples’s work and to confirm her need (see Correspondence vol. 25, letter to Octavian Blewitt, 1 January 1877).

From A. H. Kepley   20 February 1882 Effingham Illinois. U.S. Feb. 20th 1882,

Chas. Darwin, Dear Sir Hoping I do not intrude, I send you an item concerning “earth worms”, bearing upon some discussions I now see concerning their alleged habit, of eating the roots of pot plants and injuring them by their acid excrements.1 I have had many house plants for years, and have kept my plants in unglazed, and glazed ware, in iron, in tin, and wood, have used garden soil, leaf mould chip dirt, and well rotted manure to enrich the same, and in which as far know earth worms abound   I have used no drainage by piling pot sherds, charcoal gravel &c, in bottom of pots, sometimes I have not even had a hole in the vessel. I never bake the earth, always have worms in the pots, and never believed they were injurious to plants, have talked with women, who laid fallens2 to worms, but it could usually be traced to poor light, bad watering or high temperature, If I can have good light, proper temperature, good air, and water carefully, not too much nor too little, my plants will grow. I have grown all the ordinary house plants and some that are not ordinary, and with success, I think the worms do not hurt the plants. I notice if there is some under the pots, they are fond of going out of the hole at the bottom, and making a sort of nest or bed Very respectfully | Ada H. Kepley DAR 169: 7 1 2

In Earthworms, p. 53, CD had noted that the digestive fluid of worms was alkaline, and therefore neutralised the acids in half-decayed leaves. The discussions referred to have not been identified. ‘Fallens’ presumably means fallen leaves.

To W. D. Crick   21 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 21st 1882 Dear Sir Your fact is an interesting one, & I am very much obliged to you for communicating it to me.—1 You speak a little doubtfully about the name of the shell, & it wd be indispensable to have this ascertained with certainty. Do you know any good conchologist in Northampton who cd. name it? If so, I shd. be much obliged if you wd. inform me of the result. Also the length & breadth of the shell & how much of

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

90

leg (which leg?) of the Dytiscus has been caught.— If you cannot get the shell named, I could take it to the British Museum, when I next go to London; but this probably will not occur for about 6 weeks, & you may object to lend the specimen for so long a time. I am inclined to think that the case cd. be worth communicating to “Nature”.—2 Again thanking you I remain, Dear Sir | yours faithfully Ch. Darwin P.S. | I suppose that the animal in the shell must have been alive when the Dytiscus was captured; otherwise the adductor muscle of the shell wd. have relaxed & the shell dropped off? The Huntington Library (HM 36222) 1

2

See letter from W. D. Crick, 18 February 1882 and n. 1. Crick had found a diving beetle of the genus Dytiscus with a small clam attached to one of its feet. He thought the clam might be Sphaerium corneum, the European fingernail clam. After receiving more information, CD communicated the case to Nature (‘Dispersal of freshwater bivalves’).

From A. G. Dew-Smith   21 February [1882] Feb 21. Tuesday, F. M. B. slept very well last night is comfortable this morning & the Doctors say that this is “the best day he has had yet”.1 Apc Postmark: FE 21 82 DAR 162: 175 1

Francis Maitland Balfour was ill with typhoid fever (see letter to Anton Dohrn, 13 February 1882 and n. 4).

From Wilhelm Breitenbach1   22 February 1882 Verehrtester Herr Darwin! Als ich vor einiger Zeit meine bis jetzt in unserer Provinz gesammelten Insecten musterte, war es mir sofort klar, dass ich zuerst den Orthopteren meine besondere Aufmerksamkeit schenken müsse.2 Gestatten Sie mir, dass ich Ihnen heute wenigstens zwei der mir am interessantesten scheinenden Beobachtungen mittheile. Einen ausführlicheren Bericht über diese und andere Punkte werde ich in kurzer Zeit für “Katter’s Entomologische Nachrichten” ausarbeiten.3 Jene langgestreckten, grünen, flügellosen Mantiden sind Ihnen bekannt. Ich habe eine Art (oder ist es nur zufällig ein Exemplar?) gefunden, bei der ganz deutliche Flügelrudimente vorhanden sind. In den mir augenblicklich zugänglichen Werken finde ich Nichts darüber, ich vermuthe daher dass diese Beobachtung neu ist.4 Zahlreich sind hier die einem durren Holzstengel ähnlichen Stabheuschrecken. Die Bestimmung der Gattungen ist mir nach der vorhandenen Literatur noch nicht gelungen.5 Wenn man als Hauptmerkmale dieser Thiere den kegelförmig

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

91

verlängerten Kopf mit den weit vorgerückten Augen, und die dürre, langgestreckte Gestalt betrachtet, so glaube ich auf dem Wege zu sein, die phyletische Entwicklung dieser sonderbaren Formen ermitteln zu können. Ich habe neulich eine ganze Anzahl Acridier gefunden, bei denen man eine allmälige Verlängerung des Kopfes über die Augen hinaus, ein allmaliges Vorrücken der Augen (vom Hinterende des Kopfes nach vorn) und ein allmäliges Dünnerwerden der ganzen Gestalt, verbunden mit Längsstreckung, deutlich erkennen kann.6 Sollte es mir gelingen, noch mehr solcher Zwischenglieder zu finden, so dürfte es nicht schwer sein, eine vollständige Stufenleiter aufzustellen von typischen Acridiern, einerseits bis zu den typischen Stabheuschrecken. Ich glaube, dass der Gegenstand volle Aufmerksamkeit verdient. Sonst habe ich noc〈h v〉iele interessante Orthopteren gefunden, zahlreiche geflügelte Mantis-Arten, eine sehr hübsche Pterochroza, mehrere Phylloptera und Verwandte 〈un〉d eine sehr grosse Anzahl anderer Locustinen und Acridier.7 Eine Heuschrecke habe ich, von der die Leute auf den Colonien behaupten, dass sie wie die Wanderheuschrecke Europa’s grosse Züge mache.8 Bestätigen kann ich diese Angabe vorläufig allerdings nicht. Indem ich hoffe, dass es Ihnen recht gut geht, begrüsse ich Sie als | Ihr | hochachtungsvoll ergebener | Dr. W. Breitenbach Porto Alegre. 22.II.82. | Rio Grande do Sul. | Brazil. DAR 160: 296 1 2

3

4

5 6 7 8

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Orthoptera is the order of grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets. At this time, it included several families which have since been reclassified into their own orders, among which are mantids (Mantidae; order Mantodea) and stick insects (Phasmatidae; order Phasmida or Phasmatodea). Breitenbach’s paper ‘Entomologische Skizzen aus der Provinz Rio Grande do Sul Brasilien’ (Entomological sketches from the province of Rio Grande do Sul Brazil; Breitenbach 1882) appeared in the June 1882 issue of Entomologische Nachrichten. The journal was edited by Friedrich Ketter. Mantises have two pairs of wings; in most species, only males have fully developed wings while females have rudimentary ones or are wingless. Earlier descriptions of mantis species had noted differences in wing-size in males and females (see, for example, Burmeister 1832–55, 2: 540). In his article, Breitenbach speculated on whether these rudimentary wings were hereditary or a mere atavism (Breitenbach 1882, pp. 159–60). On the classification of stick insects, see n. 2, above. Breitenbach refers to members of the Acrididae (the family of short-horned grasshoppers). Pterochroza and Phylloptera are genera of katydids (family Tettigoniidae, order Orthoptera). Locustidae is the former family of locusts (now subsumed within Acrididae). The main swarming species of locust in the Rio Grande do Sul region is the South American locust (Schistocerca cancellata), which ranges from Argentina into the southern parts of Brazil. (Rio Grande do Sul is in the south of Brazil.)

From John Collier   22 February 1882 7 Chelsea Embankment Feb 22nd. | 1882 Dear Mr Darwin It is very kind of you to write to me about my little book— I expressly said that I did not want any acknowledgment of it but I am none the less grateful for your

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

92

letter.1 I am in hopes that my brother artists will not read the work in question   if they did my character amongst them would be gone for ever and I should be classed (most unjustly) as a scientific person—2 Fortunately they seldom read at all and being wise men in their way least of all do they read anything about Art— The question why certain forms & colours are pleasing and others not will I am sure be satisfactorily explained some day but it is quite obvious that that day has not come yet— The utmost one can do is to point out the two directions in which the explanation is to be sought— 1 association 2 moderate & healthy stimulation of nervous activity. I should imagine that these are the two sources of the pleasure derived from harmony of colour & form & as far as I can see the only two but then the same thing can be said of every other pleasure so it is obvious that to be of any use our explanation must go a great deal further than this— I await with as much patience as may be the investigations of psychologists & physiologists on this difficult point and in the mean time point out in my primer that really nothing is known about it & therefore the less we talk about it the better—setting myself a commendable example on this point by dismissing the whole subject in a few words— I wish you would tackle Mr Huxley on the subject of automatism3   There must be something wrong in a theory which nobody really believes in with regard to himself except in some strained & unnatural sense— Would my actions be the same without my consciousness? Of course I can’t prove that they wouldn’t but I don’t believe it for an instant. There is rather a striking argument of Spencers about the reality of the external world— He contrasts the roundabout arguments with which philosophers have been led to doubt this reality with the immediate deliverance of consciousness which tells us as a fact that this reality exists   a fact which is just as valid as any of the other facts on which all our arguments have to be based—4 In the same way the immediate deliverance of our consciousness tells us as plainly as it tells us any thing that our thoughts & feelings can influence the external world— Of course our consciousness can be mistaken but then so can our arguments and anyhow our arguments have to rest upon our consciousness to begin with— Forgive this long and I am afraid badly expressed scrawl— You paid me the compliment of writing to me and I am afraid I have badly requited it— but whether you forgive it or not I beg you will not think of answering it— In fact I put off answering your letter for some time for fear you should say “Confound the fellow, he wants to drag me into a correspondence!.” yours very sincerely | John Collier DAR 161: 209 1 2 3

4

h

d i

0 0

See letter to John Collier, 16 February 1882. Collier had sent CD a copy of A primer of art (Collier 1882). See letter to John Collier, 16 February 1882 and n. 2. See letter to John Collier, 16 February 1882 and n. 4. Thomas Henry Huxley’s essay ‘On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history’ had appeared in his most recent essay collection (T. H. Huxley 1881, pp. 199–245). Huxley had concluded that all states of consciousness were ‘immediately caused by molecular changes in the brain-substance’ and described humans as ‘conscious automata, endowed with free will’ (ibid., p. 239). For Herbert Spencer’s argument about external reality, see Spencer 1855, pp. 60–5.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

93

To J. D. Cooper   22 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Feb 22— 1882 My dear Sir I now send two other drawings to be engraved, and please to attend to the following instructions.1 Both drawings to be reduced to 23 of present scale. They are to stand as shown by the pencil bounding square    They are highly magnified sections, therefore all the lines must be very fine. You will see that in fig. 1 that some of the cells in the space marked c contain many rounded granules & these must be attended to in the cuts. These are closer together in the long cells marked b. In the exterior cells marked d, and in the cut-off root-hairs, marked e the granules are to be omitted as I have written down. The tubes or ducts marked a are crossed by fine transverse lines. The same remarks apply to fig 2, but here the granules, & small spheres and elongated masses in the cells d and in the root hairs e are to be carefully shown. The letters a, b, c, d, e are to be engraved in both figs. where now placed   The blocks had better be sent to me when drawn; and I particularly beg you to have them done as soon as possible My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin

omit granules

e

omit granules

omit granules

omit granules

omit granules

omit granules

[Enclosure 1]

e

e

Fig. I

c c

b

b a

a Drawn with Zeiss Camera ocular 3 objective DD

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

Cyclamen x 260

b id

i

i

reduced to 2/3

d

d

February 1882

94 [Enclosure 2]

Cyclamen

Fig. 2

e d c

reduced to 2/3

e

e

d c

x 260

Drawn with Zeiss Camera

Zeiss

ocular 3 objective DD

LS(A) Princeton (Scheide Autograph Collection 68.5: 11); DAR 28.2: A1a–A1b 1

The illustrations appeared on p. 254 of CD’s paper ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on roots’. The enclosed drawings made by Francis Darwin are reproduced here at 70 per cent of their original size. For the published version see plate on p. 95.

To Henry Johnson   22 February 1882 Down | Beckenham, Kent. Feby 22nd. 1882. Dear Sir, As very few luggage trains call at our small station the great box arrived there only 2 days ago & I was not able to send for it until yesterday as there was a run on my horses.1 The specimen arrived quite safe owing to the great care with which it had been packed up. The impressions are wonderfully distinct & the specimen seems to me a very interesting & curious one. I shall be anxious to show it to any geologists who may visit me and who may happen to have attended more carefully to impressions than I have ever done.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

‘The action of carbonate of ammonia on the roots of certain plants’, by Charles Darwin, Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Botany) 19 (1882): 254. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

96

How I wish that my dear old friend Sir Charles Lyell had been alive!2 Prey accept my cordial thanks for the great kindness which you have shown in sending me this specimen. Believe me my dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin Copy DAR 146: 5 1 2

Johnson had sent CD a slab of sandstone with fossil annelid worm tracks (see letter from Henry Johnson, 11 February 1882). Charles Lyell, who died in 1875, had been an early supporter of CD’s work and a close friend. Some of the information for CD’s early paper ‘Formation of mould’ had been transmitted to CD through Lyell (see Correspondence vol. 2, letter from W. F. Lindsay-Carnegie to Charles Lyell, [14 February 1838]).

From John Lubbock to Francis Darwin   22 February 1882 High Elms, | Hayes, | Kent. 22 Feb 82 Dear Mr Darwin1 I return the enclosed which I have signed with pleasure.2 I am | Yours very truly | John Lubbock Mrs Darwin will be interested to hear that the House has this afternoon expelled Bradlaugh3 Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (6 April 2022, lot 237) 1 2 3

‘(F.)’ is pencilled between ‘Mr’ and ‘Darwin’. The enclosure was Raphael Meldola’s certificate for election as a fellow of the Royal Society of London (see letter to H. W. Bates, 17 February 1882). Charles Bradlaugh had been repeatedly elected MP for Northampton. He initially refused to take the required oath on the grounds of unbelief; his offer of an affirmation was refused, as was his later offer to take the oath. (ODNB.) In a letter to George Howard Darwin on 28 February 1882 (DAR 210.3: 41), Emma Darwin wrote, ‘The Bradlaugh affair is disgusting & why they did not accept his offer of lying by until an affirmation bill was brought in I can’t think— It is the only just way out of the scrape—’ Bradlaugh’s expulsion from Parliament was reported in The Times, 23 February 1882, p. 8.

To William Ogle   22 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 22d 1882 r My dear D. Ogle You must let me thank you for the pleasure which the Introduction to the Aristotle book has given me.1 I have rarely read anything which has interested me more; though I have not read as yet more than a quarter of the book proper. From quotations which I had seen I had a high notion of Aristotle’s merits, but I had not the most remote notion what a wonderful man he was. Linnæus & Cuvier have been my two Gods, though in very different way, but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle.—2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

97

How very curious, also, his ignorance on some points as on muscles as the means of movement.—3 I am glad that you have explained in so probable a manner some of the grossest mistakes attributed to him.— I never realised before reading your book to what an enormous summation of labour we owe even our common knowledge. I wish old Aristotle could know what a grand Defender of the Faith he had found in you. Believe me my dear Dr Ogle | yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin DAR 261.5: 19 (EH 88205917) 1

2 3

Ogle sent CD a copy of his translation Aristotle on the parts of animals (Ogle trans. 1882; see letter from William Ogle, 17 January 1882). In addition to the translation, Ogle had written an introduction, a section on the main groups of animals recognised by Aristotle, and a synopsis of the text (ibid., pp. i–xxxv). Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) and Georges Cuvier. See Ogle trans. 1882, p. 154.

To Raphael Meldola   23 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 23d 1882 Dear Mr Meldola Your certificate has been signed by self—Norman Lockyer Greville Williams, Ch. Al. Wright, H. W. Bates & Sir J. Lubbock.1 These are fairly good names, & in accordance with my practice of not applying to more than 6 men, I have sent the Certificate to R. Socy.— You are probably aware that anyone else who likes, can add his name to the suspended Certificate.2 But I have been assured by members of the Council that the names are never considered, only what the applicant has done.— As you have not given the titles of the papers published by you, it seems to me highly adviseable that you shd. act in compliance with the printed request that “as far as practicable, copies of any books & publications mentioned in this Certificate be furnished for the use of the Council &c &c.—(to be ultimately returned) You could send the copies to W. White Esqre at R. Soc.—stating that they were sent in compliance with the above request on the Certificate—3 Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Oxford University Museum of Natural History (Hope Entomological Collections 1350: Hope/Westwood Archive, Darwin folder) 1 2

3

h

d i

Norman Lockyer; Greville Williams; Charles Romley Alder Wright; Henry Walter Bates; John Lubbock. The ‘Certificate of a candidate for election’ was for Meldola’s application for fellowship of the Royal Society of London. For the additional signatories of the certificate, see the letter to Raphael Meldola, 5 February 1882 and n. 3. Walter White was the assistant secretary of the Royal Society. An additional page was added to the certificate listing later appointments and publications of Meldola’s, dated up to 1885. Meldola was elected in June 1886 (Royal Society Archives GB 117, EC/1886/10).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

98

To Walter White   23 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 23d 1882 My dear Sir Will you be so good as to suspend the enclosed Certificate.1 Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Duke University, Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Frank Baker Collection of Wesleyana and British Methodism (RL.00413): James Botteley and Charles Hart autograph book) 1

CD enclosed the ‘Certificate of a candidate for election’ for Raphael Meldola’s application for fellowship of the Royal Society of London (Royal Society Archives GB 117, EC/1886/10).

From W. D. Crick   24 February 1882 111 Overstone Road | Northampton Feb 24th. 82 Dear Sir I think the shell is Sphærium corneum but cannot be quite sure, it measures .35 of an inch from the beaks to front margin .45 of an inch from one side of the valve to the other, and .3 of an inch in depth and weighs .39 gramme.1 I am sorry that the shell dropped off the bettle on Thursday 23rd. inst afternoon and I caught it on the Saturday 18th. inst. afternoon previous, it was very firmly fixed for the beetle shook it violently in its movements and a little while after they had separated the bettle dived to the bottom and its left antenne was caught between the valves and the bettle was held for a few minutes apparently unable to rise, in its original position the shell was on the right hand side of the bettle, looking down upon the bettle with the head away from the observer, on the 2nd. or imtermediate leg, four joints of the tarsus were visible and the remainder of the foot measures .1 of an inch. The beetle was captured in a small pond and was able to crawl easily through grass but it never attempted to fly that I am aware of sine I have had it, both the specimens are forwarded to you alive by accompanying post and I hope they will arrive safely, as you think the case worth communicating to Nature should be pleased to do so but should like to be certain about the shell first, if there is any other information you require I should be pleased to supply if possible2 Very truly yours | W. D. Crick Chas Darwin Esq. DAR 205.3: 264 CD annotation Verso of last page: ‘Shell alive 25th 2°30′ P.M.: when first put at water | 27th. Trawl about in sand at bottom of vessel.’ pencil; ‘My son F. & a companion while fishing off the coast often brought up small mussels, and it was their joint impression that the tip had been seized by the shell fish & though it held on so hard that the byssus had been torn.—’3 black ink

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882 1 2 3

99

See letter to W. D. Crick, 21 February 1882 and n. 1. Sphaerium corneum is the European fingernail clam. CD communicated the case to Nature, but the clam was identified as Cyclas cornea (a synonym of Sphaerium corneum) (‘Dispersal of freshwater bivalves’). CD’s annotations are notes for his reply of 25 February 1882. Francis Darwin is the son mentioned. He had been salmon fishing in north Wales in October 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from Francis Darwin, [21 October 1881]).

To G. H. Darwin   24 February [1882]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 24th My dear George I sent last week’s Nature to you thinking that you wd like to see Dr. Newberrys paper, & I cannot but think that he is right.2 In todays Nature there is a letter by Mr. Callaway & a 2d letter (who has done good work on Pre Cambrian formations) against Newberry; but it seems to me that he quite underrates the effect of gigantic tides rushing over low land. Mr Callaway like other geologists seems to read very carelessly, as he brings forward as his own new view the greater force of the old wind-currents.3 It is wonderful what interest your work has excited. The Archbishop of Canterbury & a lot of other such men have persuaded a number of scientific, more or less religious, men to write a series of articles in the Contemporary Rw. on what is absolutely known & what is theoretical in Science (they applied to me & I refused) & I see it announced that Ball will write on the evolution of the earth, Plants &c.—4 We have had a very nice visit from Ida & Horace of 8 days & William & Sara were here for 2 days, but I was unfortunately bad during those days.5 Ida was very sweet & is a first-rate mother.—6 Horace is full of ideas about new things to make & today Stokes wrote for his address to arrange a meeting with him at the Standard Office. Horace is going to various places in London to see calculating machines & to ascertain what kind of results are most wanted.7 You will see the newspapers even in Jamaica, so it is no use telling you anything about public events; but Parliament seems to me going to the dogs as quickly as it can, & I almost wish that Gladstone would resign.— I would not, however on any account say this to the Litchfields.8 I hope very much before long to receive a letter from you, telling us that you are moderately well.— Your affectionate Father | C. Darwin There is an interesting Lecture by Schuster on mathematics in todays Nature.9 We will send Nature to you DAR 210.1: 114 1 2

h

d i

The year is established by the reference to the articles in Nature (see n. 2, below). John Strong Newberry’s article ‘Hypothetical high tides’ was published in Nature, 16 February 1882, pp. 357–8. In it, Newberry considered what effect tidal forces would have had if they were once so great as George’s theory of the moon’s origin predicted. Newberry concluded that the geological record showed no evidence of such extreme tides. For George’s recent work on the the viscous state of the

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

100

3

4

5 6 7

8 9

earth and tides, see, for example, G. H. Darwin 1880 and G. H. Darwin 1881a. George had recently written an article in Nature qualifying his earlier estimates of ancient tides (see letter from J. W. Judd, 8 January 1882 and n. 1). In a letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, 20 February 1882 (DAR 210.3: 40), Emma added a message from CD, ‘Newbury the author of the first article in Nature is trustworthy man, & what he says about the nature of the most ancient sediments quite agrees with my impression’. Two letters countering Newberry’s conclusions were published in Nature, 23 February 1882, p. 385. The first, from Charles Callaway, distinguished different types of tides and their varying effects, while the second, from Abraham Hale, pointed out that in more confined waters, such as the Mediterranean, tides were hardly perceptible. Archibald Campbell Tait was the archbishop of Canterbury. In November 1881, a conference had been held at the archbishop’s residence, Lambeth Palace, and a committee was set up to promote the expression of religious views among men of science. One of the aims was to present a series of articles ‘to consider how far the theories in each science without any reference to Christianity rest on fully proved & verified laws & how far on hypotheses’ (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from W. R. Browne, [20–2] November [1881]). The announcement regarding Robert Stawell Ball’s forthcoming article has not been identified, but his article ‘Boundaries of astronomy’, about the ‘line which divides the truths which have been established in astronomy from those parts … hypothetical’, appeared in the Contemporary Review, June 1882 (Ball 1882, p. 923). The July 1882 issue featured an article by Balfour Stewart, ‘On the conservation and dissipation of energy’ (Stewart 1882), which concluded that the law of conservation of energy could only be considered a hypothesis. Further articles appeared later (see, for example, Condor 1882 and Romanes 1882b). Ida and Horace Darwin visited Down from 8 to 21 February 1882; William Erasmus and Sara Darwin visited from 17 to 20 February 1882 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Ida and Horace’s first child, Erasmus Darwin (1881–1915), was born on 7 December 1881 (Freeman 1978). George Gabriel Stokes was a member of the committee appointed by the Royal Society of London in 1882 at the request of the Board of Trade to advise on improving the existing means of the comparison of standards of length at the Standard Office. Horace’s company, the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company, was asked to investigate the subject of temperature regulators, and to consider the general design of a comparing apparatus (see H. Darwin 1886). George had travelled to Jamaica for a five-week tour (see letter from W. E. Darwin, 2 February [1882] and n. 3, and letter to Anthony Rich, 4 February 1882 and n. 10). Arthur Schuster’s lecture, ‘The influence of mathematics on the progress of physics’, was published in Nature, 23 February 1882, pp. 397–401.

To W. D. Crick   25 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 25th 1882 Dear Sir I am much obliged for your clear & distinct answers to my questions.—1 I am sorry to trouble you, but there is one point which I do not fully understand: Did the shell remain attached to the beetle’s leg from the 18th to the 23d. & was the beetle kept during this time in the air? Do I understand rightly that after the shell had dropped off, both being in water, that the beetle’s antenna was again temporarily caught by the shell? I presume that I may keep the specimen till I go to London, which will be about the middle of next month.—2 I have placed the shell in fresh water to see if the valves will open & whether it is still alive, for this seems to me a very interesting point. As the wretched beetle was

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

101

still fully alive I have put it in a bottle with chopped Laurel leaves, that it may die an easy & quicker death. I hope that I shall meet with your approval in doing so.—3 One of my sons tells me that on the coast of N. Wales, the bone fishing hooks often bring up young mussels, which have seized hold of the points; but I must make further enquiries on this head.—4 Dear Sir | yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin The Huntington Library (HM 36224) 1 2 3 4

See letter from W. D. Crick, 24 February 1882. In the event, CD did not go to London. Laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) produces prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide; HCN), which inhibits oxygen utilisation in many animals. The son was Francis Darwin (see letter from W. D. Crick, 24 February 1882 and n. 3).

From A. G. Dew-Smith   25 February 1882 Sunday. Feb 25/82. F. M. B. going on very satisfactorily indeed. The fever has abated the Doctors say, & altogether he is very much better & more comfortable.1 A. G. D. DAR 162: 176 1

See also letter from A. G. Dew-Smith, 21 February [1882]. Francis Maitland Balfour was ill with typhoid fever.

From A. V. Dicey   25 February 1882 107 Victoria St | Westminster 25 Feb /82 My dear Mr. Darwin I must write a line to you to thank you for all all your interest and help about my election at the Athenæum—.1 Your name secured me a number of votes to wch I had no other claim It has long been a strong wish on my part to get into the club partly because my Father2 belonged to it and in part for the very great advantage the Library may be to me. It has been a very great pleasure to me to get in—and I am most sincerely obliged to you & your son for all your kindness in the matter3 I am yours sincerely | A. V. Dicey DAR 162: 177 1 2 3

h

d i

See letter to W. B. Carpenter, 13 February 1882 and n. 2, and letter to John Tyndall, 13 February 1882. Thomas Edward Dicey. The son was probably Francis Darwin, who was CD’s secretary.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

102

To J. C. Lyell   25 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Feb. 25th 1882 Dear Sir I find that the Translation of Musari is not in the Catalogue of my Library.1 Nor can I find it in the shelves where it was likely to stand. If my memory does not deceive me it was in loose sheets, & I know not where to look for them in my larger Library, so I cannot comply with your request.2 Dear Sir | yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Private collection 1

2

CD had received a translation of a Persian work on pigeons by Sayzid Mohammed Musari in 1858 (see Correspondence vol. 7, letter to Walter Elliot, 12 December [1858]). The work was translated by Walter Elliot, but the original text was subsequently lost in transit from India to England (see J. C. Lyell 1887, p. 404). CD had cited Elliot’s private translation in Variation 1: 141 and n. 10. No letter from Lyell requesting the translation has been found. The translation has not been found in the Darwin Library–CUL or the Darwin Library–Down.

From Daniel Mackintosh   25 February 1882 36 Whitford Road, | Tranmere, | Birkenhead, 25th Feb. 1882. Dear Sir,— I presume you have received a pamphlet from Dr. James Geikie in answer to my paper on Boulders.1 He does not seem to have fully understood my paper, especially concerning the meeting of a warm and cold current (like the Arctic current and Gulf Stream off Newfoundland) in the neighbourhood of Wolverhampton.2 He likewise seems to be inconsistent in fully acknowledging the boulder-transporting power of floating ice, while underrating its visible effects.3 But my main object in writing is to obtain farther light on a subject in which I have been interested for many years (having had discussions with Socialists on the subject as far back as 1842 in Yorkshire). My principal occupation is a lecturer on physical geography and geology to schools (including Liverpool College); and I cannot bring myself to believe that religion should be entirely excluded from such lectures. You would greatly oblige by letting me know what you think of the following statement (which I fear is much too diffuse) of what may be advanced in favour of theism:— If we deny the derivation of life from inorganic matter (in other words the origin of life by spontaneous generation)4 the only alternatives left would appear to be (first) the existence of what may be called a speck of life or organic matter from all eternity, because the sudden appearance of this speck in time (in the form of the first animal) would, in the absence of pre-existing life, be an instance of spontaneous generation; (second) the eternal existence of a living being co-extensive with the material universe, if not infinite in extent. Certainly the most probable alternative is the idea of an

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

103

eternal or ever-living being filling all immensity with his presence, and breathing into the first animal the breath of life. In a subject of this kind we ought not to limit the possible existence of life to the globe on which we dwell; and supposing some or all of the planets to be inhabited by living beings (in each planet sprung from a centre or centres of creation) it would be much less reasonable to believe in the sudden appearance in time of such a centre or centres in each planet, than to be believe in an underived, eternal, and ever-living being directly adding to inert matter the germs of organic life. In short, the assertion that animal life could have originated independently of an eternal living being is only another way expressing the theory of spontaneous generation. I have not worded the above in sufficiently clear language, but I have no doubt you will be able to see the drift of the argument. With thanks for past letters received from you on other subjects, | I am, Dear Sir | Your very obliged & faithful | Servant, | D. Mackintosh. DAR 171: 13 1

2 3

4

No copy of James Geikie’s article ‘Intercrossing of erratics in glacial deposits’ (Geikie 1882) has been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL. CD and Mackintosh evidently received offprints of the full article, which was published in two parts in the January and April 1882 issues of the Scottish Naturalist. Mackintosh’s paper on erratic boulders (Mackintosh 1879) had been warmly praised by CD (see Correspondence vol. 27, letter to Daniel Mackintosh, 9 October 1879). See Geikie 1882, pp. 250–3, and Mackintosh 1879, pp. 427–30. Geikie accounted for the intercrossing of erratic boulders by the ‘land-ice theory’; glaciers moving in different directions that met and veered off their former paths following the collision (see Geikie 1882, pp. 195–6). For CD’s interest in the debates over spontaneous generation, see Correspondence vol. 20, letters to A. R. Wallace, 28 August [1872] and [2 September 1872]. For more on the debate about spontaneous generation around this time, see Strick 2000.

To H. H. Leng   26 February 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R) Feb, 26th 1882 Dear Sir I wish that I cd. answer your question, but I cannot.1 The usual cause of the death of worms is a parasitic larva of a Fly, but this cd.  not apply especially to asphalt pavement.2 Worms are very susceptible to certain poisons, & coal-tar is poisonous to plants for a quite extraordinary length of time, & it may be so to earth-worms.— I have here an uncovered tennis court, consisting of concrete, & my sons tell me that they have often noticed dead & dying worms on the smooth surface; & this makes the whole case still more perplexing.— I am glad that my little book has at all interested you & I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin St George’s College Library, Quilmes, Argentina (tipped into a copy of Earthworms that belonged to Leng)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

104 1 2

Leng’s letter has not been found. In Earthworms, p. 14, CD had mentioned parasitic fly larvae as a cause of death in worms. Cluster flies (genus Pollenia) are the principal parasitoids of earthworms.

From W. E. Darwin   [27 February 1882]1 New University Club | St James St Monday My dear Father, I have today lodged at the Union Bank in your name the deed of the Lincoln property and send you the receipt.2 I am just out of the House where I heard Gladstone & Gibson, both eloquent speeches, but Gladstone’s especially so in parts; I shall probably never have the chance to hear him speak again in so weighty & impressive a way. Gibson’s reply was extremely able & he is an admirable speaker to listen to.3 After having sat for 412 hours & heard the 2 best speakers, and being stewed & crushed I came away and am going to have supper. Sara is pretty well but gets horridly tired with the duty she has to do with calls & dinners. Luckily only 2 this week at Hen’s & Aunt Fanny’s:4 Meeting Bright broke through. He had a cold, & as he was going to the Queen today he was afraid of coughing, which she takes as a gross insult!5 Goodnight dear Father I hope you are well again. Your affect son | W E. Darwin Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 113) 1 2

3

4 5

The date is established by the reference to William’s visit to the House of Commons (see n. 3, below). CD’s bank was the Union Bank, Charing Cross Branch, London. William and George Howard Darwin were the executors of Erasmus Alvey Darwin’s will. Erasmus had died on 26 August 1881; he bequeathed half of his personal estate and all his real property to CD (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from G. H. Darwin, 28 August 1881). On the Lincoln land, see this volume, letter from W. E. Darwin, 25 January 1882 and n. 1. William Ewart Gladstone, the prime minister, and Edward Gibson, who had been attorney-general for Ireland in the Conservative government of 1877–80, spoke in the House of Commons on the Irish Land Law on 27 February 1882 (Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 266 (1882), cols. 1729–98). William attended this evening session (letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, 28 February 1882 (DAR 210.3: 41)). Sara Darwin, Henrietta Emma Litchfield, and Frances Emma Elizabeth Wedgwood. John Bright or Jacob Bright, and Queen Victoria.

From W. T. Van Dyck   27 February 1882 Beyrout, Syria, Feb. 27th., 82 Dear Sir:— Thinking it might interest you to hear how strongly sexual selection seems to have acted upon a race of semi-domesticated animals, I have prepared the enclosed brief account of the street-dogs of this city, for your perusal— Should you deem the case sufficiently interesting for publication, you would confer a favor upon me by

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

105

forwarding the paper to the editor of “Nature”; or by making any use of it that you may think fit.1 In any case I shall be most happy to seek for any further particulars, in this connection, which may seem desirable for the full elucidation of the subject. I am, dear Sir, | Yours very respectfully | W. T. Van Dyck, M.D., (Lecturer on Zoology to the Syrian Protestant College; Beyrout.) Chas. Darwin, Esq., M.A., | F.R.S., &c &c. [Enclosure] On the Modification of a Race of Syrian Street-Dogs by means of Sexual Selection. Beyrout is one of the principal ports on the Syrian coast, & has a population of from eighty to one hundred thousand.2 Like most Oriental cities, its system of street-cleaning is far from perfect, & much of the scavenging is left to the streetdogs, many hundreds of which roam at large through town & suburbs, picking up a subsistence as they best can. Twenty years ago, & previous, these dogs were quite a homogenious race, the following being a rough description of a typical specimen:— Height at shoulder, 20–22 in.; length from muzzle to root of tail 32–34 in.; length of tail, 12–15 in.; color, sandy-gray, with some variety of shades (rarely so light as to pass for dirty-white), in most distinctly darker above than beneath, & not unfrequently grizzled or brindled; head, of medium size, with rather pointed snout, & small, pointed, semi-pendulous ears; tail, bushy, usually carried up over back, sometimes much curled; general aspect, decidly jackal-like; or semi-wolfish; disposition cowardly, seldom savage. The only departures worthy of mention from the above type, at the time of which I write, were occasional black dogs, mostly with shorter hair than the sandy ones, &, rarely, piebald black & white specimens. At the present date, the case is very different. The sandy-gray color still prevails, it is true, but there is hardly an imaginable color or combination of colors which may not be found; & in form, size & proportions of trunk & limbs—shape of head,—form & size of ears—length & closeness of hair—length, bushiness & carriage of tail—there is nearly as much diversity. Twenty years ago, but few persons in this city owned dogs of any foreign breed whatsoever; but pointers, poodles, terriers, a few greyhounds & setters, & an occasional Newfoundland, retriever or mastiff, have since been imported &, to some extent, bred here. By far the majority of foreign dogs to be found in Beyrout at any time are smaller & decidedly weaker than the original natives; very few indeed can range the streets, unaccompanied by their masters, without running a considerable risk of more or less serious injury from the street-dogs. Despite their marked muscular inferiority, however, the foreign dogs have succeeded in mongreling the whole race of street-dogs so thoroughly, that it is now no easy matter to find one of these which does not bear unmistakable evidence of a foreign strain. To account for this, I can confidently cite the following facts, from my own personal observation & experience:— 1st., Native bitches very often manifest a

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

106

decided preference for certain foreign dogs; & I have repeatedly seen such a bitch reject, one after another, a train of kindred suitors, to accept without hesitation a thorough-bred pointer. (My brother once owned a French pointer named Jack— quite small, but beautifully proportioned, & of a uniform golden-fawn color. This dog was so great a favorite with the opposite sex of the native breed, that he led an exceedingly “gay” life. Pointer bitches, on the contrary, not infrequently refused him for the sake of a street-dog.)— 2nd., Pointer & other well-bred bitches are frequently so decided & persistent in their preference for street-dogs (usually for some particular individual, unseen, it may be, but communicated with by the voice) that they will go barren whole seasons rather than accept mates chosen for them by their masters. In such cases, a moment’s carelessness or inattention is sufficient to ensure a litter of mongrel pups, which, if not destroyed in puppyhood, are very apt eventually to find their way into the street, there to multiply the chances of infection for the whole race. 3d., Mongrel strains are most strongly pronounced in the suburbs, where streetdogs are rather less numerous than in the heart of the city, & where sly & runaway matches are favored by hedgerows, shrubbery, &c. &c. In the city itself, on the contrary, where the chances are ten to one that claims will be settled by the law of battle, the foreign taint is not so evident—indeed, a casual observer might easily overlook it in many instances; & if any pure-blooded representatives of the old stock are still in existence, it must be in the very most thickly stocked quarter, where butchers’ shops are many & near together, & street-dogs proportionately numerous. W. T. Van Dyck, M.D. Beyrout, Syria. | Feb. 27th., 1882 DAR 180: 3 CD annotations Top of letter: ‘(Answered)’ black ink Enclosure, first page below title: ‘by W. Van Dyck M.D.’ black ink 1 2

Van Dyck’s account was published, with a long introduction by CD, in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (Van Dyck 1882). At this time, Beyrout (Beirut, Lebanon) was part of Ottoman-controlled Syria.

From W. E. Darwin   28 February [1882]1 New University Club, | S.t James’s Street, S.W. Feb 28th My dear Father, I have just asked the broker for your G. West. Dividend. He is collecting it from the various sellers and as soon as it is all received, I will send you a cheque.2 You affect | son | W. E Darwin Thank Mother for her letter. I have not seen Godfrey, and shall only say what I think3

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

February 1882

107

Sara & I have just been to see your portrait— she admires it a great deal.4 Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 114) 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from W. E. Darwin, 4 January 1882. William had purchased Great Western Railway shares on CD’s behalf in January 1882 (letter from W. E. Darwin, 4 January 1882). CD recorded a dividend payment of £116 10s. 5d. on 2 March 1882 (CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS)). The letter from Emma Darwin has not been found but probably referred to the proposal that Godfrey Wedgwood’s son, Cecil Wedgwood, should join the Wedgwood pottery firm rather than applying to Cambridge University (letter from Emma Darwin to H. E. Litchfield, 10 January 1882 (DAR 219.9: 283)). William and his wife Sara Darwin had seen a recent portrait of CD by John Collier (see letter to John Collier, 16 February 1882 and n. 5). See frontispiece.

To Daniel Mackintosh   28 February 1882 Down | Beckenham Kent Feb. 28. 1882. Dear Sir. I have read Prof Geikie’s essay & it certainly appeared to me that he underrated the importance of floating ice. Memory extending back for 12 a century is worth little, but I can remember nothing in Shropshire like till or ground moraine, yet I can distinctly remember the appearance of many sand & gravel beds—in some of which I found marine shells— I think it would be well worth your while to insist (but perhaps you have done so) on the absence of till, if absent, in the Western Counties, where you find many erratic boulders—1 I was pleased to read the last sentence in Geikie’s Essay about the value of your work.—2 With respect to the main purport of your note I hardly know what to say.— Though no evidence worth anything has as yet in my opinion been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity3 I remember the time above 50 years ago when it was said that no substance found in a living plant or animal could be produced without the aid of vital forces!4 As far as external form is concerned Eozoon shows how difficult it is to distinguish between organised & unorganised bodies—5 If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature— Whether the existence of a conscious God can be proved from the existence of the so-called laws of nature (i.e. fixed sequence of events) is a perplexing subject, on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly— If you have not read W. Graham’s “Creed of Science” it would I think interest you, & he supports the view which you are inclined to uphold.—6 Believe me | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully. | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 146: 335

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

108 1

2

3 4 5

6

See letter from Daniel Mackintosh, 25 February 1882 and n. 3. James Geikie’s article ‘Intercrossing of erratics in glacial deposits’ (Geikie 1882) had strongly supported the land-ice theory of boulder transportation. On CD’s support for the iceberg or floating ice theory, see ‘Ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire’. See also Mills 1983 and Rudwick 1969 for more on the competing theories of erratic boulder transportation. Geikie had concluded his paper by praising Mackintosh’s ‘unwearied devotion to the study of those interesting phenomena with which he is so familiar’ and for which his fellow-workers owed him a ‘debt of gratitude’ (Geikie 1882, p. 254). See letter from Daniel Mackintosh, 25 February 1882 and n. 4. By this time, a number of organic compounds had been synthesised from inorganic components; the first case was the synthesis of urea by Friedrich Wöhler in 1828. CD had added information on the discovery of Eozoon canadense, thought to be a fossilised Foraminifera, to Origin 4th ed., p. 371, although disputes about its organic nature led him to modify his statement in Origin 6th ed., p. 287 (see Correspondence vol. 14, letter to J. D. Hooker, 31 May [1866] and n. 4, and Correspondence vol. 22, letter to J. D. Hooker, 25 March [1874] and n. 6). The mineral origin of Eozoon canadense was established in the 1890s (see O’Brien 1970). William Graham’s The creed of science (Graham 1881) discussed the implications of CD’s theory for philosophy, religion, and ethics. For CD’s impression of the book, see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to T. H. Farrer, 28 August 1881.

To Ignatius Donnelly   2 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 2d. 1882.— Dear Sir I am much obliged to you for your kindness in having sent me a copy of your “Atlanttis”.1 I shall read the book with interest, though I must confess in a very sceptical spirit.— Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin Minnesota Historical Society (Ignatius Donnelly papers) 1

Donnelly argued in his recently published book, Atlantis (Donnelly 1882), that Atlantis was a real island, destroyed in a cataclysmic event; survivors travelled to all parts of the globe, carrying their tale of disaster, which became the various flood legends of widely separated cultures. For more on Donnelly and his literary output, see Anderson 1980.

From Adolf Ernst   2 March 1882 Caracas March 2d 1882 Dear Sir I hope you will excuse my having delayed for so long a time the acknowledgment of your interesting work on Earth-Worms.1 The fact is I was desirous to test by myself the chapter on ledges of earth on hill-sides, a formation which is extremely common on all mountain-slopes round this city.2 It is here a common opinion to attribute them to the wanderings of cattle; but this never could enter my mind, as there is really no cattle wandering about on these slopes. However I have not been able to make any excursion for several months, on account of ill health, or rather a somewhat dangerous condition of my circulatory system, which at the

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

109

slightest bodily exertion gets into an extraordinary state of excitement. But this annoying state of things will once come to an end, so that I may be able to search for earthworms on the slopes. To-day I send you a little bottle with the common earth worm of our gardens. I think it must be a Perichaete, but I have no works to make out the species. Would you be so kind as to forward some specimens to any one who knows these animals, so that I may get the name? The animal, when alive, displays a remarkable iridescence, and is very lively when being taken out of the earth and placed for inst on a dry flat stone.3 It twists then violently its fore and hind parts, and produces thereby a jerking motion. They go very deep in some places. I have since changed my residence, but find plenty of them in my new one, where they bring up a yellowish earth quite different from the upper layer, which is very dark and one meter and a half deep, so they must needs come from a greater depth still. With the expression of my sincerest admiration I am, | dear Sir, yours very truly | A Ernst DAR 163: 24 1 2 3

Ernst’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Earthworms (see Correspondence vol. 29, Appendix IV). See Earthworms, pp. 278–83. Perichaeta is a former genus of the earthworm family Megascolecidae, whose members are now placed in other genera of the family, notably Amynthas and Metaphire. Based on Ernst’s description, the worm may have been Eudrilus eugeniae (African night crawler) of the related family Eudrilidae, which was naturalised in Venezuela and which exhibits a blue-green iridescent sheen from cuticle diffraction on exposure to light (Blakemore 2015).

To John Lubbock   2 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 2d 1882 My dear Lubbock I hope that you will allow me to introduce to you Mr. Romilly Allen (a cousin of my wife’s) who is much interested in Archæological subjects & is a member of several Arch. Societies.1 I do not know him personally, but I have heard a very high character of him from one of my relations, with respect to his zeal & knowledge. Believe me Dear Lubbock | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin DAR 261.7: 12 (EH 88205937) 1

John Romilly Allen.

From W. D. Crick   3 March 1882 111 Overstone Road | Northampton March 3rd. 82 Dear Sir Instead of being a trouble it is a pleasure to answer your enquiries, the shell was fixed to the leg of the bettle from the 18th. to the 25th., the beetle when caught was

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

110

kept for about 3 hours in a handkerchief but after then was kept in water and it was when in the water that the bettle was caught for a few minutes by its antenne, the shell was alive when it dropped from the bettle and had its siphons extruded when the bettle dived down to the bottom of the vessel and thrusting its antenne between the valves which closing upon it, was held there for a few minutes.1 You are quite welcome to keep the specimens as long as you care to, and do with them whatever you think proper The gentlemen who was with me on the occasion of capturing the beetle tells me he has often caught mussels when fishing in rapid streams but they have never been very large. It may be interesting to know that an individual of the same species of shell and about the same size as the one forwarded to you has extruded two young ones which seem very active and able to take care of themselves; according to Dr. J G Jeffreys in British Conchology Vol 1 Introduction Page XXV and page 1, all bivalves are monœcious and able to fertilize themselves so that it is only necessary for one individual to be removed to a new locality for it to become stocked.2 Pardon me also for calling your attention to a remark in the same volume in the introduction page LXXX viz. “This diffusion of freshwater shells has been attributed to the chance transport of birds; but I am inclined to believe that it had a different and very remote origin, and that it took place long before the present distribution of land and water”.3 I remain | Yours very truly | Walter. D. Crick Chas. Darwin Esq. DAR 205.3: 265 CD annotation End of letter: ‘We may, therefore [interl] I think, reasonably demur to the The belief doubtfully [interl] expressed by Mr G. Jeffreys that the diffusion of fresh water shells “had a’4 pencil 1

2 3 4

See letter to W. D. Crick, 25 February 1882. CD had asked whether the beetle was kept in the air; it had earlier been identified as a female Dytiscus marginalis (great diving beetle; see letter from W. D. Crick, 18 February 1882 and n. 1). John Gwyn Jeffreys had, in fact, noted that bivalves were ‘probably all strictly “monoecious”’ (Jeffreys 1862–9, 1: xxv). See Jeffreys 1862–9, 1: lxxx. CD’s annotation is a working out of the final sentence of his article as published in Nature, 6 April 1882, p. 530. In the published text the full quotation reads, ‘had a different and very remote origin, and that it took place before the present distribution of land and water.’ For the source of the quotation, see n. 3, above. CD omitted the word ‘long’, which is in Jeffreys’s original text.

From Jules Barrois1   6 March [1882]2 Villefranche 6 Mars Monsieur Le Gouvernement Français a depuis peu décide l’établissement à Villefranche, près de Nice, d’un laboratoire d’histoire naturelle destiné à donner aux nombreux

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

111

naturalistes et savants étrangers qui depuis si longtemps, fréquentent cette localité, les moyens nécessaires pour travailler avec profit.3 Cette œuvre étant faite dans un interêt très général, sans aucune distinction, de nationalité, et dans la seule pensée d’être utilé à tous, il m’a semblé que les savants étrangers ne pourraient qu’être heureux de prêter leur concours. Telle est la pensée qui m’a encouragé à vous écrire quelques mots dans l’espoir d’obtenir de vous une simple lettre exprimant à notre égard toutes vos sympathies et approuvant pleinement l’idée de la création d’un laboratoire international à Villefranche sur mer. Une lettre de vous constituerait pour nous un encouragement d’une haute valeur, et ne pourrait manquer d’avoir une influence favorable au point de vue de l’avenir et du developpement de notre nouvelle création Agreez, je vous prie, l’expression de mes sentiments les plus respectueux | Dr. J. Barrois Directeur de laboratoire de Zoologie de Villefranche sur mer | France—(Alpes maritimes.) DAR 202: 13 1 2 3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The year is established by the date of the founding of the marine laboratory (see n. 3, below). The Laboratoire des Hautes Études (Laboratory of Advanced Studies) was set up by Barrois and Hermann Fol in an old lazaret on the coast at Villefranche-sur-Mer in 1882 (L’Association pour la Sauvegarde du Patrimoine Maritime de Villefranche: naissance d’un observatoire; https://www.darse.fr/index.php/ l-observatoire-oceanologique/le-developpement-de-la-station-marine?id=31 (accessed 15 March 2021)).

To Jules Barrois   [after 6 March 1882]1 Down. Dear Sir— I am very glad to hear of the proposed establishment of a Biological Lab. at V. F.. The great scientific results already obtained & the number of Naturalists who have gained experience, in Dohrn’s Institute at Naples & in the Laboratories founded by your Lacaze-Duthiers on the shores of France, shows beyond a shadow of doubt how important an aid to Natural Science are these establishments.—2 A Foreigners of every country ought to be grateful for the liberality of the French Government, which is willing that all shd profit by their new foundation. Nor is there is any danger of too many Laboratories being founded; for the amount of Scientific Work which has to be done in the several great Invertebrate classes is almost infinite.— Permit me to add that I am convinced that the the Laboratory of V. F is eminently fortunate in having acquired your services as Director— — With cordial good wishes for your success in all ways I remain, | Dear Sir, with much respect | yours f. | C. D. ADraftS DAR 202: 28

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

112 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Jules Barrois, 6 March [1882]. On the founding of the laboratory at Villefranche-sur-Mer, see letter from Jules Barrois, 6 March [1882] and n. 3. Anton Dohrn had founded the Marine Zoological Station at Naples in 1872. On CD’s support for the station, see, for example, Correspondence vol. 20, letter to Anton Dohrn, 24 August [1872]. Henri de Lacaze-Duthiers had founded the Roscoff Biological Station on the northern coast of Brittany in 1872, and the Laboratoire Arago (Oceanological Observatory at Banyuls-sur-Mer) on the Mediterranean coast of France in 1881 (Science, 9 July 1886, pp. 27–8).

From Charles Naudin1   8 March 1882 Villa Thuret | Laboratoire | de | L’enseignement supérieur | Antibes le 8 Mars 1882 Mon cher et illustre Confrère, J’ai remué Ciel et terre pour trouver les quelques graines de Trifolium resupinatum que je vous envoie dans cette lettre.2 J’espère que vous réussirez à élever les plantes qui en sortirout, mais, pour plus de sûreté, je me propose de vous envoyer des plantes vivantes et commençant à fleurir, dès que je pourrai les rencontrer dans la campagne et les distinguer des autres espèces de Trifolium parmi lesquelles elles croissent. Nous avons en outre ici, et assez communs, les Trifolium subterraneum, suffocatum et tomentosum, ce dernier appartenant au groupe du resupinatum, c’est-à-dire à Calyce accrescent et Vésiculeux.3 Si ces espèces pouvaient vous intéresser, il me serait facile de vous les envoyer Vivantes. Vous avez appris, au moins par le Gardeners’ Chronicle, la mort de ce pauvre Vieil ami Decaisne.4 Il a été cruellement persécuté dans ses dernières annèes, et il y a apparence que le tourment moral n’a pas été étranger à sa fin un peu prématurée. Suivant les uns il est mort d’une Embolie; suivant les autres d’une congestion du cerveau. En tout cas, sa gravelle, qui datait de plus de 30 ans, n’y a été pour rien. Agréez, Mon cher confrère, l’assurance de mes sentiments les plus sincères, | Ch. Naudin DAR 172: 11 1 2 3

4

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Naudin had been trying to get seeds of Trifolium resupinatum (Persian clover) for CD since the previous August (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from C. V. Naudin, 19 August 1881). Trifolium subterraneum is subterranean clover; T. suffocatum is suffocated clover. Trifolium tomentosum is woolly clover; the accrescent calyx continues to grow, the sepals fusing together to enclose the fruit in an inflated bladder covered in white, woolly hairs. Joseph Decaisne had died on 8 February 1882; an obituary was published in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 18 February 1882, pp. 215–16.

From W. D. Crick   9 March 1882 111 Overstone Road | Northampton March 9. 82 Dear Sir Another fact similar to the one before communicated to you has come under

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

113

my notice, on Sunday the 5th. March at the same pond as the beetle was captured, a female frog that to all appearance had been recently killed was found lying upon the bank; attached to the left hind leg on the outside or shortest toe was a small bivalve of the same species as the one forwarded to you, but not quite so large, this shell measures from beaks to front margin .33 of an inch, breadth from side to side of valve .4 of an inch, width between the beaks .23 of an inch.1 The leg was severed and kept in water for two days, and then kept for a day in air, with the intention of ascertaining how long the shell would remain attached in air, but this was prevented by the leg becoming dry and shrivelled and the shell becoming separated on the 7th. March Tuesday, owing to the brittle condition of the leg, the animal in the shell was alive after being attached for 3 days I need scarcely remark this species of shell is very plentiful in this neighbourhood Yours faithfully | Walter. D. Crick Chas Darwin Esq. DAR 205.3: 266 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘All used in Nature: April 6— 1882. My article’2 pencil 1 2

Crick had sent CD a large beetle with a fingernail clam (Sphaerium corneum) attached to its leg (see letter from W. D. Crick, 24 February 1882). CD wrote a short article, ‘Dispersal of freshwater bivalves’, which was published in Nature, 6 April 1882, pp. 529–30. The article contained the information from this letter as well as Crick’s earlier ones.

To W. D. Crick   10 March [1882]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 10th Dear Sir Many thanks for your interesting note.2 I have been very unwell for several days & doubt whether I can go to London on the 15th, as I had intended, but if unable I will send the shell by Post to B. Museum. for correct name.—3 While looking over some M.S. notes the other day I came across 2 analogous cases, so I will draw up a little article for Nature & send all the cases.— I will forward a copy to you.4 Excuse hurry | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin The Huntington Library (HM 36226) 1 2 3 4

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from W. D. Crick, 9 March 1882. See letter from W. D. Crick, 9 March 1882. In the event, CD did not go to London. CD did not send the shell to the British Museum, but to John Gwyn Jeffreys, an expert conchologist (see letter to W. D. Crick, 23 March 1882). CD’s article, ‘Dispersal of freshwater bivalves’, was published in Nature, 6 April 1882, pp. 529–30.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

114

To W. W. Baxter   11 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 11th 1882 Dear Sir Be so kind as to send me 2 Bottles of enclosed prescription, so that I may keep one up & one down stairs— —1 I want also to have 2 or 3 dozen pills of Morphia in a bottle with good stopper, (as I may never use them) in case of access of severe pain.— Please mark Bottle, how much each pill contains & after how short. an interval I could take a second pill with safety.—2 I will then show the bottle to Dr Andrew Clark when I next see him.3 I want to have the pills ready in case of access of severe pain which I hope may never occur. AL incomplete Bromley Historic Collections, Bromley Central Library (Baxter Collection 1136/1) 1 2 3

The enclosure has not been found. CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882]. The signature has been excised and the words that were removed on the verso of the signature, ‘Please mark’, have been written in by an unknown hand. Clark was CD’s physician.

From G. F. Crawte   11 March 1882 8 Belleville Road | Battersea Rise | S.W 11th March 1882 Sir, I have been very much interested and informed by your Book on Vegetable Mould, and venture to express my thanks to you for the pleasure and information I have derived from its perusal.1 As related to the subject, and as tending to illustrate the muscular powers of the worm and its capacity for self defence, you may perhaps be disposed to glance over a short note of a combat which took place in my garden some two years since between a worm and a frog.2 The former was about six or seven inches long and the latter of ordinary dimensions, and when I first discovered them half the worm had disappeared down the frog’s throat. I watched them for a quarter of an hour and during that time the tussle was pretty severe. The worm on several occasions threw the frog on its back, and, though apparently unable to disengage itself, the annelid seemed to have rather the best of the fight. I was absent from the battle field some ten minutes but returned in time to witness the termination of the struggle, when they were breaking asunder. The engagement seemed to have been drawn, and each, clearly, had had quite enough of it. Both bore evidence of the severity of the encounter, and both appeared exhausted and considerably the worse for what they had gone through. The frog limped away in a very “groggy” condition, whilst the worm crawled off in an opposite direction, to all appearance in a wretched plight and very much knocked up. I should add that the struggle extended from a flower

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

115

bed on to a gravel path and back again, over a space which I roughly estimated as of some five or six feet square. I am, Sir, | yours faithfully, | Geo: F. Crawte C. Darwin Esqre, DAR 64.2: 99–100 1 2

Earthworms. In his conclusion, CD had mentioned that, for their size, worms possessed great muscular power (Earthworms, p. 305).

From James Niven to Francis Darwin   12 March 1882 Nellcot Villa | Queens Road | Albert Park | Didsbury | Manchester March 12/82 Dear Sir In reading your father’s wonderful book on Worms, I was very much struck with the account of the intelligence shown by worms. You will remember the part where the worms block their burrows with double spines of fir, dragging them in by the part where the two leaves join and persist in doing so after the tips have been fastened together.1 In the species most common about here the spines are rough on one side when rubbed from tip to the junction of the two, comparatively smooth when rubbed from the junction to the tip. Whether this is so generally or not I dont know, but with these spines the tactile sensibility of worms; and their experience in locomotion might determine the choice to some extent. This is scarcely worth mentioning and I have little doubt it has been noticed and considered insufficient. However I thought that on the new principle of de minimis lex curat2 I shd mention it to you Yours truly | J. Niven DAR 64.2: 101–2 1 2

See Earthworms, pp. 70–1. De minimis lex curat : the law concerns itself with small things (Latin; Niven alludes to the legal phrase, de minimis non curat lex: the law does not concern itself with trifles).

To ?   12 March 1882

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Mar 12 1882

Dear Sir Pray accept my thanks for your courteous letter & for your kindness in promising to send me your pamphlet. It will be a pleasure to me to accept the honour which you propose to do me in dedicating your essay to me1 With many thanks | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Smithsonian Libraries and Archives (Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology MSS 405 A. Gift of the Burndy Library)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

116 1

The recipient and the pamphlet have not been identified.

From W. E. Darwin   13 March 1882 Bank, Southampton, March 13 1882 My dear Father, I have today paid over £249.1.3 being your dividend at £4.5.s per cent for the half year on £5985 North Eastern Consols to your account at the Union Bank.1 I will find out about the Lancash. & Yorkshire small dividend & let you know.2 Goodbye dear Father I do hope you feel better today, it was very disappointing to see so little of you on Sunday.3 Your affect: son | W. E. Darwin Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 109) 1

2 3

CD’s bank was the Union Bank, Charing Cross Branch, London. The sum of £249 1s. 3d. was recorded as paid in, under the heading ‘N. E. Consuls (Trust)’, in CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS), on 14 March 1882. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. CD’s Investment book (Down House MS) index lists ‘Lancash & York’ shares under trust property of Emma Darwin. William had arrived at Down on Saturday 11 March 1882 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882].

From W. E. Darwin   15 March 1882 Bank, Southampton, March 15 1882 My dear Father, In acknowledging receipt of the £249.1.3. the Union Bank say that they received the Lancash & Yorkshire divd £21.3. on the 3d inst.1 Your affect son | W. E Darwin Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 110) 1

See letter from W. E. Darwin, 13 March 1882 and nn. 1 and 2. The sum of £21 3s. was recorded as paid in, under the heading ‘Lancashire & Yorkshire Rw.’, in CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS), on 3 March 1882.

From Andrew Clark   17 March 1882 17 March 1882 Revised Directions1 1o. Rise just in time for breakfast. On rising sponge with tepid or warm water dry quickly and use as little exertion as possible. 2o. Clothe rather warmly and see that the dress is everywhere loose

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

117

3o. Breakfast: brown bread & butter plain or toasted with an egg or some fresh fish or the soft part of the wing of a cold chicken; and, at the close of the meal a cup of cocoatina slowly sipped 4o Dinner: fresh tenderly dressed meat bread, a very little grated potato and either some simple rice pudding or a little fresh softly boiled green vegetables— Drink half an ounce to an ounce of brandy in plain water 5 Tea: a meal like breakfast in every respect. 6o. On going to bed take if it is desired & agrees half an ounce of brandy in five ounces of water.— 7o. Avoid soups sauces pickles spices curries cured meats pies pastry cheese creams ices jams acid & all fruits salads effervescing beverages strong tea & coffee & much liquid of any kind. 8o Especially avoid lifting straining going upstairs when it can be avoided hurrying or doing any thing which will bring on the chest pain. Short of this walk about gently. 9o. Keep the bowels lax by any simple and do not strain to relieve them 10o. When very flatulent take a dose of the antispasmodic mixture 11o. When there is pain in the chest, of a severe kind, take one or two of the lozenges.— 12 With meals take the glycerin of Pepsin Mixture2 AC DAR 161: 152 1 2

CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882]. Glycerin of pepsin was a commercial preparation of digestive enzyme (see, for example, Beale 1871).

To W. W. Baxter   18 March [1882]1 Down March 18th Dear Sir Please to give Bearer who is waiting 2 bottles of “The Simple Antispasmodic.”.— Also the Glycerin Pepsin mixture if you keep this ready.—2 As I am to take it thrice daily please make up a large Bottle, enough to last for at least a week.— With respect to the aperient pills, you can send them at your leisure.— I am sorry to trouble you on a Sunday, but Dr Clark wishes me to commence his physic at once.—3 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully. Please return prescriptions, or if you make copy let me know, as I cd then send for more without the prescriptions.— AL Bromley Historic Collections, Bromley Central Library (Baxter Collection) 1

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Andrew Clark, 17 March 1882.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

118 2 3

See letter from Andrew Clark, 17 March 1882 and n. 2. CD presumably wrote this letter on 18 March, which was a Saturday in 1882, but had it delivered by a messenger the next day. Andrew Clark was CD’s physician. See letter from Andrew Clark, 17 March 1882.

From P. H. Pye-Smith   18 March 1882 56, Harley Street. | W. March 18. 1882 My dear Sir You have no doubt received a formal invitation to a meeting at the College of Physicians on the 28th. which is to carry out the objects of your correspondence with Brunton & with me.1 I need not say that everyone there will feel honoured & pleased if you should be able to be present, even if it were for a quarter of an hour. But your time & your health forbid, I know, your taking part in London meetings, except on such rare occasions as the College of Physicians enjoyed a few years ago.2 I therefore write to ask whether it would be agreeable to you to write a reply to the invitation which could be read at the Meeting. Your public adhesion would be very valuable. Would Dr. Francis Darwin care to come? If he has not already been asked I will send him an invitation as soon as I get some copies, or will tell our hon. Sec. Gerald Yeo to do so.3 We shall have a very good muster. Beside the best men in the profession, in London & out, we expect the Master of the Rolls Ld Sherbrooke Ld Rayleigh Ld Lilford Ld Camperdown, if he can get there the Solicitor General Sir Joseph Hooker Sir John Lubbock Sir Trevor Laurence Ld. Arthur Russell Mr Spottiswoode, Mr F. Galton, Profs. Williamson, Odling, Dewar, Huxley, Moseley, Newton, Tyndall &c.4 I was at High Elms the other day and glad to hear a good account of you from Mrs Mulholland.5 I have not heard from Nash for a long time but he sent me the other day a new little book he has written about Oregon.6 Believe me to be, dear Mr Darwin, | Sincerely & most respectfully Yours | P H Pye-Smith. DAR 174: 84 1

2

3 4

h

d i

0 0

CD had planned to support a proposed fund to defend physiological research, including the use of animal experiments; see letter from T. L. Brunton, 12 February 1882. In the event, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Research was formed in April and had its first meeting on 20 April 1882, one day after CD died. CD’s contribution of £100 was recorded in the list of subscribers (see Boddice 2021, p. 40). On 26 June 1879, CD was presented with the Baly medal, a biennial award in physiology, on the occasion of the Harveian oration at the Royal College of Physicians (see Correspondence vol. 27, letter from H. A. Pitman, 9 May 1879, and letter from Samuel Wilks, 26 July 1879). Francis Darwin was CD’s secretary. Gerald Francis Yeo was secretary of the Physiological Society. The master of the rolls was George Jessel. Robert Lowe was the first Viscount Sherbrooke. John William Strutt was the third Baron Rayleigh. Thomas Littleton Powys was the fourth Baron Lilford. Robert Adam Philips Haldane Haldane-Duncan was the third earl of Camperdown. The solicitor

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

5 6

119

general, Farrer Herschell, was the first Baron Herschell. Pye-Smith also refers to Trevor Lawrence, William Spottiswoode, Francis Galton, William Crawford Williamson, William Odling, James Dewar, Thomas Henry Huxley, Henry Nottidge Moseley, Alfred Newton, and John Tyndall. High Elms, Lubbock’s home, was near Down. Amy Harriet Mulholland was Lubbock’s daughter. Wallis Nash, a former neighbour of CD’s who emigrated to Oregon, had just published his book, Two years in Oregon (Nash 1882).

From J. F. Simpson   18 March 1882 59 Norfolk Terrace | Bayswater W. Mar 18. 1882 Dear Sir I ought perhaps to apologise for my present intrusion especially remembering your remarks in your last kind communication.1 The reference however I hope may be made, even if there ended finally. It is in relation to worms. In recently clearing out my little garden I reserved two (as I imagine) unique “castings”. The larger one however is falling to pieces notwithstdg having steeped it in gum solution. Its height I make still = 2 inches (some having—naturally crumbled away) with diam: = 212 ins about. In your work, I find the extraordinary ones of Figs  2. 3 & 4  to measure respectively in heights 258ths, 312, & 2 inches.2 The one I have by me therefore seems very large. Excuse my naming this little fact to you & with respectful Compts Believe me yours faithfully J. F. Simpson To

Dr Darwin F.R.S.

DAR 64.2: 103 1 2

CD’s letter has not been found. The most recent extant letter from Simpson was that of 15 January 1882, but his earlier letter of 7 January 1882 was about his observations of worm-castings in his garden. For the figures of worm-castings, see Earthworms, pp. 107, 124, and 127.

To William Jenner   20 March [1882]1 [Down.] Sir I am much obliged for the honour of your invitation to attend the meeting at the C. of Phys. on the 28th.— I feel a deep interest in the success of the proposed Association;—for I am convinced that the benefits to mankind to be derived from basing the practice of medicine on a solid scientific foundation cannot be overestimated.—2 I therefore regret much that it is impossible for me to attend the meeting on account of the present state of my health.—3 I beg leave to remain | Sir | Your obedient servant | Charles Darwin Mar 20th Pres.— Coll of Physicians ADraftS DAR 202: 82

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

120 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from P. H. Pye-Smith, 18 March 1882. The invitation from Jenner has not been found, but see the letter from P. H. Pye-Smith, 18 March 1882. The proposed Science Advancement Association had been discussed in the letter from T. L. Brunton, 12 February 1882. CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882].

From Agnes Taylor   20 March [1882]1 8 Rue Croix de Marbre | Au 2me. | Nice | France 20th. March Sir, I beg to apologize for troubling you, but I feel sure you will excuse me when I tell you I am writing on behalf of the Widow of the late Dr. Charles Beke, whose sad case, & claims are so well known. & for whom much sympathy has been expressed. Her trials & troubles for the past 8 years since the death of her husband have indeed been very great, & to add to them she has of late partially lost her sight, so that she has been, & is quite unable to pursue her Literary occupations, & her home has had to be broken up.2 The many powerfully signed Memorials which have been presented, amply testify that it is the sincere wish of all her Patrons & friends, that she should obtain the continuation of her Husband’s “Civil List Pension” but in this she has not been successful, so that her extreme need of help, makes me the more urgent in trying to get her a Permanent Annuity of not less than £50. Towards this object I will gladly contribute £300 myself provided she can succeed in getting the remaining £500. necessary to effect this object. the value of which Annuity is about £800. I am happy to say from a letter received from the Premier I have reason to hope for assistance from “Royal Bounty Funds” so soon as I am able to submit to the Premier the amount I have collected.3 The proposal happily meets with the entire approval of the following Noblemen & Gentlemen who have promised me their assistance & support. As of course I shall have a great deal to do to get up the money—I shall be most thankful if you will benevolently send me a kind contribution out of sympathy for the Widow of one, whose Public Services in respect of Abyssinia, as well as his Literary, Scientific & Philanthropic Labours in which his wife so ably assisted him claim your sympathy & support. I am, Sir, | Yrs. very faithfully | Agnes Taylor Contributions Received The Duke of Wellington4 The Earl of Malmesbury5 ———– Contributions Promised Myself——————– Sir David L Salomons6

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

£10. £5

£300 5

i

i

March 1882 The Duke of Devonshire7 The Duke of Bedford8

121

?——– ?———–

P.S. | Permit me to beg that contributions be sent direct to Mrs. Beke’s account with Messrs. Hammond & Co. Canterbury Bank Canterbury DAR 178: 52 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

The year is established by the reference to eight years passing since the death of Charles Tilstone Beke (see n. 2, below). Emily Beke’s husband, Charles Tilstone Beke, had died in 1874. She edited and published her husband’s final work after his death (Beke 1878). CD had given financial support to Emily Beke on previous occasions (see Correspondence vol. 25, letter to [Agnes Taylor?], 22 October [1877], and Correspondence vol. 27, letter from Emily Beke, 16 October 1879). The Royal Bounty Fund was a charitable fund set up in the Civil List and Secret Service Money Act of 1782. The premier (prime minister) was William Ewart Gladstone. Arthur Richard Wellesley, second duke of Wellington. James Howard Harris, third earl of Malmesbury. David Lionel Salomons. William Cavendish, seventh duke of Devonshire. Hastings Russell, ninth duke of Bedford.

To Francis Galton   22 March [1882]1 Down Beckenham March 22d

My dear Galton. I have thought that you might possibly like to read enclosed which has interested me somewhat, & which you can burn.—2 I have been on the sick-list, but am improving.3 Ever my dear Galton, yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/1/1/9/5/7/33) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Francis Galton, 23 March 1882 The enclosure has not been identified. CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882].

To Symington Grieve   22 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 22d 1882 Dear Sir The subject of your Essay would, I think, be well worth pursuing.1 I have long known that stones were transported by floating Fuci; but I cannot remember my

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

122

authority.—2 Perhaps cases are given by Lyell.—3 It is, however, quite new to me that stones are thus dragged along the bottom leaving a trail behind them. I remain Dear Sir | Yours faithfuly | Ch. Darwin Scotsman, 18 January 1929, p. 12 1

2

3

Grieve’s letter has not been found. The essay was ‘Note on the physical effects produced by the floating power of some of the family Fucaceæ observed at the strand between Colonsay and Oransay, 25 August 1880’ (Grieve 1881). Fucus is a genus of brown algae, formerly in the kingdom Plantae but now in the kingdom Chromista. In the nineteenth century the term was also used more generally to refer to seaweed and kelp. In Journal of researches, pp. 303–5, CD had discussed what he termed ‘kelp or Fucus giganteus of Solander’, which could support rocks. Daniel Solander and Joseph Banks had calculated the length of the kelp in a bay within Cape St Vincent, Tierra del Fuego, to be around 126 feet (see Banks 1896, p. 48). The alga is now classified as Macrocystis pyrifera (giant kelp). No reference to stones being transported on seaweed has been found in the works of Charles Lyell.

To W. D. Crick   23 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 23d 1882. Dear Sir I have had a most unfortunate & extraordinary accident with your shell.— I sent it by Post in a strong box to Mr Gwyn Jeffreys to be named, & heard 2 days afterwards that he had started for Italy.—1 I then wrote to the servant in charge of his house to open the parcel (within which was a cover stamped & directed to myself) & return it to me.— This servant I suppose opened the box, & dropped the glass tube on a stone floor, & perhaps put his foot on it, for the tube & shell were broken into quite small fragments. These were returned to me with no explanation; the box being quite uninjured. I suppose that you wd not care for the fragments to be returned or the Dytiscus; but if you wish for them they shall be returned.2 I am very sorry, but it has not been my fault.— It seems to me almost useless to send the fragments of the shell to the B. Museum to be named, more especially as the umbo has been lost.3 It is many years since I have looked at a fresh-water shells, but I shd.  have said that this shell was Cyclas cornea. Is Sphærium corneum a synonym of Cyclas? Perhaps you cd. tell by looking to Mr G. Jeffreys book.4 If so may we venture to call it so, or shall I put an (?) to the name.?— As soon as I hear from you I will send my letter to Nature.5 Do you take in Nature or shall I send you a copy?— Dear Sir | with much regret | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin The Huntington Library (HM 36228) 1

h

d i

0 0

Crick had sent CD a large beetle with a fingernail clam (Sphaerium corneum) attached to its leg (see letter from W. D. Crick, 24 February 1882). John Gwyn Jeffreys was an expert conchologist.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882 2 3

4 5

123

The beetle to which the shell was attached was identified by Crick as Dytiscus marginalis (great diving beetle; see letter from W. D. Crick, 18 February 1882). CD had originally planned to send the shell to the British Museum (see letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882]). The umbo or beak (the raised portion of the dorsal margin of a bivalve shell), is an important diagnostic feature in the identification of species. In Sphaerium corneum, the umbo is central and low with straight edges on either side. Cyclas cornea is a synonym of Sphaerium corneum; Jeffreys had noted the synonymy in Jeffreys 1862–9, 1: 5, where he used the latter designation. CD’s article, ‘Dispersal of freshwater bivalves’, was published in Nature, 6 April 1882, pp. 529–30.

From W. E. Darwin   23 March 1882 Bank, Southampton, March 23 1882 My dear Father, at last I have received your G. Western Dividend £177.9.6 and have paid it over to the Union Bank.1 What exciting news about old Leonard2 We are expecting letters from Mother as Leonard’s note was a very official notice so we are in a state of suspense as to how much we can rejoice over it. Goodbye dear Father It will be so pleasan〈t〉 if you can come here next week | Your affect son | W E. Darwin G. West div was at 714 per cent Cornford Family Papers (DAR 275: 111) 1

2

In his Account books–banking account (Down House MS) on 24 March 1882, CD recorded the receipt of £177 9s. 6d. under the heading ‘Gt. Western R. at 7 1/4 ordinary stock’. CD’s bank was the Union Bank, Charing Cross Branch, London. Leonard Darwin had written to his mother to announce his engagement to Elizabeth Frances Fraser (letter from Leonard Darwin to Emma Darwin, [March 1882]; DAR 239.1: 5.1).

From Francis Galton   23 March 1882

42 Rutland Gate March 23/82

My dear Darwin Best thanks for the American article, which is certainly suggestive, where paradoxical.1 It is delightful to find that virtue mainly resides in large & businesslike families, fond of science and of arithmetic! It eminently hits off the character of your own family & in some fainter degree of my brothers & sisters, and of all Quakerism. I hope your are quite well again | With our kindest remembrances | Ever yrs. Francis Galton DAR 105: A109 1

h

d i

See letter to Francis Galton, 22 March [1882]. The article that CD sent has not been identified.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

124 From Grant Allen   24 March 1882

Broad Street. | Lyme. Dorset. March 24. 82. Dear Mr. Darwin, A few days since I heard from Romanes and Croom Robertson that you and the other kind friends who joined in the fund f〈or〉 me three years ago had bought me a microscope; and since then the instrument itself has turned up, and been received with much pleasure and admiration.1 I cannot find it in my heart not to write and thank you personally for your kind thoughtfulness in this matter. Of all possible 〈prese〉nts, a microscope is the one which I can accept with most pride, and best regard as given me in trust for the interest of science. It enhances the value of the instrument a thousandfold in my eyes, however, that the initiative in the matter should have come from you. I shall be able always to show it with pride to all my friends, and to tell them that it was in part your gift. I am glad to say, too, that my time is not quite so filled now with hack-work as formerly, and that I hope in future to be able to take a little leisure now and again for original observation, in which I have no doubt the microscope will be of great service to me. Indeed, I had intended to buy myself a small one as soon as I had discharged the balance of my debt to you all. This one, however, will be both more useful, and more valuable to me as a memento, for my whole life-time. With renewed thanks for your very great kindness, 〈I〉 am, | Yours very sincerely, | Grant Allen. DAR 159: 49 1

Allen had repaid some of the money that had been raised by subscribers to support him and his family in 1879 during a period of illness; CD and George John Romanes had then agreed to give Allen a microscope (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter to G. J. Romanes, 8 December 1881 and n. 1). George Croom Robertson proposed that the microscope be a gift from the original subscribers (see letter from G. C. Robertson to G. J. Romanes, 21 January 1882).

From W. D. Crick   24 March 1882 111 Overstone Road | Northampton March 24. 82 Dear Sir It does not matter in the least about the shell being destroyed if you had obtained all the information required, I have no doubt in my own mind that the shell was Sphærium corneum as described in Gwyn Jeffrey’s book, but I have not been working very long with the mollusca so did not care to be too certain at first, but as you would have named it Cyclas cornea then that is almost conclusive because Gwyn Jeffreys has given the name Sphærium corneum to the Cyclas cornea of Forbes & Hanley.1 You need not trouble to return either the bettle or the fragments of the shell, at the same time I always see Nature so that altho’ much obliged for your offer you need not send me a copy.2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

125

Allow me to thank you very sincerely for the trouble you have taken in the matter | Yours very truly | Walter D. Crick P.S. I have other specimens of the same shell if you would care for them. DAR 161: 253 1

2

See letter to W. D. Crick, 23 March 1882. Cyclas cornea is a synonym of Sphaerium corneum; John Gwyn Jeffreys had noted the synonymy in Jeffreys 1862–9, 1: 5. The name Cyclas cornea had been published by Edward Forbes and Sylvanus Hanley in A history of British Mollusca and their shells (Forbes and Hanley 1853, 2: 113–15). See letter to W. D. Crick, 23 March 1882 and n. 5.

To W. H. Newberry   24 March 1882 Down. | Beckenham. Kent. March 24th. 1882. Dear Sir. I am sorry to say that Hildebrand & Delpino have described the very curious mechanism of the Flowers of Maranta.—1 You will find references to the works in H.  Müller’s “Die Befruchtung der Blumen”.  which you would find in any public Library.—2 A few years ago, I made many observations on the allied Thalia dealbata, but could not satisfy myself, whether the movements were purely mechanical or whether the pistil was irritable—as appeared to me to be the case.3 The whole phenomena is most curious— Dear Sir | Yours faithfully. | Ch. Darwin. I am unwell, otherwise I would have gladly looked to my notes & given you more information. Copy DAR 147: 188 1

2 3

Newberry’s letter to CD has not been found. Friedrich Hildebrand had given detailed observations of the structure of the reproductive organs of Maranta zebrina (a synonym of Calathea zebrina, zebra-plant) in a review of the first part of Federico Delpino’s work on dichogamy (Delpino 1868–75; see Hildebrand 1870, pp. 617–19 and table 10, figs. 2–9). In flowers of Maranta, the style is enveloped by a hooded staminode, which has a trigger appendage on one side. A visiting insect must depress the trigger to release the style, which then rapidly curls up. Hermann Müller had cited the work of Hildebrand and Delpino in his discussion of the reproductive organs of some species of Maranta in Die Befruchtung der Blumen (The fertilisation of flowers; H. Müller 1873, p. 87). Having closely observed flowers of Thalia dealbata (powdery alligator-flag), CD had suggested that the pistil appeared to be sensitive to touch (see Correspondence vol 26, letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 14 July [1878]).

From T. H. Huxley   25 March 1882 Science and Art Department, South Kensington March 25 1882 My dear Darwin Ever since I met Frank at the Linnean the other night I have been greatly exercised in my mind about you and I should have written sooner if it were not for

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

126

a suspicion that you may rate being worried with advice about your health as much as I do—1 Never mind, I am going to do it— you 〈are〉 twenty miles off & I am a hundred feet up— so that you will be well out of breath by the time you reach me if you are revengeful— What I want you to do is to get one of the cleverer sort of young London Doctors such as Brunton or Pye Smith to put himself in communication with Clark & then come & see you regularly, say once a week or so—oftener if need be—so long as your present not very satisfactory condition continues—2 I understand all the difficulties about Clark & this seems to me the only way out of them— But whether it is or it isn’t you really ought to have somebody in whom dependence can be placed to look after your machinery (I daren’t say automaton3) critically— It is just one of these cases in which a stitch in time may save not only nine but ninety and nine. There— I have delivered my soul— Ever Yours | T. H. Huxley DAR 166: 292 1

2 3

Huxley probably met Francis Darwin at the meeting of the Linnean Society held on 16 March 1882. CD’s papers ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on roots’ and ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll’ were read at that meeting (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1880–1): 28). Francis would have told Huxley about CD’s health. CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882]. Thomas Lauder Brunton and Philip Henry Pye-Smith were physicians with whom CD was acquainted. Andrew Clark was physician to both CD and Huxley. Huxley alludes to his essay ‘On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history’ (T. H. Huxley 1874). The essay had been republished in Science and culture and other essays (T. H. Huxley 1881) and CD had commented on it in his letter to Huxley of 12 January 1882.

From G. C. Wallich   25 March 1882

3 Christchurch Road. Roupel Park. March 25, 1882.

My dear Sir. In a lecture I am about to give on the Threshold of Evolution, in which I dispute, in toto. Haeckel’s statements concerning the “Protista”, I am anxious to show that a statement put forward by him & others—that ‘Spontaneous generation, as necessary to the completeness of Evolution as a doctrine”—has nowhere received your sanction.1 Should you not consider the question an objectionable one, would you kindly inform me if my interpretation of your published views is, to this extent, a correct one? I would not, of course, think of mentioning that I had your authority for denying the statement, or that I would have even addressed you at all on the point without your express sanction. It has alwas been my opinion that you had intentionally left the question of the ‘Origin of Life’ uncanvassed as being ‘ultra vires’ in the present state of our knowledge, & dealt only with the manner of its Succession.2 I restrict myself, in my small way, to the attempt to prove, as I believe I shall be able to do beyond reach of doubt, that the Protista furnish no trustworthy evidence,

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

127

one way or the other; & that their very existence, as an independent group of organisms, is a fiction, resulting from hasty & imperfect observation. I will with your permission send you a copy of my lecture as soon as it is in print.3 Hoping, meanwhile, that you will excuse me for troubling you under the circumstances, | I remain | Yours faithfully | G. C. Wallich. A Contemporary Copy S Natural History Museum, Library and Archives (General Special Collections MSS DAR 6) 1

2 3

Ernst Haeckel’s kingdom Protista included various single-celled organisms such as rhizopods and diatoms, as well as a division called Monera, a taxon of unicellular organisms without nuclei or organelles; in his phylogenetic tree, it was depicted as the central kingdom with Plantae and Animalia on either side (see Haeckel 1866, 1: 203–6; 2: plate 1). In the first part of his Biologische Studien (Biological studies; Haeckel 1870–7, 1: 60), Haeckel stated that the oldest original forms of all Monera, simple structureless protoplasmic clumps, had arisen by spontaneous generation (generatio aequivoca). Wallich had countered Haeckel’s views in an article, ‘The threshold of evolution’ (G. C. Wallich 1880), published in Popular Science Review, April 1880. His lecture ‘On the fallacy of the materialistic origin of life’ was read at the Victoria Institute, 17 April 1882, but not published in full (see Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain 16 (1882–3): 344). A report of the lecture appeared in the Morning Post, 18 April 1882, p. 5. In Origin 6th ed., p. 98, CD had referred to spontaneous generation as an unproven belief. No printed version of the lecture has been identified.

To W. D. Crick   26 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 26th 1882 Dear Sir I write one line to thank you for your last note & your several previous ones, which have interested me much.—1 I will now get my letter to Nature copied as quickly as I can, & despatch it; but I am at present not very well.—2 I think that I had better use the old name of Cyclas.3 Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin The Huntington Library (HM 36230) 1

2 3

See letter from W. D. Crick, 24 March 1882. Crick first wrote to CD about his discovery of a small clam adhering to the leg of a water beetle in his letter of 18 February 1882; he wrote four more letters on the subject and sent the specimens to CD (see Crick’s letters of 24 February 1882, 3 March 1882, and 9 March 1882). CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882]. CD’s article, ‘Dispersal of freshwater bivalves’, was published in Nature, 6 April 1882, pp. 529–30. Crick had referred to his specimen as Sphaerium corneum; Cyclas cornea, a synonym, is the name CD used in his article. For more on the names, see letter from W. D. Crick, 24 March 1882 and n. 1.

From Agnes Taylor   26 March [1882]1 8 Rue Croix de Marbre | Au 2me. | Nice | France 26th. March Miss Taylor presents her compts. to Mr. Darwin, & begs to thank him warmly for his very kind letter, of the 23rd. inst: informing her that he had generously responded

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

128

to her application, by forwarding £10— to the Credit of Mrs. Beke’s account with Messrs. Hammond & Co.2 Mrs. Beke herself desires her to assure Mr. Darwin of her most grateful appreciation of this further testimony of his kindly generosity & benevolence. With such esteemed support, & such kindly expressions as Mr. Darwin has evinced, & several others, Miss Taylor has full hope of success. DAR 178: 53 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Agnes Taylor, 20 March [1882]. CD’s letter has not been found, but there is an entry in his Account books–cash account (Down House MS) for 23 March 1882 under the heading ‘10 to ‘Beke Fund Charity’’.

From William Trelease   26 March 1882 Madison, Wis., Mar. 26, 1882. Dear Sir: I wish to thank you for your kind and encouraging letter of Jan. 28, which was the more gratifying to me because quite unexpected.1 The origin of heterostylism is a subject that I should much like to study if I were so situated as to be able to carry out the necessary experiments. While studying Oxalis violacea I had planned a series of crossing experiments on the variable O. stricta.2 I see no reason why one with the proper facilities could not by the aid of selection and skillful crossing produce long, mid, and short styled forms in time, in a manner analogous to that in which I fancy the three forms have become fixed in nature. The difference in so minute a morphological character as the size of the pollen, and in such a physiological character as the sterility of illegitimate unions would, I suppose, be beyond the power or endurance of most men.3 If three such forms could be formed they ought to retain variability enough to allow of the production from them of forms like those of O. violacea and in a manner analogous to that in which I think the latter have been produced naturally. Unfortunately I am moving from place to place a great deal, and it may be a long time before I settle where I can have the necessary time and facilities for such work, though if the opportunity ever comes I shall do what I can. If the forms indicated could be produced by artificial selection I think one might reasonably infer that natural selection might have worked in a similar way, though more slowly; in which case the value of crossing would be so important a factor as to explain the sterility of illegitimate unions, or any other physiological peculiarities. I was very much interested in learning of the third form of Fritz Müller’s Pontederia.4 Once more thanking you for your kind letter, I am | Very respectfully yours, | Wm. Trelease. DAR 178: 181

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882 1 2

3

4

129

CD’s letter has not been found, but see the letter from William Trelease, 14 January 1882 and n. 1. In his study of Oxalis violacea (violet wood-sorrel), Trelease found only two stylar forms, both of which were characterised by two sets of stamens of different lengths; he concluded that the dimorphism was derived from an earlier trimorphic state (see Trelease 1882, p. 18). Oxalis stricta (yellow wood-sorrel) has both heterostylous and homostylous forms. Both species are native to North America. CD referred to crosses made using pollen of the same form of flower in dimorphic or trimorphic plant species as illegitimate, and those fertilised by pollen of a different form as legitimate (see ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’, p. 186). Trelease had compared the case of Oxalis violacea with that of a species of Pontederia (pickerel-weed) described by Fritz Müller (F. Müller 1871). Müller had at first found only two forms but had recently discovered a third; he described it in a now missing letter to CD of 2 December 1881 (see letter to Fritz Müller, 4 January 1882 and n. 4; see also F. Müller 1883).

To Patrick Geddes   27 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Mar 27 1882 Dear Sir I have read several of your biological papers with very great interest, and I have formed, if you will permit me to say so, a high opinion of your abilities. I can entertain no doubt that you will continue to do excellent service in advancing our knowledge in several branches of science Therefore I believe that you are well fitted to occupy any chair of natural history, for I am convinced that example is fully as important as precept to students1 I remain, dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS National Library of Scotland (Ms.10522) 1

The position that Geddes was applying for was probably the Edinburgh chair of natural history, as the previous holder, Charles Wyville Thomson, had died on 10 March 1882 (ODNB). At this time, Geddes was a demonstrator in zoology at Edinburgh; he became professor of botany at Dundee in 1889 (ODNB).

To Henry Groves   27 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 27th. 1882 Dear Sir I am much obliged for your very kind offer.1 I am not well & have not strength to examine Utricularia, but think that I could try & look at the Nitella.2 If it wd not give you too much trouble, I shd. much like to have a living plant. Will you kindly tell me how I cd. keep it alive. into what kind of water— whether there ought to be soil at the bottom of the vessel & about light— Excuse brevity— Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin The British Library (Add MS 46917: 65)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

130 1

2

Groves’s letter has not been found, but, as Groves was a fellow of the Linnean Society, he may have attended the meeting of 16 March 1882, at which CD’s papers ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on roots’ and ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll’ were read. CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882]. Utricularia is the genus of bladderworts; CD had studied it when working on Insectivorous plants (see Correspondence vols. 22 and 23). Nitella is a genus of freshwater green algae in the family Characeae (stoneworts).

To T. H. Huxley   27 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 27th. 1882 My dear Huxley Your most kind letter has been a real cordial to me.—1 I have felt better today than for 3 weeks & have had as yet no pain.— Your plan seems an excellent one, & I will probably act on it, unless I get very much better. Dr Clark’s kindness is unbounded to me, but he is too busy to come here.2 Once again accept my cordial thanks my dear old friend. I wish to God there were more automata in the world like you.—3 Ever yours | Ch. Darwin Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Archives (Huxley 5: 371) 1 2 3

See letter from T. H. Huxley, 25 March 1882. Huxley had advised CD to consult other physicians besides Andrew Clark (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 25 March 1882 and n. 2). In his letter of 25 March 1882, Huxley had jokingly referred to the body as machinery or automaton, an allusion to an essay he wrote, ‘On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history’ (T. H. Huxley 1874). The essay had been republished in Science and culture and other essays (T. H. Huxley 1881) and CD had commented on it in his letter to Huxley of 12 January 1882.

To G. C. Wallich   28 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Mar 28 1882 My dear Sir You expressed quite correctly my views where you say that I had intentionally left the question of the origin of life uncanvassed as being altogether ultra vires in the present state of our knowledge, and that I dealt only with the manner of succession.1 I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy in favour of so-called spontaneous generation.2 I believe that I have somewhere said (but cannot find the passage) that the principle of continuity renders it probable that hereafter life will be shown to be a part or consequence of some general law; but this is only conjecture and not science3   I know nothing about the Protista, and shall be very glad to read your lecture when it is published, if you will be so kind as to send me a copy. I remain, my dear Sir, | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Karpeles Manuscript Library Museums

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882 1 2

3

131

See letter from G. C. Wallich, 25 March 1882 and n. 2. CD had maintained a sceptical but open view on the question of spontaneous generation; for his interest in the debates over spontaneous generation, see Correspondence vol. 20, letters to A. R. Wallace, 28 August [1872] and [2 September 1872]. CD had made a similar observation in his letter to Daniel Mackintosh, 28 February 1882.

To Mr Loct?   29 March 1882 Charles Darwin | Down, Kent March 29th 1882.— Mr D. thinks that Mr Loct ought to have sent an addressed envelope.—1 American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.617) 1

The recipient has not been identified.

To G. J. Romanes   29 March [1882]1 My dear Romanes. I have accidentally stumbled on the paper by the Baron de Villa Franca on apparent grafting of sugar-canes, which he sent me some years ago.—2 As your power of work & perseverance seem to be indomitable, perhaps the M.S wd be worth glancing over, & the reference to this former communication might be more precise. in the paper which you have so kindly drawn up.—3 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Down. March 29th— Bodleian Libraries, Oxford (MS. Eng. d. 3823, fol. 11) 1 2

3

The year is established by a note in Romanes’s hand, ‘My last letter from Darwin’. A paper by Ignacio Francisco Silveira da Motta, baron de Vila Franca, on the culture and propagation of sugar cane had been sent to CD for comment in 1880 (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from Arthur de Souza Corrêa, 20 October 1880). Romanes was preparing a paper based on documents received by CD in December 1881 (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 3 January [1882] and n. 2). CD communicated baron de Vila Franca’s work on new varieties of sugar cane to the Linnean Society on 6 April 1882; the paper was read on 4 May 1882, but not published (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1880–2): 30–1; Linnean Society, SP register, reference 2371). The paper was also mentioned in Journal of Botany: British and Foreign 20 (1882): 192. CD’s draft of his and Romanes’s commentary on the paper is in DAR 207: 4.

To ?   29 March 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) March 29th 1882 Dear Sir I cannot answer your questions; nor do I suppose that anyone could do so.— Earth worms are hermaphrodite, but two must unite & both produce eggs.—1

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

132

I have seen hundreds coupled, early in the morning & occasionally through the night.— I believe in the spring, but cannot positively remember. I remain | yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin John Wilson (dealer) (n.d.) 1

The letter to which this is a reply has not been found. CD had not discussed reproduction in Earthworms. For more on earthworms’ reproductive organs, see Lankester 1864–5.

From Francis Darwin to Lawson Tait   [30 March 1882]1 Down | Beckenham Dear Mr Tait, My father will be very glad to keep the proof of the medal and asks me to thank you cordially for it.2 Many thanks also for your kind expressions about his health; I think he is decidely better again3 Yrs very truly | Francis Darwin Photocopy DAR 221.5: 42 1 2

3

The date is established by a pencil note on the letter in an unknown hand. The medal was struck in connection with the ‘Darwin Prize’ instituted by the Midland Union of Natural History Societies (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from E. W. Badger, 17 July 1880). The die for the medal was cut by Joseph Moore; one side showed a bust of CD and the other showed a branch of coral (Midland Naturalist 5 (1882): 159). The proof has not been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL. CD mentioned being very unwell for several days in his letter to W. D. Crick, 10 March [1882].

To Joseph Fayrer   30 March 1882 Down. | Beckenham. Kent. March 30th 1882. My dear Sir. You will perhaps remember that you gave me some years ago a little cobra-poison for experimenting on Drosera—1 Can you redouble your kindness by giving me ever so little of this or any other snake poison? Half a grain & even a quarter of a grain would probably suffice for an experiment which I am anxious to try.—2 If you have none—I suppose that it would not be possible to purchase any in any shop? Pray excuse me for troubling you & I remain | My dear Sir. | Yours very faithfully— | Charles Darwin. Copy DAR 144: 105 1

h

d i

0 0

In 1874, Fayrer had sent cobra poison, a solution of which CD applied to the glands of Drosera (sundew); he found that the poison did not kill, but rather, acted as a stimulant to the protoplasm (see

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

2

133

Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Joseph Fayrer, 17 June 1874, and letter to Joseph Fayrer, [before 25 June 1874]). In a recent paper, ‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll’, CD had reported the results of experiments with various substances in causing aggregation of chlorophyll grains. CD may have wanted to test the effect of cobra poison on chlorophyll, but no notes have been found on the subject.

From Fritz Müller1   31 March 1882

Blumenau, Sa. Catharina, Brazil, 31. März 1882.

Verehrter Herr! Ich muss Ihre Verzeihung erbitten, weil ich so lange die Antwort auf Ihre freundlichen Briefe vom 19. Decbr.  und vom 4. Januar verzögert habe; aber ich hatte wirklich Ihnen nichts mitzutheilen.2 Von meinen Lagerstroemia-Sämlingen hat einer, obwohl er kaum höher als 10 cm ist, schon zwei unvollkommene Blüten hervorgebracht, welche dadurch bemerkenswerth sind, dass sie 1) fünf Kelchblätter und ebenso viele Kronenblätter haben, während es bei den normalen Blüten deren sechs sind; 2) dadurch, dass sie beinah 14 Tage frisch bleiben, während die normalen Blüten am dritten Tage welken.3 Was die Veränderlichkeit bei den Blüten von Pontederia (Eichhornia) crassipes (die der Graf Solms-Laubach in Göttingen für mich bestimmt hat) betrifft, so bin ich ganz sicher, dass sie nicht auf den hybriden Ursprung zurückzuführen ist.4 Der Itajahy mirim, in dem unsere einheimische Pontederia (Eichhornia) azurea wächst, ist ungefähr 50 km von Blumenau entfernt; die Veränderlichkeit ist beschränkt auf die Farbe der Blüten, während die beiden Arten grosse Verschiedenheiten in manchen andern Theilen aufweisen, und als ich P. crassipes mit Pollen von P. azurea, welcher zwei Tage alt war, befruchtete, erhielt ich nicht eine einzige Frucht.5 P.  crassipes, von der ich früher dachte, sie sei selbst unfruchtbar (self-sterile), ist mit ihrem eigenen Pollen ziemlich fruchtbar.6 Die Unfruchtbarkeit, welche ich in früheren Jahren beobachtete, war wahrscheinlich auf das Fehlen befruchtender Insecten zurückzuführen. Sogar jetzt, wenn die mittelgriffligen und die langgriffligen Formen untermischt mit einander wachsen, sind Früchte, die nur einige Samen enthalten, recht selten, und die meisten von ihnen sind sehr dürftig. Um ein Beispiel zu geben: drei Früchte einer mittelgriffligen Pflanze, legitim befruchtet mit dem Pollen einer langgriffligen Pflanze, enthielten im Durchschnitt 252 Samen; drei Früchte, illegitim befruchtet mit dem Pollen der kurzen Staubfäden einer langgriffligen Pflanze, enthielten im Durchschnitt 94 Samen; drei Früchte, befruchtet mit dem Pollen von ihren eigenen langen Staubfäden, 198 Samen und drei Früchte, befruchtet mit dem Pollen von ihren eigenen kurzen Staubfäden, 167 Samen. In Früchten von P.  crassipes, welche von langgriffligen oder mittelgriffligen Pflanzen erzeugt werden und befruchtet sind mit Pollen aus den kurzen Staubfäden einer dieser Formen, nehmen die Samen nur die oberen 34 oder 45 der Frucht ein, während der untere Theil der Placenta mit verschrumpften Eiern bedeckt ist, grade als ob die Pollenschläuche nicht lang genug gewesen wären, um so weit hinunterzureichen.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

March 1882

134

In der letzten Zeit habe ich begonnen Versuche zu machen mit Heteranthera reniformis; ich befruchtete die Blumen der einen Aehre mit blauem Pollen, und diejenige einer andern Aehre derselben Pflanze mit gelbem Pollen, und zwar entweder von derselben oder von einer andern Pflanze; es war gewöhnlich ein sehr deutlicher Unterschied in der Zahl der erzeugten Samen, aber in manchen Fällen brachte gelber Pollen, und in andern wieder blauer Pollen mehr Samen hervor.7 Z. B. hatten acht Früchte (befruchtet 29. Januar mit blauem Pollen) zwischen 70 und 80  Samen; sechs Früchte derselben Pflanze (befruchtet an demselben Tage mit gelbem Pollen) enthielten zwischen 20 and 25, im Durchschnitt 22 Samen. Dagegen brachten vier Blumen, welche am 16. Februar mit blauem Pollen befruchtet waren, Früchte hervor mit 72, 60, 59, 45, im Durchschnitt 59 Samen, während sechs Blumen derselben Pflanze, befruchtet an demselben Tage mit gelbem Pollen, Früchte erzeugten mit 93, 70, 100, 83, 80, 78, im Durchschnitt 84 Samen. Heteranthera reniformis bringt bisweilen cleistogame Blüten, und einzelne Pflanzen-Individuen sind viel mehr geneigt, dies zu thun, als andere, welche mit ihnen an derselben Stelle wachsen.8 Die cleistogamen Blüten bieten in ihrem Bau keinerlei Besonderheiten; gewöhnlich bleibt die ganze Aehre eingeschlossen in der Scheide, welche dann einen vollkommen geschlossenen Sack darstellt; aber bisweilen ragen eine oder zwei Blumen aus der Scheide hervor, während der Rest eingeschlossen bleibt. Nun sind in manchen Fällen die eingeschlossenen Blumen ganz unfruchtbar, in andern aber erzeugen sie zahlreiche offenbar gute Samen. So zählte ich vor einigen Tagen die Samen in drei cleistogamen Aehren mit je 3, 5 und 6 Blumen und fand I: 84, 67, 122. II: 9, 55, 97, 81, 12. III: 72, 66, 96, 94, 97, 0 Samen. Von Bentham u. Hooker’s gen. plant. empfing ich durch Ihre Güte drei Theile des ersten Bandes.9 Was Ihren Gedanken betrifft, ich solle ein “Journal of a naturalist in Brazil” schreiben, so habe ich viele Jahre gehofft, es sollte mit meiner Hülfe ein solches Buch meine Tochter Rosa schreiben, der ich alle meine vermischten Beobachtungen von allgemeinem Interesse überliefert haben würde; aber nun, da ich sie verloren habe, denke ich, wird das Buch ungeschrieben bleiben.10 Grade jetzt habe ich noch einmal Thomas Belt’s “naturalist in Nicaragua” gelesen und so noch einmal mich überzeugt, dass ich ganz ausser Stande sein würde, ein so anziehendes Buch zu schreiben. ....11 Incomplete Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 424–5 1

2

h

d i

0 0

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. All Fritz Müller’s letters to CD were written in English (see Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 72 n.); most of them have not been found. Many of the letters were later sent by Francis Darwin to Alfred Möller, who translated them into German for his Fritz Müller: Werke, Briefe und Leben (Möller ed. 1915–21). Möller also found final drafts of some Müller letters among the Fritz Müller papers and included these in their original English form (ibid., 2: 72 n). Where the original English versions are missing, the published version, usually appearing in German translation, has been used. See Correspondence vol. 29, letter to Fritz Müller, 19 December 1881, and this volume, letter to Fritz Müller, 4 January 1882.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882 3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10 11

135

For Müller’s earlier observations on Lagerstroemia (the genus of crape myrtle), see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from Fritz Müller, 7 February 1881. In standard botanical usage, an imperfect flower is one lacking either the male or female organs. Müller uses the term loosely to refer to an atypical number of petals and sepals. In his letter of 4 January 1882, CD had wondered whether the variability Müller observed in flowers of Pontederia crassipes (a synonym of Eichhornia crassipes, common water hyacinth) was the result of hybridisation. Hermann, Graf zu Solms-Laubach, was professor of botany at Göttingen (NDB). The Itajahy Mirim (now Itajaí-Mirim) is a tributary of the Itajaí Açu; it flows south-west from the main river near Cordeiros. Pontederia azurea (a synonym of Eichhornia azurea, anchored water hyacinth) has pale blue to purple flowers. Müller had discussed trimorphism in the Pontederia he found in the Itajahy-Mirim in ‘Ueber den Trimorphismus der Pontederien’ (On the trimorphism of Pontederia; F. Müller 1871). He had not mentioned whether plants he observed were self-sterile, but may have discussed this in his now missing letter of 2 December 1881 (see letter to Fritz Müller, 4 January 1882 and n. 4). Heteranthera reniformis is kidneyleaf mudplantain; it is a member of the Pontederiaceae, the family of pickerel-weed. Müller had described its floral morphology, notably the two different sets of anthers with different coloured pollen, in his letter of 7 February 1881 (Correspondence vol. 29). Müller hypothesised that in flowers of this sort, one type of anthers attracted insects, while the other ensured cross-fertilisation. Heteranthera reniformis is a water plant; open flowers sit above the water, but cleistogamic or closed flowers remain under water and are self-fertilising. See letter to Fritz Müller, 4 January 1882 and n. 9. Genera plantarum (Bentham and Hooker 1862–83) was a systematic work undertaken by Joseph Dalton Hooker and George Bentham in 1860 (see Stearn 1956). CD had asked whether Müller had all the published volumes. See letter to Fritz Müller, 4 January 1882 and n. 8. Müller’s daughter Rosa had died in 1879 (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from Hermann Müller, 27 April 1880 and n. 2). CD had recommended Thomas Belt’s book, The naturalist in Nicaragua (Belt 1874) to friends, and sent a copy to Fritz Müller (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Fritz Müller, 1 January 1874).

From Henry Groves   1 April 1882 13. Richmond Terrace | Clapham Road S.W. 1. April 1882 My dear Sir I had the pleasure of forwarding, yesterday, (per S.E.R.) plants of Nitella opaca which I hope have reached you safely. A little gravel covered with sand is what I have used for planting Characeæ & rain or boiled water.1 The struggle for existence in the gravel pit pools at Mitcham (whence I obtained these s pn  ˉ  s) has much interested me.2 I have noticed comparatively new pools with only Confervæ3 & perhaps a little grass, next year I have found a single patch of the Nitella, the following year full of the Nitella with a little Callitriche Zannichellia &c the next year little or no Nitella more Callitriche, more water grasses and sometimes Myriophyllum, Elodea &c but I don’t think in any instance have I found the Nitella in the same pool for more than 3 years during the last six seasons.4 It seems to point to Nitella opaca being one of the first plants capable of existing in new gravel pits, but not able to hold its own when the conditions become suitable to other plants. The limited duration of some of the Nitelleæ, more especially the Tolypella, in the same pool, is very remarkable. To give an instance— In a park near Kelvedon there are several small old established ponds which Mr. Varenne of that place, a very

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

136

accurate observer, has known for 30 or 40 years— some 20 years ago he found in one of these pools Tolypella intricata, another year it occurred in a neighbouring pond and about 4 years ago, a pool some 14 of a mile distant was quite full of it, then it again disappeared, having only been found for one year in each pond5 Much regretting to hear you are so unwell,6 | Believe me | Very truly yours | Henry Groves Cha.s Darwin Esq LL.D., F.R.S. DAR 165: 236 1

2

3 4 5 6

In his letter to Groves of 27 March 1882, CD had asked for a living plant of Nitella; Groves sent it by the South Eastern Railway, which included the line to Orpington, the closest station to Down. Nitella opaca is a species of freshwater green algae in the family Characeae and is known as the dark stonewort. Mitcham was in Surrey; it is now in south London. The gravel pits were dug on Mitcham Common in the early nineteenth century to provide material for road building. They later became ponds. (‘History of Mitcham Common’, https://mitchamcommon.org/ (accessed 3 February 2021)). Confervae were any simple filamentous green algae, many of which were formerly classified in the genus Conferva. Callitriche (water starwort), Zannichellia (horned pondweed), Myriophyllum (water milfoil), and Elodea (water weed) are genera of aquatic plants. Ezekiel George Varenne was a retired surgeon in Kelvedon, Essex. Tolypella intricata (tassel stonewort) is in the family Characeae. See letter to Henry Groves, 27 March 1882.

From Joseph Fayrer   2 April 1882 53 Wimpole St 2 April 1882 Dear Mr Darwin I am sorry to say I have not yet succeded in getting you some Cobra poison here, but do not yet despair of doing so.1 Meanwhile, a letter is on its way to Bengal to Mr Vincent Richards, Civil Surgeon of Goalundo in Bengal asking him to send you some by post direct, so that it will reach you within the space of time required to reply to a letter. Mr Richards who formerly worked with me in India is now carrying on some investigations in snake poisons and will I hope have what you want ready to send.2 If I get any here it shall be sent to you at once. Yours very truly | J Fayrer— DAR 164: 115 1 2

h

d i

0 0

In a letter of 30 March 1882, CD had asked Fayrer, an expert on snake venom, for some cobra poison. Both Richards and Fayrer had been members of the Indian Snake Poison Commission and carried out research on snake venom (Report of the commission on snake-poisoning 1874). Richards worked for the Indian Medical Service as had Fayrer prior to his departure from India in 1871 (Bhaumik 2018). Goalundo, Bengal, is now Goalundo Ghat, Bangladesh.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

137

From J. L. Ambrose   3 April 1882 New York April 3, 1882. Chas Darwin Esq, Dear Sir: On the 16th. of Feb’y last I wrote you a earnest appeal in behalf of my two sisters & myself enclosing three cards upon which I asked if you would be good enough to write your name with the date attached, but am greatly disappointed & grieved at not hearing from you—1 Thinking possibly that you may have overlooked my request among your other papers &c, I take the liberty of sending you this respectful reminder— Now Mr Darwin, will you not please grant me this request? If you knew how much happiness you could bestow upon us by sparing but a few moments of your time towards replying to our request, I am certain you would not refuse us our request! Will you therefore kindly honor us with what we so much desire, & for which you shall always have our heartfelt thanks & deep gratitude? From the tone of my previous letter you will observe that we are all great admirers of yours & that it is our greatest wish to possess these cards written upon by your hand— I may be perhaps a little too soon with this my second letter, if so pray excuse me; I do it only for fear that my letter may get lost among your papers, & then we should never hear from you— Oh, Mr Darwin, I beseech of you in behalf of my dear sisters & everything that is sacred to me, as well as my own great desires, grant us this our modest request! Please be not under the impression that we want your signature for any bad purpose, we want your writing too look at as that of a gentleman for whom our admiration is so great— I also asked, as you will perhaps remember if you would write “Your well wisher” on each card: will you kindly do this also? As we have watched, we shall again watch each incoming mail for the much desired reply, & it is our earnest desire that now with this second appeal that you will not allow us to look in vain— Please excuse me for not enclosing return postage in this letter. We did so however in our first letter & you will find it in there. It is very difficult to obtain an uncancelled English stamp here— We now leave this request to your kindness & good will, trusting that what I have written again may be the instrument of our receiving the 3 cards from you before long— With all good wishes for your health, prosperity & happiness, | believe me, | in behalf of us all, | Your young but sincere friend, | James L. Ambrose James L Ambrose, | 195 Broadway, | New York City, | U.S. DAR 159: 57

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

138 1

See letter from J. L. Ambrose, 15 February 1882.

To Adolf Ernst   3 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April 3d. 1882 Dear Sir I am extremely sorry to hear of your illness, but hope that you may soon grow stronger.—1 I enclose M. Perrier’s answer (& he is the highest authority in Europe) that the worm is probably a new sp. of Perichæta.—2 You will see that he wd. be glad to receive from you a collection of the Lumbricidæ3 from Venezuela: if you send them, they had better be sent direct to “M. Prof. E. Perrier Jardin des Plantes, Paris,”—as I am often ill.— Should you observe the ledges on the mountains I shd.  like much to hear the result, though I do not suppose that I shall ever again publish on the subject.—4 Since the appearance of my book I have become doubtful whether I have not exaggerated the importance of worms in the formation of the ledges.— Perhaps they may be due to the sliding down & horizontal cracking of whole of the surface soil. Pray excuse brevity as I am far from well. | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin State Darwin Museum, Moscow (GDM KP OF 8975) 1 2

3 4

See letter from Adolf Ernst, 2 March 1882. Ernst had sent CD a common earthworm from Venezuela and asked him to forward it to an expert for identification (letter from Adolf Ernst, 2 March 1882). Edmond Perrier had carried out extensive research on earthworms and his work is frequently referred to in Earthworms; his answer has not been found. For the possible identity of what Perrier thought a new species of Perichaeta (a former genus of the earthworm family Megascolecidae), see the letter from Adolf Ernst, 2 March 1882, n. 3. The Lumbricidae are a family of earthworms. After reading CD’s discussion of the formation of ledges of earth on steep hill-sides in Earthworms, pp. 278–83, Ernst intended to examine the ledges in the hills around Caracas to determine whether they were produced by earthworms (see letter from Adolf Ernst, 2 March 1882).

To Henry Groves   3 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April 3d 1882.— Dear Sir I thank you cordially for the beautiful specimens of the Nitella & for your letter of instructions.—1 I have roughly tried the effects of C. of Ammonia on the chlorophyll grains, but I find stooping over the microscope affects my heart. The grains swell & then exhibit the contained particles of starch very clearly, & some of the grains become confluent, occasionally sending out prolongations.2 But my observations are hardly trustworthy. The grains do not seem to be so strongly affected as in some few other cases. The facts which you relate about the distribution of the Nitella are very curious;3 & how little we know about the life of any one plant or animal! Dear Sir | Yours faithfully & obliged | Ch. Darwin

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

139

The British Library (Add MS 46917: 66) 1 2

3

See letter from Henry Groves, 1 April 1882. Nitella opaca (dark stonewort) is a species of freshwater algae. The results of CD’s experiments on the effect of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll bodies were published in a paper that had been read at the Linnean Society on 6 March 1882 (‘Action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll’). See letter from Henry Groves, 1 April 1882. Groves noted that while the species he observed colonised new areas of shallow water, they seldom survived more than three years once other algae were present.

To Federico Philippi   3 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April 3d 1882 Dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for having kindly sent me your Catalogue of the Chilian plants, which must have cost you much labour.1 How much we know of the natural history of Chili to what was known many years ago when I visited that magnificent country!2 And how much of this increased knowledge the world owes to you.— With much respect, I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin Yudilevich Levy and Castro Le-Fort eds. 1996, p. 33 1 2

CD’s copy of Philippi’s Catalogus plantarum vascularium Chilensium adhuc descriptarum (Philippi 1881) is in the Darwin Library–CUL. In 1834 and 1835, CD had spent a considerable amount of time in Chile while on the Beagle voyage. See Journal of researches, pp. 308–442.

To P. L. Sclater   3 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April 3d 1882 r My dear M Sclater I send the enclosed paper to be read at the Zoolog. Soc. & to be printed in the Journal, if so recommended by the referees.1 If rejected, & it is not against your rules, I shd. be much obliged for its return, as I wd try whether the Editor of Nature wd. print it, as I am anxious that its contents shd. be recorded.— Pray believe me | yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Incomplete?2 American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.618) 1

2

h

d i

William Thomson Van Dyck, in a letter of 27 February 1882, had sent CD a paper on Syrian street dogs, requesting that he submit it for publication wherever he thought fit. The paper was received by the Zoological Society of London on 4 April 1882, and was published in the Proceedings of the society (Van Dyck 1882). At the bottom of the letter CD wrote ‘over’, but it is unclear what further comments may have been included because the verso of the page is blank and pages 3 and 4 of the notepaper are missing.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

140

To W. T. Van Dyck   3 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April 3d. 1882.— Dear Sir After much deliberation I have thought it best to send your very interesting paper to the Zoological Soc.  in hopes that it will be published in the Journal.—1 This Journal goes to every scientific institution in the world, & the contents are abstracted in all year-books on zoology.— Therefore I have preferred it to “Nature”, though the latter has a wider circulation, but is ephemeral.— I have prefaced your essay by a few general remarks to which I hope that you will not object.—2 Of course I do not know that the Z. Soc., which is much addicted to more systematic work, will publish your essay. If it does I will send you copies of your essay, but these will not be ready for some months.— If not published by the Socy. I will endeavour to get Nature to publish it, I am very anxious that it shd be published & preserved.3 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin DAR 261.11: 15 (EH 88206067) 1 2

3

See letter to P. L. Sclater, 3 April 1882 and n. 1. Van Dyck’s account was published, with a long introduction by CD defending the principle of sexual selection, in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (Van Dyck 1882). The changing role of Nature as a forum for publication is discussed in Baldwin 2015. Van Dyck had suggested that the paper be published in Nature in his letter of 27 February 1882.

To Margaret Hadley   4 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April 4th 1882 Madam I have the pleasure to send my signature on next page.— I think that an indifferent person wd. best select a passage: nor am I well enough at present to copy out one for you.—1 About any sentence from my “Naturalists Voyage” or the “Origin of Species” would do.— The concluding sentence in the last-named book has struck some persons & there are sentences about Slavery in the former which would perhaps serve.—2 These books you wd. find in most public libraries.— I remain, Madam | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Copy DAR 144: 367 1

2

h

d i

0 0

The copyist noted that this was a letter from CD to Miss Margaret Hadley, who has not been further identified. Her letter has not been found, but she had evidently asked CD to select and write out a section from one of his books, as well as for his signature and date of birth (see letter to Margaret Hadley, 6 April [1882]). It is unclear why she wanted this information. The last sentence of Origin 6th ed. reads, ‘There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

141

most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.’ The references to slavery are in Journal of researches 2d ed., pp. 20–1, 24–5, and 499–500. This edition was sold as part of John Murray’s Home and Colonial Library with the title ‘Naturalist’s Voyage’ on the spine; by 1879, ‘A naturalist’s voyage’ appeared on the title page of the work (Freeman 1977).

From H. N. Moseley   5 April 1882 33 Beaumont St | Oxford. April 5— 82. Dear Mr Darwin As a member of the Rolleston Memorial Committee I am asked to write to you and ask whether if you feel inclined to subscribe to the Fund you will kindly send your subscription shortly to the Treasurer. E. Chapman Esq. Frewen Hall Oxford.1 A meeting will be held in May at the College of Physicians to settle what form the Memorial shall take. The Committee will recommend that the interest of the money subscribed shall be given as a prize once every two years for the best original memoir on any biological subject produced by any member of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge who has not exceeded a certain number of terms from matriculation. Equivalent to about four years after the usual degree.2 I hope this scheme may meet your approbation. No subject will be set for the prize   Such an arrangement as far as I know never produces any good result. The prize is to be withheld if no work of real importance is forthcoming but I do not think there is much chance of such a mishap now. With kind regards. | yours truly | H. N. Moseley. DAR 171: 264 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Augt 13th | — 17th.’3 pencil 1

2

3

The fund to memorialise George Rolleston had been established soon after his death in June 1881. Edward Chapman was curator of the Oxford University botanic garden and curator of the Hope Collection in the University Museum. By June 1882, the fund amounted to £1100; it was used to establish the Rolleston prize of £70, which was awarded every two years to the student who produced the best memoir on any aspect of animal and vegetable morphology, physiology and pathology, or anthropology (Nature, 8 June 1882, p. 135). CD’s annotations are notes for his reply to Moseley. The dates relate to the cheque CD remembered having sent when the fund was first proposed (see letter to H. N. Moseley, 7 April 1882 and n. 2).

To Margaret Hadley   6 April [1882]1 Down Ap. 6th I am sorry that I omitted to answer your query.—2 Feb. 12th 18093 C. Darwin Copy DAR 144: 368

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

142 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Margaret Hadley, 4 April 1882. See letter to Margaret Hadley, 4 April 1882 and n. 1. CD’s date of birth.

To W. E. A. Axon   7 April [1882]1 Down, Beckenham, Kent April 7, Dear Sir I have been interested and amused by the Essay which you have been so kind as to send me, and which shows a wonderful amount of research.2 Your plan of a Journal seems an excellent one and I wish it success, but I cannot offer to contribute an article to it, for I have made it a rule not to write in Periodicals, except to communicate new facts.3 I have just lately refused two applications and during the last few years a large number of similar ones. I have given the same answer to all, and I must keep to my resolution, otherwise the very little strength which I still possess would all be frittered away. Pray excuse me and believe me that I honour you for undertaking the work. Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Copy DAR 143: 26 1 2

3

The year is established by the publication date of the first issue of the Field Naturalist and Scientific Student (see n. 3, below). The essay was probably Axon’s statement about founding a new periodical titled Field Naturalist and Scientific Student (later published at the beginning of the first issue), in which Axon expressed his hope that the journal would be inclusive and that its contents would be ‘exact without being technical’, ‘chatty without being trivial’, and would ‘not neglect the the little things of nature even for grander phenomena and more intricate problems’ ([Axon] 1882). The first issue of the Field Naturalist and Scientific Student was published on 1 June 1882. The periodical folded after the ninth issue in early 1883, after which all the issues were published in a single volume; this did not have the opening statement by Axon (see n. 2, above), but instead a short preface explained the demise of the journal and stated that it had commenced with ‘the good wishes of the late Charles Darwin’ (Axon ed. 1883, Preface).

To H. N. Moseley   7 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April 7th 1882 My dear Moseley I am much obliged to you for writing to me, for I shd. have been vexed not to have subscribed as a memorial of my respect for the man.—1 My memory told me vaguely that I had had some correspondence on the subject, & I have now found the cheque, which was paid by my Bankers on the August 17th 1881.— Mr. Chapman must have overlooked it, unless his signature be a forgery, (& I have enclosed old cheque on this accnt) which is not likely.2 When I sent it, I supposed that some memorial stone was to be erected & so sent only £2. s2. 0, but I now beg permission to add £8–s8–0—making my subscription £10.s10.0.—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

143

I most heartily hope that you find your position & employment satisfactory in Oxford & that you will raise many students in Natural Science, worthy of their master.—3 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S.  I have been ill & am far from well, so will you hand over cheque & communicate with Mr Chapman on subject, & forgive me asking you to take this trouble.— Christie’s, London (dealers) (online 31 October – 8 November 2018, lot 16) 1 2

3

In his letter of 5 April 1882, Moseley had asked CD to contribute to the memorial fund for George Rolleston. Edward Chapman was the treasurer of the fund. Banks returned cheques to the payer as a record that the recipient (who also signed the cheque) had paid them in and received the money. CD’s earlier cheque was dated 13 August 1881; it was paid in by Chapman on 17 August 1881. Moseley had been appointed Rolleston’s successor as Linacre Professor of human and comparative anatomy at Oxford University. CD had written a testimonial in support of Moseley’s candidacy (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from H. N. Moseley, 27 November 1881).

From H. N. Moseley   8 April 1882 Oxford. April 8. 82. My dear Mr Darwin Many thanks for the cheque for eight guineas to be added to your former subscription of two guineas to the Rolleston Fund.1 I am extremely sorry that the former payment should have been overlooked   I will at once communicate with Mr Chapman and see that all is put straight.2 He is away from Oxford I believe just now so perhaps you will not hear from him for a few days. He appears to have overlooked the payment which is curious since he is a man of leisure accustomed to act as treasurer here for all kinds of undertakings. Many thanks for your kind wishes for my success here in my Professorship. I find I have got terribly rusty in all the details of my subject which I have not been working at myself and have not studied for so many years. and owing to my work in London having lasted till the end of January and all kinds of changes to be seen to here I have had scarcely any time to prepare my lectures for next term.3 I am therefore a little apprehensive about them but hope to get on better after a long vacation. I have had sent to me from Australia a small Actinia which bores small conical chambers in the calcareous skeleton of the Bryozoon Cellepora and inhabits them. or rather I expect it clings to the Bryozoon when young and maintains its position whilst the skeleton develops around it. The result is that neat circular mouthed pores appear all over the Cellepora skeleton looking as if properly belonging to it and very puzzling without the explanation of their origin4 I am sorry indeed to hear you are unwell and hope you may soon regain your health. Believe me | yours truly | H. N. Moseley

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

144

We are I hope going to allow students here to take a degree in anthropology. I am drawing up a syllabus of the subject with that view. General Pitt Rivers has offered his collection to the University.5 DAR 171: 265 1 2 3 4

5

See letter to H. N. Moseley, 7 April 1882. Edward Chapman, the treasurer of the fund to establish a memorial to George Rolleston, had omitted to record an earlier donation from CD (see letter to H. N. Moseley, 7 April 1882 and n. 2). Moseley had been appointed Rolleston’s successor as Linacre Professor of human and comparative anatomy at Oxford University; prior to that he was assistant registrar at London University. Actinia is a genus of sea anemones. The specimen of minute Actinia that occupied cavities in the bryozoan Cellepora was probably sent by William Aitcheson Haswell; Haswell first saw the phenomenon when he was on a surveying cruise of the Great Barrier Reef, and published his observations in the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales (Haswell 1882). Rolleston had been a great promoter of ethnology, and at his death his post was divided into the chair of human and comparative anatomy (occupied by Moseley) and a readership in anthropology, established in 1884. Augustus Henry Pitt-Rivers had been a close friend of Rolleston. His collection was accepted by Oxford University in May 1882, and formed the basis of the Pitt Rivers Museum; Moseley was responsible for unpacking and arranging the collection. See C. Gosden et al. 2009, pp. 25–6.

From A. N. Hopkins   9 April 1882 110, Bristol Road, | Edgbaston | Birmingham, April 9 1882

Alfred N. Hopkins | To Dear Sir I have just been reading your book on Earthworms. I do not know whether the following fact is of any value or importance as however everything has a significance for you which other people cannot apprehend I trust I may be pardoned the liberty I take in addressing you Some three years since the Church Road in this suburb was covered as to the Footpath with Asphalt. The Road has several houses in it fronted by carriage drives & gardens Walking to Town one damp morning a few weeks or so after the Asphalt had been finished 〈I〉 count〈ed〉 〈      〉 three or four hundred eart〈hworms lying〉 dead upon it the 〈Road〉 〈      〉 〈ab〉out half a mile long.1 Since that time being I occasionally 〈se〉e two or three worms dead, as the others were but never any quantity. I am dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Alfred N Hopkins Charles Darwin Esq LLD FRS &c. DAR 166: 267 1

h

d i

0 0

In Earthworms, p. 14, CD mentioned an occasion when, following heavy rain after a dry spell, large quantities of dead earthworms were observed by a path in Hyde Park, London; he believed it less likely that the earthworms had drowned than that they were already sick individuals able to reach the surface but not to survive for long in wet conditions.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

145

To J. E. Todd   10 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April 10th 1882.— Dear Sir I hope that you will excuse the liberty which as a stranger I take in begging a favour of you. I have read with unusual interest your very interesting paper in the American Naturalist on the structure of the flowers of Solanum rostratum, & I shd. be grateful if you would send me some seeds in a small box (telling me whether the plant is an annual, so that I may know where to sow the seeds), in order that I may have the pleasure of seeing the flowers & experimentising on them.1 But if you intend to experimentise on them, of course you will not send me the seeds, as I shd. be very unwilling to interfere in any way with your work. I shd. also rather like to look at the flowers of Cassia chamæcrista.2 Many years ago I tried some experiments in a remotely analogous case & this year am trying others. I described what I was doing to Dr. Fritz Müller (Blumenau, Sta. Catharina, Brazil) & he has told me that he believes that in certain plants producing 2  sets of anthers of a different colour, that bees collect the pollen from one of the sets alone.3 He wd. therefore be much interested by your paper, if you have a spare copy that you could send him. I think, but my memory now often fails me, that he has published on the subject in Kosmos.4 Hoping that you will excuse me, I remain, Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S. In my little book on the Fertilisation of Orchids, you will find under Mormodes ignea, an account of a flower, laterally asymmetrical, & which I think that I called right-handed or left-handed flowers.—5 Department of Special Collections, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, University of Kansas (KU MS C78) 1

2

3

4

h

d i

Todd’s paper on the flowers of Solanum rostratum (a member of the nightshade family) was published in the April issue of the American Naturalist (Todd 1882); there is a copy in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Todd had also discussed the flowers of Cassia chamaecrista (a synonym of Chamaecrista fasciculata var. fasciculata, a leguminous plant) in Todd 1882. Their structure, like the flowers of Solanum rostratum, is asymmetric in order to facilitate cross-fertilisation. Fritz Müller had described to CD the behaviour of pollen-eating bees visiting flowers of Lagerstroemia, the genus of crape myrtle. The bees were attracted to bright yellow pollen on short stamens, while ignoring the less noticeable green pollen on longer stamens. Müller hypothesised the one type of anthers served to attract insects, while the other ensured cross-fertilisation (Correspondence vol. 29, letter from Fritz Müller, 7 February 1881). Müller had not, in fact, published on the topic in Kosmos, but Hermann Müller had communicated some of his brother’s observations in a letter published in Nature, 4 August 1881, pp. 307–8, and observations of his own in Nature, 9 November 1882, p. 30. Fritz Müller later mentioned having been in contact with Todd in another letter about the different types of stamens published in Nature, 15 February 1883, pp. 364–5. A paper written by Hermann Müller, summarising his own and Fritz Müller’s further observations, and including Todd’s work on Cassia chamaecrista, was later published in Kosmos (H. Müller 1883b).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

146 5

See Orchids, pp. 249–51; CD noted that its front surface, ‘including the anther, rostellum, and the upper part of the stigma’, faced ‘laterally to either the right or left hand in the flowers on the opposite sides of the spike’ (ibid., p. 251).

From William Ogle   12 April 1882 10 Gordon S.t | Gordon Square April 12. 1882 Dear Mr. Darwin, Your remarks in “Nature” of last week remind me of an incident that occurred to me many years back, very similar to that which occurred to your son, and, strangely enough, on the same coast.1 I was out fishing for Mackarel in Cardigan bay, and had a wager with my companion as to who would catch the first dozen fish. He had one to win, and getting a bite, as he supposed, began to haul up as fast as he could, calling out in triumph—“I win! Here he is! Such a whopper”! when to his and my astonishment there appeared a big oyster on his hook in place of a fish. He stuck to it, that the hook was inside the shell; but I always have fancied that he was humbugging me, till I read your remarks in Nature; and now find that he may have told the simple truth after all. Thank you for your kind and eulogistic letter re “the parts of animals”.2 It gave me much pleasure. I am glad also to have added a third person to your Gods, and completed the Trinity.3 With kindest remembrances to Mrs. Darwin and your family | Believe me | Yours very sincerely | William Ogle. DAR 173: 11 1

2 3

In ‘Dispersal of freshwater bivalves’, p. 530, CD had reported that Francis Darwin suspected that the mussels he hooked while fishing on the North Wales coast had not been mechanically torn from the bottom of the sea, but had seized the point of the hook. In his letter to Ogle of 22 February 1882, CD praised Ogle’s introduction to his translation Aristotle on the parts of animals (Ogle trans. 1882). In his letter to Ogle of 22 February 1882, CD stated that he had not realised what a ‘wonderful man’ Aristotle was, and that hitherto his two gods had been Linnaeus (Carl von Linné) and Georges Cuvier. Ogle alludes to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

To J. L. Ambrose   15 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Ap. 15. 1882 Dear Sir I remember signing the cards & posting them immediately so I suppose lost by Post.—1 I now send signature on next page. Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Josh B. Rosenblum (private collection) 1

h

d i

0 0

See letter from J. L. Ambrose, 3 April 1882.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

147

From C. V. Naudin1   15 April 1882 Villa Thuret | Laboratoire | de | l’enseignement supérieur | Antibes, le 15 avril 82 Cher et illustre confrère, Voici une nouvelle provision de graines de Trifolium resupinatum qui m’arrive, et je ne veux pas vous la faire attendre plus long-temps.2 En multipliant les semis, on multiplie les chances de succès. Si aucune des graines que vous avez semées ou que vous sèmerez encore ne réussissent pas, veuillez me le faire savoir en temps convenable, pour que je vous envoie des plantes vivantes. Ici, comme en Angleterre, tout le monde est indigné des insultes qui, dans ces dernières années, ont été addressées à ce pauvre Decaisne, et qui ont bien probablement abrégé sa vie.3 C’est un exemple déplorable; mais ceux-là n’en sont pas trop étonnés qui ont connu le caractère aggressif de Decaisne, qui s’est fait, par là, des ennemis irréconciliables, malgré d’incontestables qualités.— Quelle belle chose que la tolérance! Veuillez recevoir, cher et illustre confrère, la nouvelle assurance de mes sentiments les plus sincères, | Ch. Naudin Notre pauvre ami Charles Martins, est aussi dans un assez triste état de santé!4 Il a été persécuté par les pairs, à Montpellier, et il a dû résigner les fonctions de Professeur à l’Ecole de Médecine, pour revenir habiter Paris. Voilà comme tout passe dans le monde phénoménal où nous sommes, sans savoir un mot de notre Whence et de notre Whither.5 DAR 172: 12 1 2

3

4

5

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Naudin had sent CD a few seeds of Trifolium resupinatum (Persian clover) in his letter of 8 March 1882. He had been trying to get seeds for CD since August 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from C. V. Naudin, 19 August 1881). Joseph Decaisne had died on 8 February 1882. Naudin had been aide-naturaliste at the Muséum d’histoire naturelle, Paris, when Decaisne had been professor of plant cultivation there. In an obituary of Decaisne in Nature, 23 February 1882, pp. 390–1, William Turner Thiselton-Dyer had emphasised Decaisne’s conscientiousness in all aspects of his official duties, as well as his opposition to evolutionary ideas. Decaisne’s persecution was also mentioned in the letter from C. V. Naudin, 8 March 1882. Charles Frédéric Martins had been professor of botany and natural history in the faculty of medicine and director of the botanic garden in Montpellier until he retired in 1879. He was a Protestant supporter of evolution, and fell foul of the ultramontanism prevalent among powerful Catholic factions (see Correspondence vol. 25, letter from C. F. Martins, 7 June 1877 and nn. 5 and 6). John 8: 14: ‘Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.’

To William Watson   17 April 1882 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) April. 17th 1882 Dear Sir You have misunderstood my meaning but the mistake was a very natural one & your criticism good.—1 I ought not to have interpolated the sentence about the

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

148

burying of food; & if inserted at all, it ought to have been at end of paragraph, or in a separate one.— The case was mentioned solely to illustrate a long-continued habit, for as far as I have seen well-fed domestic dogs do not revisit their buried treasures. A dog when burying food makes a hole (as far as I have seen) with his front legs alone, & shovels in the earth with his nose; so that there is no resemblance to the supposed excrement-covering movements.—2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin I see that I have omitted to thank you for your very courteous expressions towards me.— American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.619) 1 2

Watson’s letter has not been found. Watson published CD’s reply in the Academy, 10 June 1882, p. 417, because it was one of the last things CD wrote. Watson had suggested that CD had arrived at a ‘false conclusion’ in Expression, p. 44, when he implied that ‘the familiar canine practice of throwing up earth by backwards ejaculations of the hind-feet’ was ‘a “purposeless remnant” of a habit, on the part of the dog’s wilder progenitors, of “burying superfluous food”’ (Academy, 10 June 1882, p. 417).

To James Porter   18 April 1882 [Down.] [a most graceful letter enclosing a subscription for the portrait of the Duke of Devonshire, Chancellor of the University.2] 1

The Times, 24 April 1882, p. 10 1

2

James Porter, vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, received this letter on 19 April 1882, the day that CD died; believing it to be probably the last that CD wrote, Porter thought this of sufficient interest to describe its contents in a letter to the editor of The Times that was published in the newspaper on 24 April 1882, p.10. On 18 April 1882, the day before his death, CD recorded a payment of £3 3s. to ‘Porter for the Devonshire Portrait’ under ‘cheques paid’ in his Account books–cash account (Down House MS). William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, served as chancellor of the University of Cambridge from 1861 to 1891. The proceedings of a meeting for procuring a portrait of the chancellor, and the speeches of those who supported the proposal, were published in the Cambridge University Reporter, 2 February 1882, pp. 282–92. The portrait, painted by George Frederic Watts, was deposited in the Fitzwilliam Museum on 13 December 1883 (Cambridge University Reporter, 19 June 1885, p. 888).

From Emma Darwin to J. D. Hooker   [20 April 1882]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Thursday My dear Sir Joseph— Our hopes proved fallacious & on Tuesday night an attack of pain came on accompanied with fainting— It was a terrible time till all was over (about 15 hrs) but the faintness & sickness & exhaustion were worse than the pain, which I hope were never very violent.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

April 1882

149

He loved you more than any one out of his own family & I am sure you returned his affection— I cannot realize what life will be without him but I do feel through it all that with my children it is worth having. I have been prepared in some degree these 2 months, & his remaining so weak was very discouraging— Pray give my love to your dear wife2 & believe me affectionately yours | E. Darwin Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (JDH/2/1/6) 1 2

h

d i

The date is established by the reference to CD’s death on Wednesday 19 April 1882. Hyacinth Hooker.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

SUPPLEMENT, 1831–80

This supplement contains all the letters that have been located or re-dated since the publication of Correspondence volumes 24 to 29; earlier supplements were included in volumes 7, 13, 18, and 24, and a small special supplement of letters relating to the publication of Expression was included in vol. 20. This supplement also contains letters with a wide date range that fell outside the scope of earlier supplements. The letters are arranged in chronological order according to the usual practice of the edition. A record of CD’s alterations, information about the correspondents and other individuals mentioned in the letters, and bibliographical details are included in the Manuscript alterations and comments, the Biographical register, and the Bibliography for this volume.

To J. S. Henslow   [September 1831 – May 1861]1 My dear Henslow | Yours most truly | C. Darwin Incomplete North East Wales Archives (Ruthin) (DD/PH/115) 1

The date range is established from CD’s first use of the form of address ‘My dear Henslow’ and from the fact that Henslow died on 16 May 1861 (ODNB).

From C. L. Hughes   2 November 1832 Memoranda for Mr. C. Darwin. From Colonia conveyances are frequently offering for the different ports of the Banda Oriental—as all the small craft which trade up the River Uruguay have to call in at that place to pay their duties and obtain a clearance   horses too might be hired to carry you to Las Vacas, Las Higueritas &c. at a trifling expense, but I should recommend a journey by water in preference— In agreeing for your passage to Mercedes you ought not to pay more than 30 $ (paper)—1 The first place worthy of note after leaving Colonia is the Island of Martin Garcia which lies at the entrance of the Rio Uruguay—on this island the B.s Aires Gov.t have a battery, and it is there that convicts are imprisoned— About a couple of leagues further up the land can be seen on either side, that on the left being formed by innumerable small islands belonging to the Province of Entre Rios—a rather striking object on the Banda Oriental coast is a rock of Hone Stone—this rises abruptly from the waters edge—near to this are two small islands called Las dos hermanas which are well

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

152

wooded—tigers are said to be abundant on them2—a little further up you arrive abreast of the village of Las Vacas whence Horses can be obtained to carry you to Mercedes, but it is better to proceed on by water—Las Higueritas (a miserable village taking its name from the abundance of Fig trees) is about 10 miles from Las Vacas—here vessels generally stop for the night as the navigation further up becomes intricate.— San Salvador is 4 leagues beyond—it is a small town lying inland on a river of the same name— with a fair wind in a few hours you reach the mouth of the Rio Negro and here the Scenery begins to be interesting, and continues so all the way to the very source of that River— After entering the Rio Negro and proceeding 5 or 6 miles you come to the town of Santo Domingo de Soriano; this has nothing remarkable in its appearance & is celebrated only as being the first place settled by the old Spaniards when they took possession of this country—it is a more ancient place than either Montevideo or B.s Aires— 20 miles from Soriano and after many turnings in the River you reach La Capilla de Mercedes a pretty little town, and the chief place for the shipment of produce of that part of the country— There is not any inn or house of entertainment in Mercedes but I should think it would not be difficult to obtain lodgings in some native family if you wish to prolong your stay there—there is good fishing in the river— Near to the town Lime stone is found, and a Portuguese named Lima who speaks a little English has lime works— I would strongly recommend you to go some distance into the country to some Estancia as the scenery &c. will amply repay your trouble.— On the coast of the Rio Negro petrifactions are sometimes found, such as ostriches eggs, fruits &c— and I often picked up curious pebbles, particularly cornelians.— Both sides of the river are thickly wooded; the tree most common is the Sauce (willow) which is used there for building—the wood in its natural state will not answer as it rots directly—but after being cut down and immersed in water for twelve months it becomes very durable— The water of the Rio Negro is strongly impregnated with the Sarsaparilla which grows on the banks, and this no doubt is the cause of its dark colour—it has a powerful effect on a stranger when first taken (causing a looseness in the bowels)—it is best not drink largely of at first, but mix with it a little wine or spirits— The wild animals which abound in the country about Mercedes are deer, tigers, carpinchos, nutrias, armadillos and many others whose names I do not remember— of birds you will find great plenty—ostriches—flamingos—wild swans—storks, gansos—eagles both black & white—vultures & kites—ducks—partridges—snipes—teruterus— parroquets—in short the variety of birds it is impossible to detail—.3 There are some snakes, but not of a large size, tho’ generally dangerous—centipedes and spiders grow to a large size & their bite is often fatal— Should you be desirous of proceeding further than Mercedes, you can go by land to Paysandú which is a town of about the same size as Mercedes and 30 leagues distant— Still higher up the Uruguay are Sandú, Salto, and San Borja bordering on the Brazilian territory of Missiones where the celebrated Yerba or Maté is produced in large quantities.— B.s Aires Novr. 2nd. 1832 | C. L. H.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

153

AMemS DAR 34: 14–15 CD annotation End of letter: ‘Notes by Mr Hughes on a journey by water to Mercedes on the Rio Negro. [‘(Colonel O Brien | Naturalist)’4 del]’ ink 1

2

3 4

Hughes gave this memorandum to CD while the latter was visiting Buenos Aires (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter to Caroline Darwin, 24 October – 24 November [1832]). CD made the journey from Colonia to Mercedes, Uruguay, on horseback in November the following year, by which time Hughes had returned to England (‘Beagle’ diary, pp. 199–203; see also Correspondence vol. 1, letter from Susan Darwin, 22–31 July 1833, and letter to Caroline Darwin, 13 November 1833). Following the outlawing of foreign copper coin, a private exchange company authorised to issue paper currency had been established by the Uruguayan government on 26 January 1831 (http://monedasuruguay.com/doc/ley/1829/00024. htm (accessed 16 August 2021)). By ‘tigers’ Hughes presumably meant jaguars, which are the only local big cats. Carpinchos (Spanish): capybara, the largest living rodents (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). Nutrias, semiaquatic rodents, are also known as coypu (Myocastor coypus). Ganso (Spanish): goose. The teru-teru is the southern lapwing (Vanellus chilensis) and is the national bird of Uruguay. John Thomond O’Brien.

From Thomas Sutcliffe   [28 August – 5 September 1834]1 La Cordillera2 The Hacienda la Calera belongs to the Late Presidente Sr. Fco Ruiz Tagle, who resides on his Estate, and is about six leagues from Santiago.3 It is well worth your while to pass by it— Beluco belonging to the Marques de Larrayn is 6 leagues from la calera—and Aculeu is about 2 leagues from beluco, the lake is about 3 leagues from the houses of Aculeu.4 a Mr Bruce formerly a master in H. M.s Navy lives about a league and half from rancagua, it wd be worth your while to visit him.5 To Sr. Pedro Urriola comandante of the canton of rio claro, who resides on the estate of Sr. Fco. Valdivieso Sr I wd. advize you to visit,6 the estate is 3 leagues from Rancagua after you pass the cachapaul, rancagua is about 22 leagues from Santiago, and 15 leagues from San Fernando—I have merely scratched this croquis7 out by the rule of thumb, it may serve you as a reference, on the route you intend to take—the dotted lines mark the principal roads— at Pelequin a road branches of towards the lake but I have only gone to it by Nancagua by the one dotted— The mines of yaquil belonging to Zacarias Nixon Esqr.8 an american are half a league from Nancagua, and a road to the lake of Tagua Tagua passes by his house. Nancagua is about 6 leagues from Sn. Fernando, to the Intendent of the Province Dn. Feliciana Silva, who resides there I have given you a letter;9 also one to Zacarias Nixon Esqr.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

bli h d

Santiago

road to valpa.

rio

upper road

li

b C

map ocho

Tango

Lonquen

y pu r Ma rive

b id

i

San Francisco del monte

calera

Sn. Bernardo

Linderas

maypu

Sta. rita

Pilque

Posada

melipilla

La Isla

Beluco

1

Payne

gloria

ne

9 8 009233606 008 de Pay

0 0

i N

tai un mo

gua

road to colaha

Chocolan

Lake

aculeu

aguila

n

g

an

u ost

ra

N

Luca posada r 7oo

Cerro de 600 o Payne

paso

Salinas

hospital posada

Cuesta de chada

valdivia

estero

d i 2

S

mountains of algu ey

mostasal

codegua

rinconada

y la

La compania Bruce

of

Baesa

rancagua

machali

s bath

S

olivar M

n ou

n tai

s

estates

posada apalta requingua

valdiviesos

Cordilleras Lake

Bultro.

nes que Cau

paul acha

h c rio

La Cordillera

rio claro

154 Supplement

Pe uco

rio claro

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

2

Cordilleras

bli h d

li

b C

eigh t

little h

3

falls

enly

sudd

pelequin

esta

er the cu road ov inca of co

malloa

rio coin ca bu tI

ei er Th

ar oa d

b id s

i n ve ha er ev

pa s

t

thi

s .di

in s dir ectio n

4th

wood

Lingues

S . Fernando n

Lake of Tagua Tagua

roma

yaquil

nancagua

N

Concepcion

s

Supplement 155

AMem DAR 35: 405

i

rio Tinderid ic a

Supplement

156

CD annotations10 On map: Between the roads above ‘Beluco’] ‘1’pencil circled pencil On ‘Cerro de Payne’] ‘600 or 700’pencil Between the roads to the right of ‘mostasal’] ‘2’ pencil circled pencil By the confluence of ‘rio claro’] ‘2’11 pencil circled pencil Below the road at ‘Pelequin’] ‘3’ pencil circled pencil; ‘falls suddenly | little height’ pencil Below the road at ‘Lingues’] ‘4th’ pencil circled pencil Valley of the ‘rio Tinderidica’ south-east of San Fernando] cross-hatching; ‘Concepcion’12 pencil 1

2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12

A summary of this letter was published in Correspondence vol. 1 under the mistaken conjecture that it was from Alexander Caldcleugh. The date range is established by the reference to Sutcliffe in the letter to Robert FitzRoy, [28 August 1834] (Correspondence vol. 1), and the date on which CD left Santiago to follow this route (see n. 2, below). For an account of the first part of CD’s excursion, from Valparaiso to Santiago, see the letter to Robert FitzRoy, [28 August 1834]. CD followed the route on this sketch map from Santiago to San Fernando between 5 and 19 September 1834 (‘Beagle’ diary, pp. 257–62), and identified Sutcliffe as the author in a related section of his geological notes: ‘attached is a rough outline, of the country, executed from memory by major Sutcliffe, an English resident in St Jago, it very sufficiently shows by the white spaces the level basins’ (DAR 35: 412). CD discussed the flat basins of Chile as evidence of uplift in South America, chapter 3. See also S. Herbert 2005, pp. 217–32. CD mentioned meeting Sutcliffe in his letter to Robert FitzRoy, [28 August 1834], but had presumably not received the map at the time of writing as he also referred to the difficulty of obtaining one. Sutcliffe referred to many of the people and places detailed on the map in his memoirs (Sutcliffe 1841). See also Correspondence vol. 1, letter to Caroline Darwin, 13 October 1834. The map, drawn on both sides of a single sheet, is reproduced here at 45 per cent of its original size.. Francisco Antonio Ruiz de Tagle had been provisional president of the Republic of Chile for six weeks in 1830. Sutcliffe had been stationed at La Calera during that time (Sutcliffe 1841, pp. 319–20). José Rafael Larraín Moxó. ‘Beluco’ is presumably a phonetic rendering of Viluco, the estate on which Larraín Moxó was born. (https://www.genealog.cl/Chile/L/Larrain/, accessed 22 April 2021.) Bruce has not been further identified. Pedro Alcantara Urriola Balbontin. Sutcliffe had stayed on Francisco Antonio Valdivieso Vargas’s estate, the Requingua, during a campaign in 1818 (Sutcliffe 1841, p. 122). Croquis (French): a sketch map. Zacarias Nixon has not been further identified. CD stayed with ‘Mr Nixon, an American gentleman’ at the gold mines of Yaquil from 14 to 19 September (‘Beagle’ diary, pp. 260–62). Feliciano Silva was intendent of the province of Colchagua from 1831 to 1836. CD’s pencil annotations were probably made the following year, or later (see n. 12, below); he made further expeditions from Santiago between March and July 1835. The annotations have been included in the rendering of Sutcliffe’s map for ease of identification. CD spent the night of 13 September in the village of Rio Claro (‘Beagle’ diary, p. 259). For CD’s observations on the basin of the Rio Tinderidica see Journal and remarks, pp. 326–7. He later witnessed the effects of the earthquake of 20 February 1835 at Concepción (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter to J. S. Henslow, [10] – 13 March 1835), and recorded that its effects could be traced as far north as San Fernando (‘Beagle’ diary, p. 299). CD’s pencil annotations were presumably made after that date; he made further expeditions from Santiago between March and July 1835.

From F. A. Eck   [before 13 October 1834]1 Height of various places in Chile ascertained by Barometrical Admeasurement.2 Feet “Great Bell” Mountain near Quillota 4716 above the level of the sea3

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement “Agua del Guanaco”(at the foot of do) “San Cristoval” (near St Jago) “S.t Jago” Summit of “Cuesta de Prado” Summit of “Cuesta de Zapata” Town of “Casa Blanca”4 Summit of “Cuesta de Prado” Summit of “Cuesta de Zapata” Town of “Casa Blanca” Village of ‘Plazilla’ Highest point on the road between Valpo. & the Plazilla do point of the Quebanda Verde near Valpo.

157   4243    2678 1732   2515   1914 811 2515 1914 811   1049   1520   1076

Fred. A. Eck AMemS DAR 35: 232 CD annotation End of letter: ‘Valparaiso | Sent &c &c 1834’ ink 1

2

3

4

The date is established by the relationship between this memorandum and the letter to Caroline Darwin, 13 October 1834 (Correspondence vol. 1; see n. 3 below). A summary of this letter was published in Correspondence vol. 1 under the name Frederick W. Eck and the date [September 1834]. CD refers to Eck’s measurements in his geological notes (DAR 35: 376, 410–12). The places on Eck’s list lie along the routes of CD’s expeditions from Valparaiso to Santiago between 14 and 27 August 1834, and from San Fernando back to Valparaiso between 19 and 25 September 1834 (‘Beagle’ diary, pp. 250–7, 262–3). CD climbed Bell mountain on 16 August 1834. In his letter to Caroline Darwin, 13 October 1834, he gave its height as 4700 feet, matching Eck’s figure, but corrected that to 6400 in a later publication (letter to Caroline Darwin, 13 October 1834 and n. 1; see also ‘Beagle’ diary, p. 252). CD stayed in Casablanca on 25 and 26 September 1834 (‘Beagle’ diary, p. 263).

From R. E. Alison   [March – July 1835]1 The “pretil”2 or sea-wall of Valparaiso which runs frm Cruz de Reyes to the Arsenal was built about 1680 and was of very considerable elevation, but the sea during northers broke over it and washed the houses on the opposite side of the way at the foot of an old fort on the present site of the prison, up to the year 1817— An old Spaniard of the name of Jose Padin who at present is master mason to the builder of the Custom House, arrived in Valparaiso in 1785 on board a Spanish 64 and anchored within musket shot of the present high-water mark in 55 fathoms

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

158

water.3 the spot which he pointed out now has about 6 fathoms at low water— About the same year, vizt 1785 another Spaniard arrived in a Merchant vessel which anchored off the arsenal in a line with a small ravine which runs through the centre of it. the anchor to the North was in 60 fathoms and the stern one was ashore in the ravine; the deepest part of the Bay close to the arsenal has now only 312 fathoms.— A Mr John Martin4 a ship Carpenter of respectability in this place mentions that in 1819 he has walked at the foot of the sea wall on the beach, and has been frequently obliged to climb up to the street to avoid the sea. In 1820 large launches of 10 & 15 tons anchored in-shore of the wreck of the present site of the wreck of the Valdivia—5 R E Alison [Enclosure]6

8 feet

The wall of the Church of San Agustin built in 1614–

11 feet 6 inches

The old sea Wall

Sea at high Water mark DAR 36: 425–6 CD annotations Enclosure: By diagram] ‘What date?’ pencil Verso] ‘The land certainly appears to have risen subsequently to the Earthquake 1822 shown by the wreck of a vessel’7 pencil 1

h

d i

0 0

The date range is suggested by references to this memorandum in CD’s geological notes (see n. 6, below), and by the dates of his expeditions near Valparaiso. In 1835, CD was in the Valparaiso area between March and July. A summary of this letter was published in Correspondence vol. 1, with the date [June? 1834].

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 2 3

4 5 6 7

159

Pretil (Spanish): parapet. A plan for the customs house in Valparaiso was drawn up by Juan Stevenson in 1828 (Memoria Chilena: Biblioteca Nacional de Chile, http://www.memoriachilena.gob.cl/602/w3-article-86762. html, accessed 11 May 2021). Jose Padin has not been further identified. John Martin has not been further identified. The frigate Valdivia was among a number wrecked in a storm between 9 and 11 June 1823 while at anchor off Valparaiso (Morning Chronicle, 18 October 1823, p. 4). Reproduced here at 80 per cent of its original size. CD had been gathering information on the effects of the earthquake of 1822 since his earlier visit to Valparaiso and Santiago between July and November 1834 (Valparaiso notebook (English Heritage 88202335) and Santiago notebook (English Heritage 88202338)). CD and Alison discussed evidence for elevation of the land in Chile and the effects of the 1822 earthquake on a number of occasions in 1835 (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter from R. E. Alison, 25 June 1835, and Journal of researches, p. 374), and CD referred to the information contained in this memorandum in notes on the elevation of the land at Valparaiso made that year (DAR 36: 420–2 and 428). He cited it in support of the argument that the earthquake had raised the level of the land in his 1837 paper ‘Elevation on the coast of Chili’. See also South America, pp. 34–5.

From Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood   [24 October 1836]1 Maer Monday My dear Fanny Jessie’s confinement was safely over on Sunday of a little girl.2 Caroline3 & I went to call on them on Saturday & Jessie seemed very well but expecting that it was coming on. & she sent for her Dr & nurse very soon after we left them & at 912 the next morning it was over after a very good time which it might well be for the poor little thing is borne before its time & wretchedly small. They were afraid it would not live yesterday but today Hannah is in good heart about it. Eliza4 looked harrassed & tired. We did not see Jessie who is going on as well as possible. She left orders that no visitors were to see the child till it grows less ugly, though Hannah & Bessy protest that it is very pretty5   it has dark hair & is nothing but skin so you may imagine how pretty it is. It seems much better than yesterday which is a very good sign. There is not a chance of Jessie being able to nurse it yet & so they are going to have a wet nurse for it & the child for Jessie as her own is too weak & small to attempt it. It was very lucky their getting to Seabridge which looks very nice & cheerful. The wedding at Boulston was a regular Sir Charles Grandison one. Flowers strewed & setting off with 4 horses. All the Cresselly folk were there & say Tom & Anne looked very happy & it was quite a merry wedding.6 It is a comfort to hear that Bro7 keeps to his old words of Dadoo &c which I was afraid he had lost. We are getting impatient for Charles’s arrival.8 The Langtons9 must go on Monday any how so I hope he will come soon. We all ought to get up a little knowledge for him. I have taken to no deeper study that Capt Head’s gallop10 which I have never read before. I am afraid it wont instruct me much. He seems to have been much struck with the sight of Hensleigh11 walking up the st with a band box in one hand & a child in the other.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

160

Your account of Violet12 will certainly make us get it. Aunt Emma & Penelope may think themselves lucky not to be in Italy now for we heard a most pathetic story of a party of ladies & gentlemen in a ship at Civita Vecchia being put into 2 rooms & not allowed literally to stir out of them for 11 days. John Jones who was one of the party had no sort of objection to swearing falsely that they had not been at Genoa, for he said there was no Testament & nothing but an Image of the V. Mary.13 The whole party forswore themselves most comfortably except a clergyman who scrupled the oath though he had no objection to a false declaration   Lady Strachan14 pathetically exclaimed, “Is there nobody who will persuade this gentleman that it is merely a matter of form? This came from Harry through Mr Vaughan Williams.15 Loo is here whom we are going in earnest to begin calling Louisa.16 The new one is to be Caroline Elizabeth. Charles seems to have nearly settled in favor of living at Cambridge, which is a pity for Erasmus’s17 sake but I shd feel sure that Charles wd like Cambridge best as he has a particular spite to London I believe. Yours & [El’s]18 letters came in very apropos just as we were beginning to get rather cross. I am glad Mr Richmond is going to do the children.19 I wish we could send up Godfrey20 at the same time. You shall hear again pretty soon how the poor little thing goes on but I expect it to do well. | Goodbye my dear Fanny. Postmark: 26 OC 26 | 1836 V&A / Wedgwood Collection (MS WM 233) 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17

h

d i

0 0

The date is established by the postmark; the Monday before 26 October was 24 October. A summary extract from this letter was published in Correspondence vol. 1. Jessie Wedgwood was Emma’s cousin and sister-in-law; her new baby was Caroline Elizabeth Wedgwood. Caroline Darwin. Sarah Elizabeth Wedgwood (1795–1857). Neither Hannah nor Bessy has been identified. Jessie Wedgwood’s brother Thomas Josiah Wedgwood married Anna Maria Tyler. Sir Charles Grandison is the eponymous hero of a novel by Samuel Richardson (S. Richardson 1753). Emma’s maternal relations, the Allens, were from Cresselly, Pembrokeshire, about ten miles south-east of Boulston. James Mackintosh Wedgwood. Following the Beagle’s return to England at the beginning of October, CD had announced his intention of visiting the Wedgwoods at Maer (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter to Josiah Wedgwood II, [5 October 1836]). Charles and Charlotte Langton. Head 1826. Hensleigh Wedgwood. [Malet] 1836. Emma Allen. Neither Penelope nor John Jones has been identified. A cholera epidemic had spread through Italy having first been detected at the port of Genoa and in Turin in November 1835 (Snodgrass 2017). Louisa Strachan. Henry Allen Wedgwood, and possibly Edward Vaughan Williams, who had been Wedgwood’s contemporary at Cambridge University. Louisa Frances Wedgwood. CD’s brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, lived in London.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 18 19 20

161

Possibly Emma’s sister Elizabeth Wedgwood (1793–1880). George Richmond; Fanny’s children were Frances Julia Wedgwood (b. 1833), and James Mackintosh Wedgwood. Godfrey Wedgwood.

From Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood   [28 October 1836]1 Maer Friday My dear Fanny I have a very good report to send you of Jessie & the baby.2 Eliza3 keeps a capital watch & has not allowed any body to see Jessie yet in which I think she is very right. It was all Caroline & Elizabeth could do on Tuesday to see the baby as Jessie said it was so ugly that nobody should see it till it was prettyer, however Eliz. says she does not think it much smaller than other babies & not so ugly as Loo was & Eliz. thinks from seeing it that it cant be more than a fortnight before its time though Mr Clarke thinks it is 6 weeks.4 They have got a naughty woman for it & Jessie takes the naughty woman’s baby & I suppose in a little time they will change back again to their own babies.5 Jessie’s was thought too weak to take to her at first. She is afraid of nursing on the bad side which is tiresome for her. Next week we shall be allowed to see her, but I cannot wait to see the baby till then. It is much more satisfactory writing this baby talk to you my dear old wife after what you tell me which I am very glad to hear indeed & thank you for telling me.6 It is quite melancholy to hear you talking of the fine weather while we have actually a very tolerably deep snow for the Langtons7 to get home in. They were very sorry to give up seeing Charles8 here; but his last letter gave no hopes of his being here this week & as their leave of absence was so nearly expired they went home 2 days before they needed in order to have a few days at liberty to meet him at Shrewsbury, & so they went this morning at 7 o’clock & will get to Onbury today. We are very glad to keep Caroline or we should be very dull but she will wait for Charles any how. I dined at Whitmore yesterday with Jos. I wanted to see the beautiful little Mrs Johnson but she was not well enough to come down & it was only Fanny Northen & not Ellen so it was dull enough. General Johnson, who looks quite as old as he is seldom opens his lips while ladies are in the room & the beautiful Capt Mainwaring is very little worth looking at & not at all worth talking to, though Miss Chawner did not seem to be of that opinion & was very attentive & flirtatious to him which is not prudent in an elderly sort of humble companion. He had some Masaniello Trios which were not very brilliant   Miss M. on the Harp & I got on pretty well but the Capt came in every now and then with a toot entirely out of time & tune, & as he told me he had formerly learnt the Violoncello & the Violin I thought he wd play decently at least.9 Charlotte is growner fatter & younger & handsomer & Charles is as well as possible & in gayer spirits than I ever remember him.10 Allen has been spending 2 days at Etruria to meet the Ed. Mosley’s & has come home quite brisk & gay.11 He

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

162

wd be so much better if he could always go a visiting. I am reading Mrs Trollope. It is certainly interesting & I think it is evident that she now really feels for the slaves & I do believe the book wd do a great deal of good in America, where it cc only be smuggled in I shd think.12 It is odiously disagreeable. We shall be very anxious for Miss Martineau.13 I thought Mrs Hemans was a sort of woman like Miss Landon & that one wd not like her.14 Uncle John15 goes to Monmouthshire on a canal meeting expedition tomorrow. It will be very pleasant for Harry16 finding Jessie so well when he comes home & the baby grown quite tidy. Caroline desires her best love to you. Snow17 had no business to get a cough last week it was so very pleasant. I took to gardening at a great rate. I think one enjoys being alive more in that sort of late autumn fine weather than at any other time of the year. Goodbye my dear F. I hope Hensleigh18 will get some holidays. Mamma is beginning to enquire when we may expect the Hensleighs—19 Postmark: 31 OC 31 | 1836 V&A / Wedgwood Collection (MS WM 233) 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12

h

d i

0 0

The date is established by the postmark; the Friday before 31 October was 28 October. A summary extract of this letter was published in Correspondence vol. 1. Jessie Wedgwood and Caroline Elizabeth Wedgwood. See this volume, Supplement, letter from Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [24 October 1836]. Sarah Elizabeth Wedgwood (1795–1857). See letter from Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [24 October 1836]. Emma refers to Caroline Darwin, Elizabeth Wedgwood (1793–1880), and Louisa Frances Wedgwood. Mr Clarke has not been identified. Wet nurses were often the mothers of illegitimate babies (Fildes 1988, pp. 191–2). Fanny may have passed on news of her own pregnancy: her son Ernest Hensleigh Wedgwood was born on 17 June 1837 (Alum. Cantab.). Charles and Charlotte Langton. CD (see this volume, Supplement, letter from Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [24 October 1836] and n. 8). Whitmore Hall near Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, was about four miles from the Wedgwood family home at Maer. It was owned by Sarah Mainwaring. Emma was accompanied by her brother Josiah Wedgwood III. The other guests were Fanny Northen, possibly Edward Pellew Mainwaring, William Augustus Johnson, and Lucy Johnson. Miss Mainwaring was probably Edward’s sister, Sophia Henrietta Mainwaring; their father, Captain Rowland Mainwaring, heir to the estate, was away in Germany (Cavenagh-Mainwaring [1934], pp. 110–11). The companion, Miss Chawner, has not been further identified. Masaniello, the name given in Britain to the grand opera ‘La Muette de Portici’, after its central character, was first performed in Paris in 1828 and then at Drury Lane, London, in 1829; almost immediately, trios based on music from the opera (some arranged for piano, harp, and flute) were published in London (Grove 2002; Fuhrmann 2015, p. 235; Harmonium: A monthly journal of music, no. 18, June 1829, Advertisements). Captain Mainwaring played the flute; see this volume, Supplement, letter from Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [17 December 1836]. Emma also mentions Ellen Cotton Northen. Charlotte and Charles Langton. Allen Wedgwood. John Edward Mosley and his wife, Caroline Sophia Mosley, were presumably visiting J. E. Mosley’s sister, Frances Mosley Wedgwood, and her husband, Francis Wedgwood, partner in the Etruria pottery works. For Fanny Trollope’s discussion of slavery, see, for example, Trollope 1832, 1: 257–8.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

163

Harriet Martineau. Felicia Dorothea Hemans and Letitia Elizabeth Landon. John Wedgwood. Henry Allen Wedgwood. Frances Julia Wedgwood. Hensleigh Wedgwood. Elizabeth Wedgwood (1764–1846). The ‘Hensleighs’ were Frances Emma Elizabeth Wedgwood and her husband, Hensleigh Wedgwood.

From Emma Wedgwood and Louisa Holland to F. E. E. Wedgwood   [21 and 24 November 1836]1 Maer Monday My dear Fanny I am in some hopes that we may have a letter from you today & I hope it may bring us word that you are returned to Clapham for there is no saying how long you may be kept there. Ellen & Caroline are with us now, they were very anxious about her for several days but now they think it may go on for another fortnight. It was really too goodnatured of you offering to be with Marianne & I am a little vexed with her for letting you come which I think she ought not to have done.2 Do mind & take care of yourself & above all keep out of the way of being frightened & never mind if you happen to be out of the way at the critical time as she cannot want you then. We enjoyed Charles’s visit uncommonly we had been very handsome in inviting all the outliers of the family to meet him & the last morning the chaise from Tern hill did not come and we persuaded them to stay & had just made ourselves comfortable & planned a walk when the chaise arrived, however we got them to let us send it off though Caroline felt it to be rather naughty & we had a very nice snug day of them to ourselves.3 Charles talked away most pleasantly all the time we plied him with questions without any mercy. Harry & Frank4 made the most of him & enjoyed him thoroughly. Caroline looks so happy & proud of him it is delightful to see her. We had her a whole month & I never enjoyed a visit of hers so much she was so very nice & settled herself more at home here than usual. Uncle Allen & my Aunts5 came on Friday. It was a pleasant surprize seeing Fanny as your letter was the only hint we had heard on the subject.6 Mrs Holland and Louisa7 are amused with the Tollets & like them, but poor Ellen is very poorly today & I fully believe she is going to have the chicken pox as Caroline has lately had it so we shall not be so brilliant this evening I am afraid. I had a very tidy visit at Betley Court of one day last week. Mr & Mrs Butt & Cath. Edwards & the Tollets were there so it was not dull at all, but I am not fond of Catherine & I dont approve of her mother.8 I have heard such a melancholy account from Frances of poor Maria Acland who was taken ill soon after she got to Kingscote & they had great difficulty in persuading her to move to Glocester.9 Frances only is with her & I can fancy nothing

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

164

more melancholy for her as Maria’s spirits are extremely depressed & she constantly thinks herself dying & though the Drs tell Frances that it is entirely a nervous feeling she finds it very difficult to help being alarmed she mentions her lying for an hour quite white & cold but not faint. I must say in excuse for Mrs Acland & the sisters that the Dr desires she may have nobody else with her & made some difficulty in allowing Frances to stay & she has sisters within her reach at Bristol.10 Mamma11 is quite uncommonly well & talks a great deal to Uncle Allen. I am very glad it happens that she is so well for all their sakes. Charles was quite angry with Charlotte’s12 picture. He studied it many times to see if he could find any likeness & said, “I hope to fate she is not like that picture.” I suppose he has rather a poetical idea of her for the picture is certainly very like. Eliz.13 desires her best love to you & thanks for yr letter. She wants you very much to go home & let things take their course. It will be very bad for you & with Miss Vaughan & Georgina she can’t want you.14 Mamma wants Hensleigh to look at a handsome edition of Shakespear with prints by way of a wedding present to Mrs Tom,15 or if there is any other book he can think of. I wd not make the prints a sine qua non as they are really not the least improvement Thursday. Poor Ellens malady turns out to be the chicken pox so she is confined to her appartment. I fully expect to have it but it does not much signify as it is very trifling. I shall direct this to Clapham as I dare say you are gone back. Mrs Wicksted is foraging for recruits for the Newcastle ball but as her own sisters in law will not go, duty does not call me.16 Jos17 is in a bustle so I can write no more. I heard of you at the Aldersons from Uncle Baugh.18 How wonderfully Marianne keeps up her spirits | Yours affectly | Em W My dear Fanny I hope Hensleigh has not set me down as very ungrateful and ungracious, for taking no manner of notice of his prompt and capital execution of my boa commission. I thought it a remarkably nice one, very pretty looking and so excessively soft feeling and light. Will you thank him much for his trouble and kindness; the price I thought wonderfully cheap. Emma says that if I pay her she will manage the transmitting the sum to Hensleigh, so I hope it may reach him safely in the course of time. We have had a very pleasant week with the Darwins at Shrewsbury whom we left on Monday last, we were much pleased with the lion, Charles, who has excited the curiosity of the whole county apparently for during our stay there he was constantly employed in [rotating] levees of lords and all the great people round. I hope to hear that you are relieved from your anxious post which you have so good naturedly undertaken. Believe me cousin to remain with love to Hensleigh | Yours affecately | Louisa Holland Postmark: 26 NO 26 | 1836 V&A / Wedgwood Collection (MS WM 233) 1

h

d i

0 0

The date is established by the postmark; the Monday before 26 November 1836 was 21 November; Thursday was 24 November. A summary extract of this letter was published in Correspondence vol. 1 with the headline, ‘From Emma Wedgwood to F. M. Wedgwood, [21 November 1836]’.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

165

Ellen Harriet Tollet, Caroline Darwin, and Ellen’s sister, Marianne Clive. CD arrived at Maer from London on 12 November and left on 16 November (see Correspondence vol. 1, Appendix I). For another description of his visit, see Correspondence vol. 1, letter from S. E. (Elizabeth) Wedgwood to Hensleigh Wedgwood, [16] November [1836]; see also ibid., letter to W. D. Fox, 15 December [1836]. Henry Allen Wedgwood and Francis Wedgwood. John Hensleigh Allen Sr and possibly one or more of his sisters. Sarah Wedgwood, Emma’s paternal aunt, was also present (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter from S. E. (Elizabeth) Wedgwood to Hensleigh Wedgwood, [16] November [1836]). Probably Frances Mosley Wedgwood (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter from S. E. (Elizabeth) Wedgwood to Hensleigh Wedgwood, [16] November [1836]). Anna and Louisa Holland. Betley Court is about eight miles from Maer; the Tollets lived at nearby Betley Hall. The other guests were Thomas Butt, Catherine Butt, and her daughter, Catherine James Edwards. Maria Acland (1802–44), and possibly her sister Frances Acland. Kingscote, Gloucestershire, was the home of John Wedgwood. Mrs Acland: Maria Acland (1781–1856). One sister, Ellen Harrison, was living at Bristol. Elizabeth Wedgwood (1764–1846). Charlotte Langton. Elizabeth Wedgwood (1793–1880) was Emma’s sister. Georgina Tollet was Marianne Clive’s sister; Miss Vaughan has not been identified. See this volume, Supplement, letter from Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [24 October 1836] and n. 6. Hensleigh Wedgwood; Anne Maria Wedgwood (wife of Thomas Josiah Wedgwood). Mary Charlotte Meysey Wicksted; her sisters-in-law were the Misses Tollet. Josiah Wedgwood III. Edward Hall Alderson, Georgina Alderson, and Lancelot Baugh Allen.

From Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood   [17 December 1836]1 Maer Saturday My dear Fanny I am thinking that it is a long time since I have written to you. We heard several times from the Tollets how Marianne2 was going on, but I was glad to get your letter & to hear that you were not the worse. We are in such a dissipated humour that we have actually invited the Mainwarings & Mrs Moreton for next Wednesday & then we shall be clear of the world for a year to come. I dined there last Tuesday & had some more of the Capts lovely flute playing. There was a Mr Clark there a clergyman from Eccleshall who played very tolerably but we were not spared a note of Capt M’s notwithstanding. Poor Mrs M. is no longer able to feed herself & I cant think how they can endure her to sit in company to be made a spectacle of with Miss Chawner putting the food into her mouth. I suppose Miss M. does not like to propose her not dining with them.3 Eliza4 is now staying with us & I think she is a little better for rest though she is very weak   It is out of the question to hope that she will not be anxious for I never saw any one so much disposed to it. All the rest of Seabridge party are coming in a few days. Jessie recovers her strength very slowly & has only just begun to come down stairs to breakfast & is nervous & often poorly.5 I dined with them the other day & she was in very good spirits & enjoys her little scarecrow very much. It is

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

166

become very tidy to look at now. Allen6 is poorly too & if we leave him at home one evening we are afraid he will be very bad by the next day, not that he comes every day either. Catherine tells me they are very anxious to have yours & H’s real opinion of Charles’s journal. I am convinced Dr Holland is mistaken if he thinks it not worth publishing. I don’t believe he is any judge as to what is amusing or interesting. Cath does not approve of its being mixed up with Capt Fitzroys & wants it to be put altogether by itself in an Appendix7 I wish Miss Martineau would invite you to meet Mrs Fanny Butler.8 I hope Erasmus9 was there. I am very curious about her. I envy you Mr Scott’s lectures. If he makes you understand the Epistle to the Romans I shall think him a great genius.10 We had a very nice visit from Godfrey. It was pleasant to see how fond he is of his little maid11   He always saved some dessert or asked for some for her. She appears dull when one is with her but I think she is shy & may be more amusing when nobody is by & she is certainly very good tempered & gentle. His only bon mot was enquiring what papas overalls were & saying “Are they to prevent his hurting his knees when he tumbles down. I began teaching him to read which he did not much like but never rebelled. My Aunts admired him very properly. We enjoyed their visit thoroughly. Uncle Allen was very gay & his conversation amused Mamma very much & brought all sorts of old recollections into her head.12 Louisa Holland paid £ 2"10 for her boa so Hensleigh can pay himself when he has any money affairs.13 Hensleigh was taken with a very ill timed fit of prudence about Penelopes speech14 which I want to hear & we will be duly cautious. I am afraid poor Bros15 tantrums are a sign of his not being well. I like his Grace very much. Schloss Hainfeld makes one despise Capt Hall.16 What a conceited egotist he is. Do you remember about the bell rope & pocket handk.17 I like Buckland18 but rather wish I had finished him. Susan19 is coming to Seabridge but not here she says which is naughty of her. Edinburgh is not settled yet as Bessy H. & I keep on telling each other to settle the time. Are the Giffords come yet.20 Goodbye my dear Fanny my best love to H. & a kiss to the two. I can’t think what Penelope wd do if Uncle Baugh offers to go abroad   She will not endure to go with him.21 Postmark: 19 DR 19 | 1836 V&A / Wedgwood Collection (MS WM 233) 1 2 3

4 5

h

d i

0 0

The date is established by the postmark; the Saturday before 19 December 1836 was 17 December. A summary extract of this letter was published in Correspondence vol. 1. Marianne Clive had a stillborn child before 12 December 1836 (letter from Ellen Tollet to Annabel Crewe, 12 December 1836, M. E. Smith and Smith eds. 2019, p. 65). See this volume, Supplement, letter from Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [28 October 1836]. Captain Mainwaring: possibly Edward Pellew Mainwaring. Mrs M.: Sarah Mainwaring. Mrs Moreton, Mr Clark, and Miss Chawner have not been identified. Sarah Elizabeth (Eliza) Wedgwood was Emma’s cousin. Jessie Wedgwood (Eliza’s sister) had recently given birth at her Seabridge home to a second daughter, Caroline Elizabeth Wedgwood. See this volume, Supplement, letter from Emma Wedgwood to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [24 October 1836].

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 6 7

8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21

167

Allen Wedgwood. See letter to Caroline Darwin, [7 December 1836] (Correspondence vol. 1). Catherine Darwin, CD’s youngest sister, was upset that, following criticism from their second cousin Henry Holland, CD was considering publishing his journal of the Beagle voyage mixed with passages from Robert FitzRoy’s account rather than as a distinct work. Fanny and Hensleigh Wedgwood had agreed to provide a further critique. CD’s account was later published alongside FitzRoy’s as Journal and remarks, the third volume of the Narrative. For Fanny and Hensleigh’s comments see Correspondence vol. 1, letter from Hensleigh Wedgwood, [20 December 1836]. See Correspondence vol. 1, letter to Caroline Darwin, [7 December 1836], and letter from Catherine Darwin, 27 [December 1836]. Harriet Martineau had invited CD to meet the actress Fanny Butler, better known as Fanny Kemble. Erasmus Alvey Darwin. Alexander John Scott published his Lectures expository and practical on the Epistle to the Romans in 1838 (London: James Darling). Godfrey Wedgwood and his sister Amy Wedgwood. John Hensleigh Allen Sr, Elizabeth Wedgwood (1764–1846), and possibly one or more of their sisters. See this volume, Supplement, letter from Emma Wedgwood and Louisa Holland to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [21 and 24 November 1836] and n. 5. See this volume, Supplement, letter from Emma Wedgwood and Louisa Holland to F. E. E. Wedgwood, [21 and 24 November 1836]. Penelope has not been identified. James Mackintosh Wedgwood. Basil Hall and Hall 1836. See Hall 1836, pp. 44–7. Buckland 1836. Susan Elizabeth Darwin. See Correspondence vol. 1, letter from E. C. Darwin, 15 [January 1837] and n. 11. For Emma Wedgwood’s trip to Edinburgh, see Correspondence vol. 2, letter from E. C. Darwin, 15 [January 1837]. Harriet Maria Gifford, a widow, was a relative and family friend of the Wedgwoods. Bessy H. may have been Bessy Holland, also a relative. Lancelot Baugh Allen.

To ?   [after 1836?]1 〈some text excised〉— I am greedy for facts—. 〈some text excised〉 I will ask, for 〈line excised〉 ever 〈some text excised〉2 American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.626) 1 2

The date is conjectured from the end of CD’s time on HMS Beagle (see Correspondence vol. 1). The words ‘I am greedy for facts—.’ are on one side of the letter fragment and the rest of the text is on the other.

To Henry Colburn   [23 October 1837]1 Dear Sir I returned from the country on Saturday night, and I will now continue to superintendend the revises myself.— and I am much obliged for your assistance during my absence.2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

168

As now I shall be on the spot, and shall be able to return the proofs rather quicker, would you have the kindness to write one line to Mr Whiting to ask him to send me the slips rather oftener.3 He would be doing me a great favour if such arrangement could be effected Yours truly | Chas. Darwin Monday Morning | 36 Great Marlborough St.— Peter Harrington (dealer) (September 2020) 1

2

3

The date is established by the references to CD’s work on Journal and remarks and to his return from Shrewsbury on 21 October 1837 (see n. 2, below). The Monday following 21 October 1837 was 23 October. CD was working on the proof-sheets of Journal and remarks; he returned from a trip to Shrewsbury on 21 October 1837 (see Correspondence vol. 2, CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). No other correspondence has been found between CD and his publisher, Colburn, from 1837. Charles Fenton Whiting was the printer of Journal and remarks (see ibid., p. [iv]).

To ?   [February 1838 – February 1841?]1 [Asks correspondent if he would prefer the President’s2 signature alone or with those of other scientific men.] Incomplete3 B. Altman (dealer) (3 October 1982) 1

2 3

The date range is conjectured from the probability that the letter relates to CD’s role as secretary of the Geological Society of London, a post he held formally from February 1839 until February 1841, although he ceased to be active from March 1840 (see Correspondence vol. 2, letter to the President and Council of the Geological Society of London, 24 March 1840 and n. 3). The presidents of the Geological Society of London during CD’s secretaryship were William Whewell and William Buckland. The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being one page long.

From J. P. S. de Grateloup1   18 July 1838 Bordeaux, le 18. Juillet 1838 Le Vice-Président de l’Académie royale des Sciences, | Belles-Lettres & Arts de Bordeaux, à Monsieur Charles Darwin secrétaire de la Société Géologique de Londres Monsieur Le Secrétaire J’ai l’honneur de vous remercier de la lettre que vous avez eu la bonté de m’adresser en date du 26. avril 1838.2 Permettez moi d’offrir à la Société Géologique, pour votre intermédiarie, la Continuation de ma Conchyliologie fossile du Bassin d l’adour. La mémoire que

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

169

j’ai l’honneur de vous adresser, a pour titre “Mémoire sur les Coquilles fossiles des mollusques terrestres & fluviatiles de la classe des Trachélipodes, &. &.”3 En ofrant ce faible essai à votre Société Comme un hommage de mon respect, je serai heureux qu’elle daigne l’agréer avec bonté. J’ai l’honneur d’être avec une haute estime, | Monsieur le Secrétaire, | Votre très humble et | très obéissant serviteur | Dr. de Grateloup &c Geological Society of London (GSL/L/R/4/5) 1 2 3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. A summary of this letter was published in Correspondence vol. 2. CD’s letter has not been found. Grateloup 1838.

To ?   [1839–82]1 I am glad your lectures are going on so well & with many thanks believe me yours | very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS incomplete2 Raptis Rare Books (dealers) (June 2018 #69022) 1

2

The text is from the last page of a letter, which has been framed with an Elliot & Fry carte de visite of CD, one of several poses produced in 1874. However, the letter and carte were not necessarily originally associated. The beginning of the date range is established by CD’s marriage to Emma Darwin on 29 January 1839 (Correspondence vol. 2), since the letter appears to be in her hand; the end of the date range is the year of CD’s death. The letter as sold is incomplete.

To William Lonsdale   [27 April 1839 or earlier]1 My dear Lonsdale I return Mr Whewell’s address.— the word rules should be changed into customs I think.—2 Yours very truly | Chas. Darwin 12, Upper Gower St | Saturday University Archives (dealers) (3 March 2021, lot 73) 1

2

h

d i

The date is established by the publication at the beginning of May 1839 of William Whewell’s presidential address to the Geological Society of London (see n. 2, below). The last Saturday in April 1839 was 27 April. Immediately after Whewell delivered his presidential address to the Geological Society of London on 15 February 1839, CD had asked him to make his comments on the delay in publishing CD’s researches from the Beagle voyage less pointed to avoid annoying the Beagle’s captain, Robert FitzRoy

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

170

(Correspondence vol. 2, letter to William Whewell, 16 February [1839]). It is likely that CD was returning a page proof of the revised address to Lonsdale, the society’s assistant secretary and librarian. The further minor correction requested here appears in the address as published in the society’s Proceedings, which reads: ‘In speaking of Mr. Darwin’s researches I cannot refrain from expressing for myself, and I am sure I may add for you, our disappointment and regret that the publication of Mr. Darwin’s journal has not yet taken place. Knowing, as we do, that this journal contains many valuable contributions to science, we cannot help lamenting, that the customs of the Service by which the survey was conducted have not yet allowed this portion of the account of its results to be given to the world’ (Whewell 1839, p. 93). The final version of the passage was also reprinted in Philosophical Magazine 3d ser. 14 (1839): 503, in the issue for May 1839. CD’s Journal and remarks was in print in early 1838, but was not published until late May or early June 1839 (Freeman 1977).

From Benjamin Silliman Sr and Benjamin Silliman Jr   24 May 1839 Yale College U.S. May 24 1839 To Charles Darwin Esq. & W. J. Hamilton Esq. Secretaries of the Geological Society Somerset House | London Gentlemen We have the honor to acknowledge the rec’t of Nos 56, 57, 58., & 59 of the Proceedings of the Geol Society,1 and would hereby offer our thanks to the Society for their kindness in forwarding them. We learn by your acknowledgements that the American Journal2 is recived by the Society with tolerable regularity; if there are any deficiencies in your set we will take great pleasure in supplying them as far as may be in our power on being informed what they are. If it be consistent with the rules of the Society we should be very glad to receive from you the nos of your ‘proceedings’ which never reached us as follows— Nos 1 to 5, 7 & 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 46, 47.3 Our agent in London for the transmission of English things to this country is now Mr Putnam4 house of Wiley & Putnam No 35 Paternoster Row, American Booksellers, who will pay for the above if called on, and will forward to us any thing addressed to us to this country With great Respect your | Obliged & Obedient Svts | B Silliman | B Silliman, Jr. Editors Am Jour. | Science— Geological Society of London (GSL/L/R/233) 1 2 3

4

h

d i

0 0

These issues are from the Proceedings of the Geological Society of London vols. 2 and 3 and all date from 1838. The American Journal of Science and Arts had been founded by Benjamin Silliman Sr. The first issue of the Proceedings was for the 1826–7 session; issue 47 was for the 1836–7 session. Another hand has inserted ‘4’ before ‘5’, and all the numbers from 4 to 47 have been ticked. A note at the top of the letter reads: ‘Answered 10th Aug. 1839 Proceed sent’. George Palmer Putnam.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

171

To [W. A. Leighton?]   [1840–77?]1 whether 〈2 or 3 words〉 have the honour to remain | Sir | Your obedient servant | Charles Darwin Incomplete Estate of the late Mr D. Evans (private collection) 1

This scrap was found stuck underneath the leather cover of the penholder compartment in a writing case with the initials ‘CRD’ on the lid and with a plaque inscribed: ‘Necessaire de voyage of Mr. C.  Darwin Presented to The Shropshire and North Wales Natural History and Antiquarian Society’. The date range is conjectured from the fact that CD was elected a member of the society in 1840 (Correspondence vol. 2, letter to W. A. Leighton, 1 December 1840), and the society merged with the Shropshire Archaeological Society to become the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society in 1877 (Transactions of the Shropshire Archæological and Natural History Society 1 (1878): x). The recipient is conjectured from the fact that Leighton was honorary secretary and curator of the society and a schoolfriend of CD’s.

To ?   [2 June? 1840] can give no information on the separation of the sexes in the Guanaco.—1 Believe me dear Sir | Yours truly | Charles Darwin Incomplete Postmark: [2 JU] 1840 The British Library (Charnwood Autographs Vol. IV Add MS 70951: 315) 1

This scrap is from an autograph album; an indistinct postmark and a fragment of the address are preserved on the verso. The fragment of the address reads, ‘Ed. R [or K? rest of line missing] | Ca [rest of line missing]’.

From G. E. Bearpark   12 February 1841 74 East Street, Leeds. February 12, 1841. Sir, Please to inform me on what conditions you admit Members into your Society? What Titles you confer on them? & What Fees are to be paid?1 and you will much oblige, Yours respectfully, | Geo. E. Bearpark, Surgeon. “To Charles Darwin Esqre. | Secretary of the Geological Society, London.” Geological Society of London (GSL/L/R/6/126)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

172 1

No reply has been found to this letter; there is no record of Bearpark’s becoming a member of the Geological Society of London. CD formally resigned the secretaryship of the society in February 1841, but had ceased to be active the previous year (see Correspondence vol. 2, letter to the President and Council of the Geological Society of London, 24 March 1840 and n. 3).

To E. W. Brayley   8 May [1841]1 12 Upper Gower St My dear Sir I feel extremely obliged to you for your kindness in remembering and trouble in extracting the reference with respect to the Carb. of Lime. Owing to the state of my health it is very doubtful when I shall publish my geological memoranda but when I do, I do not doubt your references will be of valuable assistance to me.2 I feel much indebted for your kind expressions regarding my health and the few facts which I have contributed towards the complex mass composing geological Science3 Believe me dear Sir | Yours very truly | Ch Darwin May 8th. Saturday Christie’s, London (dealers) (online 31 October – 8 November 2018, lot 3) 1

2

3

The year is established by the address and day of the week; CD lived at 12 Upper Gower Street from 31 December 1838 until 14 September 1842 (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II). During that period 8 May fell on a Saturday only in 1841. In Volcanic islands, p. 6 n., CD thanked Brayley for references suggesting that the retention of carbonic acid gas (carbon dioxide) by carbonate of lime (calcium carbonate) had more to do with the surrounding atmosphere than with pressure. Volcanic islands was published in 1844; CD had worked on it intermittently since October 1837 (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II). In his Geology notebook A, 41e, CD noted: ‘Mr Brayley says he can give me facts respecting lime being heated without parting with Carb. Acid.—’ (Notebooks, p. 96). CD used the notebook between 1837 and 1839 (Notebooks, p. 6). Brayley’s letter has not been found. CD’s paper ‘Distribution of the erratic boulders’ had been read at the Geological Society of London on 8 May 1841; CD probably did not attend in person (Correspondence vol. 2, letter to William Lonsdale, 14 April [1841]).

To J. P. Gaimard   14 October 18411 [Darwin explains that he accompanied Captain FitzRoy on his voyage on board H.M.S. Beagle as a naturalist, and he is almost ready to publish a small volume on coral formations.2 He has lively hopes of learning about one aspect of the subject, and the zeal with which M. Gaimard has for so long cultivated the natural sciences, emboldens him to hope that M. Gaimard will oblige a fellow worker in the same field. In the account by M. Cordier of the geology of the voyage of the Astrolabe (vol. I, p. cxi), he writes concerning Vanikoro that the island is “entourée de récifs madréporiques qu’on assure être de formation tout-à-faire moderne”3 … As he is extremely interested in this question and because he has come to much the same conclusion when it comes to the structure of the reef, he would would be grateful if M. Gaimard could inform him on what foundation the remark of M. Cordier

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

173

rests: the source of the information and whether it relies on the traditions of the indigenous peoples. He begs M. Gaimard to reply quickly, since he is on the eve of publication; he knows very well that] my position is not such, as to have any claims to intrude on your valuable time:4 with much respect | I beg to remain | Sir | Your faithful servant | Charles Darwin t 12 Upper Gower St.—

Incomplete5 Ader Nordmann (dealers) (18 June 2015) 1

2 3

4 5

The date is provided by the sale catalogue. The description of the text in the sale catalogue has been translated (except for a quotation) from French; the text of the letter from ‘my position’ has been transcribed from a photograph. For CD’s 1831–6 voyage on HMS Beagle, captained by Robert FitzRoy, see Correspondence vol. 1. Coral reefs, published in May 1842 (Freeman 1978), was based on his observations during the voyage. ‘Surrounded by madreporic reefs that are without doubt entirely recent in formation’. Pierre-LouisAntoin Cordier wrote ‘tout-à-fait’, not ‘tout-à-faire’, as did CD when he quoted from this line in Coral reefs, p. 127 n. See Dumont D’Urville ed. 1830–5, Histoire 1: cxi. Madrepores (order Scleractinia) are stony corals; Vanikoro is in the Solomon Islands. No reply has been found to this letter. In Coral reefs, p. 127 n., CD wrote that he had ‘in vain endeavoured to learn some further particulars about this remarkable passage’. According to the sale catalogue, the original letter is complete and is three pages long.

To [William Baxter or W. W. Baxter?]   [1842–82?]1 Please send me a large pot of soft spermaceti ointment.2 C. Darwin American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.536) 1

2

The date range and the addressee are conjectured from the existence of other letters mentioning spermaceti to William Baxter or his son, William Walmisley Baxter, who were chemists in Bromley, Kent, close to Down, where CD lived from 1842 (see n. 2, below, and this supplement, letter to [William Baxter or W. W. Baxter?], 8 December [1842–81]. Spermaceti ointment was used as a mild dressing for blisters, cuts, and grazes (Warren 1859, p. 675); CD also used it in his botanical work (see Correspondence vol. 26, letter to W. W. Baxter, 6 January [1878] and n. 2). It contained five ounces of spermaceti to two ounces of white wax and twenty ounces of almond oil (ibid., letter from W. W. Baxter, 7 January 1878).

To ?   [1842–82]1 Down Thursday My dear Sir I write one single line to say how very glad I shall be to see you & Mr Morris here tomorrow—2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

174

I do not know whether you will receive this before starting | yours very faithfully | C. Darwin eBay (dealers) (April 2001) 1 2

The year range is established by CD’s residence at Down from 1842. Mr Morris has not been identified. The only Mr Morris with whom CD is known to have corresponded is John Morris, who helped CD with his work on barnacles in the 1850s (see Correspondence vols. 4 and 5, and Fossil Cirripedia (1851)).

To [William Baxter or W. W. Baxter?]   2 [October 1842 – April 1882]1 Please half fill Bottle with C. of Ammonia2 C. Darwin Down | 2d.— Dept of Rare Books, Special Collections and Preservation, University of Rochester (tipped into a copy of Insectivorous plants (QH 9.9 I59m)) 1

2

The date range is established and the addressee conjectured from CD’s residence in Down from September 1842 onwards (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II). William Baxter and William Walmisley Baxter were chemists in Bromley with whom CD regularly did business. Carbonate of ammonia (ammonium carbonate) was used by CD for his health (see Correspondence vol. 12, letter to J. D. Hooker, 13 April [1864]), and in his botanical work (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to Edward Frankland, 12 July 1873).

To [William Baxter or W. W. Baxter?]  10 [October 1842 – April 1882]1 A big bottle of distilled water2 2 oz of Camphorated Spirits3 Please fill Bottle with same perfume C. Darwin 10th Cleveland Health Sciences Library (Robert M. Stecher collection) 1

2

3

h

d i

0 0

The date range is established and the addressee conjectured from CD’s residence in Down from September 1842 onwards (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II). William Baxter and his son William Walmisley Baxter were chemists in Bromley with whom CD regularly did business. CD ordered distilled water for use in photography in 1857 (see this supplement, letter to [W. W. Baxter?], [after June 1857]); he also used it frequently in his botanical work in 1873 (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Edward Frankland, 27 September 1873). Camphorated spirits (camphor dissolved in alcohol) were used for topical pain relief for sprains, bruises, and rheumatism (Savory 1836, p. 19).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

175

To [William Baxter or W. W. Baxter?]   24 October [1842–5 or 1853 or 1855–68?]1 Down Bromley Kent Oct. 24th My dear Sir Will you be so kind as to read the enclosed & act on it, sending my two Bottles.2 The note need not be returned to me, | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin University of California, Berkeley, The Bancroft Library (BANC MSS 74/78 z) 1

2

The date is conjectured from the address, which is written in a form that CD used in the years stated. William Baxter and his son William Walmisley Baxter were chemists in Bromley with whom CD regularly did business. The enclosure has not been found and the commission has not been identified.

To [William Baxter or W. W. Baxter?]   8 December [1842–81]1 a large pot of soft spermaceti ointment2 C. Darwin Down. Decr 8th— University of Otago, Special Collections (MS 49) 1

2

The date range and the addressee are conjectured from CD’s residence in Down from September 1842 onwards (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II), and by the existence of other letters mentioning spermaceti to William Baxter or his son William Walmisley Baxter, the chemists in Bromley that CD used whenever he was resident in Down (see n. 2, below, and Correspondence vol. 26, letter to W. W. Baxter, 6 January [1878]). For the composition and use of spermaceti ointment, see this volume, Supplement, letter to [William Baxter or W. W. Baxter?], [1842–82?] and n. 2.

To J. E. Gray   25 January [1843]1 Down Bromley Kent Jan 25 My Dear Sir Sometime since I presented through you to the British Museum a series of specimens illustrating the Structure of Coral reefs.2 Mr Lyell is going to give as you are aware some lectures on Geology one of which will be devoted to coral reefs & to my theory of their origin.3 I am therefore very anxious that he should have the loan of the specimens which I collected for illustration They are such as cannot possibly be injured if moderate care be taken of them   Would you be so kind as respectfully lay the request before the Trustees & state how

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

176

much obliged I should feel if they would permit Mr Lyell to have the use of these specimens for a fort night or three weeks during his lectures4 Believe Me My Dear Sir Yours very Sincerely | C—Darwin Mr J. E Gray Contemporary copy Natural History Museum, Library and Archives (DF/ZOO/205/4/144) 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the reference to the lecture series (see n. 3, below). CD donated twenty-nine coral specimens to the British Museum in 1841 (www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/ charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html, accessed 28 July 2021). The specimens had been collected from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, in the Indian Ocean, in 1836, during the Beagle voyage, and were registered in the collection on 14 December 1842 (Rosen and Darrell 2011, p 173). For a list of the specimens, see Rosen and Darrell 2011, pp. 195–7. Charles Lyell delivered a series of eight lectures on geology at the Marylebone Institution between 7 and 31 March 1843. The second lecture was on coral reefs; a brief summary of the lecture mentioned Lyell’s discussion of the manner in which coral reefs were raised and of the zoophytes from which they were constituted, but no specimens were mentioned in the report (The Times, 9 March 1843, p. 5; 11 March 1843, p. 6). On the verso of this letter is the draft of a letter from Gray passing on the request to lend the specimens and noting that they had already been presented to the trustees, that is, formally accessioned (see n. 2, above).

To ?   1 March [1843–82]1 [Down.] [Regrets that he has no duplicate copy of his book and cannot give one to his correspondent ‘as I have already given away a very large number. You will before long no doubt be able to borrow a copy …’] Incomplete2 Sotheby’s (dealers) (12 November 1963) 1 2

The date is given in the sale catalogue; the year range is established by the address, which is also given in the sale catalogue. CD moved to Down in September 1842 (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II). The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being one page long.

To William Baxter or W. W. Baxter   16 March [1843–82]1 Please fill Bottle with Spirits of Wine2 C. Darwin Down | March 16th. Bromley Historic Collections, Bromley Central Library (144/1)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 1

2

177

The year range is established from the fact that the Darwins moved to Down in September 1842 (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II). William Baxter and his son William Walmisley Baxter of Bromley, Kent, were CD’s regular chemists. Spirits of wine were used as a preservative for animal and plant specimens.

To William Baxter or W. W. Baxter   21 March [1843–82]1 Be so good as to fill the enclosed Bottle in following proportions.— Verdigris in powder ʒi Sal Ammoniac. do ʒi Lamp-Black ʒss Water ʒx2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | C. Darwin Down. | March 21st Bromley Historic Collections, Bromley Central Library (Baxter Collection) 1

2

The date range is established by CD’s residence in Down from September 1842 onwards (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II). William Baxter and his son William Walmisley Baxter of Bromley, Kent, were CD’s regular chemists. The recipe (one drachm of verdigris, one drachm of sal ammoniac, half a drachm of lamp-black, ten drachms of water) is for ink suitable for writing on zinc plant labels (W. Herbert 1837, p. 411). There is an annotated copy of W. Herbert 1837 in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 372–6); a note inside the back cover reads, ‘411 Labels for Gardens’.

To ?   7 August [1843–68?]1 Down 7 August [to an unnamed peer regretfully turning down an invitation to ride, which would have given him much pleasure, because he is ‘so very subject to headache’.]2 Incomplete3 Christie’s, London (dealers) (24 October 1979) 1

2

3

h

d i

The beginning of the date range is established from the fact that CD moved to Down House, Kent, in September 1842 (Correspondence vol. 2, Appendix II); he may have given up riding after a fall in April 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17, letter to A. R. Wallace, 14 April 1869 and n. 12). According to the sale catalogue, the letter is to ‘an unnamed peer’; presumably the salutation was ‘My dear Lord’. It may have been written to Robert Monsey Rolfe (Lord Cranworth) or Philip Henry Stanhope (Lord Stanhope), both of whom had country seats near Down. For CD’s relationship with Stanhope, see ‘Recollections’, p. 361. CD’s doctor ordered him to ride daily in 1866 (Correspondence vol. 14, letter to George Bentham, 1 October 1866). According to the sale catalogue, the original letter is complete and is one page long.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

178

To J. D. Hooker   22 [January 1844 – March 1882]1 [Discusses books returned and desired and invites him to come for a few days.] Incomplete2 Sotheby’s (dealers) (14 and 28 May 1983) 1

2

The day of the month is supplied by the sale catalogue. The date range is established from the date of CD and Hooker’s first acquaintance and the date of CD’s death. Hooker returned from the voyage of HMS Erebus in September 1843 and began corresponding with CD in November 1843 (see Correspondence vol. 2), but CD is unlikely to have invited him to Down before 1844. The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being three pages long.

To Henry Denny   1 June [1844]1 Down near Bromley | Kent June 1st Dear Sir You may remember a statement, which I communicated to you about the Sandwich Isld lice not living on Europæans.2 The other day, I met a passage in a foolish Book. “Whites Regular Gradation of Man”, which I thought you might like to know of.— At p. 79 He states that he has heard that the lice on the Negroes, born in N. America & who have never been in a hot country, are blacker & larger than the lice on Europæans & further that the Europæan Lice seem to refuse to live on the Negroes.3 It is singular if both this & my independent statement, are without any foundation. Believe me | Dear Sir | Your’s very faithfully | C. Darwin This letter returned by Dead office I hope you received the specimens safely, which I sent by Post the other day4 19th Century Shop (dealer) (April 2016) 1

2 3

4

h

d i

0 0

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letters to Henry Denny, 20 January [1844] and [27 July – 10 August 1844] (Correspondence vol. 3 and vol. 13 supplement, respectively). See Correspondence vol. 18, supplement, letter to Henry Denny, 5 February [1844] and n. 8. CD read Charles White’s An account of the regular gradation in man, and in different animals and vegetables; and from the former to the latter (C. White 1799) in May or June 1844 (see CD’s reading notebooks, Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix IV, 119: 14a). ‘This letter … other day’ is written on the back of the folded letter. Denny had asked CD for specimens to help with his report on exotic species of Anoplura (sucking lice; see Correspondence vol. 3, letter to Henry Denny, 20 January [1844] and n. 1, and Denny 1844). The specimens CD sent have not been identified, but since the letter evidently had to be re-sent after being returned to CD from the deadletter office, they may have been the ones sent with his letter to Denny of [27 July – 10 August 1844] (Correspondence vol. 13, supplement).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

179

To J. D. Hooker   16 [April 1845?]1

Down Bromley Kent 16th

My dear Hooker Unfortunately we shall have the house nearly or quite full on Saturday with relatives & friends.2 Even if we could hold you, of which I am not sure, I know I shall be tired & not able to talk with you on the many things about which I want to talk, & I cannot bear to lose any part of the pleasure & profit of your visit, so will you come the ensuing Saturday 26th, or if that will not do, the Saturday after that.—3 I am so sorry to put you off. | Ever yours | C. Darwin Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (JDH/2/2/1 f. 312) 1

2 3

The date is conjectured from the fact that during the period in which the Darwins were using the ‘Down Bromley Kent’ address (1842–6, 1853, and 1855–69), Emma Darwin recorded in her diary a visit from a large number of relatives on a Saturday 19th only in April 1845 (DAR 242). CD and Hooker’s correspondence began in 1843 and CD first addressed him as ‘Dear Hooker’ in February 1844 (see Correspondence vol. 2 and Correspondence vol. 3, letter to J. D. Hooker, 23 February [1844]). Emma’s brother, Hensleigh Wedgwood, his wife, Frances Emma Elizabeth Wedgwood, and presumably their six children, were at Down on Saturday 19 April 1845 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). There is no record of a visit from Hooker at this time.

To C. G. Ehrenberg   19 April [1845]1 Down near Bromley | Kent April 19th Dear Sir I send the enclosed small specimens (through Mr Cuming the conchologist) from the great Gypseous formation of the northerly parts of the Cordillera of Chile: it belongs either to the Neocomian period, or probably a little earlier in the Secondary formations.2 I hope you understood that I did not wish to ask you to examine these specimens for my sake, but only if they appear interesting to yourself: should you examine them, would you kindly inform me of the result, referring to my specimens by the numbers which I have sent. I am exceedingly obliged to you for your last letter on the Atlantic Dust & I will before long send my little paper to the Geological Soc:—3 Should you ever look at the Pampæan mud, perhaps you will kindly take the trouble of informing me of the result.4 I sincerely feel the honour you have conferred on me by your kind communications & I remain, dear Sir | Yours faithfully & obliged | C. Darwin Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (MfN/HBSB, N005 NL Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg Nr. 43 Bl. 9–10)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

180 1

2

3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter, the letter from C. G. Ehrenberg, 13 March 1845, and the letter to C. G. Ehrenberg, 21 May [1845] (Correspondence vol. 3). This letter was evidently written before CD received Ehrenberg’s letter of 8 April 1845 (ibid.). Hugh Cuming visited Europe annually in search of specimens to exchange (Melvill 1895, p. 63). CD had offered these specimens in his letter of 23 March [1845] (Correspondence vol. 3). On the gypseous formation of the Chilean Cordillera, see South America, pp. 178ff. See Correspondence vol. 3, letter from C. G. Ehrenberg, 13 March 1845; CD’s paper, ‘Account of the dust which falls on vessels in the Atlantic’, was read on 4 June 1845. See Correspondence vol. 3, letter to C. G. Ehrenberg, 23 January [1845]. Ehrenberg gave the results of his analysis in his letter of 8 April 1845 (ibid.); see also Journal of researches 2d ed., pp. 82, 129–30, and South America, p. 81.

From J. E. Gray   [1846–54]1 Bivalve have normally a series of 2  or 3 diverging teeth under the umbo and laminal lateral teeth2 The lateral teeth are sometime in arcadæ Nuculidæ divided across into numerous lobes looking like a series of transverse teeth interlocking into each other3

AL incomplete DAR 205.5: 216 (Letters) CD note: I looked at series of Arcadæ, & a good series from teeth at umbo with ligament to mere row of crenations—4 But this case not good to quote. 1

2

3 4

The date range is conjectured from the possibility that CD was interested in the topic of umbonal teeth while working on barnacles (Cirripedia). CD began working on the comparative anatomy of barnacles in 1846 and on their systematics in 1848 (see Correspondence vol. 4, letter to J. E. Gray, 18 December 1847). The works on living and fossil Cirripedia were published between 1851 and 1854 (see Living Cirripedia (1851), Fossil Cirripedia (1851), Living Cirripedia (1854), and Fossil Cirripedia (1854)). The configuration of umbonal teeth described by Gray is characteristic of the most primitive type of bivalve hinge, made up of many small similarly-shaped teeth; this configuration is described as a taxodont hinge. It keeps the valves aligned, but restricts the degree to which they can open. The umbo or beak is the raised portion of the dorsal margin of a bivalve shell. Arcadae (a synonym of Arcidae, the family of ark clams) and Nuculidae (the family of nut clams) are characterised by taxodont hinges (see n. 2, above). CD may have been interested in comparing the umbonal teeth of bivalves with the same feature in some barnacles that possess umbonal teeth on some of their valves. CD mentioned umbonal teeth as a diagnostic feature in stalked barnacles in, for example, Living Cirripedia (1851), p. 73.

To the London Library   1 February [1846?]1 London Library The Bearer has called for Book.—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

181

If Dr Pye Smiths’ work on the Relation of Scripture & Geology be in Library, be so kind as to send it.—2 C. Darwin Down. Feb 1.— Cadbury Research Library: Special Collections, University of Birmingham (Corbett Autograph Collection MS21/3/1/39) 1 2

The year is conjectured from the date at which CD was reading [Chambers] 1845 (see n. 2 below). In On the relation between the Holy Scriptures and some parts of geological science, John Pye Smith, a Congregational clergyman and polymath, abandoned traditional beliefs in the recent creation of the earth, the biblical flood, and the derivation of all animals from one centre of creation, while maintaining the truth of the Bible, ‘when taken in its own genuine sense’ (Pye Smith 1839, p. xi). The book itself does not appear in CD’s Reading notebooks (Correspondence vol. 4), but it is referenced in the anonymously published Explanations: a sequel to ‘Vestiges of the natural history of creation’ ([Chambers] 1845, p. 152), which CD had read by 6 February 1846.

From J. D. Hooker   30 March 1846 Kew March 30. 1846. Dear Darwin Accompanying are a few wretched scraps for Ehrenberg, which I fear will not prove as productive as the “Hallowed Mud” of the Antarctic.1 What does he want with them? It was so late today before I could find the bundle of Ascension Isld things that I had not daylight to examine all the Grasses properly. That is of less consequence as only one is truly indigenous, & that correctly named. I have solitary specimens of 2 more grasses undoubtedly introduced, & a 3d the Polypogon tenue,2 is also probably a depauperated state of an introduced plant my only specimen  is however glued down & I had but one specimen. The only truly indigenous flowering plants of the Island are Monocot. x Aristida Ascensionis Mariscus umbellatus. [illeg]. x — appendiculatus ? Polypogon tenue Cyperus Haspan Dicot. x Euphorbia origanoides x Hedyotis Adscensionis3 Of these, 4 I consider peculiar & one (not well examined) doubtfully so. I have about 30 or 40 other flowering plants but all certainly introduced, I can give him any

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

182

if he wants them. I hope they will arrive in time, my things have got into dreadful confusi〈on〉 during my prolonged absences from home. On Wednesday I commence my new Incomplete Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (MfN/HBSB, N005 NL Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg Nr. 123 Bl. 9) CD annotation 1.1 Accompanying … them? 1.3] scored pencil 1

2 3

This letter was enclosed in the letter to C. G. Ehrenberg, 25 March [1846] (Correspondence vol. 3). CD kept that letter, which can now be dated 25[–31?] March [1846], open in order to enclose this letter, and specimens, from Hooker. Hooker alludes to Flora Antarctica (J. D. Hooker 1844–7), which was being published in parts (see Correspondence vol. 3, letter to J. D. Hooker, [19 May 1846]). Hooker probably intended Polypogon tenuis, a grass whose native range is Ascension, St Helena, and western Namibia to Cape Province, South Africa. Aristida Ascensionis is a misspelling of Aristida adscensionis (sixweeks threeawn). Mariscus umbellatus is a synonym of Cyperus cyperoides (Pacific island flatsedge); M. appendiculatus is a synonym of Cyperus appendiculatus. Cyperus haspan is haspan flatsedge. Euphorbia origanoides is Ascension spurge. Hedyotis adscensionis is a synonym of Oldenlandia adscensionis, a species which is now extinct owing to habitat loss.

From J. F. Stephens to Robert Peel   8 June 1846 Eltham Cottage | Foxley road | Kennington 8 June 46. Sir, Emboldened by the numerous signatures of men of the highest rank and talent, in Zoological science (including Dr Buckland, Sir W. J. Hooker, Professors Owen, Grant, Bell &c, Messrs Kirby, Brown1 and others) attached to the accompanying Memorial, I beg to forward the same for your perusal, trusting its contents may call your serious consideration to its prayer. I have the honour to be | Sir | Your most obedient Servant | J F Stephens. I enclose an abstract of my scientific labours [Enclosure] To the right honourable the First Lord of the Treasury. The Memorial of James Francis Stephens; Fellow of the Linnæan Society; Member of the Entomological Societies of London, and of Paris, &c. Humbly sheweth: That he is the author of the following scientific publications, vizt: Vols 2 in 12 General Zoology: illustrated with 362 Plates 1 Systematic Catalogue of British Insects3 "

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

183

Illustrations of British Entomology; embellished with 400 highly finished coloured engravings4 Nomenclature of British Insects (2 editions)5 Manual of British Beetles6

"

12

2 " 1 " 28 Total of several hundred Articles in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana,7 and of a few detailed papers in sundry periodical works, and Transactions of Learned Societies. That the work first mentioned was commenced, at an early age (19), at the instigation of the late Dr Leach8 of the British Museum, and published under the auspices of the leading Booksellers;—and that the others were undertaken upon your Memorialist’s own responsibility:—the entire costs exceeding £20,000. That your Memorialist, not being blinded by the splendour attached to the name of the great Linnæus,9 presumed at the onset of his career to depart from the system promulgated by him; and, in the course of the 12 volumes on Ornithology, ventured to carry out the modern continental views, on that science, throughout the entire Class of Birds, for the first time in Britain, and thus opened the way for their present universal adoption. That the same feelings guided him in the production of his Catalogue of British Insects,—in which are not only recorded 10,012 species, with above 50,000 references to about 700 volumes,—but it forms an index to all previous English writers on the subject—in whose works only 3673 species are mentioned, and in the arrangement therein adopted (as more fully developed in his Illustrations, containing above 8000 descriptions) he was so eminently successful in the opinion of competent judges, as to have formed by its publication an epoch in the science of Entomology, and thus to have produced a favourable impression abroad in regard to the labours of British Naturalists in opposition to the obloquy previously cast upon them, as servile adherents of Linné; and, moreover, from the stimulus thus created, an infinity of work on Entomology, based upon the same views, has been published in this country, within these few years, and slowly his exertions have conduced materially to the national glory and benefit.10 That the celebrity of his labour, induced Professor Rennie, late of King’s College, to pirate one division thereof, and your Memorialist was compelled to resort to the Court of Chancery for protection, whereby he incurred enormous charges for Law costs, which with their concomitant losses during a period of severe domestic illness and intense disquietude, exceeded £1500, to the serious injury of your memorialist, and obliging him for several years to relinquish housekeeping.11 That your memorialist was for upwards of 38 years a Clerk in the Admiralty Office, whence he has recently been superannuated, in a reorganization thereof, on the small pension of £225 per annum:—the proportion for 35 years only, thus losing 3 years. Finally, that your Memorialist upon learning that the Trustees of the British Museum, intended to form a collection of Native Animals in the year 1816, presented to that Establishment—from his own collection—then forming with

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

184

great exertions, and with unwearied assiduity and enthusiasm,—for the purpose of corroborating his views—many hundreds of specimens of British Birds, Insects and Shells,—several of which are the only examples now extant;—that he lent his gratuitous assistance for some months (with the sanction of the Admiralty Board) at the above period, towards the first arrangement thereof; has subsequently given his aid thereto; and at the present moment he fortunately possesses the means of enabling the said Trustees to publish more perfectly, a portion of the contents of this Museum by the use of some, otherwise unobtainable, works in his Library, which latter, as also his collection;—both unrivalled in extent on the subject,—the Library from the munificent present of numerous individuals—has been gratuitously thrown open for these last 25 years, during which period many thousands of students have availed themselves thereof. Your Memorialist therefore under these circumstances, and the advantage that has accrued to his country from his scientific exertions, as testified by the eminent men, whose names are hereunto appended, humbly prays that your Lordship would take his case into your serious consideration, and obtain for him a small grant from the Civil List, in order that he may maintain his station in society, and be enabled to carry forward his scientific pursuits, with greater benefit to his country.12 And your Memorialist, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c | J F Stephens. | Eltham Cottage, Foxley road | Kennington March 1846. Wm. Jackson Hooker | F.RS. Wm. Kirby, F.R.S W. Spence. F.R.S. Willm Buckland. F.R.S. Robert E. Grant. MD. Charles R. Darwin. F.R.S. Thomas Bell F.R.S. F.L.S. &c | Profr. Zooly King’s Coll. Richard Owen Hunterian Professor, Rl College of Surgeons. Robt Brown V.P.L.S.— [And 45 others] The British Library (Papers of Sir Robert Peel: Add MS 40593: 187–91) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

h

d i

0 0

William Buckland, William Jackson Hooker, Richard Owen, Robert Edmond Grant, Thomas Bell, William Kirby, Robert Brown. Vols. 9 to 14 (ornithology) of General zoology, which had been started by George Shaw, were by Stephens (Shaw 1800–26). J. F. Stephens 1829a. J. F. Stephens 1828–46. CD had sent Stephens specimens and was delighted to have been cited in Stephens’s Illustrations of British entomology (‘Recollections’, p. 342). J. F. Stephens 1829b; a second edition was published in 1833. J. F. Stephens 1839. Encyclopaedia metropolitana was issued in parts between 1817 and 1845.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 8 9 10 11

12

185

William Elford Leach. Carl von Linné. Stephens commented on his efforts to update the Linnean system in the introduction to his Systematic catalogue of British insects (J. F. Stephens 1829a) Stephens accused James Rennie of pirating his work in Rennie’s Conspectus of the butterflies and moths found in Britain (Rennie 1832). For more on the dispute between Stephens and Rennie, see ODNB s.v. Stephens, James Francis. Stephens’s application for a Civil List pension was unsuccessful (ODNB).

To John Allen   25 May 1847 Down Farnborough Kent May 25th. /47 My dear Sir I am much obliged by your note of the 21st, which I consider as a great compliment.1 I am more than doubtful whether I could at all succeed in so very difficult a task as that proposed, but I am sorry to say that my powers of work, owing to my health are so slight, and having much materials in Nat. Hist. half worked out, that I am unwilling to undertake anything fresh.2 If I had the time & felt that I could do justice to your proposal, the doubt of my work being accepted, should not prevent a trial, for I fully appreciate the great importance of such works: it has often been a castle in the air with me, how much useful information, supposing that the proper man could be caught, might be given to the poor in early life, on subjects most useful to them, & yet about which they are profoundly ignorant.3 My wife begs to join me in our kind remembrances to Mrs. Allen4 & to yourself & pray believe me, My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | C. Darwin Rev. J. Allen. I see that I have written this note the wrong way first—5 The National Library of Israel (Abraham Schwadron collection, Schwad 03 04 07) 1 2 3 4 5

Allen’s letter of 21 May 1847 has not been found. In May 1847, CD was working on Cirripedia (Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix I). The nature of the project that Allen had proposed to CD is unknown; it may have had something to do with Allen's interest in the education of the poor. Harriet Allen. The letter is on two half sheets; p. 1 recto goes down to ‘half worked out,’; p. 1 verso contains only the note, ‘I see that ... wrong way first—’; pp. 2 and 3 are recto and verso of a single roughly torn sheet.

To James Smith of Jordanhill   6 February [1848]1 Down Farnborough Kent Feb. 6th My dear Sir I thank you very sincerely for your kind letter & present of the fossil Balani.2 After my work is completed I shall present my entire collection to the British Museum, &

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

186

yours shall go with them.3 I am much obliged for your request to Mr Landsborough4 to collect the species where he lives, for I am anxious to get specimens from a good many places to make out the range of our British species. It will be in very good time when you come up in the Spring.— When I go next to London, I shall probably find the fossils at the Geolog. Soc.5 Pray believe me | Yours sincerely | C. Darwin Glasgow City Archives (396/TD1) 1 2

3

4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to James Smith of Jordanhill, 28 January [1848] (Correspondence vol. 4). Smith’s letter has not been found. CD had asked Smith for specimens of the cirripede genus Balanus from Portugal (Correspondence vol. 4, letter to James Smith of Jordanhill, 28 January [1848]). See Fossil Cirripedia (1854), p. 235. CD presented his fossil cirripede collection to the British Museum in 1854 (see Withers 1928–53, 2: 5, and Correspondence vol. 5, letter to J. E. Gray, 28 March [1854] and n. 3), after finishing Fossil Cirripedia (1851) and (1854). David Landsborough. CD attended a council meeting of the Geological Society of London on 19 April 1848 (Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix I).

To Gardeners’ Chronicle   13 July [1848]1 Potatoes in my field have been seized by the disease in its most virulent form, giving out a nauseous smell, perceptible in an adjoining field;2 C. Darwin, Farnborough, July 13. Gardeners’ Chronicle, 22 July 1848, p. 491 1 2

The year is established by the date of publication of this letter in Gardeners’ Chronicle. Potato blight, caused by the oomycete (water mould) Phytophthora infestans, appeared in the British Isles in 1845, leading to the Irish potato famine of 1846 (Salaman 1985, p. 291).

To [Auguste Daubrée]   [1849?]1 Down Farnborough Kent Thursday My dear Sir I have delayed writing to you as I had hoped to have sent today by our weekly carrier the specimens you require.2 But I have been prevented getting them out (for they are all stowed away in Bags) partly by having been unwell & by having engagements on those days when I was well.— I really will try this day next week get them out,: it wd be no use getting them sooner, as our carrier goes only once a week & the cross-coaches are expensive carriage.—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

187

Thank you much for your German Scientific newspaper, (which I suppose you do not wish returned)   I got through it with many sighs & groans & was interested with the Paper on the Habitats of plants, as well as by that on the Hybrids &c &c. I am sure you will excuse my apparent, but unintentional neglect in not having sooner answered your note3 & forward the specimens. Yours very faithfully | C. Darwin Institut de France, Bibliothèque (Ms 2423 A ff. 69–70) 1

2 3

The correspondent is conjectured from the fact that the letter was found in a collection of letters to Auguste Daubrée, who was presumably in England when the letter was written. The year is conjectured from the narrow mourning border on the notepaper, combined with the Farnborough address, which suggests that it was written in the year following the death of CD’s father, Robert Waring Darwin (1766–1848), in November 1848. George Snow operated a weekly carrier service between Down and London. The specimens have not been identified, but were presumably geological, since Daubrée was a geologist. The note has not been found.

To W. E. Darwin   [1850–4?]1 Down Sunday Morning [informing him that two letters had arrived for him and that: “Poor Joseph came back last night, having had teeth out,”] Incomplete2 Christie’s, London (dealers) (17 November 1995) 1

2

The year range is conjectured from the fact that William went away to school in January 1850 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)), and Joseph Comfort was gardener and coachman at Down House until 1854. (Joseph Parslow, the butler, was always known as Parslow.) The original letter is complete and according to the sale catalogue is two pages long.

To Wilhelm Dunker   3 March [1850]1 Down Farnborough Kent March 3d Sir I hope that you will forgive the very great liberty I take in addressing you.— I have been for some time employed on a monograph on recent & fossil Cirripedia.2 I applied to my friend Mr. J. Morris to know to whom I could apply for any fossil specimens from Germany, & he tells me that you of all others are most likely to be willing & able to help a stranger.—3 Owing to the kindness of Prof. Steenstrup of Copenhagen I have the loan of your Pollicipes Hausmanni (& I know your perfectly accurate drawings & descriptions) &

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

188

of P. Bronnii & P. carinatus of Philippi, but I am most curious to see the species described by Roemer, viz P. uncinatus, gracilis glaber, asper &c &c &c; or any undescribed specimens.—4 Can you aid me with regard to Roemer’s species? I would carefully return them & pay carriage both ways as far as may be possible.— As my name will probably be unknown to you, I may mention, as a proof that I am devoted to Natural History, that I went as Naturalist on the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the World & collected in all branches of Nat. History. I trust to your kindness to forgive my intruding myself on you, & beg to remain, with much respect | Sir | Your faithful servant | Charles Darwin Any parcel ought to be directed to C. Darwin Esq., | 7 Park St., Grosvenor Sq., | London.5 Antiquariat Inlibris (dealers) 1 2 3 4

5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to W. B. R. H. Dunker, 20 September 1850 (Correspondence vol. 4). CD began the work that resulted in the publication of Fossil Cirripedia (1851) and (1854), and Living Cirripedia (1851) and (1854) in 1846 (Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix II). The correspondence with John Morris has not been found. Japetus Steenstrup. CD cited Friedrich Karl Ludwig Koch and Dunker’s descriptions and drawings of Pollicipes hausmanni (a synonym of Martillepas hausmanni; Koch and Dunker 1837, pp. 52–3 and tab. 6, fig. 6) in Fossil Cirripedia (1851), p. 53. He described P. bronnii in ibid., pp. 77–8. He described P. carinatus in ibid., p. 60, crediting Rudolph Amandus Philippi for sending him specimens. He mentioned P. uncinatus (a synonym of Cretiscalpellum glabrum) in ibid., pp. 75 and 80, P. gracilis in ibid., p. 69, and P. glaber (a synonym of Cretiscalpellum glabrum) in ibid., pp. 61–4, crediting Friedrich Adolph Roemer with sending him specimens. Seven Park Street was at this time the house of CD’s brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin (see Correspondence vol. 3, letter to J. D. Forbes, 13 [November 1844]).

To A. S. Horner   25 May [1851]1 Down Farnboro’ Kent May 25th. My dear Mrs. Horner We are truly grateful to you & all your party for your most kind sympathy.2 As you ask after Emma, I write a line to say that she & Baby are essentially going on perfectly well, but she does not recover her strength or spirits so quickly as I could wish.3 In the profound quietudes of Down all your schemes & movements seem awfully bustling: I hope that your spirite〈d〉 tour will answer in every respect, & that directly on your return you may hear from the Cape. You will no doubt feel much this the first separation: pray give my very kind remembrances to Katharine & Capt. Lyell.4 Emma desires me to send her affectionate love to you & all your party.— Pray believe me | Dear Mrs Horner | Yours truly & gratefully | C. Darwin Cheffins (dealers) (10 January 2019, lot 209)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 1 2 3 4

189

The year is established by the allusion to Annie Darwin’s death. Anne Elizabeth (Annie) Darwin, CD and Emma Darwin’s 10-year-old daughter, died on 23 April 1851 (Correspondence vol. 5, Appendix II). Horner’s letter to CD has not been found. Horace Darwin was born on 13 May 1851 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Anne Susanna Horner and her husband, Leonard Horner, were about to embark on a tour of Germany and Switzerland; their daughter Katharine Murray Lyell and her husband, Henry Lyell, were about to leave for India, via the Cape of Good Hope (K. M. Lyell ed. 1890, pp. 182, 192).

To A. A. Gould   2 June [1851]1 Down Farnborough Kent June 2d. Dear Sir I received yesterday your note of the 9th. of April, & the small box of Californian cirripedia2 sent me through Mr. Cumming.3 I beg to thank you very sincerely for this new proof of your kind remembrance.— I crawl slowly on with my work: I have published my Fossil Lepadidæ,4 & will soon send you a copy. I shall in a month’s time go to press with the recent Lepadidæ or pedunculated Cirripedes, & I have worked through half the Sessile Cirripedes.— I will keep all your specimens together, & ultimately return them named in one parcel. Believe me | My dear Sir | Yours sincerely obliged | Charles Darwin University of New Hampshire, Special Collections and Archives (MC 51, box 1, folder 19 (Amy Cheney Beach’s autograph album, 1880–1901) 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the reference to CD’s Fossil Cirripedia (1851) (see n. 4, below). This letter was previously published from a copy in Correspondence vol. 5. Balanus concavus, B.  nubilus, and B.  glandulus (Living Cirripedia (1854), pp. 235, 253, 265) are listed as Californian specimens from Gould’s collection. Many other specimens described in both volumes of Living Cirripedia were provided by Gould. Hugh Cuming had also supplied CD with many specimens from his own collection of Cirripedia. CD had first asked Gould for specimens in 1848 (Correspondence vol. 4, letter to A. A. Gould, 3 September [1848]). Gould’s letter of 9 April 1851 has not been found. A few copies of Fossil Cirripedia (1851) were available to CD in April, but he did not receive the rest of his copies until September (Correspondence vol. 5, letter to W. B. R. H. Dunker, 5 April [1851], and letter to Japetus Steenstrup, 9 September [1851]). CD used the term Lepadidae to refer to all stalked barnacles; it is roughly equivalent to the order Pedunculata. In modern taxonomy, the family Lepadidae is restricted to goose barnacles.

To James Smith of Jordanhill   4 July [1851]1 Down Farnborough Kent July 4d.— My dear Sir Not having been lately in town, I received, only three days ago, your letter of the 8th addressed to the Athenæum.—2 I am much obliged to you for taking the trouble to give me your more deliberate opinion on the Jura blocks.— it is a subject which

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

190

has long interested me much. The argument in favour of glaciers, versus icebergs, which I observe seems of the greatest weight with most people, has not much with me, namely the difference in the nature of the blocks in face of the different parts of the Alps: I have observed the same thing in Chiloe, on a small scale where there cd be hardly any doubt that icebergs had been the transporting agents.— Each break in the Jura, would have had a tidal stream passing through it. & which would have affected a certain area of the inland sea-channel, subject of course to some disturbance from winds.— In the first Edition of my Journal, in the Appendix, I (rather foolishly) argued this point, going on Agassiz’s own facts;3 & I have not yet been convinced 〈12 line missing〉: the holes said to be made by cascades in the glaciers, has puzzled me most, but I have reason to suspect that eddies in the sea drill rocks in a very analogous manner. Have you ever examined yourself the Jura? it would be a fine subject, & I feel sure, for one, whatever conclusion you came to, I shd be a convert.— With thanks | Believe me | Yours very truly | 〈signature excised〉 There is a distinction (whi 〈I〉 pointed out in my paper on Boulders of S. Hemisphere) between true icebergs & coast-ice, which the more I think of it, appears to me to throw some light on some of the difficulties in this subject.4 AL incomplete Glasgow City Archives (396/TD1) 1

2 3 4

The year is established by the address, which is a style that CD used between 1847 and 1852, and the mourning border, which CD used in July only in 1851 (Anne Elizabeth (Annie) Darwin died in April 1851). James Smith of Jordanhill’s letter has not been found; it was evidently addressed to CD at the Athenaeum Club, London. In Journal of researches, pp. 615–21, CD argued that erratic boulders in the Alps had been deposited by icebergs, not, as Louis Agassiz argued, by glaciers. See ‘Distribution of the erratic boulders’, p. 430; by coast-ice, CD meant ‘the actual freezing of the surface of the sea or its tributaries’.

From John Higgins   27 July 1852 Alford 27th. July 1852 Dear Sir, I have availed myself fully of your kind permission to answer your Letter of the 19th. Ulto at leisure; for during the last month I have done little else than attend to our County Election, and I have at last had the satisfaction of seeing my friend Mr. Christopher returned at the head of the Poll.—1 As regards your enquiry about the Rent of your own, and Miss Darwin’s2 Estates in Lincolnshire; I must beg your attention to the Dates, and particular circumstances, under which both Farms were purchased; as compared with the present time—from which it will appear that a smaller return than 15 per cent will not be just towards the Tenants, nor ultimately advantageous to the Landlord; inasmuch as the system

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

191

of high management, and good farming which is now pursued by both the Tenants, would be changed for a more deteriorating course of Husbandry, with a more limited outlay of Capital in artificial manures, and other Improvements.3 Beesby was purchased in 1845; and was let to pay a clear 314 per cent on the purchase money—4 The average price of wheat was that year 50s/10d per Quarter; and according to the Tithe averages 58s/8d per Quarter— The fair proportion of Wheat to be grown annually upon that Farm would be 60 acres, at an average yield of 4 Qrs. per acre, or a total quantity of 240 Qrs.; say 240 Quarters Wheat at 50s/10d in 1845— 240 Qrs. Do in 1852 (and the three preceding years) at 30s/– Loss or deficiency in the Wheat crop alone —

610—  456— £154 £

The loss also in rearing or breeding Cattle for which the Farm is best adapted, cannot be stated at less than £60, a year Sir Robt Peel’s Tariff having caused a reduction of full 25 per cent upon Home bred Cattle;5 Thus we have an actual diminution of Profits of upwards of £210 on the Farm to meet which the Tenant gains his allowance of 15 per cent out of his rent or £65— And the reduction of wages of four Labourers from 12s/– to 10s/– per week for 52 weeks

� 20.16.0

All other Items of Expenditure have undergone no perceptible change, and it is quite clear your Beesby Tenant realizes a smaller amount of Profit by full £100 a year now, with your liberal return of 15 per cent, than he did under legislative protection;6 paying the full Rent!— The Claythorpe Estate was purchased in 1840, the average price of wheat being then 66s/4d Pr. quarter and the Rental was based upon a return of 312 per cent, on the purchase money—which places the Tenant’s claims to a reduction of Rent in a stronger light than Beesby; altho’ both Tenants are satisfied to be treated the same; and both alike are first-rate managers.—7 My own experience also (from the circumstance of my son’s farming upwards of 500 acres)8 of Land has I am sorry to say afforded me too clear evidence of the truth of this statement; for with the best and most economical management, we cannot make farming remunerative, much less profitable.— Under these circumstances, I advise you and Miss Darwin to continue the allowance of 15 per cent; which I should most certainly do myself if the Estates were my own.— I remain, Dear Sir | Your faithful servant | (signed) John Higgins C. R. Darwin Esqre. Copy Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/2/2)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

192 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

See Correspondence vol. 5, letter to John Higgins, 19 June [1852]. Robert Adam Christopher was MP for North Lincolnshire. CD’s sister Susan Elizabeth Darwin had estates at Claythorpe in Lincolnshire (Worsley 2017, p. 14). CD and Susan had agreed to a rent reduction of fifteen per cent for their tenant farmers (Correspondence vol. 5, letter to John Higgins, 19 June [1852]). CD’s tenant at Beesby was Francis Hardy; Susan’s tenant at Claythorpe was Joseph Gilbert. CD’s father, Robert Waring Darwin (1766–1848), had bought the Beesby farm for CD for £12,400 (Worsley 2017, p. 104). In 1842, Robert Peel had reduced an number of import tariffs, including that on cattle (ODNB; Hansard Parliamentary Debates 3d ser. vol. 61 (1842) cols. 938–9). Legislative protection: the Corn Laws, which imposed high tariffs on imported corn in order to protect the price of domestic corn, were abolished in 1849. In 1840, Robert Waring Darwin bought, for £8000, an estate at Claythorpe in addition to the one he had inherited there. Susan inherited the united estates. (Worsley 2017, pp. 94, 99). John Higgins (1826–1902). (Census returns of England and Wales 1851 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/2110/302/16).)

To John Higgins   29 July [1852]1 Down Farnborough Kent July 29th.— My dear Sir I write one line to acknowledge & thank you for your long letter, entering in detail on the reasons which make you advise me still to continue this allowance of 15 per cent.—2 All that remains to be done, it seems, is to hope for better times. Before very long, I shd. prefer to enter into some more permanent arrangements with Mr. Hardy.3 I trust to your kindness to continue to look fairly after my interest & remain My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | C. Darwin J. Higgins Esqre. Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/2/3) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from John Higgins, 27 July 1852 (this volume, Supplement). See this volume, Supplement, letter from John Higgins, 27 July 1852. Francis Hardy was CD’s tenant at Beesby farm, Lincolnshire.

From John Higgins   31 July 1852 Alford 31st. July 1852 Dear Sir I am favored with your note of the 29th. Inst in reply to my letter of the 27th. Inst, and I trouble you with a few lines to enquire what your views & wishes are as regards “a more permanent arrangement with Mr. Hardy”?1 If you mean a Lease, I fear it will not tend to your advantage, as it will preclude you from the benefit of any rise in prices, which might possibly take place under a settled Government,

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

193

backed by a large influx of Gold! which we are likely to have;—2 Also Corn Rents3 would afford no better prospect of higher prices permanently, but like Leases would neither be sought after, nor objected to by the Tenants!— I am in receipt of about Thirty Thousand a year of Rents in Lincolnshire & Northamptonshire, and have no case either of a Lease or a Corn Rent to deal with; and part of these Estates which were before high rented have been reduced 15 per cent and others including Mr. Christopher’s (being old family Estates)4 have been reduced 10 per cent only— Mr. Erasmus Darwin’s Rents are 10 pr C.t only, because the old Rent had been of very long standing;5 and yours & Miss Darwin’s were recent purchases—6 Last year, I valued for Rental, upwards of 20’000 acres for The Duke of Newcastle,7 and the result was a uniform reduction of 15 Pr. Ct, and in some cases 18 and 20 per cent, on the Clay Farms— You may rely on my attending diligently to your Interests, but I cannot repair the fatal and disastrous effects of bad legislation—but should any improvement in our present course suggest itself to your mind, it shall receive my attentive consideration. I remain Dear Sir | Your faithful servant | (signed) John Higgins C. R. Darwin Esqre Copy Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/2/5) 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

See this volume, Supplement, letter from John Higgins, 27 July 1852, and letter to John Higgins, 29 July [1852]. Francis Hardy was CD’s tenant at Beesby Farm, Lincolnshire. There had been a change of ministry in February 1852, and Parliament was dissolved for a General Election on 1 July 1852 (Annual register 1852, pp. 33 and 122). Gold had been discovered within the last few years in California and Australia (The Times, 1 July 1852, p. 4). Corn-rent: a rent paid in corn or determined each year according to the price of corn (OED). Robert Adam Christopher, MP for North Lincolnshire, owned estates at Bloxham, Lincolnshire. CD’s brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, inherited Wragby Road Farm in Lincoln from their father, Robert Waring Darwin (1766–1848) (Worsley 2017, pp. 69–71). Susan Elizabeth Darwin. See this volume, Supplement, letter from John Higgins, 27 July 1852. Henry Pelham Fiennes Pelham-Clinton, fifth duke of Newcastle.

To [William Sharpey]   [1853–72?]1 but I will do so, if he is not on list. When proposed Hooker will enquire if he can attend; but he does not like to enquire, without he knows that at least he is proposed.—2 In Haste to catch Post— | My dear sir | Yours very truly | C. Darwin Incomplete Duke University, Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library (letter album compiled by William Sharpey, secretary of the Royal Society of London) 1

h

d i

The addressee is conjectured from the provenance, and the date range from Sharpey’s tenure as secretary of the Royal Society of London.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

194 2

Joseph Dalton Hooker. The other man referred to and what he was proposed for is not known.

To a librarian   [early September? 1854]1 Mr C. Darwin will return the books tomorrow (Thursday) with the exception of 2 vols. & begs to have ready for the porter2 Pepys’s Diary (without the first vol)3 Miss Mitford’s Our village4 Veillées du Chateau Mme. de Genlis5 Mrs Merediths Tasmania6 Down Bromley Kent Wednesday L photocopy The British Library (Surrogate RP 9763) 1

2

3 4 5 6

The date is conjectured by a reference dated 16 September 1854 to CD’s reading the first three volumes of Samuel Pepys’s diary (Pepys 1848–9; CD’s reading notebooks, Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix IV, 128: 9). The Down carrier service, operated by George Snow, went to London early on Thursdays (Post Office directory of the six home counties 1851). The letter may have been sent to Mudie’s Lending Library, which CD occasionally used (see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to T. H. Huxley, 7 January [1867]); he was also a member of the London Library (Correspondence vol. 3, letter to J. D. Hooker, 19 March [1845]). CD recording reading the first three volumes of Pepys’s diaries on 16 September (see n. 1, above). Mary Russell Mitford’s Our village (Mitford 1824–32), a series of sketches of village scenes and characters. Madame de Genlis’s Les Veillées du château, ou, Cours de morale à l’usage des enfans (Evenings at the castle, or, ethical lessons for use by children; [Genlis] 1784). Louisa Anne Meredith’s My home in Tasmania (Meredith 1852).

To Armand de Quatrefages   20 November [1855]1 Down Farnborough Kent Nov. 20th.— Dear Sir Your very obliging note to me on a former occasion & your present of your Souvenirs (every word of which I have read with much interest) makes me think that perhaps you would oblige me this once with a little information.2 I am slowly preparing a work on the variation of Species, & a statement by M. Flourens has interested me greatly, namely that the hybrid offspring of Dogs, wolves, & Jackalls are sterile inter se in the 3d. generation. This is stated in his “Longévité Humaine”; but no details of his experiments are given.—3 Now I want to know whether details are published in any other work, or if not, (if you are at all intimate with M. Flourens)4 whether you would inquire for me, whether the sterility of these hybrids in the 3d generation was ascertained in several cases, & whether they were sterile with the pure species, or only sterile one hybrid with another.— One more favour,

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

195

M. Dureau de la Malle has published a pamphlet “sur les races des Chevaux,” which I have ordered, & am answered that it is not for sale.5 Could you find out for me whether it was published in any Transactions, & if not do you think you could procure me a copy.— I am well aware that it is mere chance whether you can so far oblige me, & could spare the time to take so much trouble. With many apologies & with much respect, I remain | Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin I do not know whether you read English fluently, but if you do, I should be proud to send you a Copy of my “Journal of Researches into the Natural History of the countries visited by the Beagle”: parts of which, I think, might interest you; though having no pretension to compete in popularity with your Souvenirs.—6 Bibliothèque nationale de France, département des Manuscrits (Collection d’autographes formée de la correspondance reçue ou acquise par Étienne de Jouy, Jules Lacroix, Paul Lacroix MS-9623 (2035)) 1

2 3

4 5 6

The year is established by the fact that CD recorded having read Quatrefages’s Souvenirs d’un naturaliste (Quatrefages 1854) on 30 October 1855 (Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix IV, 128: 14). From October 1855, CD usually addressed his letters ‘Down Bromley Kent’ rather than ‘Down Farnborough Kent’, but he seems to have used ‘Farnborough’ occasionally after that. Quatrefages’s earlier note has not been found. There is an annotated copy of Quatrefages 1854 in the Darwin Library–CUL. There is an annotated copy of Pierre Flourens’s De la longévité humaine et de la quantité de vie sur la globe (On human longevity and the amount of life on the globe; Flourens 1855) in the Darwin Library–CUL. See Flourens 1855, pp. 109, 143–4. CD was working on his ‘Big book’ on species, published posthumously as Natural selection. Quatrefages and Flourens were professors at the Muséum d’histoire naturelle in Paris. Adolphe Jules César Auguste Dureau de la Malle’s pamphlet (Dureau de la Malle 1855) was extracted from the Moniteur universel, 16 March 1855. Quatrefages’s reply has not been found, but CD did send his Journal of researches 2d ed.; see Correspondence vol. 7, letter to Armand de Quatrefages, 4 January [1858?] (corrected to the date of 4 January [1856]).

To R. H. Bakewell   30 April [1856–68]1 Down Bromley Kent April 30th Dear Sir I beg leave to return you my very sincere thanks for your kindness in taking the trouble to send me the particulars of the very curious case of inherited malconformation, which has interested me much.—2 With my best thanks | I remain Dear Sir | Yours faithfully & obliged | Charles Darwin Christie’s, London (dealers) (4 June 2008) 1

2

h

d i

The date range is established by the form of the address, which was used by CD between 1842 and 1846, June to December 1853, and October 1855 to March 1869, and by Bakewell’s age (he was born in 1831). The recipient is established by an annotation, ‘Dr Bakewell’, on the letter. Bakewell’s letter has not been found, and the case has not been identified.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

196

To E. W. V. Harcourt   9 May [1856] Down Farnborough Kent May 9th Sir I do not know whether you will allow a strong taste for Natural History as some excuse for the liberty I take in writing to you & begging the favour of a little information. Having visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle & collected at many islands, I am greatly interested in their natural History, & I have lately seen your list, with valuable remarks, of the birds of Madeira.—1 I observe in your list a considerable number of occasional visitants, & I am for reasons, with which I will not trouble you, very curious to hear, whether you have any idea how frequently such stray wanderers visit the island. Whether, for instance, the same wanderer has been seen more than once. If I knew at what date the list was begun, then I could, on the supposition that the same species had never arrived more than once, get some very rude idea whether on an average one or two wandering Birds arrived in the course of a year. Might I ask whether the wanderers have been observed at the times of migration of the Europæan species?— I presume there can be no sort of evidence to lead to the belief that wanderers of the same species of Birds, which permanently inhabit the island, are ever blown from the continent to Madeira.— I suppose I am right in inferring from your list that no regular migratory Birds inhabit Madeira.—2 If you will forgive this rather long series of questions, & be so kind, at your leisure, to afford me any information, I shall feel very much obliged, & I beg to remain | Sir | Your obliged servant | Charles Darwin Endorsement: ‘1856’ Bodleian Libraries, Oxford (MS. Harcourt dep. adds. 346, fols. 248–9) 1

2

CD’s annotated copy of Harcourt’s paper on the ornithology of Madeira (Harcourt 1855), published in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, is in the unbound journal collection in the Darwin Archive–CUL. For Harcourt’s reply, see Correspondence vol. 6, letter from E. W. V. Harcourt, 31 May 1856.

To E. W. V. Harcourt   1 June [1856] Down Farnborough Kent June 1st Dear Sir I really hardly know how to thank you sufficiently for your very great kindness in taking so much trouble in answering all my questions so very fully.1 Almost every word of your letter is of real value to me. I thank you, also, for the copy of your paper, which I am glad to have separate, though I have it in the Annals & have read it in your work on Madeira.—2 The information which you have given me, is very much fuller than I had dared to hope for.— The subject interests me under several

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

197

points of view, namely in regard to the direct colonisation of islands by Birds,3 & indirectly with regard to the possibility of seeds being brought over adhering to the feet or base of beak, or in the crops of birds;4 & indeed under several other points of view not worth mentioning. Pray again permit me to thank you for your kindness, & for your very obliging expressions towards myself, which gratify me much. And I beg to remain | Yours very truly obliged | Charles Darwin Endorsement: ‘1856.’ Bodleian Libraries, Oxford (MS. Harcourt dep. adds. 346, fols. 250–1) 1 2

3 4

See Correspondence vol. 6, letter from E. W. V. Harcourt, 31 May 1856. Harcourt sent a marked-up offprint of his paper on birds of Madeira, which was published in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History (Harcourt 1855). The offprint is in DAR 196.4: 1. Harcourt also published a list of birds in his Sketch of Madeira (Harcourt 1851). CD read this in June 1855 (CD’s reading notebooks, Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix IV, 128: 12). CD cited Harcourt for information on European and African birds blown to Madeira in Origin, p. 391. See also Correspondence vol. 6, letter to T. C. Eyton, 31 August [1856].

To E. W. V. Harcourt   12 June [1856] Down Farnborough Kent June 12th Dear Sir I venture to trouble you once again, in accordance with the very kind permission given in your former note.1 Though I did not then at all anticipate that I shd. so soon have had occasion to take advantage of it.— It is quite likely that you may not be able to give me the desired information & it will depend on your having a collection of skins of Madeira Birds.— Mr. Wollaston insists very strongly on those insects which are common 〈in〉 Europe, being generally of 〈a〉 smaller size in Madeira2 This point interests me much, & reminds me that the few non-endemic B〈irds〉 of the Galapagos Arch. w〈ere〉 of a smaller size than the same species elswhere. Have you any reason to think that this is so, even in 〈a〉 slight degree, at Madeira〈?〉 I have looked to your paper & to an abstract which I made of your Book, but cannot find any remark on this head;3 so that in all probability my question is superfluous, but yet I have thought that you would excuse me making it.— Secondly, Mr Wollaston quotes on Mr Gould’s authority that certain races of Swallows, which migrate viâ Malta have certainly rather shorter wings, than have the same species which migrate by a longer route.—4 I think it would be an interesting point, if you have the means, carefully to compare the length of wing of the nonmigratory swallows of Madeira with the skins of the same species from Europe.— Lastly I am taking great trouble in collecting skins (& live birds) of all the many domestic varieties of Columba livia from all parts of the world: and I have written to a Mr. Mason, a professional collector now at Madeira to collect skins of the rock Pigeons for me; but I suspect that he is so little of an ornithologist, that he will collect

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

198

for me perhaps only the other species.5 I see that you mention the C. livia, & a darker variety, as found at Madeira.6 Have you skins of these? & if I fail in getting specimens through Mr. Mason, would you have the great kindness to let me sometime look at your specimens? I fear that you will repent of your kindness, & think that you have got a very troublesome correspondent. | I beg to remain | Dear Sir | Your obliged servant | Charles Darwin Endorsement: ‘1856.’ Bodleian Libraries, Oxford (MS. Harcourt dep. adds. 346, fols. 252–4) 1 2

3 4 5 6

Harcourt’s reply to CD’s letter of 1 June [1856] (this volume, Supplement) has not been found, but see Correspondence vol. 6, letter from E. W. V. Harcourt, 31 May 1856. CD had recently read Thomas Vernon Wollaston’s On the variation of species, with especial reference to the Insecta (Wollaston 1856; see Correspondence vol. 6, letter to T. V. Wollaston, 6 June [1856]). Wollaston had discussed at length the effects of isolation on islands (Wollaston 1856, pp. 70–88); he concluded that isolation, after a sufficient period of time, had a direct tendency either to diminish the stature of insect tribes or else to neutralise their power of flight (ibid., pp. 84–5). Harcourt 1851 and Harcourt 1855. CD’s abstract of Harcourt’s Sketch of Madeira (Harcourt 1851) is in DAR 71: 87–8. John Gould. See Wollaston 1856, p. 102. CD’s letter to Nathaniel Haslope Mason, who collected plants on Madeira, has not been found. See Harcourt 1851, p. 121, and Harcourt 1855, p. 437. Columba livia is the rock pigeon; the darker species was C. trocaz, the Madeira laurel pigeon or long-toed pigeon.

To E. W. V. Harcourt   24 June [1856] Down Farnborough Kent June 24th Dear Sir I am very much obliged for your note & will certainly take advantage of your offer & visit Mr. Leadbeater, but I am not likely to go to London for some weeks.—1 I can take a Rock Pigeon for comparison; but for the swallows (& perhaps a few other Birds) I could only compare them by taking them to the British Museum. Will you entrust them to me? I will pledge myself to take them back the same or next day: in this case, I fear, I shd. have to trouble you to send me a line addressed to Mr Leadbeater, instructing him to give me the skins.— I am particularly obliged for your kind offer of assistance in case you are compelled to go to Ægypt. On the most ancient monuments there is figured a greyhound-like Dog, but with longer pointed ears, & an extraordinary very short & very much curled tail: Nott & Gliddon in their curious Book assert that exactly the same variety now exists in N. Africa; & I am very curious to hear whether this is really so, for it would be a truly wonderful instance of permanence in a variety, & I shd. be very much obliged if you would make enquiries: I can hardly credit this statement of these not very accurate authors.—2 The subject, which I am chiefly intent on, in regard to variation, is the Domestic Pigeon.3 Skins are on their road to me sent by Mr. Murray from Persia,4 & I hope

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

199

to get all the breeds from India & China. Any assistance of this nature would be invaluable; but I know it is much too troublesome to expect you yourself to skin birds for me, & I fear there is little chance of your being able to find anyone who could skin; but if this were possible, & you could hear of any breeds of Pigeon, believed to have been long kept in Ægypt, I would gratefully, with your permission, repay you for their purchase & skinning. The Birds shd. be adult   A Tumbler would be particularly valuable, & I hope to get Tumblers from all quarters of the world.— Any observations on any of the domestic animals, as Ducks, Poultry, Rabbits (the skeletons of which I am collecting with great pains),5 Dogs, or Cats, would be very interesting to me.— I am sure you will see that I have taken your most kind offer in the most literal & freest manner. With my very sincere thanks | I beg leave to remain | Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin My hand is so tired with writing that I fear this note will be even less legible than at the best of times.— Endorsement: ‘1856.’ Bodleian Libraries, Oxford (MS. Harcourt dep. adds. 346, fols. 255–7) 1

2 3 4 5

Harcourt’s letter has not been found. John Leadbeater was a taxidermist and bird dealer in London. CD next visited London on 14 August 1856 (Correspondence vol. 6, Appendix II). CD wanted to compare Harcourt’s Madeiran bird specimens with others (see this volume, Supplement, letter to E. W. V. Harcourt, 12 June [1856]). CD cited Josiah Clark Nott and George Robbins Gliddon’s Types of mankind (Nott and Gliddon 1854, p. 393) on the ancient Egyptian dog in Variation 1: 17. See Origin, pp. 20–8, and Variation 1: 131–224. CD cited Charles Augustus Murray, a diplomat, for sending him pigeon skins from Persia in Origin, p. 20. Tumblers are a variety of domestic pigeons bred for their ability to tumble or roll over backwards in flight; several different types of tumbler were bred in Europe, Persia (Iran), and India. On rabbits’ skeletons, see Correspondence vol. 6, letter to W. D. Fox, 8 [June 1856] and n. 8.

From John Higgins   17 November 1856 Alford 17th. Novr. 1856 Dear Sir, Your Tenant at Beesby (Mr Hardy)1 has spent large sums of money in underdraining his Farm with Tiles, and otherwise has managed it exceedingly well; he found his Fold Yard, and Cattle Sheds too small for the proper treading down of the Straw, and as I (on your behalf) refused to build more; Mr. Hardy three years ago spent £105 in constructing an additional yard, and Cattle accommodation of best bricks and foreign Timber adjoining to his other yard, which work is done in a very substantial and permanent manner. The rent audit is fixed for Tuesday next the 25th. before which day I beg to submit for your approval and decision three modes of disposing of this Claim of the Tenant 1st. For you to pay Hardy back the £105 which he has expended, upon his paying

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

200

5 per cent Interest upon that sum in addition to the increased rent of £43.10.0 which he is to pay from Lady Day last; otherwise that the £105 shall remain a lien upon the Farm for 15 years to be paid to him or his Exōrs in the event of his death or removal from the farm, before the expiration of that period, reducing the claim 151 th . part for every year he shall continue Tenant, and to be wholly extinguished at the end of 15 years. Will you do me the favor to say wh. of these plans you will prefer?2 I am Dear, Sir, | Yours faithfully | John Higgins C. R. Darwin Esq Copy Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/1/98) 1 2

Francis Hardy. CD wrote that he preferred the lien, but was willing to be advised otherwise by Higgins (Correspondence vol. 6, letter to John Higgins, 19 November [1856]).

From George Bentham   2 December [1856]1 91 Victoria Street | West W Decr 2 My dear Sir The cases amongst Leguminosae where the apetalous flowers almost (but not quite) without anthers produce more seed than the perfect flowers are certainly two South of France Ononises O. minutissima and parviflora the North American and some of the Asiatic Lespedezas, a South American Clitoria and one of the closely allied genus Neurocarpum—of which the apetalous flowers have been described as Martia the North American Amphicarpaea monoica.—2 I had formerly thought that a much more curious instance of bisexuality was in Arachis, and Stylosanthes and I may have given you those names, but in those cases I was mistaken—deceived by the sudden changes, that take place after fecundation—so take care how you quote me for them.3 The most curious instance of this kind of bisexuality in British Plants, and one in which the mode of impregnation has not been observed is in our Violets—V. odorata V. canina and V. palustris.4 If you look at any of them in July you will find numbers of minute flowers—a calyx, small abortive petals and stamens shorter than the calyx or even none at all, a perfect ovary which always ripens its seed whilst the showy spring flowers scarcely ever do   The variety called Russian violet is very remarkable for the great number of these summer flowers which I have seen go on till September when they gradually begin to have petals and stamens again.5 In Ononis parviflora the apetalous flowers are very early, in spring, the perfect ones come later   In Viola the perfect ones are early the apetalous ones later Similar unisexuality has been observed in North American Cistineae (Helianthemum & Lechea) in tropical American pentandrous Malpighiaceae, and

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

201

several other plants—but these have exposed stamens to their perfect flowers whilst in Viola and Papilionaceae they are concealed.6 Your’s very sincerely | George Bentham DAR 111: A75–6 CD annotations 1.1 The cases … Lespedezas, 1.4] crossed pencil 1.2 South of France 1.3] underl pencil 1.6 I had … them. 1.10] crossed pencil 2.1 The most … again. 2.8] crossed ink 2.3 V. palustris.] underl red crayon 2.3 July] underl pencil 2.6 Russian] underl pencil 3.1 In … later 3.2] crossed pencil; ‘So not coincident.’ added pencil 4.1 Similar … concealed. 4.4] crossed ink 1 2

3

4 5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to George Bentham, 30 November [1856] (Correspondence vol. 6). Bentham left the Victoria Street address in 1861 (ODNB). See Correspondence vol. 6, letter to George Bentham, 30 November [1856]). Ononis minutissima is pygmy restharrow; O. parviflora is a synonym of Lotononis parviflora. Lespedeza is the genus of bush clovers. Clitoria is a genus of peas; Neurocarpum, sometimes considered a subgenus, is a synonym of Clitoria. Viola martia is a synonym of V. odorata (sweet violet). Amphicarpaea monoica is a synonym of A. bracteata (American hog peanut). See Correspondence vol. 5, letter from J. D. Hooker, [after 11 December 1854], containing Bentham’s list of ‘Most Anomalous Leguminosæ’. Arachis and Stylosanthes (pencilflower) are closely related genera of the family Leguminosae (a synonym of Fabaceae). Viola odorata is sweet violet; V. canina is dog violet; V. palustris is marsh violet. Russian violet is Viola suavis. Cistineae is a former natural order that corresponds roughly to the modern family Cistaceae (rock rose) and includes the North American genera Helianthemum (frostweed) and Lechea (pinweed). Malpighiaceae is a tropical family, most of whose members are from the Americas.

From J. B. Bacon to Elizabeth Drysdale   [1857–62?]1 My dear Lady Drysdale— I have asked my man the questions you wished about the heath. He says it is a slow growing plant and is generally cut every 6 years but that there is no fixed period. The cutting it, does not depend upon its having come to its full growth. It is often burnt down and sheep are fed on the young shoots that spring up— of course it will grow more luxuriantly on some soils than others but he does not seem to think there is any limit to its life as the roots send up fresh shoots when the upper part dies away. For making use of it from burning I should think from what he says that it would be in the best condition at 6 yrs. growth. I am afraid these particulars will be scarcely explicit enough for your purpose.2 Believe Me | Yours Sincerely | J B Bacon DAR 46.1: 93

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

202

CD annotations 1.2 generally … years] underl red crayon Top of letter: ‘Growth of Heath from Burning & other purpose about 6 years in Surrey’ ink; ‘Ch V.’ red crayon 1

2

The year range is conjectured from the subject matter; CD made notes on heaths, associated with chapter 5 of his ‘big book’ on species (posthumously published as Natural selection) between November 1857 and May 1862 (DAR 46.1: 32 and 53). This letter was preserved in the same portfolio of notes. See Natural selection, pp. 172–3, 196, 198, and Origin, pp. 71–2. Bacon has not been further identified, but the motto ‘Mediocria firma’ printed as a letterhead suggests that he or she was a member of the famous family to which Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) also belonged. CD met Elizabeth Drysdale at Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey, in 1857 (Correspondence vol. 6, letter to J. D. Hooker, 25 June [1857]). The specific question about heath has not been identified. Heath is not one plant but an assemblage of shrubby vegetation, typically growing on acidic, nutrient-poor ground, such as sandy or peaty soils; plants of the genera Erica, Sphagnum, Carex, Molinia, and Trichophorum are typical of heaths. CD did not make use of this information about burning or cutting heath.

To W. H. Harvey   7 January [1857]1 Down Bromley Kent Jan. 7th.— My dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for your kind information which is just the amount which I wanted.— I fear I shall not be at Dublin, the frightful voyage with all its sickness would alone deter me!2 With many thanks. Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin Sheffield City Archives (Gatty family autograph albums X561/1/1) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from W. H. Harvey, 3 January 1857 (Correspondence vol. 6). See letter from W. H. Harvey, 3 January 1857 (Correspondence vol. 6). CD did not attend the Dublin meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held from 26 August to 2 September 1857.

To William Sharpey   22 May [1857]1 Down Bromley Kent May 22 d Dear Sharpey I am most entirely of Huxley’s opinion that A. Hancock’s claims are of a very high order, & I think he has done amply enough for a Royal medal even without the paper lately sent to the Society.—2 Supposing that no Botanist is brought forward with strong claims, I think it deserves notice that Geology has hardly, perhaps, been sufficiently noticed with honour by the Royal Socy.— I forget who are the geologists on the Council; but in my opinion a medal could not be bestowed better than on Prestwich for his excellent work in correlating the very difficult Tertiary strata of the S. England & on the continent.3 If I had been on council, I think I would have

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

203

proposed him, & in that case I shd. have got Lyell’s4 opinion & judgment, as the most capable judge living on such a subject; & I feel pretty sure he would show that my opinion was correct on the high value of Prestwich’s work.— From what you say I presume the Copley certainly will not be given this year to any branch of the Natural Sciences, but as you are permanently attached to the Society, I may take this opportunity of expressing my very strong opinion on the claims of Lyell for the Copley Medal: I am aware that he had many years ago a Royal medal for the Principles, but I think the amount & value of his various works would most amply justify the Copley.5 It is my deliberate conviction that the future Historian of the Natural Sciences, will rank Lyell’s labours as more influential in the advancement of Science, than those of any other living man, let him be who he may; & I do not think I am biassed by my old friendship for the man.— Do bear this name in mind & believe me | Dear Sharpey | Your’s sincerely | C. Darwin The way I try to judge of a man’s merit is to imagine what would have been the state of the Science if he had not lived; & under this point of view I think no man ranks in the same class with Lyell. He has even powerfully affected certain departments of Zoology & Botany,— Take as instance E. Forbes’ work.6 D. and E. Lake Ltd (dealers) (June 2016) 1 2 3 4 5

6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to William Sharpey, 2 June [1857] (Correspondence vol. 6). Thomas Henry Huxley. Albany Hancock’s paper, ‘On the organization of the Brachiopoda’, was read at the Royal Society of London on 14 May 1857 (Hancock 1857). Joseph Prestwich; see Prestwich 1854a and 1854b. Charles Lyell. Sharpey’s letter to CD has not been found; he was secretary of the Royal Society from 1853 to 1872. In 1857, the Copley Medal of the society was awarded to Michel Eugène Chevreul; in 1858, it was awarded to Lyell. Lyell was awarded a Royal Medal in 1834 for Principles of geology (C. Lyell 1830–3). (Record of the Royal Society of London.) Edward Forbes had been interested in the relationship between plant and animal distribution and geological change; see especially Forbes 1846.

To [W. W. Baxter?]   [after June 1857]1 Please to send tomorrow morning by Post-man 1 quart of distilled Water in clean Bottle for Photography C Darwin Down | Saturday Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation (Archives, Autograph Letters and Manuscripts Collection) 1

h

d i

From 1857, W. W. Baxter of Bromley was CD’s regular chemist. The date is established from references to buying photography supplies for William Erasmus Darwin in CD’s Classed accounts (Down House MS). CD spent £9 5s. on ‘Photography’ on 23 July 1857, and £2 15s. on ‘Photography for William’ on

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

204

28 December 1857. (These particular payments were unlikely to have been to Baxter, however; CD paid Baxter’s bill annually, in January (CD’s Account books–cash account).)

To John Higgins   9 December 1857 Down Bromley Kent Dec. 9th. 1857 Ch. Darwin My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for £248:2:1, placed to my account at the Union Bank.—1 Pray believe me, My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin To | John Higgins Esq Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent. CD signed across a stamp (see also plate on p. 216). In 1853, a penny duty on documents functioning as receipts was introduced. After the new measure came into force on 11 October 1853, any receipt for a sum of £2 or more had to carry a one penny stamp if it was to be an admissible record of the transaction (Annual Register (1853): 56; Economist 11 (1853): 1127). See also Correspondence vol. 5, letter to John Higgins, 2–3 December [1853].

To E. W. V. Harcourt   13 December [1857] Down Bromley Kent Decr 13th My dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in writing to me, & for your most obliging offer of the Pigeons, after you have succeeded in breeding some.1 I hope to go to the Poultry Show on purpose to see these Birds.2 I venture to trouble you with one question while the subject is fresh in your mind, viz, whether the Blue bird of the Boz Breed from Tunis, had (1) the double black Bar on wing; 2d whether its rump above tail was white or blueish— 3d whether there was double bar at end of tail (4th) whether the basal outer margin of outer tail feather was white, as with Rock Pigeon, though of course, it is a mere chance whether you attended to this point.3 The reason I ask is, because I have found Blue birds with the foregoing characters, in all the Breeds, & it is one of my arguments, that all have descended from the Rock.4 If the Boz breed is very different from other Breeds, it would be highly desirable to pair your spare Hen with some other distinct breed, to test whether hybrids from it would be fertile like all other hybrids from domestic Pigeons.—5 Would you be so kind as to take the trouble to answer this query about the Blue Pigeon.— There seems a considerable amount of variation in the Boz Breed.— Permit me once again to thank you for the kind manner in which you answered my questions about the Madeira Birds, & your answers have been extremely useful to

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

205

me.—6 With apologies for having troubled you at such length, I beg leave to remain | Yours faithfully & obliged | Charles Darwin P.S. | Should you have the misfortune to have any of your three Birds die, & if you do not want the skin, would you send it me by enclosed address? & I would have it skinned or skeletonised. Please to copy the following address for Parcel, Exactly, and do not add my Post Address, as Parcels often go wrong. C. Darwin, Esq., | Care of Mr. Acton, | Bromley, | Kent. Per Railway & (Per Coach.)7 Endorsement: ‘1857’ Bodleian Libraries, Oxford (MS. Harcourt dep. adds. 346, fols. 258–62) 1 2

3

4

5 6

7

Harcourt’s letter to CD has not been found. From 1857, a twice-yearly poultry show, the largest in the London area, took place at the Crystal Palace, in Sydenham, Kent (Secord 1981, p. 171). The next show took place from 9 to 12 January 1858 (The Times, 11 January 1858, p. 5). Harcourt had imported the first African owls (a variety of pigeon) from Tunis under the name ‘Booz’ pigeons; they were first exhibited at the January 1858 poultry show at the Crystal Palace. They were the smallest known variety of domestic pigeon, and reportedly were allowed to pair as they liked in their native land. (J. C. Lyell 1881, pp. 212–17.) This pigeon breed is characterised by a range of colours from white to blue, the colour of the wild rock pigeon (Columba livia). Rock pigeons have double black bars on their wings; these are notably absent in domestic breeds. For CD’s argument that reversion to rock-pigeon plumage, amongst other things, suggested that all pigeon varieties had descended from the rock pigeon, see Origin, pp. 25–6, and Variation 1: 195–201. There is an illustration of an African owl in Variation 1: 149. See Origin, p. 26, and Variation 1: 192–4. See Correspondence vol. 6, letter from E. W. V. Harcourt, 31 May 1856. No other letters from Harcourt to CD have been found. CD credited Harcourt for information in Origin, p. 391, and Variation 1: 149. In a later letter to an ornithological journal, Harcourt wrote, ‘I collected Pigeons for Darwin when he was investigating the question of the development of difference in species at various ages, from which it appeared that the Booz Pigeon from Tunis was hatched with an abnormally small beak, contrary to his favourite theory’ (Ibis 3 (1891): 626). The final two paragraphs of the letter are on a printed form, with handwritten corrections, that is stuck to the page. Samuel Poole Acton was the Bromley postmaster.

To E. W. V. Harcourt   15 December [1857] Down Bromley Kent December 15th My dear Sir I am very much obliged for your kind note & invitation; but my health has been for some time so indifferent that I hardly ever leave home, & a journey to Hastings would fatigue me considerably.1 I thank you much for your very obliging offer of lending me the Pigeons; but it so long & troublesome a journey to this out of the way village that it is not worth while on the poor Pigeons & my own account to accept your offer; more especially as I shall so soon have a good opportunity of seeing them at the Crystal Palace.2 I look forward with much interest to seeing them; for I suspect that they will turn out

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

206

to be unimproved Barbs; & if so though in the Fanciers eyes of not much value they will be of extreme interest to me.—3 I have now got skins of unimproved Carriers & Tumblers both from Persia & India, & it is most instructive to me to see the changes (& improvements as the Fanciers consider them) which have been produced in these birds.— If they turn out to be original Barbs or any Breed new to me, I will most gratefully accept your offer of a specimen or two after they have bred in the Spring.— With my very true thanks, I beg leave to remain. | Yours sincerely obliged | Ch. Darwin Endorsement: ‘1857’ Bodleian Libraries, Oxford (MS. Harcourt dep. adds. 346, fols. 263–4) 1 2 3

Harcourt’s letter has not been found; he lived at Hastings (Correspondence vol. 6, letter from E. W. V. Harcourt, 31 May 1856). See this volume, Supplement, letter to E. W. V. Harcourt, 13 December [1857] and n. 2. Harcourt evidently offered to lend CD his African owl pigeons. Barbs were an old pigeon breed, notable for their very short beaks; this feature was also characteristic of African owl pigeons. In Variation 1: 144–6 and 148–9, CD placed these breeds in different groups, despite the similarities of beak size.

To E. W. V. Harcourt   13 January [1858] Down Bromley Kent Jan. 13th My dear Sir I went yesterday & saw your birds, which I am glad to see got a prize. They are, as you no doubt know Owls, a breed barely distinguished from Turbits (Turbits having the feathers reversed on back of the head, as I believe is the case with your Algiers Hen).1 They seemed to me to be extraordinarily good birds in beak & head, having considerably smaller a beak than in any the best owl I have seen. But a far higher authority than I am, Mr Esquilant, ex-Secretary to the Philo-peristeron Socy2 (you may imagine from grandeur of title how great an authority he is) declared to me that they were “inimitable”—that they were “the treasures of the whole exhibition”,— that he would exchange his own best birds of any breed, even the sacred short-faced Tumblers, for a pair of the young of yours &c &.c.— Mr Esquilant remarked to me, that though so very good yet he thought from general resemblance to British Birds that they must have been introduced from Europe into N. Africa.— Did you make any enquiry on this head? Is Boz a Tunisian name?3 Do you know whether many of this breed are kept? Are they allowed to fly & field for themselves? Are they valued much? & is much care taken in selecting & breeding them? If not too troublesome, I shd. be very glad for a little more information on these birds. And shd. you have the accident to lose one, I shd. be very glad of its body to make measurements & skeletonise it. You were so kind as to offer me a pair of the young; but they had better be bestowed on some Fancier, as I think I shall give up my pigeons at the end of the summer, as I care for them only in relation to my subject of Variation; & I think I have got nearly all the good out of Pigeons, which I can get.—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

207

I have been extremely glad to see your Birds, which certainly are marvels of their kind, though of less interest to me, than unimproved Birds, for certainly, strange as you may think it, I must think these Owls are descendants of the C. livia.—4 With my cordial thanks for all your kindness, I beg leave to remain | Yours very sincerely | C. Darwin Endorsement: ‘1858’ Bodleian Libraries, Oxford (MS. Harcourt dep. adds. 346, fols. 265–8) 1

2 3 4

See this volume, Supplement, letter to E. W. V. Harcourt, 13 December [1857] and nn. 2 and 3. Harcourt had exhibited a variety of pigeon known as ‘owls’ from Tunis at the poultry show held at the Crystal Palace in Sydenham, Kent, from 9 to 12 January 1858. Turbits are another variety of pigeon; in Variation 1: 148–50, CD had grouped them together with owls in the same race. Frederick Caius Esquilant. The Philoperisteron was a society of pigeon fanciers (see Secord 1981). Harcourt had exhibited the pigeons under the name ‘Booz’ pigeons; see this volume, Supplement, letter to E. W. V. Harcourt, 13 December [1857] and n. 3. Columbia livia is the rock pigeon (see Origin, pp. 25–6, and Variation 1: 134–6).

From J. D. Hooker   15 January 1858 Friday Jany 15/581 My dear Darwin The Leguminous affair is extremely curious, I am quite gone over to your side in the matter of eternal hybrids & hermaph.2 Carmichælia & Clianthus have closed flowers, & hence probably require artificial hybridization but Edwardsia has exserted genitalia. & should not be parallel case With regard to the Wellington Clover case, it really looks too good— my impression is that Wellington was hardly a colony before 1842, & that there could not be sufficient clover cultivation there before that to warrant any conclusions, but I may be wrong—3 At any rate I should like some definite details of the state & extent of Clover-crops before 1842, say in 1839–40— I will show your letter to Sinclair, who will be here tomorrow.4 None of the New Zealand Legumes have flowers quite as small as Clover, though those of Carmichælia & of Notospartium are very small.5 Is it not dangerous to assume that Humble bees would not visit small flowers in New Zealand, because they do not in England— In England I fancy the more numerous & active hive-bee forestalls the Humble bee in the matter of small flowers—if indeed the Humble bees do not visit the latter— They surely visit Heather-flowers in Scotland? It would indeed be curious if a relation could be traced between no bees & no small fld. Leguminosæ—but you must remember the strange absence of small Leguminosæ in Fuegia, Falklands, & the Pacific Islands generally. The question hence becomes a very involved one, & forms part of a larger one, viz is there any relation between the Geog. distrib. of bees & of Leguminosæ. Bentham’s late researches into the British Flora have so greatly modified his views of the limits of species, that in my eyes they invalidate the results of local Floras very materially. He has completed the MS. of his British Flora, having studied every

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

208

species from all parts of the world, and most of them alive in Britain, France, and other parts of Europe. Well—he has turned out as great a lumper as I am! and worse.6 Then did you see a paper of Decaisne’s on Pyrus, translated in Gard. Chron. about 3 weeks ago—in which he adopts Thomson’s and my views of species and says that if he had to monograph Plantaginaceae again he would reduce whole sections to one species and of course as many species, i.e. marked forms, would then rank as varieties. Now it was Decaisne (a most admirable Botanist) who on receiving the Flora Indica, wrote me most kindly and earnestly begging me to reconsider my mode of viewing species, and hinting that I was going to the devil.7 All this does not directly affect your results, but it shows that you should draw them from materials of all kinds—local and general, and from systematists. 〈section missing〉8 forms & should never have dreamed of establishing two varieties on the 20 specimens, but simply regarded the plant as variable. Are you coming up next week— we hope the Sulivans9 are coming to take a quiet pot-luck with us on Tuesday at 6 when Sinclair will be here & Lindley—10 Can you not come if to be in Town? Henslow will be here on the following week.11 E〈ver yrs〉 affly AL incomplete DAR 100: 120–1; L. Huxley ed. 1918, 1: 453 CD annotations 1.1 The Leguminous … artificial hybridization 1.3] crossed pencil 1.3 Edwardsia] square bracket added before, pencil 3.1 None of the … very small. 3.2] double scored pencil 7.1 forms & … E〈ver yrs〉 affly 10.1] crossed pencil Top of first page: ‘1843’ pencil, del brown crayon; ‘Dichogam—’ brown crayon 1

2 3

4

5

6

h

d i

0 0

Hooker first wrote the date as ‘57’ then altered it to ‘58’. This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 7, without the two paragraphs beginning, ‘Bentham’s latest researches’ and ‘Then did you see’, which are printed in L. Huxley ed. 1918, 1: 453. See Correspondence vol. 7, letter to J. D. Hooker, 12 January [1858] and n. 2. Peas and beans are in the family Fabaceae or Leguminosae. Hooker had spent three months in New Zealand in 1841, during the time he served as assistant surgeon on James Clark Ross’s Antarctic voyage (1839–43). In Journal of researches 2d ed., p. 425, CD had remarked on seeing fields of clover being cultivated at Waimate, on the South Island in New Zealand. Wellington is on the southern tip of the North Island. Andrew Sinclair, colonial secretary in New Zealand, 1844–56, had spent some weeks collecting plants with Hooker during Hooker’s stay in New Zealand (see n. 3, above). Sinclair returned to England in 1856. Carmichaelia is the genus of New Zealand brooms; Notospartium is a former genus, now subsumed within the genus Carmichaelia. Most species are pollinated by solitary native bees of the genus Leioproctus, but at least one species is pollinated by birds. George Bentham’s Handbook of the British flora was published in 1858 (Bentham 1858). In taxonomic classification, ‘lumpers’ are those who wish to reduce the number of systematic groups, while ‘splitters’ increase them. CD had identified the difference between the two approaches as evidence of the difficulty in distinguishing species (see Origin, pp. 44–59).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 7

8 9 10 11

209

Joseph Decaisne’s paper on the development of the floral organs in Pyrus (the genus of pears) was published in translation in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 14 November 1857 (Decaisne 1857). The plantain family is Plantaginaceae. Hooker and Thomas Thomson had expressed their views on species in Flora Indica (J. D. Hooker and Thomson 1855, pp. 19–36). The missing section, and the two paragraphs noted in n. 1, above, were cut out, presumably by CD. The rest of the letter was written on the verso of the remaining page. Bartholomew James Sulivan, who had served as lieutenant in the Beagle, remained a good friend of CD’s. After the Crimean War, he was appointed to the marine department of the Board of Trade. John Lindley was a close friend of the Hooker family. John Stevens Henslow, Hooker’s father-in-law, had been CD’s mentor while CD was an undergraduate at Cambridge and continued to be a warm friend and correspondent from that time.

From T. M. Brewer to A. A. Gould1   [March 1858]2 My Dear Dr In regard to the subject matter of Mr Darwins note to you I have to say that I have never known an instance in which 〈our〉 Yellow-billed Cuckoo has been known to drop an egg in the nest of any othe〈r〉 bird. I have however seen a nest (—it was exhibited so not found in the field—) of the Chipping Sparrow containing the egg of a Black-billed Cuckoo—but I have always supposed it was deposited there by human 〈    〉3 〈I know〉 of few birds more faithful apparently to their own young than both species of our cuckoos. Very truly yrs | T M Brewer Dr A. A. Gould DAR 160: 305, 305/1, 305/2 CD annotation Bottom of last page: ‘Ch. 10’4 brown crayon CD note 1: Yarrell Vol. 2 p. 205 2d Editn asserts that the Coccyzus Americanus occasionally lays eggs in other birds nests5 | Nothing in Wilson or Audubon6 on subject | get Yarrell | [Number] [illeg] colour of eggs present, recognised in [nest] but some [illeg] | [illeg] says [illeg] eggs [illeg] small7 | Ch. 10 CD note 2: Look in Agassiz Catalogue for Grays paper on [maternal] instinct of Cuckoo— Read before Zoolog. Soc.8 1

2 3

4 5

h

d i

This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 7, without the note by CD. CD had asked Gould for information on the habits of the American cuckoo. Gould, in turn, had forwarded the queries to Thomas Mayo Brewer, an authority on birds’ eggs, and then sent Brewer’s reply to CD (see Correspondence vol. 7, letter to A. A. Gould, 6 April [1858]). For the basis of the date, see Correspondence vol. 7, letter to A. A. Gould, 6 April [1858], n. 1. See Correspondence vol. 7, letter to A.  A. Gould, 6  April [1858]. The yellow-billed cuckoo was Cuculus americanus (a synonym of Coccyzus americanus); the black-billed cuckoo was Cuculus erythropthalmus (a synonym of Coccyzus erythropthalmus). The chipping sparrow was Fringilla passerina (a synonym of Spizella passerina). The annotation refers to chapter 10 of CD’s posthumously published ‘Big book’ on species, on ‘Mental powers and instincts of animals’, where CD discussed the American cuckoo (Natural selection, pp. 506–7). William Yarrell’s A history of British birds (Yarrell 1845).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

210 6 7

8

CD had a copy of vol. 1 of John James Audubon’s Ornithological biography (Audubon 1831–[9]). He also refers to Alexander Wilson’s American ornithology (Wilson 1808–14). In Wilson 1808–14, 4: 14, 16, Wilson said that the size of the eggs of the yellow-billed cuckoo, which he referred to as Cuculus caroliniensis, was ‘proportionable to that of the bird’, while the eggs of the blackbilled cuckoo were smaller. Louis Agassiz’s Bibliographia zoologiæ et geologiæ 3: 111 lists a summary of remarks on the habits of cuckoos made by John Edward Gray before the Zoological Society of London on 25 October 1836 (L. Agassiz 1848–54). Gray suggested that the female cuckoo sometimes continued to look after her young, even though they were in another bird’s nest (see also Natural selection, p. 507, and Origin, p. 218).

To W. B. Tegetmeier   7 March [1858]1 Down Bromley Kent March 7th My dear Sir I wrote some weeks ago to say that I had some Fowls-skins from Burmah, which I shd. be glad to send to you, if you wd. like to see them.2 As I have not received any answer, I fear my note either miscarried, or that you are not well.— I hope sincerely that this last alternative is not the true one. I wd send Box anywhere, Carriage free.— My dear Sir | In Haste | Yours sincerely | C. Darwin Christie’s, London (dealers) (15 July 2015, lot 176) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letters to W. B. Tegetmeier, 17 January [1858] and 14 April [1858] (Correspondence vol. 7). See letter to W. B. Tegetmeier, 17 January [1858] (Correspondence vol. 7). Burmah or Burma is now known as Myanmar.

To a librarian   [c. June 1858 or later]1 Mr C. Darwin will return Jowett’s St Paul tomorrow morning (Thursday) & would be glad to have ready for the porter.2 Hugh Millars Schools & schoolmasters.3 Cruise of the Betsey4 Decressy.5 Haggarty Diamond6 L Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (James Marshall and Marie-Louise Osborn Collection: Edward G. and Hortense R. Levy Autograph Collection, Part 2 (OSB MSS 137) Box 25, folder 1188) 1 2

h

d i

0 0

The date is established by the month and year of publication of the last published item in the list of books in the letter, Miller 1858 (see n. 4, below). Benjamin Jowett’s Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans (Jowett 1855). The Down carrier service, operated by George Snow, went to London early on Thursdays (Post Office directory of the six home counties 1851). The letter may have been sent to Mudie’s Lending Library, which CD occasionally used (see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to T. H. Huxley, 7 January [1867]); he was also a member of the London Library (Correspondence vol. 3, letter to J. D. Hooker, 19 March [1845]).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 3 4

5 6

211

CD added Hugh Miller’s My schools & schoolmasters; or, the story of my education (Miller 1854) to his list of books read on 18 July 1855 (Correspondence 4, Appendix IV 128: 11). The cruise of the Betsey (Miller 1858), published in May 1858, was an account of Scottish geology, landscape, and current affairs (see Publishers’ Circular, 15 May 1858, p. 204). Emma Darwin made a note in her diary on 31 December 1858, ‘cruise of Betsy Hugh Miller’. CD listed the novel The history of the Marquis de Cressy ([Riccoboni] 1765) in his list of books read in September 1856 (Correspondence 4, Appendix IV, 128: 21). The history of Samuel Titmarsh and the great Hoggarty diamond (Thackeray 1849).

To John Higgins   9 June 1858 Down Bromley Kent June 9th 1858 My dear Sir I am much obliged for your note & account & I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of £242"11s·10d, being half-year’s rent (less deductions) paid to my account at the Union Bank1 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The rent was from CD’s tenant, Francis Hardy, at Beesby Farm, Lincolnshire.

To John Higgins   8 December 1858 Down Bromley Kent Dec. 8th. 1858 My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for your note & half-yearly account & for £250"6s"2d placed to my account at the Union Bank—.1 My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre Dominic Winter Auctioneers (2 October 2019, lot 258) 1

The rent was from CD’s tenant, Francis Hardy, at Beesby Farm, Lincolnshire.

To Frederick Smith   29 April [1859]1 Down Bromley Kent Ap. 29th My dear Sir Would you be so kind as to tell me whether you ever saw, the Slaves in the nests of F. sanguinea, go out in search of food or materials for their nest— I never did; but then there were but few slaves, when I watched for long hours.—2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

212

Huber asserts that they do, & more especially in the morning.3 I think (?) you told me that you had not seen them go out & that you considered them household slaves.4 Have you watched the colonies of F. sanguinea pretty often, & if you have not seen the slaves go foraging, will you permit me to quote you in support of what I have never seen, after many hours on many days observation. The suspicion crosses me that Huber’s F. sanguinea (Pl. 2 fig 5, 6 & 7) may be a closely allied, but different, species from ours: I see you do not give this reference to Huber.—5 Pray forgive my troubling you, & kindly oblige me with an answer.— | Yours very sincerely | C. Darwin Please to thank Mr | G. R. Gray | for his note to me.6 Natural History Museum, Library and Archive (L DC AL 1/22) 1 2 3 4 5 6

The year and the addressee are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Frederick Smith, 30 April 1859 (Correspondence vol. 7). CD wrote on Formica sanguinea (blood-red slave-making or robber ant) in Origin, pp. 219–24. Jean Pierre Huber. See Huber 1810, p. 234. CD credited Smith for this information in Origin, p. 220. See Huber 1810 and F. Smith 1854. George Robert Gray’s note has not been found.

To John Higgins   15 June 1859 Down Bromley Kent June 15. 1859 My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for the sum of £244:15s·11d., placed to my account at the Union Bank being 12 years rent on the Beesby Farm1 My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. R. Darwin Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

CD owned Beesby Farm in Lincolnshire; the tenant farmer was Francis Hardy.

To John Higgins   13 July [1859]1 Down Bromley Kent July 13th My dear Sir I am sorry to trouble you, but I have had a letter from my Uncle Sir F. Darwin in which he asks me to give his son-in-law Mr. M. Huish the right of shooting over the Beesby Farm.2 He says that Mr. H has a share in some adjoining property & that “he ocasionally goes there for the purpose of a few days’ shooting.”— I cannot remember positively what has passed between us in regard to the shooting. If you yourself or your son3 shoot, as I consider myself under obligation to you, I shall have no scruple in saying that I have given you the shooting. But if

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

213

you have merely granted it to some one else, if you will put yourself in my position, I think that you will agree that it would be churlish in me refuse the power to my Uncle’s son-in-law.— I presume on account of injury to tenant that pheasants are not preserved,4 & that I should not act unfairly by revoking at this season the right of shooting granted by you to anyone, or by giving a joint right. But be so kind as to put yourself in my position, & tell me how circumstances are, & advise me— My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | C. R. Darwin Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/4/1) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from John Higgins, 15 July 1859 (this volume, Supplement). The letter from Francis Sacheverel Darwin has not been found. Marcus Huish was the second husband of F. S. Darwin’s daughter, Frances Sarah. John Higgins (1826–1902). CD’s tenant at Beesby Farm was Francis Hardy. A tenant would expect to be compensated for the damage to crops done by pheasants.

From John Higgins   15 July 1859 Alford 15th July 1859 My Dear Sir I have had the pleasure of receiving your Note this morning; and as regards the Game at Beesby, I have no wish whatever, than to carry out your Instructions and wishes.—1 For several years after you purchased the Farm, Mr Yorke the former Owner continued to enjoy the Shooting; and upon his death, I handed it over to Mr Lister, a County Gentleman and Magistrate for the District, whose Estate it adjoins, and who is a friend of mine; and I shall have no scruples in asking him to give it up to Mr Huish;2 altho’ I think that Gentleman’s object will be sufficiently gained, if he receives your permission to shoot over your Farm, when he visits the neighbourhood, without handing over to him the exclusive right and control.— I have no desire for any Shooting ground, except that upon one or two days in the Season; I have happened to have a Visitor at my House, who has enjoyed the privilege of passing over a district including Beesby— I would therefore beg to suggest, as you are so kind and considerate as to ask my opinion; that you had better grant your full permission to Mr Huish to shoot over your Beesby Estate, when he goes into the neighbourhood, without altogether disturbing me from the occasional privilege which I have so long enjoyed— I am | My Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | (signed) John Higgins Charles R. Darwin Esq Copy Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/4/2)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

214 1 2

See this volume, Supplement, letter to John Higgins, 13 July [1859]. Robert Waring Darwin (1766–1848) had purchased Beesby Farm from James Whiting Yorke and then transferred it to CD in 1845 (see Correspondence vol. 3, letter to S. E. Darwin, [27 November 1844?] and n. 1). Yorke died in 1854. John Samuel Lister owned the neighbouring estate. Marcus Huish was a relation of CD’s by marriage.

To John Higgins   18 July [1859]1 Down Bromley Kent July 18th My dear Sir I am very much obliged for your note.2 I have written to Sir Francis to say that without revoking the right of shooting over Beesby, granted to you. I shall be happy to allow Mr Huish to shoot over the Farm.3 So that affair is well settled. With my thanks | Pray believe me | My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | C. Darwin Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/4/4) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from John Higgins, 15 July 1859 (this volume, Supplement). Letter from John Higgins, 15 July 1859 (this volume, Supplement). Marcus Huish. CD’s letter to Francis Sacheverel Darwin has not been found.

To Adam Sedgwick   11 November [1859]1 Down Bromley Kent [Ilkley.] Nov. 11th.— My dear Professor Sedgwick I have told Murray to send you a copy of my book on the Origin of Species, which is as yet only an abstract. As the conclusion at which I have arrived after an amount of work, which is not apparent in this condensed sketch, is so diametrically opposed to that which you have often advocated with much force, you might think that I send my volume to you out of a spirit of bravado & with a want of respect, but I assure you that I am actuated by quite opposite feelings.2 Pray believe me | My honoured friend | Your sincerely obliged | Charles Darwin The Revd.— | Prof. Sedgwick Sotheby’s, New York (dealers) (13 December 2018, lot 235) 1

2

h

d i

0 0

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Adam Sedgwick, 24 November 1859 (Correspondence vol. 7). This letter was previously published with a transcription from a printed source in Correspondence vol. 7. John Murray was the publisher of Origin. See Correspondence vol. 7, letter from Adam Sedgwick, 24 November 1859.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

215

To Matthias Mull   [after 24 November 1859]1 I write one line to thank you for the reference, which is curious and new to me.2 DAR 146: 424a 1 2

The date is established by the reference in the letter in which this quotation is contained to CD’s theory of natural selection, which was first published in book-form on 24 November 1859 (Origin). This quotation is from a letter sent to Francis Darwin by Mathias Mull after CD’s death. Mull writes: I possess a very interesting note from your late but ever-to-be revered father, in response to one from me, in which I drew his attention to a couplet in the eleventh Sonnet of Shakespeare, as so applicable, I thought, or so expressive of his principle of “the survival of the fittest.” It is this: | “Let those whom Nature hath not made for store, | … barrenly perish.” | The reply was this— “I write one line to thank you for the reference, which is curious and new to me.” | I think it well worth publication with the couplet, and if you see no objection I will send it to one of the London papers. | I am, | yours faithfully, | M. Mull. No published version of the extract has been found. The term ‘survival of the fittest’ was coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 as an alternative to ‘natural selection’ (see Correspondence vol. 14, letter from A. R. Wallace, 2 July 1866 and n. 5).

To John Higgins   4 December 1859 Ilkley Wells House | Otley Yorkshire Decr 4th 1859. My dear Sir Your note & account has been forwarded here from my home, where I am temporarily staying.— I thank you for & acknowledge the sum of £241:19s·10d placed to my account1 In Haste I remain | My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. R. Darwin J. Higgins Esqr Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

Higgins’s note has not been found. The payment was half-yearly rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire. CD was away from Down visiting the hydropathic establishment at Ilkley Wells from 2 October to 9 December 1859 (see Correspondence vol. 7, Appendix II). For a reproduction of this letter, see plate on p. 216.

To Charles Lovegrove   14 December [1859–71]1 Down.— Dec 14th My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of two Guineas for the Down Coal & Clothing Club; & at the same time I venture as Treasurer to thank you sincerely for this very kind & handsome Subscription. My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | C. Darwin American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Letter to John Higgins, 4 December 1859. Courtesy of Dominic Winter Auctioneers.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 1

217

The year range is established by the Down Coal and Clothing Club account book (Down House MS). Lovegrove contributed two guineas a year between 1859 and 1871; in 1872 he increased his contribution to three guineas. The Down Coal and Clothing Club was a local savings club to which villagers made weekly contributions; the local gentry made annual ‘honorary’ contributions to supplement the funds (Correspondence vol. 5, letter to G. H. Turnbull, 28 October [1854]).

From Aleksander Jelski   [1860–82]1 Mein Herr! Ich, unterschriebener, pollnischer Sammler von Gegenstände alterthümlichen schönen Künsten und Wissenschaften, auch Sammler von den Hand und Unterschriften großer Männer, bin tief durchdrungen voll Achtung und Bewunderung von Ihrem großen Genius, der in der heutigen Wissenschaft wie ein wohlthätiges Licht glänzt und leuchtet. Ich wage es, Sie mein Herr zu bitten, mich mit einigen Zeilen von Ihrer Hand zu beehren— ich wurde dies Schreiben wie ein Heiligthum unter meinen Schätzen aufbewahren, zum Andenken für das Vaterland und seine Nachkommen, als Zeichen, wie tief und hoch die Pohlen große Geister zu schätzen wissen. Wenn ich zu gleicher Zeit Ihre Fotographie mit Ihrer eigenen hochachtungsvoller Handschrift zugeschickt bekommen könnte, da würde ich mich überaus glücklich schätzen, doch dies wäre eine ganz besondere Gnade die ich Ihrer Güte und Willen überlasse. Auf welche Art auch Sie meine Bitte erfüllen so wurde ich mit Dankbarkeit umgefangen und mich verpflichtet fühlen mit der größten Pünktlichkeit und Freude, Ihnen, mein Herr, ein besonderes Dankschreiben zu senden.2 Wahrhaft Große erniedrigen sich zu den Kleinen— so habe ich denn Hoffnung, daß Ihr, unsterblicher Mann, die Kühnheit eines Einfachen und Unbekannten vergiebt und seiner bitte Gehör giebt. Mit tiefer Achtung | Alexander Jelski Meine Adresse | Russie Alexandre Jelski | Ville Minsk. Kapitale du guvernement | ferme Zamosc3 DAR 178: 86 1 2 3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The date is established from the publication of Origin in 1859, after which CD became known internationally. No further correspondence from Jelski has been found. Jelsky inherited the village and farm of Zamość near Minsk, Belarus, from his father.

To ?   [1860–82?]1 I am almost certain that it is Menispermum Canadense2 C. Darwin Glenbow Museum

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

218 1

2

The year is conjectured on the assumption that few people would have asked CD for botanical identifications before he became widely known with the publication of Origin in 1859; but it may have been earlier. Menispermum canadense is the Canadian or common moonseed.

To ?   [1860–82?]1 Charles Darwin My health keeps much as it was; I never escape for a whole day without much discomfort, & of course as I grow older I become much weaker.— Incomplete Wellcome Collection (MS.7781/34) 1

The date is conjectured from the language used in the letter; CD described himself as suffering ‘much discomfort’ daily in letters in the 1860s and 1870s (see Correspondence vol. 14, letter to Asa Gray, 16 April [1866], and Correspondence vol. 26, letter to J. W. Judd, 27 June 1878).

To ?   [1860–82?]1 Ch. Darwin Perhaps you collect Photographs, so I enclose one, as I do not remember having sent one before LS incomplete J. A. Stargardt (dealer) (catalogue 681, 28 and 29 June 2005) 1

The year is conjectured from the time at which, based on extant correspondence, CD started to send out photographs of himself (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 8, letter to W. D. Fox, 17 December [1860]).

To [John Hawkshaw?]   1 January [1860]1 Down Bromley Kent Jan 1st.— My dear Sir I have real pleasure in signing Mr. Bonney’s certificate, which I herewith return.—2 I am delighted to hear that you are interested in my Book3 & I remain | My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | C. Darwin [Enclosure] Paid Coutts March 27/604 The Rev: Thomas George Bonney M.A Fellow of S.t John’s Coll: Cambridge S.t Peter’s College Westminster5 being desirous of admission into the Geological Society of London, We, the undersigned, recommend him as a proper person to become a Fellow thereof. Feby. 4th. 1860

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement John Hawkshaw, Charles Darwin James Simpson Jo.s Prestwich6 T. Harlin Proposed Notice of Ballot Elected No

219

� From Personal knowledge.



Feb 15/60 Feb 29th. March 14/60 1930

Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 139), Geological Society of London (Membership certificates, 1860, p. 116) 1

2 3 4 5 6

The year is established from the date of Thomas George Bonney’s election as a member of the Geological Society of London. There is a letter from John Hawkshaw dated February 1860 in the archives of the Geological Society asking the recipient to arrange for the other signatures to be added to the enclosed form. The certificate has been transcribed in its final state in the archives of the Geological Society. Origin had been published in November 1859. Coutts was a well-known London bank. Members of the Geological Society who lived in London paid thirty guineas on joining, or three guineas a year (H. B. Woodward 1907, p. 60). Bonney taught mathematics at St Peter’s College, Westminster (also known as Westminster School; ODNB). Joseph Prestwich.

To Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire   12 January [1860]1 Sir

Down Bromley Kent Jan. 12th

I thank you sincerely for the honour of your kind letter.2 I am extremely much pleased that my work meets with your approval. You will have perceived that it is only an abstract & treats no part of the subject fully; though I have ample materials nearly ready.3 I did not know that you went so far in giving up the permanence of species; & I am particularly obliged to you for sending me your “rèsumè”.4 I have in my Library your great & invaluable work on Anomalies, the life of your celebrated Father, your Considerations in the Suites a Buffon & the 1st vol. of your Hist. Nat. Gen. & I shall be proud to place your resume along side of them.5 It would be an immense advantage to my work, if it were translated into French; for then everyone could read it. I fear Madame Belloc will not undertake it; but I will write again to her & repeat your most kind & generous offer of looking at the difficult passages.6 Judging from the very large sale in England, I should hope that it would pay a publisher. My publisher has now printed nearly 5000 copies.7 With my most sincere thanks for the honour which you have conferred on me by writing, I beg leave to remain, with much respect, | Yours truly obliged | Charles Darwin Archives de l’Académie des sciences, Paris (63 J Fonds Gabriel Bertrand)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

220 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

The year is established by the allusion to Origin, which was published in November 1859. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s letter has not been found. On the publication of Origin as an abstract of CD’s views, see Correspondence vol. 7. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1851 was published in the Revue et magasin de zoologie pure et appliquée. The article contains a section entitled ‘Résumé des leçons sur la question de l’espèce’, in which Geoffroy SaintHilaire stated his belief that species were neither absolutely fixed nor endlessly variable, but varied only when their conditions of life changed (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1851, pp. 15–20). There is a lightly annotated copy of the work in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. CD cited the article in the ‘historical preface’ added to the revised US edition of Origin (Origin US ed.; see Correspondence vol. 8, Appendix IV), to the German translation (Bronn trans. 1860), and to Origin 3d ed. (1861). See also Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 28 January [1860]. CD’s copies of these books are in the Darwin Library–CUL: Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1832–7 (Histoire générale et particulière des anomalies de l’organisation chez l’homme et les animaux; heavily annotated); Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1847 (Vie, travaux et doctrine scientifique d’E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire; annotated); Geoffroy SaintHilaire 1841 (Essais de zoologie générale, part of the series Nouvelles suites à Buffon; annotated); Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1854–62 (Histoire naturelle générale des règnes organiques; vol. 1 lightly annotated, vols. 2 and 3 annotated). Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s father was Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de Buffon, was a French naturalist. Louise Swanton Belloc had offered to translate Origin, but had later decided it was too difficult (see Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Charles Lyell, 14 January [1860] and n. 14). In the end, Origin was translated into French by Clémence Auguste Royer (see Correspondence vol. 10). John Murray printed 1250 copies of the first edition of Origin, and a second edition of 3000 copies in December 1859 (Origin 2d ed.; see Freeman 1977).

To Armand de Quatrefages   15 January [1860]1 Down Bromley Kent Jan. 15th Dear Sir I beg pardon for troubling you. I wrote some time since asking you to interest yourself in getting a French Translation of my Book, & I begged you not to write without you had anything favourable to communicate.2 This morning I have received a letter from a French gentleman (M. Talandier) who is anxious to translate it, but he is not a naturalist. I have in answer told him that I could not agree till I heard from Paris.3 Perhaps you will kindly write me one line at once, if you have anything to communicate; but if I do not hear in a few days, I will assume what is in itself very probable, that you know not any Naturalist who would undertake the task. From a letter from M. Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, I have put myself into communication with Madame Belloc again; but I do not believe she has any intention of translating it.—4 With most sincere apologies for the great liberty which I have taken in troubling you, I remain with much respect.— | Yours faithfully & obliged | Charles Darwin Archives de l’Académie des sciences, Paris (75 J 837 Fonds Alfred Lacroix) 1 2 3

h

d i

0 0

The year is established by the allusion to Origin, which was published in November 1859. See Correspondence vol. 7, letter to J. L. A. Quatrefages de Bréau, 5 December [1859]. CD’s correspondence with Pierre Theodore Alfred Talandier has not been found; he was a political exile from France and taught French at Sandhurst.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 4

221

Louise Swanton Belloc. See this volume, Supplement, letter to Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 12 January [1860] and n. 6. Quatrefages’s reply to this letter has not been found, but see Correspondence vol. 8, letter to J. L. A. de Quatrefages de Bréau, 21 January [1860].

To T. H. Huxley   21 [January 1860]1 Down Bromley Kent 21st My dear Huxley I have told Murray to send you copy of 2d. Edit of my Book.2 I ought to have thought of this before, as you have been beyond all or nearly all the warmest & most important supporter. I did not think of it, simply from the corrections being so few (of which I send list)3 & now I really hardly know whether you will care to have copy; but you can give it away, if you do not care.— I long to have a little talk with you. I had firmly resolved to come up & dine with you all at Athenæum, but my accursed health made it impossible.4 I intend coming up on Tuesday evening & will call early on Wednesday at Museum for chance of seeing you; & shd. I fail on Wednesday in being able to come or in your not being there I will call on Thursday.—5 Could you let me have on Wednesday at Museum Pigeon M.S.—6 I am beginning to think of, & arrange my fuller work;7 & the subject is like an enchanted circle; I cannot tell how or where to begin.— By strange chance, since sending you the Drawings, I have had specimen & have now prepared the skull of the Bagadotten (of which I send Plate out of German Book) & the extraordinarily curved beak is not exaggerated.—8 I cannot think it possible that you can wish to keep, but I do not want M.S. on Hybrids. In Haste | My dear Huxley | Most truly yours | C. Darwin I have never received from Ray Soc. your Volume on Hydrozoa:9 I must enquire what cause is. [Enclosure] Additions to 2d. Edit— Verbal corrections & omissions not noticed.— Pages New. Edit p 17. 18 49. 72 73 97

h

d i

0 0

Pallasian doctrine made clearer10 Primula vars & elatior names corrected.11 Age of little fir trees corrected12 case of clover made stronger13 case of parthenogenesis alluded to14

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

222 165 214 219–223 253 286 303 336 390, 391 425. 452. 480

Mules in U. States striped, added15 Sentence about Pointing dogs added16 Slave-ants made clearer17 sentence about crossed pheasant added.18 Weald-Denudation made milder (ought to be still more slacked off)19 Birds fossil instead of Whale20 sentence added on Advancement of organisation.21 crossing keeping birds of Madeira & Bermuda unchanged22 Argumentum ad hominem malum, Huxley, struck out23 Nascent organs added24 Bit of Theology from Kingsley added25

Janet Huxley (private collection); Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Archives (Huxley 5: 102) 1 2 3 4

5 6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13

h

d i

0 0

The month and year are established by the reference to CD’s trip to London (see n. 5, below). This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 8 without the enclosure, which was found subsequently. The second edition of Origin was published by John Murray on 7 January 1860 (Correspondence vol. 8, Appendix II). For CD’s list of corrections, see also the enclosure with the letter to Asa Gray, 1  February [1860] (Correspondence vol. 8). Huxley became a member of the Athenaeum Club in 1858. CD had been a member since 1838. The dinner referred to took place on 19  January, and those attending included Huxley, Joseph Dalton Hooker, and certain unidentified ‘Naturalists’. See Correspondence vol. 8, letter to J. D. Hooker, [22 January 1860]. Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242) indicates that CD was in London from Tuesday 24 to Friday 27 January. Huxley had an office in the Museum of Practical Geology. CD had lent Huxley his manuscript describing the results of his study of domestic pigeons to assist Huxley in the preparation of his Royal Institution lecture on 10 February 1860 (T. H. Huxley 1860). See Correspondence vol. 7, letters to T. H. Huxley, 16 December [1859] and 24 December [1859]. CD had begun to prepare the more comprehensive work on natural selection in which he planned to give further examples and citations not included in Origin. The first part of this project, Variation, appeared in 1868. The second and third parts were ultimately abandoned. The Bagadotten-Tauben is a breed of pigeon in which the beak curves downwards ‘in a highly remarkable manner’ (Variation 1: 141, 163). The German book to which CD refers is W. Riedel 1824. There is an annotated copy in the Darwin Library–CUL. T. H. Huxley 1859. A copy of the work, published by the Ray Society, is in the Darwin Library–Down. Pyotr Simon Pallas believed that domesticated animals had descended from two or more aboriginal species; see also Origin, pp. 253–4. In Origin, p. 49, CD had referred to the primrose and the cowslip as ‘Primula veris and elatior’; in Origin 2d ed., p. 49, he corrected this to ‘Primula vulgaris and veris’. In Origin, p. 72, CD described a fir tree that had failed to grow higher than the surrounding heath for twenty-six years, ‘judging by the rings of growth’; in Origin 2d ed., p. 72, he changed this to ‘many years’. In Origin, p. 73, CD had written that the visits of bees, ‘if not indispensable’, were ‘at least highly beneficial’ to the fertilisation of British clovers; in Origin 2d ed., p. 73, he changed this to ‘necessary for the fertilisation of some kinds of clover’.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

22

23

24 25

223

The addition ‘(with the exception of the curious and not well-understood cases of parthenogenesis)’ is in Origin 2d ed., p. 96. ‘[A]ccording to Mr. Gosse, in certain parts of the United States about nine out of ten mules have striped legs.’ (Philip Henry Gosse.) ‘[T]he act of pointing is probably, as many have thought, only the exaggerated pause of an animal preparing to spring on its prey.’ The changes are mostly in Origin 2d ed., pp. 221–3. ‘There is no doubt that these three pheasants, namely, the common, the true ring-necked, and the Japan, intercross, and are becoming blended together in the woods of several parts of England.’ CD made changes to Origin 2d ed., p. 287, conceding that the denudation of the Weald, a district between the North and South Downs in Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, and Kent, may have taken 100 thousand years rather than 300 thousand years; he eliminated the discussion in the third edition. See also Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Charles Lyell, 10 January [1860] and n. 3. In Origin 2d ed., p. 304, CD used birds’ bones rather than whales’ bones as an example of gaps in the fossil record that had been filled relatively recently. ‘The best definition probably is, that the higher forms have their organs more distinctly specialised for different functions; and as such division of physiological labour seems to be an advantage to each being, natural selection will constantly tend in so far to make the later and more modified forms higher than their early progenitors, or than the slightly modified descendants of such progenitors.’ In Origin 2d ed., p. 391, CD added that any tendency to vary in the bird species of Bermuda and Madeira would have been checked by ‘intercrossing with the unmodified immigrants from the mothercountry’. ‘Argument against a bad man, Huxley, struck out.’ CD did not include this line in the similar list of corrections he sent to Gray (see n. 3, above). He had removed a paragraph in Origin, p. 425, which contained an ‘argumentum ad hominem’ about how to classify a kangaroo born from a bear, as part of a discussion of the part already played by descent in classification. See Correspondence vol. 7, first letter to T. H. Huxley, 25 November [1859]. CD added a paragraph distinguishing rudimentary and nascent organs. The statement by Charles Kingsley (‘a celebrated author and divine’) was added to Origin 2d ed., p. 481.

To R. H. Meade   23 January [1860?]1

Down Bromley Kent Jan. 23rd

Dear Sir I hope that you will excuse the liberty I take in writing to you, & requesting a favour. In the Annals of Nat Hist, vol.  15, p.  396 you remark “The variations of forms in the maxillæ are of no value amongst the Phalangidæ, in affording generic or specific characters, as with the true spiders.—”2 Am I to understand from the latter part of sentence that with the individuals of the same undoubted species the maxillæ vary in form? Is not this a very surprising fact? Would you have the great kindness, if the fact be so, to give me some details on the amount & kind of variation, & in what species. And further would you permit me to quote any such facts on your authority?3 With many apologies for troubling you, I beg to remain | Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin. [ 14 of a page excised] Incomplete Leeds University Library Special Collections (SC MS 1975/2/1)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

224 1

2 3

This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 8 from a printed copy in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London ser. B (1922): xii. In the Proceedings, the recipient was incorrectly identified as Louis Compton Miall. The author of the paper to which CD refers, however, was the entomologist Richard Henry Meade (Miall would have been 12 when it was published). The Proceedings published the letter with a clear date of ‘January 23, 1860’, but the year is not in CD’s hand; it may be an endorsement or an archivist’s note. Meade  1855, p.  396. The Phalangiidae are a family of harvestmen (order Opiliones) in the class Arachnida (spiders, scorpions, ticks, mites, etc). There is no record of a reply from Meade or of any further use of his paper by CD.

To J. S. Henslow   29 January [1860]1 Down Bromley Kent Jan. 29th My dear Henslow The Measles has run like wild-fire through the House, but we are now quit of it.2 We shall be delighted to see you here, whenever you can spare the time. The only engagements which we know of are from Feb. 6 to 11th.—3 I shall be particularly glad to hear any of your objections to my views, when we meet. My Book has been far more successful as yet, than I dreamed of.— The two last chapters are in my opinion the strongest.—4 Thank you much for offering to send me Jenyns’ letter which I will return to you; I shd. much like to see it, though he has written to me.—5 I hope heartily that you will be able to come. here.— | Yours affect & gratefully | C. Darwin What an interesting subject the Celts in Drift6 RR Auction (8 December 2021, lot 119) 1 2 3 4 5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1860] (Correspondence vol. 8). Leonard Darwin had measles at the beginning of January, followed by Horace, Elizabeth, and Francis (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Henslow visited Down from 14 to 16 February 1860. The Darwins were in London from 6 to 11 February. (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242).) The two last chapters of Origin were ‘Mutual affinities of organic beings: morphology: embryology: rudimentary organs’ and ‘Recapitulation and conclusion’. See Correspondence vol. 8, letter from Leonard Jenyns, 4 January 1860, and letter to J. S. Henslow, 3 February [1860]. The letter from Jenyns forwarded by Henslow to CD has not been found. In a letter in the Athenæum, 11 February 1860, pp. 206–7, Henslow speculated that prehistoric celts (implements) found in drift deposits might have reached there as a result of relatively recent geological movements.

To F. M. Wedgwood   5 March [1860–9]1 Down Bromley Kent March 5th My dear Fanny I do not know the shell in question, but I have very little doubt that it is a Pholas, for I was assured in S. America that they were excellent eating.2 The shell lives in

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

225

holes in rock. It is very delicate & fragile, of a whitish colour; & the animal’s body protrudes at the two ends.— I am extremely much obliged for the very interesting specimens of the blind cave animals: after I have examined them (& I am in no hurry, though particularly glad to see them) I will present them in your name to the British Museum, for they are too good for a private collection. The fish in itself, besides its blindness, is a very remarkable animal.—3 Emma tells me she has already written to say how glad we shall be to see you here, & with my best thanks, I am yours affectionately | Ch. Darwin Alan Wedgwood (private collection) 1

2 3

The year range is established from the year of Frances Wedgwood’s return from her first visit to the United States (see Wedgwood and Wedgwood 1980, pp. 267–9), and from the address, which is one that CD used between 1855 and 1869. A close family member dated the letter 1868. Pholas is a genus of marine bivalve molluscs. CD was in South America between 1832 and 1835 (Correspondence vol. 1). CD referred to blind cave animals in Origin, pp. 137–9. He was gathering more information in 1860, and expanded his discussion in the third edition (Origin 3d ed., pp. 154–7; see also Correspondence vol. 8). Frances visited the United States in 1859 (see n. 1, above) and 1865 (see Correspondence vol. 13, letters from Asa Gray, 15 and 17 May 1865, 24 July 1865, and letter to Asa Gray, 15 August [1865]).

To ?   19 March [1860–1?]1 Down Bromley Kent March 19th Sir I have the pleasure to inform you that you will find an excellent account, translated from Schiödte on the Styrian Cave insect in the Transactions of the Entomolog. Soc. of London. Vol I Part IV p. 134. & Part V p 145.2 On the American Cave animals you will find two papers by Agassiz & Prof. Silliman Junr in Sillimans North American Journal of Science New Series Vol XI. p. 127 & p. 336.—3 All these papers are well worth reading. The state of my health & largeness of subject will prevent my bringing out even the 1st vol of my larger work on Species for at soonest two years.4 Sir | Your faithful servant | Charles Darwin King’s College London Archives (TH/PP MISC) 1

2

3 4

h

d i

The year range is conjectured on the assumption that the letter was written after the publication of Origin but before CD had corrected ‘Styria’ to ‘Carniola’ in his discussion of blind cave animals (see n. 2, below). Jörgen Matthias Christian Schiödte had written on cave insects in Carniola, which bordered on Styria (both now part of Slovenia); see N. Wallich trans. 1851. CD mentioned the cave animals of Styria in Origin, p. 137, and Origin 2d ed., p. 137 (1860), correcting it to Carniola in Origin 3d ed., p. 154 (1861). Louis Agassiz and Benjamin Silliman Jr wrote on the Mammoth Cave of Kentucky (L. Agassiz 1851 and Silliman 1851) in the American Journal of Science and Arts, of which Silliman was the editor. On CD’s projected series, see Variation 1: 3–10; Variation was in fact the only work in the series to appear.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

226

To Octavian Blewitt   27 March [1860]1

Down Bromley Kent March 27th.

Mr Darwin presents his compliments to the Secretary & is sorry to say that from the state of his health & other circumstances he must decline the honour of acting as Steward at the Annual Dinner of the Literary Fund.—2 The British Library (Loan 96: RLF 4/15 1860 file 3) 1 2

The year is established from the date on the file of correspondence in which this letter was archived. Blewitt was secretary of the Royal Literary Fund, an institution that gave financial support to writers; the annual dinner was the fund’s principal means of raising money (Janet Adam Smith, ‘A short history’, Royal Literary Fund, History, https://www.rlf.org.uk/home/our-history/ (accessed 20 August 2019)). In 1860, the dinner took place on 16 May (The Times, 17 May 1860, p. 12).

To Williams & Norgate   18 May [1860]

Down Bromley Kent May 18th

Dear Sir Please order “Ungers Versuch einer Geschichte der Pflanzen-Welt”— (Wien.)1 Dr Asa Gray in writing letter dated May 4th. from U. States says he has read a review of my work the “Origin of Species” in the “British & Foreign Medical Review”. Do you know whether this is different from the Medical & Chirurgical Review which you procured & sent for me to my Brothers.—2 If it be different, & you can find out for me in which month there was a Review of my work, please procure copy, & send it to 6 (formerly 57) Queen Anne St.—3 Pray excuse this trouble & believe me | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | C. Darwin Endorsement: ‘1860’ Lanier family (private collection) 1 2

3

Unger 1852 appears on CD’s list of Books to be read, 1852–60 (Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix 4, DAR *128: 182). Asa Gray’s letter has not been found, but see Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Asa Gray, 22 May [1860]. No letter from CD requesting the Medical and Chirurgical Review has been found, and no reply from Williams & Norgate to this letter, but see Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Charles Lyell, 22 May [1860]. The review in question was [Carpenter] 1860 in the British and Foreign Medical-Chirurgical Review. In spring 1860, house numbers in Queen Anne Street, London, were changed (see Post Office London directory 1861).

To P. L. Sclater   22 May [1860–81]1

Down. May 22d

My dear Mr Sclater I have signed the enclosed with great pleasure—2 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

227

John Wilson (dealer) (1987) 1 2

The year range is established by the fact that CD started addressing Sclater as ‘My dear Sclater’ rather than ‘My dear Sir’ by 1861. CD died in April 1882. The enclosure has not been identified.

From John Higgins   16 June 1860 Biel June 16. 1860 Dear Sir I received your Letter of the 13th. yesterday but I had written to two parties to ascertain the best particulars I could of the nature of the property and quality of the land before I answered it, and I have not yet received either of their answers.—1 My knowledge of the district inclines me to think the estate may be purchased so as to form a safe and permanent Investment; and either I or my Son shall go over and carefully value it, and you shall hear from me again in time to obtain your full instructions about purchasing.—2 We shall be much pleased to see your Son and will make an appointment in a day or two, for shewing him this property, and also Beesby & Claythorpe.3 I return to Alford on Tuesday when I shall be able to communicate further particulars I am | Yours faithfully | John Higgins C R Darwin Esq Copy Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/3/7) 1

2 3

See Correspondence vol. 8, letter to John Higgins, 13 June [1860]. CD was thinking of buying an estate at Anwick, near Sleaford in Lincolnshire (see this volume, Supplement, letter from John Higgins, 19 June 1860). John Higgins’s son was John Higgins (1826–1902). In the event, the purchase was not made. CD wanted William Erasmus Darwin to visit Anwick, and also CD’s estate at Beesby, Lincolnshire, and Susan Elizabeth Darwin’s estate at Claythorpe, Lincolnshire (see Correspondence vol. 8, letter to John Higgins, 13 June [1860]).

From John Higgins   19 June 1860 Alford 19th. June 1860 Dear Sir On my return from Scotland this morning, I found a sketch of the Anwick Estate had been sent to me, and I enclose a copy of it for your inspection.1 The No.s from 59 to 66 inclusive are situate at the upper and better part of the Fen and are well drained at a small annual expense   the remainder is all high and dry land.—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

228

I intend to go over the Estate and make a valuation of it on Saturday next; and will attend the sale on Monday; and if I find I can purchase it upon terms that I am sure will be conducive to your interests I will do so; but you may depend upon it, I will be guarded and cautious in my proceedings.— If necessary I will pay the Deposit money, and will draw upon you afterwards for the amount.— After I have seen the Estate on Saturday next, I will write to you again; but I shall have no opportunity of communicating with you further until after the auction; when I may probably be able to suspend the actual sale until I have time to communicate with you; at any rate you may rely upon my taking care of your interests—2 Whether I purchase the property or not, I shall hope to be favored with a visit at Alford from your Son, and I will afford him the cordial hospitalities of my house, and will shew him yours and Miss Darwins property in the neighbourhood—3 I am Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | John Higgins C. R. Darwin Esq Draft Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/3/14) 1

2

3

See this volume, Supplement, letter from John Higgins, 16 June 1860. There is a map and printed bill of sale for the Anwick estate in the Lincolnshire Record Office (Lincs RO HIG/4/2/3/5 and HIG/4/2/3/6). CD did not purchase the Anwick estate in Lincolnshire, although no further letters on the subject have been found, other than one from CD leaving the matter in Higgins’s hands, dated 21 June [1860] (see Correspondence vol. 8). William Erasmus Darwin planned to visit Anwick, and also CD’s estate at Beesby, Lincolnshire, and Susan Elizabeth Darwin’s estate at Claythorpe, Lincolnshire.

To John Higgins   22 June 1860 Down Kent June 22. 1860 Received of John Higgins Esqre two-hundred & forty-four Pounds. /5s/11d/ being half-year rents with deductions as specified1 £244:5s:11d Charles Darwin Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent.

To Queen Victoria   [2 July 1860]1 TO HER MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY VICTORIA, BY THE GRACE OF GOD OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, QUEEN, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

229

The Memorial of the undersigned connected with Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, Professors of divers Universities, &c., &c., HUMBLY SHEWETH, That your Memorialists take it for granted that Museums and other collections of a similar character are established for the instruction and moral improvement of the people; and that in proportion as such Institutions are made available for popular education do they fulfil the purposes of their origin. That the labors and necessary avocations of the great body of the community leave little or no opportunity of visiting such Institutions during the week, when they are open to the public, and hence that the main object of their formation is lost to those whom they are intended to benefit. The Sunday, as a day of rest and leisure, when the thoughts of men, released from the engrossing labor of mere existence, turn naturally to the beauties of the Universe, and to its Creator, is the time most fitted for the exercise of the reflective faculties; and your Memorialists being firmly convinced that all true education must tend to the reverence and love of the Deity, believe that if such Institutions as above enumerated were open to the people on Sunday Afternoon, it would be an inestimable boon to the laboring population, would raise up an opposing principle to intemperance and immorality, and in every way advance the condition of the people. YOUR MEMORIALISTS therefore pray your Majesty to lend your Royal countenance to remove all restrictions and impediments, so that the National Museums, Picture Galleries, Botanical Gardens, and similar collections, as well as those of parochial or municipal foundation throughout the United Kingdom, may be opened to the public on Sunday Afternoon.2 Charles Darwen, M.A., F.R.S., F.G.S. [and 942 others]3 Memorial National Sunday League [1860] 1 2

3

The date is provided in the pamphlet from which the text of this memorial has been transcribed. The National Sunday League was founded in 1855, at first with the aim of securing the opening of museums and other institutions on a Sunday, and later with the aim of permitting Sunday excursions, musical performances, and lectures. In London, the campaign to secure Sunday opening of national museums and art galleries did not succeed until 1896, although some municipal institutions introduced Sunday opening earlier. (See Stoddard 1896, pp. 477–8.) For more on the League’s anti-Sabbatarian objectives and promotion of ‘rational recreation’, see McVeigh 2019, pp. 41–2. CD’s name (spelled Darwen) appears in the Appendix to the pamphlet, with nine other names, introduced as follows: ‘The sheets with the following names appended were lost in the transmission’.

To John Higgins   19 November 1860 Down Kent Nov 19th 1860 Received from John Higgins Esqre £244"15s"11d, being half-year’s Rent from Beesby & Sutterton, due last Michaelmas.—1 £244.15s.11d Ch. R. Darwin Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

230 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farms at Beesby and Sutterton Fen, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent. On Sutterton, see Correspondence vol. 4, letter to John Higgins, 14 June [1848] and n. 1.

To [the Royal College of Surgeons of England]   28 December [1860] Down Dec. 28th Dear Sir Would you be so kind as to inform me whether Prof. Owen has published during the last year, an Edition of John Hunters new work,.1 I saw about a year ago an announcement to the effect that such was to be published.— To save you trouble I enclose envelope. Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | C. Darwin Endorsement: ‘1860 | C. Darwin | Dec 29’ Donald R. Markey (private collection) 1

John Hunter’s Memoranda on vegetation (Hunter 1860) was published posthumously by the Royal College of Surgeons; Richard Owen was Hunterian Professor of comparative anatomy and physiology at the college. CD’s lightly annotated copy of Hunter 1860 is in the Darwin Library–CUL.

To W. E. Darwin   [1861–82]1 I am not well so no more. Your affec. Father | C. Darwin P.S will you be so kind as to see about Bank Pens & we are short of those excellent pen-holders—2 But remember that we repay you.— Incomplete3 Famous Notables (dealers) 1 2 3

The date range is established by the date at which William left home: he became a partner in the Southampton and Hampshire Bank in 1861; CD died in April 1882. Bank pens were a type of steel nib designed originally for use by bank clerks but advertised for general writing. The original letter is not complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being one page long.

To Williams & Norgate   [1861]1 To Messrs. Williams and Norgate. Gentlemen, Send me the “Nat〈ural〉 History Review,” for 1861, and continue it until further notice.2 Name Ch. Darwin 〈Addr〉ess Down, Bromley Kent

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

231

Printed formS Uppsala University Library: Manuscripts and Music (Waller Ms alb-67:134) 1 2

The year is established by the year mentioned in the order. The first number of a new series of the Natural History Review: a Quarterly Journal of Biological Science, under the general editorship of Thomas Henry Huxley, had appeared in January 1861 (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter to T. H. Huxley, 3 January [1861] and n. 2).

To Williams & Norgate   16 February [1861]1 Down Bromley Kent. Feb. 16th Dear Sir Will you be so kind as to enquire price of book as below. As it is illustrated largely it may be very expensive; but its price may be now reduced: if you can get a copy for 1£ or under, will you please send me a copy as soon as you can by Post. If I do not receive a copy in a few days, I shall understand that you cannot get it. Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | C. Darwin “Ferguson’s, Illustrated Series of Rare & Prize Poultry. Published by G. Ferguson Beaufort Library King’s Rd. Chelsea; & C. J. Culliford 22 Southampton Str, Strand 1854.—”2 RR Auction (dealers) (14 June 2018, Lot 30) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Williams & Norgate, 4 March [1861] (Correspondence vol. 13, Supplement). Ferguson 1854. Williams & Norgate did send a copy, but CD was also given a copy by an acquaintance (see Correspondence vol. 13, Supplement, letter to Williams & Norgate, 4 March [1861]).

To [Robert Chambers?]   13 April [1861]1 Down Bromley Kent Ap. 13th My dear Sir I thank you extremely for your kind note.— The day after writing to you, I found quite unexpectedly that I am forced to come to London on Tuesday, & will on one day in middle of week, most gladly call on you in the morning.2 With many thanks | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin John Wilson (dealer) (#25007) 1

h

d i

The year is established by the form of the address, which puts the letter between 1843 and 1846, or 1856 and 1868, and by the reference to a visit to London on the Tuesday following 13 April. The only year in which this can be shown to have occurred, according to Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), is 1861. During this visit CD called on Robert Chambers and Charles Lyell (see Correspondence vol. 9, second letter to J. D. Hooker, 23 [April 1861]), but he would have addressed Lyell as ‘My dear Lyell’, so the addressee must be Chambers or an unknown person.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

232 2

CD told Lyell he was coming to London to work on cocks and hens (Correspondence vol. 9, letter to Charles Lyell, 12 April [1861]). There is no extant previous correspondence with Chambers in 1861, but see also the letter to Chambers of 30 April [1861] (ibid.).

To Daniel Oliver   23 April [1861]1 Down Bromley Kent April 23d My dear Sir On returning home after a week’s absence, I found your marriage cards.—2 I now understand your move to Richmond!3 Allow me to send you my very sincere congratulations on entering into that state which assuredly gives the best chance of true happiness in this world. With every good wish & my compliments to Mrs. Oliver, pray believe me | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Newcastle University Special Collections (Spence Watson/Weiss Archive GB186 SW/6/3) 1 2 3

The year is established by the date of Oliver’s marriage (see n. 2, below). CD was in London from 16 to 20 April 1861 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Oliver married Hannah Hobson Wall in 1861. The 1861 census records Oliver living in Richmond, Surrey (Census returns of England and Wales 1861 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG9/459/143/28)). Before that, he lived at Kew, presumably in lodgings (ODNB).

To John Higgins   20 May 1861 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. May 20. 1861 My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for £239"9s"7d being half-years Rent, placed to my account at Union Bank.1 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. R. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent.

To ?   11 June [1861–8]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. June 11th My dear Sir I am very much obliged for your kind invitation, which I am extremely sorry to say that the state of my health renders it impossible for me to accept.— My dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

233

Christie’s, London (dealers) (online 31 October – 8 November 2018, lot 6) 1

The date is established by the headed notepaper, which is of a sort that CD used between May 1861 and April 1869.

To D. F. Nevill   27 November [1861]1

Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Nov. 27th

Madam I will not attempt to thank your Ladyship for all your kindness, for it is beyond my power— I am pleased to hear that my Books have at all interested you; but I fear my little Orchid book will be dry.2 This summer when at the sea, I meant merely to write a paper for some scientific journal, but the subject grew on me till my M.S. got rather too long for a paper.3 I am convinced that orchids have a wicked power of witchcraft, for I ought all these months to be working at the dry old bones of poultry, pigeons & rabbits, instead of intensely admiring beautiful orchids.— I mention all this, because, though I can hardly bear to write the words, I must beg your Ladyship not to send any more of your treasures; though perhaps at some future period I may indulge myself with the examination of a few more Orchids.— I will not forget your Ladyships most generous offer to give me other flowers, if I require them for observation, & I have no doubt that I shall some time be a beggar again.— I am truly obliged to your Ladyship for taking the trouble to write to Mr. Veitch; who has already sent me some orchids & with much generosity refused all payment for cut flowers.— I see in “Cottage Gardener” of this morning, an account of the beauties of Dangstein, which I shall now read with interest.4 If your Ladyship should meet Mr Knox I hope that you will remember me to him: I spent many years ago a very pleasant morning with him & Sir Philip Egerton at the Zoological Gardens.—5 I beg leave to remain | with cordial thanks | your Ladyships | sincerely obliged | Charles Darwin Since writing I have reason to hope that I shall receive a flower of Mormodes from Mr Rucker of Wandsworth6 Hindman (dealers) (8 October 2020, lot 44) 1

2 3

4

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter, the letter to John Lindley, 16 November [1861], and the letter to D. F. Nevill, 19 November [1861] (Correspondence vol. 9). See n. 6, below. This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 18, Supplement; the new transcription restores a small portion of missing text. Nevill’s letter to CD has not been found, but was evidently a reply to his letter of 19 November [1861], in which CD had promised to send Nevill a copy of Orchids when it was published. CD was at Torquay from 1 July to 27 August 1861 (Correspondence vol. 9, Appendix II). CD decided in September 1861 that the subject of orchids would be worth publishing as a short book (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter to John Murray, 21 September [1861]). James Veitch (1815–69). See Correspondence vol. 9, letter to J. D. Hooker, [6 July 1861] and n. 3. Nevill had invited CD to see the orchid collection in her garden at Dangstein, near Midhurst, Sussex, but CD had declined on account of his health (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter to D. F. Nevill, 19 November

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

234

5 6

[1861]). CD refers to an article, ‘The gardens and conservatories at Dangstein’, that appeared in two parts in the 26 November and 3 December 1861 issues of the Journal of Horticulture, Cottage Gardener, and Country Gentleman (n.s. 2: 168–9, 183–5). CD refers to Arthur Edward Knox and Philip de Malpas Grey-Egerton. In his letter to John Lindley, 16 November [1861] (Correspondence vol. 9), CD mentioned that he had been promised orchids (Catasetum and Dendrobium) by Sigismund Rucker, who lived in West Hill, Wandsworth. In Orchids, p.  249  n., CD thanked Rucker for lending him a plant of Mormodes ignea. Rucker evidently offered to send the plant after CD had made a second request for flowers of Mormodes from Nevill (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter to D. F. Nevill, 19 November [1861]).

To John Higgins   3 December 1861 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Dec. 3d. 1861. My dear Sir I beg leave to thank you & acknowledge the sum of £245"18s.0d being 12 year rent to be placed to my account on Friday1 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin John Higgins Esqre Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent.

To ?   8 December [1861–8]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Decr 8th Dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for your great kindness in writing to me.— I cannot consider any facts bearing on the inheritance of mental peculiarities in animals as trifling, & I thank you for communicating to me your experience in regard to Cats.—2 Dear Sir | Your faithfully & obliged | Ch. Darwin Dr Jeremy J. C. Mallinson (private collection): sold at Sotheby’s (dealers), 11 December 2017, lot 50 1 2

The year range is established by the printed notepaper, which is of a sort that CD used between May 1861 and April 1869. CD had discussed the instinctive behaviours and mental powers of animals, including the domestic cat, in Descent1: 34–106.

To [Alfred Malherbe?]   [1862–5?]1 My dear Sir I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that you are very well fitted from the experience gained at the Zoolog [coll] to fill the place of Librarian,—2 I have invariably found you most obliging in giving me assistance of all kinds.— Your

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

235

great Monograph of the Picidae— from your remarkable zeal & your knowledge of Natural History. The work has been highly spoken of by every Naturalist considered to competent to form a judgment on the subject— With my best wishes for your success I remain | My dear Sir | Yours very truly | Ch Darwin ADraftS DAR 96: 58 1

2

The date range and the addressee are conjectured from the mention of a monograph on Picidae (woodpeckers). The significant work of this era on the woodpeckers was Alfred Malherbe’s Monographie des picidées, published in four volumes in 1861 and 1862 (Malherbe 1861–2). Malherbe died in 1865. The post that CD’s correspondent was applying for has not been identified.

To Henry Holland   31 January [1862]1 6. Queen Anne St Jan 31st My dear Sir Henry I am very much obliged to you for having lent me your Essay, which I now return.2 It has pleased me much to see that our conclusions agree closely in most respects & indeed are identical in some respects, though I approach the subject as a simple naturalist & you from a more general point of view. I am convinced that if you were to publish your Essay, it would excite much attention & interest.3 With very sincere thanks for all your great kindness & interest which you have shown in my work, I remain, my dear Sir Henry | Yours truly obliged | Charles Darwin Private collection (on loan to the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge) 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Henry Holland, 30 January [1862] (Correspondence vol. 10). Holland’s manuscript has not been found; it was an essay titled ‘Life and organisation’ ([Holland] 1859), originally published in January 1859, to which Holland added a postscript referring to Origin and CD’s theory of natural selection. For the printed version of the postscript, see Correspondence vol. 10, letter from Henry Holland, 30 January [1862] and Holland 1862, pp. 98–9. The essay was published in Essays on scientific and other subjects from the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews (Holland 1862).

To T. F. Jamieson    27 March [1862]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. March 27th— My dear Sir I am much obliged for your note which shall be forwarded to Sir C. Lyell.— The fact seems very important; & at last, I, for one, for ever & ever give up the marine theory; but I do it with a groan.—2 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | C. Darwin Facsimile McConnochie 1901, p. 236

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

236 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from T. F. Jamieson, 24 March 1862 (Correspondence vol. 10). Charles Lyell. In his letter of 24 March 1862, Jamieson had offered confirmatory evidence for his view that the parallel roads of Glen Roy (three terraces that run parallel to one another along the sides of Glen Roy in Lochaber, Scotland), were formed when ice trapped a series of lakes in the glen, and that the ‘roads’ represented the shorelines of three of these former lakes. CD had argued that the roads were the remains of beaches formed by the sea as the landmass of Scotland rose in graduated steps. See CD’s 1839 paper, ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’, and Rudwick 1974.

To Octavian Blewitt   2 April [1862]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. April 2d Mr. Darwin presents his compliments to the Secretary, & is sorry to say that the state of his health renders it impossible for him to accept the honour of acting as one of the Stewards at the Anniversary Dinner of the Literary Fund.—2 The British Library (Loan 96: RLF 4/16 1862 file 3) 1 2

The year is established from the position of this letter in the archives of the Royal Literary Fund. Blewitt was secretary of the Royal Literary Fund. See also this volume, Supplement, letter to Octavian Blewitt, 27 March [1860]. In 1862, the dinner took place on 25 June (The Times, 26 June 1862, p. 7).

To John Higgins   1 June 1862 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. June 1st. 62 My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge the sum of £240:7s:9d to be placed to my credit at Union Bank on June 7th.—, being half years rent due Lady’s day.—1 I am much obliged to you for informing me that you will call at my Brothers 6 Queen Anne St on Friday about 12 o clock, for I shd. be particularly glad to have the pleasure of seeing you; & unless I am too unwell to travel, I will certainly be there on purpose at that hour.2 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

2

h

d i

0 0

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent. March 25, the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, was one of the traditional ‘quarter-days’ of the business year, when rents were paid. CD did not meet Higgins at the house of his brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, in London (see this volume, Supplement, letter from John Higgins, 13 June 1862).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

237

From John Higgins   13 June 1862 Alford 13th. June 1862 My Dear Sir/ I am very sorry I had not the pleasure of meeting with you when I called upon your Brother in Queen Anne Street.1 I fully agree with you that the price of Land will steadily advance in this country for two reasons— The large influx of Gold, and the rapid increase of population which renders competition for farms so much greater than formerly; both causes tending to enhance the value of Land.— I have lately had large commissions to purchase Land for The Commissrs. of Woods & Forests2 but have been unable to acquire Estates to yield more than 314 per cent—which is about the value of 3 per cent consols,—and I do not expect that purchases can be found for the future to yield more.— It therefore appears to me better policy to invest money in Guaranteed Railway Stock, which at present prices can be done to secure 412 per cent.— I have great confidence in the Gt Nor. Coy which is established on a firm basis: & is under the direction & manage.t of competent Directors of high reputation—3 I have another estate in view near Louth,4 of the value of about £18,000; upon the sale of which I have been consulted; and I will let you know further particulars as soon as I can; and assuming that you do place your money on Railway Securities for a limited time; the add.l interest you would receive will more than compensate the Brokers Commission for re-Investment; and if you could not purchase Land to your satisfaction your money might continue in Railway Stock; but I agree with you that it is not desirable for you to continue so large a sum in any Bankers hands at a loss of Interest.— As my efforts to purchase the Heckington Estate failed, it is not my intention to make any charge, for my services—5 Altho’ I am in general good health, I am sorry to say my hands are so much affected by my late attack of gout, that I find it necessary to employ an Amanuensis— I am Dear Sir | Yrs faithfy | (signed) John Higgins Chas R Darwin Esq Copy Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/1/104) 1 2 3 4 5

h

d i

See this volume, Supplement, letter to John Higgins, 1 June 1862. CD’s brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, lived at 6 Queen Anne Street, London. The Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues managed Crown lands in the United Kingdom. CD had been investing in the Great Northern Railway since 1851 (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 37). Louth in Lincolnshire was about eleven miles from CD’s estate at Beesby; CD did not buy land there. Heckington in Lincolnshire is about forty miles from Beesby.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

238

To William Pamplin   23 June [1862]1 June 23d Dear Sir Dr. Hooker tells me that you supply paper for drying plants.2 Would you be so good as to send to enclosed address two reams with your account— Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Please to copy one of the following addresses for Parcels, Exactly, and do not add my Post Address, as Parcels often go wrong. C. Darwin, Esq., | Care of G. Snow,3 | Nag’s Head, | Borough, London. (Per Carrier,) N.B. Mr. Snow, leaves the Nag’s Head, every Thursday at One o’clock precisely; but Parcels may be sent there any day previously. Mr. DARWIN’s Address for Letters. | C. Darwin, Esq., | Down, | Bromley. | Kent. Carnegie Mellon University Libraries, Special Collections (laid into a copy of Origin, QH365 .O2 1859 (Copy 2)) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, [17 May 1862] (Correspondence vol.10). Joseph Dalton Hooker had recommended Pamplin as a source for paper in his letter of [17 May 1862]. George Snow, the coal dealer at Down, operated a carrier service between the village and London on Thursdays (Post Office directory of the six home counties 1866).

To Armand de Quatrefages   3 July [1862]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. July 3d Dear Sir Although I know how much you are occupied, yet I venture to request the great favour of some information, which I think that you can give me (& allow me to quote on your authority) without very great trouble. I can find no account of any differences in the moths of the several races of the common silk-worm. I have been told by one person that they are all closely similar.2 Is this really the case? Do not the moths from the cocoons of various shapes, with white & yellow silk, present any differences? I refer, of course, only to the supposed races of Bombyx mori.— If you have not attended to this small point, probably M. Guérin de Méneville would at once be able to answer.—3 As I am writing I will ask one more question: a person in England, who formerly kept many silk worms & even had persons from France to attend to them, assured me positively that the wings of the female moth, when she first came out of the cocoon, appeared less developed than those of the male; is this the case? but ultimately the wings of both males & females acquired the same degree (as I found by measurement) of imperfect development. I know your observations on the wings in your Études & have just quoted them in my M.S. work, which I am preparing on “Variation under Domestication”.—4

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

239

I can only trust to the great kindness, which you have several times showed me to forgive me for thus troubling you.— With sincere respect, I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Bibliothèque nationale de France, département des Manuscrits (Manuscripts NAF 11824 ff. 68–9) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Armand de Quatrefages, 11 July [1862] (Correspondence vol. 10). Mary Anne Theresa Whitby. See Variation 1: 303. Félix Édouard Guérin-Méneville introduced silkworms to France. CD’s English informant was Whitby; see Correspondence vol. 4, letter to M. A. T. Whitby, 14 October [1847]. In Variation 1: 303, CD also quoted Quatrefages’s Études sur les maladies actuelles du ver à soie (Studies on the current sicknesses of the silkworm; Quatrefages 1859). Whitby had brought a 19-yearold French woman who knew how to operate a silk-winder to England to help her produce silk for the loom (Colp 1972, p. 871).

From Charles Lyell   20 August 1862 Freshwater Gate, Isle of Wight: August 20, 1862. My dear Darwin,— Mr.  Jamieson of Ellon has been again to Lochaber, and confirms his former theory of the glacier lakes.1 The chief new point is a supposed rise at the rate of a foot per mile of the shelves as we proceed from the sea inland. It seems to me to require many more measurements, before we can rely on it. He found some splendid moraines opposite the mouth of Glen Trieg. He found some shells of Arctic character in the forty feet high raised beach of the Argyllshire coast, and has asked me to learn about one of them, of which he sends a drawing. I fell in yesterday in my walk with Mr. A. G. More, whom you cite in your orchid book.2 He considers you the most profound of reasoners, to which I made no objection, only being amused at remembering that, such being the case, you had performed a singular feat, as the Bishop of Oxford assured me, of producing ‘the most illogical book ever written.’3 We shall be here for a week longer. I have been with my nephew Leonard4 to Alum and Compton Bays. Ever most truly yours, | Charles Lyell. P.S. I have just come upon a passage in Hooker’s Essay on Flora of Australia p. VII5 which makes me wish much to have a line from you. He says, “Species, genera & orders of most complex structure are the best limited, Dicot. better than Monocot. Dychlandia better than Ach   He adds in note p. VII. that the highest order of plants manifest their physical superiority, in their greater extent of variation, which is of a higher order than mere complexity or specialization of organs.”6 Now this agrees with my idea of persistent types, in lower classes of animals (mollusca e.g.) more rapid variation in mammalia—but you say 1st. Ed. Origin. p 168. “Organic beings low in the scale of Nature are more variable, than those which have their whole organization more specialized.” My old axiom 1832, was the longevity of

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

240

species in the mollusca exceeding that in the class mammalia, which would chime in with Hooker, but I think you somewhere lay down principles in accordance with this law?7 | C. L. K. M. Lyell ed. 1881, 2: 358; The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/B9) 1

2

3

4 5 6

7

This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 10, without the postscript, which was subsequently found at Kinnordy. Thomas Francis Jamieson visited the Scottish district of Lochaber in August 1861 to examine the so-called ‘parallel roads’ of Glen Roy (see Correspondence vol. 9). In 1839, CD had published a paper in which he argued that the ‘roads’, a series of terraces running parallel to each other along the sides of the glen, were the remains of beaches formed by the sea as the landmass of Scotland gradually rose (‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’). Following his own observations, however, Jamieson concluded that during a great ‘Ice-Age’, ice-flows had trapped a series of lakes in the glen, and that the ‘roads’ represented the shorelines of those former lakes. While CD at first appeared to have conceded defeat on the question, stating that his paper had been ‘one long gigantic blunder’ (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter to Charles Lyell, 6 September [1861]), subsequent letters indicate that he was reluctant to abandon his own explanation (see Correspondence vol.  9, Appendix IX). Jamieson made a second visit to the site in July 1862 (see Jamieson 1863, p. 240); Lyell subsequently sent CD Jamieson’s letter describing his visit (see Correspondence vol. 10, enclosure to letter to Charles Lyell, 14 October [1862]). In addition to assisting CD with a number of experiments in 1861, Alexander Goodman More had supplied CD with orchid specimens from the Isle of Wight (see Correspondence vol. 9). His assistance is acknowledged several times in Orchids (see Orchids, pp. 67, 95 n., 99, and 101 n.). In his letter to CD of [13–14  February 1860] (Correspondence vol.  8), Lyell reported that Samuel Wilberforce, the bishop of Oxford, had maintained that Origin ‘was the most unphilosophical [book] he had ever read.’ Leonard Lyell. Joseph Dalton Hooker; J. D. Hooker 1859, p. vii. Dychlandia: actually Dichlamydeae. Ach: Achlamydeae. Lyell cited Hooker for this information in C. Lyell 1873, p. 495. A dichlamydeous flower is one with both calyx and corolla, and an achlamydeous flower is one with neither. The ‘axiom [of] 1832’ is in Lyell’s Principles of geology (C. Lyell 1830–3, 3: 140): ‘the longevity of species in the mammalia is, upon the whole, inferior to that of the testacea. … Their more limited duration depends, in all probability, on physiological laws which render warm-blooded quadrupeds less capable, in general, of accommodating themselves to a great variety of circumstances, and consequently, of surviving the vicissitudes to which the earth’s surface is exposed in a great lapse of ages.’ See also Correspondence vol. 10, letter to Charles Lyell, 22 August [1862].

To John Higgins   21 November 1862 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Nov. 21—1862 My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for £245"18"0 being half-years rent, placed to my account at the Union Bank.—1 Your account of the Tomline estate gives me some regret; but I hope I have done the best for my children.—2 I am very glad to see that you use your own hand again in writing, as this shows you must be better.3 Believe me | My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch. R. Darwin J. Higgins Esqre—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

241

Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1 2 3

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent. George Tomline owned an estate at Riby Grove, Lincolnshire. In his letter of 13 June 1862 (this volume, Supplement), Higgins had explained that because of gout affecting his hands, his letters were written by an amanuensis.

To T. F. Jamieson   24 January [1863]1 Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E., Jan. 24th, My Dear Sir, I have just received your Glen Roy paper in MS., and it seems to me not only conclusive but admirably done and most interesting. I heartily congratulate you on having solved a problem which has puzzled so many and which now throws so much light on the grand old glacial period. As for myself, you let me down so easily that, by Heavens, it is as pleasant as being thrown down on a soft hay-cock on a fine summer’s day. There are other men who would have had no satisfaction without hurling us all on the hard ground and then trampling on us. You cannot do the trampling at all well—you cannot even give a single kick to a fallen enemy! My seeing your MS. shows that I am referee, which ought to be a secret; but, as there can be no doubt about my report, there can be no wrong in my want of secrecy.2 With the most sincere admiration, pray believe me, | Yours sincerely, | Ch. Darwin. McConnochie 1901, pp. 236–7 1 2

The year given by the printed source is confirmed by the relationship between this letter and the letter from T. F. Jamieson, 28 January 1863 (Correspondence vol. 11). Jamieson’s paper on the ‘parallel roads’ of Glen Roy, a series of parallel terraces running along the sides of the glen in Lochaber, Scotland (Jamieson 1863), was read at the Geological Society of London on 21 January 1863. Since CD had published on the subject in 1839 (‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’), he was asked to act as referee (see Correspondence vol. 10, letter from A. C. Ramsay, 13 December 1862). CD’s referee report is no longer extant. Jamieson had argued that the ‘roads’ were the remains of a series of shores of glacial lakes, not, as CD had supposed, ancient seashores. See also this volume, Supplement, letter to T. F. Jamieson, 27 March [1862].

To Williams & Norgate   [7 February 1863 or earlier]1 Down Bromley Kent Saturday Dear Sir Would it be possible to get for me the numbers for Jany. 2d & Jany. 9th of the Botanische Zeitung for present year 1863. These two numbers contain two articles of considerable importance for me, & yet it would not be worth my while to buy whole volume.—2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

242

If you can get them, please oblige me & send them by Post.— Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S. Would you be so kind as to inform me, whether it is likely that you can obtain the two numbers. I enclose envelope for answer3 Endorsement: ‘13/ii 63’ Washington State University Libraries, Manuscripts, Archives and Special Collections (Paul Philemon Kies Autograph Collection, 1533–1970: 1 Autograph letters, 1533–1970 box 1, folder 55) 1

2

3

The date is established by the endorsement. In 1863, 13 February was a Friday; the preceding Saturday was 7 February. The date of the endorsement may be the date that Williams & Norgate sent the papers to CD rather than the date they received CD’s request. Ludolph Christian Treviranus wrote to CD that he had sent copies of his paper to Williams & Norgate to be sent on to CD in his letter of 12 February 1863 (Correspondence vol. 11). The articles were the two parts of Treviranus’s paper, ‘Ueber dichogamie nach C. C. Sprengel und Charles Darwin’ (On dichogamy according to C. C. Sprengel and Charles Darwin; Treviranus 1863). CD’s copy of Treviranus 1863 in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL is lightly annotated. No reply has been found.

To Camilla Ludwig   21 February [1863 or later]1 Down Feb. 21 My dear Camilla Will you be so very kind as to look at the enclosed letter sent me by some odd & goodhearted man.—2 No one here, visitors & all, can make it out.— I do not want Translation of whole, but only the part in which he recommends some treatment. I doubt, however, whether I shall try it.— Does the writer seem to know what is the matter with me?— Yours affect | C. Darwin American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.620) 1

2

The year is established by the fact that Ludwig, who was German, was the Darwin children’s governess from 1860 to 1863. She was probably at Down on 21 February 1861 and 1862 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)), and until at least December 1862, CD addressed her in letters as Miss Ludwig (see Correspondence vol. 13, Supplement, letter to [Camilla] Ludwig, 22 December 1862). The letter has not been found, and the correspondent has not been identified.

To W. E. Darwin   22 February [1863 or later]1 Feb. 22d. My dear W.— Do you think this is so good a thing, I ought not to reject it?— I rather hate these complicated affairs— I could take £1000 or £1500. I have, however, got an awful proportion of my property in Railways— For the love of all the saints advise me.2 your affec Father | C. Darwin DAR 210.6: 131

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 1 2

243

The date range is suggested by the date at which William Erasmus Darwin became a banker, and by CD’s investment history (see n. 2, below). CD invested in various railway companies from at least the 1850s (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 5, letter to John Higgins, 9 April [1854]), but was unlikely to have asked his son’s advice until some time after William became a banker in October 1861 (see Correspondence vol. 9). CD was still investing heavily in railway shares through a broker in July 1862 (see Correspondence, vol. 10, letter to John St Barbe, [before 3 July 1862]); William was advising him from at least 1866 (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 14, letter to W. E. Darwin, 19 [June 1866]).

To Arthur Rawson   2 April [1863]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. April. 2d My dear Mr. Rawson I am extremely much obliged for your note.2 By odd chance I have just found a Primrose plant, with generally 3 or even 4 pistils: I was so much surprised that I wrote to Kew & I have sent, in accordance with a request from that quarter, specimens in spirits; so it is an odd anomaly.3 I am very glad to hear about Gladiolus: I shall very soon have to give your case in M.S. (& I have all the old notes safe) preparing for publication & was thinking more than once whether you had tried any more experiments; but inferred that you had forgotten the subject; so you may suppose how pleased I am.— To make sure that I understand your last experiment, I will thus put case: of two plants of same var. A you find pollen, from one does not fertilise the stigma of the other; but that pollen (as in previous years) from vars. B. C. D. &c do fertilise var. A.— This is correct??4 Now will you kindly tell me whether you tried this last experiment on 2 or 3, or half-a-dozen, or more flowers? I shd like to add this to case.— With respect to Ophrys aranifera I will not trouble you; but I certainly shd. be very glad of the loan of the Cypripedium.5 But do you understand that a “loan” means that I shd probably cut up & mutilate all or nearly all the flowers; without doing this the flowers would be of no use to me.— Are you prepared to be so generous a martyr-florist? If so, I will gratefully send for plant, whenever I hear that it is ready. With very sincere thanks | Yours very truly | C. Darwin Sotheby’s (dealers) (10 December 2013); Xiling Yinshe Auction Company (dealers) (Autumn 2017 lot 2184) 1

2 3 4 5

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Arthur Rawson, 1 April [1863] (see Correspondence vol. 11). This letter was previously published with an incomplete transcription in Correspondence vol. 24, Supplement; the transcription is now complete. See Correspondence vol. 11, letter from Arthur Rawson, 1 April [1863]. See Correspondence vol. 11, letter to Daniel Oliver, 24–5 March [1863]. CD published an account of Rawson’s experiments in Variation 2: 139–40. For Rawson’s reply, see Correspondence vol. 11, letter from Arthur Rawson, [6 April 1863]. Rawson had offered to lend CD Ophrys aranifera (a synonym of O. sphegodes, the early spider orchid) or a pot of Cypripedium pubescens (greater yellow lady’s-slipper); see Correspondence vol. 11, letter from Arthur Rawson, 1 April [1863].

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

244 To George Snow   8 May 1863

Down House May 8th 1863 Sir After twenty years experience of your character in various Offices in the parish of Down, including that of Surveyor of the Roads, I have pleasure in giving my testimonial that you are extremely well qualified for the office of Surveyor for the Bromley District.—1 Sir | Your obed.t servt | Ch. R. Darwin | J.P. Lawrences Auctioneers (dealers) (30 April – 2 May 2019, Lot 207) 1

George Snow was the Down carrier (Post Office directory of the six home counties). He may also have been the parish highway surveyor or district highway surveyor under the administrative system prevailing before the introduction of the District Highway Boards under the 1862 Highways Act (Webb and Webb 1913, pp. 29–31). Snow was unsuccessful in his candidature for district surveyor; George Golding of Chislehurst was appointed on 27 May 1863 (London Borough of Bromley Archives, Bromley Highway Board, 847/ HB/B/1). See also Correspondence vol. 11, letter to the chairman of the Bromley District Highway Board from the parishioners of Down, Kent, 3 April 1863. The chairman was John Farnaby Lennard.

From Charles Lyell   9 May 1863 53 Harley S.t May 9. 1863 My dear Darwin I am just returned from 3 days visit to Osborne— The Queen had been told that the only part of my book which she would understand was the Lake-dwellings, but I found that the only part she really had read was about you & your system, & plenty of questions it had suggested which I hope I answered well.1 Ever most truly yrs in haste | Cha Lyell Copy The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/B9) 1

Osborne House on the Isle of Wight was built for Queen Victoria. Lyell’s The geological evidences of the antiquity of man with remarks on theories of the origin of species by variation (C. Lyell 1863) was published early in 1863 (see also Correspondence vol. 11, letter to Charles Lyell, 6 March [1863]). Lyell discussed Swiss and Irish lake dwellings in chapter 2, and CD’s theory of the origin of species by natural selection and its bearing on the development of humans in chapters 21 to 24.

To John Higgins   31 May 1863 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. May 31— 1863 My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for the payment of the Balance of £235"7s"9d to my account at the Union Bank.1

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

245

I am much obliged for your never-failing care for my interest in regard to Rent & remain | My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre— Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent.

From Emma Darwin to Frederick Pollock   23 October [1863?]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Oct 23. Sir I write by my husband’s desire to thank you for your very interesting letter. I am sorry to say that he is now so unwell as to be unable to attend to any observations or work of any kind— He is very much interested by the account you give of the inherited variations & the proportion of them & the fact of the frequent occurrence of these variations in one locality is very curious.2 He has heard of facts somewhat analogous to these. He begs me to thank you for the honour you have done him & to say what a pleasure it would have been to have seen these varied plants if his health had permitted him to accept your very kind invitation I am | Sir yours obediently | Emma Darwin Private collection 1

2

The year is conjectured from the reference to CD’s illness. He was particularly ill from October 1863 into 1864, and Emma Darwin wrote several letters on his behalf; see, for example, Correspondence vol. 11, letter from Emma Darwin to Julius von Haast, 12 December [1863]. Pollock’s letter has not been found, but in Variation 1: 383, CD referred to information received from him on the percentages of variegated seedlings in two generations of Ballota nigra (black horehound) raised from wild plants. Pollock lived in Hatton, Middlesex (ODNB).

To John Higgins   4 December 1863 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Dec. 4th. 1863 My dear Sir I acknowledge with thanks £248:2s.1d. (rent).— I am ill so pray excuse brevity.1 Yours very faithfully | Ch. R. Darwin J. Higgins Esqre Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

h

d i

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent. In her diary (DAR 242), Emma Darwin recorded ‘began Quinine’ and ‘sick about 12 at night’ on 4 December 1863; CD had been ill for much of the year.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

246 To [‘Julian’]   [c. 1864]1

[Incomplete autograph letter signed, to ‘Julian’. Lacking at least the first page. Creation dates: [c.1864].] Photocopy incomplete2 The British Library (Surrogate RP 10629) 1

2

The information about this letter comes from the digital catalogue of the British Library (http://search archives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:LSCOP_BL:IAMS040-003310649). The photocopy is an export licence copy that had not been released at the time this volume went to press. According to the catalogue entry, the photocopy consists of two sheets and at least the first page of the letter is missing.

To A. R. Wallace   [c. 10 April 1864]1 [Down.] I see you have been reading a paper to the Linn. Soc. also, so I am sure you have little cause to say you are not doing much.2 I am sure Spencers Social Statics, wh. you so strongly recommend, wd be too deep for me, & I confess with shame & grief that I cannot fully appreciate this authors merits—occasionally a page or two of his last part on Biology is read to me—3 I can se〈e〉 that it is very clever, tho〈ugh〉 very wordy, & somehow does not satisfy me, & I do not feel a bit the wiser. The doctors still maintain that I shall get well, but it will be months before I am able to work. With every good wish | pray believe me | yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS incomplete The Argyll Papers, Inveraray Castle (NRAS 1209/856) 1 2

3

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from A. R. Wallace, 10 May 1864 (Correspondence vol. 12), in which Wallace mentioned CD’s ‘letter of a month back’. Wallace read his paper ‘On the phenomena of variation and geographical distribution as illustrated by the Papilionidæ of the Malayan region’ (A. R. Wallace 1864a) before the Linnean Society on 17 March 1864. He had also read a paper on the origin of human races before the Anthropological Society of London on 1 March 1864 (A. R. Wallace 1864b). In his letter of 10 May 1864, Wallace mentioned that he was sending CD a copy of his anthropological paper, and told CD where he could find an abstract of his Papilionidae paper. In his letter of 2 January 1864 (Correspondence vol. 12), Wallace had said, ‘With regard to work, I am doing but little’. Spencer 1851. Herbert Spencer’s Principles of biology (Spencer 1864–7) was issued in parts, beginning in 1863. See also Correspondence vol. 12, letter from A. R. Wallace, 2 January 1864, and letter from J. D. Hooker, 3 November [1864].

To John Higgins   31 May 1864 Down Bromley Kent May 31 1864 My dear Sir I have to acknowledge & thank you for £242 " 11s : 10d placed to my account at the Union Bank.—1 I am much obliged for your kind enquiries: I have had a very

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

247

long illness, but am now recovering & shall soon regain my former moderate state of health.—2 I sincerely hope that you are pretty well & remain | My de〈ar Sir〉 | Yours 〈fai〉thfully | Ch. R. Darwin Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138)

1 2

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent. On CD’s health during this period, see Correspondence vol. 13, Appendix IV.

To Auguste Laugel   4 September [1864]1 Down Bromley | Kent Sept. 4th. Dear Sir I thank you sincerely for the renewed proof of your kindness in sending me your Problèmes de la Nature”.2 I have not yet read any part for I see that it will require much attention; but I hope soon to read it & I am sure that it will give me much pleasure. I have had a very long & bad illness & am still very far from strong & am afraid to exercise my mind much.3 I fear I shall never again have much strength but hope still to do a little more work in Natural History— With sincere respect & with my best thanks, I remain | Dear Sir | Yours truly obliged | Charles Darwin Librairie du Manoir de Pron (dealers) (January 2016) 1 2 3

The year is established by the reference to Laugel 1864 (see n. 2, below). There is a copy of Laugel 1864 in the Darwin Library–Down. For CD’s health at this time, see Correspondence vol. 13, Appendix IV.

To Hermann Kindt   7 September [1864]1

Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Sep 7

Dear Sir I am much obliged for your very kind note.2 I should have been pleased to have given permission for the translation, but my work on Orchids was translated by the late Professor Bronn & published in Stuttgard by E. Schweizerbart.3 My Monograph on the Cirripedia was originally published by the Ray Society, but can now be purchased at Hardwick’s 192 Piccadilly. It consists of 2 large Vols. with numerous plates & I believe but I am not sure that the price is £1–1–4 Pray believe me | Dear Sir yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS(A) Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig (Autographensammlung Kestner: Slg. Kestner/II/C/II/125/Nr. 1, Mappe 125, Blatt Nr1) 1

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Hermann Kindt, 5 September 1864 (Correspondence vol. 12).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

248 2 3 4

Kindt had asked whether it was permitted to publish translated extracts from Orchids (Correspondence vol. 12, letter from Hermann Kindt, 5 September 1864). Heinrich Georg Bronn’s translation of Orchids (Bronn trans. 1862) was published by E. Schweizerbart in Stuttgart. Living Cirripedia (1851), Living Cirripedia (1854). Robert Hardwicke was publisher to the Ray Society. The total cost of the two volumes was £2 2s. (Freeman 1977).

To Henry Holland   6 November [1864]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Nov. 6th My dear Sir Henry I thank you cordially for your most kind note & for your congratulations on the honour which the Royal Society has done me.2 I have just read H. Spencer’s work: it strikes me as extremely clever, & yet, I cannot tell why, I never feel much wiser, when I have finished reading him.—3 I am, I hope, decidedly getting better, but fear that I shall never reach my former modicum of strength: I am, however, able to do a little work in Natural History every day. I was very ill for about ten months with incessant vomiting, which became bad when you were in America last year. How wonderful your strength & vigour of interest are: I had heard of your Gibraltar expedition.—4 With most sincere thanks for your never-failing kindness, I remain | My dear Sir Henry | Yours most sincerely | and obliged | Charles Darwin Peter Harrington (dealer) (September 2020) 1 2 3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Henry Holland, 4 November [1864] (Correspondence vol. 12). The Royal Society of London awarded CD the Copley Medal in 1864 (see Correspondence vol. 12, letter from Henry Holland, 4 November [1864]). Herbert Spencer’s Principles of biology (Spencer 1864–7) was issued in instalments beginning in January 1863 as a continuation of his First principles (Spencer 1860–2; see Correspondence vol. 12, letter from Henry Holland, 4 November [1864] and n. 5). For Holland’s travels, see Correspondence vol. 12, letter from Henry Holland, 4 November [1864], nn. 6 and 7. CD had been ill throughout much of 1863 and the early part of 1864 (see Correspondence vols. 11 and 12).

To John Higgins   1 December 1864

Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Dec. 1st. 1864

My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for £262 " 13s. 5d. being half-a-year’s rent, placed to my account at the Union Bank.—1 I am sorry to hear that you are still suffering from that most painful illness of Gout.2 My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. R. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

249

Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1 2

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent. See also this volume, Supplement, letter from John Higgins, 13 June 1862.

To C. A. Bennet   [before 3 January 1865]1 Professor Rutsmeyer expresses the warmest gratitude to Your Lordship. The Cow’s skull is not yet clean enough for final examination, but the professor feels pretty sure that it will prove to belong to the gigantic Primigenius race (reduced now in size), which was described by Cæsar in the forests of Germany, and which is now extinct.2 It is, however, abundantly found fossil in northern Europe. I think Your Lordship will be pleased to hear that you and your ancestors have preserved this great ruminant. Incomplete Scotsman, 19 July 1929, p. 13 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Ludwig Rütimeyer, 3 January 1865 (Correspondence vol. 13). CD had been trying to secure a skull of one of the white cattle at Chillingham Park since 1861 (Correspondence vol. 9, letter to Ludwig Rütimeyer, 5 December [1861]). The cattle were kept on the Chillingham Park estate of Charles Augustus Bennet, earl of Tankerville. It was believed that the Chillingham cattle were the closest living representatives of Britain’s original wild cattle (see Hindmarsh 1839). Rütimeyer discussed the Chillingham cattle in Rütimeyer 1867a, pp. 130–3, 146–9. Julius Caesar described German aurochs in De bello Gallico 6: 28.

To E. P. Wright   26 March [1865] Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Mar 26 Dear Dr Wright I am very much obliged for your note.1 The fact that you mention about the buffalo diving is extremely curious & might come in of use to me, at some future day as illustrating abnormal habits. But I have one little difficulty   you speak of the animal as Buf. arnee; now the Arnee is a species of Bos & not of Bubalus; if you cd at any time learn whether the animal was a Bubalus or a Bos your case wd be more valuable.2 With very sincere thanks, pray believe me | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS(A) Endorsement: ‘1865’ Malmö Museer (MM 031992) 1 2

h

d i

Correspondence vol. 13, letter from E. P. Wright, 24 March 1865. For Wright’s identification, see Correspondence vol. 13, letter from E. P. Wright, 31 March 1865. The Asian water buffalo that Wright discussed is now named Bubalus bubalis; Bubalus bubalis arnee is a subspecies.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

250 To E. P. Wright   3 April [1865]

Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Ap 3— Dear Dr Wright I am very much obliged for your note.1 I did not know that the Arnee had been called a Bubalus, & not knowing how well Mr Dunlop was acquainted with the animal I thought it likely that the real Buffalo & Arnee might have been confounded.2 I cannot say that I am sorry that I have troubled you, as I have thus learned the additional curious case of the shrimps.3 In the first Edition of the Origin I said that the bear which swims with open mouth & catches shrimps might be developed into a creature with a mouth as monstrous as that of a whale; my reviewers have said that I cd thus easily turn a bear into a whale, & now I can as easily turn an Arnee into a Manatee.4 With very sincere thanks for your kind expressions believe me yours truly | Charles Darwin LS Endorsement: ‘1865’ Malmö Museer (MM 031993) 1 2

3 4

See Correspondence vol. 13, letter from E. P. Wright, 31 March 1865. Wright had sent CD information about a species of buffalo in India that had been observed diving for grass in flooded fields. See Correspondence vol. 13, letter from E. P. Wright, 31 March 1865. The Asian water buffalo that Wright discussed is now named Bubalus bubalis; Bubalus bubalis arnee is a subspecies. Andrew Anderson Dunlop was Wright’s informant. Dunlop had found that the buffaloes’ meat was flavoured by the freshwater shrimps they ingested with the grass (see Correspondence vol. 13, letter from E. P. Wright, 31 March 1865). In Origin, p. 184, CD suggested that if a race of bears habitually swam in the water catching insects in their mouths (as had been observed in North America), then, in the right conditions, they might become more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, until a creature was produced ‘as monstrous as a whale’. In the second edition, CD retained the description of the bear catching insects ‘almost like a whale’, but omitted further speculation (Origin 2d ed., p. 184). See also Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Andrew Murray, 28 April [1860].

To B. J. Sulivan   [9 May 1865]1 [Down.] sit with anyone for more than quarter or sometimes for half an hour. If I talk more my head sings & swims & I am done for.2 But I shd. in all probability be able to pay you two or three little visits in the drawing room when you come here; so if you can spare a day do come, for I shall be sincerely rejoiced to see you3 My dear Sulivan | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Incomplete John Wilson (dealer) (January 2016)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 1 2 3

251

A note on the letter dates it to ‘May 9th | about | 1864 | or 65’; 1865 is confirmed by the relationship between this letter and the letter from B. J. Sulivan, 8 May [1865] (Correspondence vol. 13). For CD’s health at this time, see Correspondence vol. 13, Appendix IV. Sulivan later suggested a visit on 2 June (see Correspondence vol. 13, letter from B. J. Sulivan, 31 May [1865]), but it is not known whether it took place or not.

To John Higgins   31 May 1865 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. May 31st 1865 My dear Sir I apologise for my delay in acknowledging & thanking you for your note, account, & the remittance to the Union Bank for me of £255"2s"10d.1 Believe me, my dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. R. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre— Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent.

To Charles Kingsley   2 June [1865]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. June 2 My dear Sir I am much obliged for your extremely kind note. I enclose the only photograph which I have of myself, made by one of my sons.2 I believe it is like but it makes me rather an awful old gentleman. One of the greatest losses which I have suffered from my continued ill-health has been my seclusion from society & not becoming acquainted with some few men whom I should have liked to have known3 Pray believe me my dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S. I have a small collection of photographs & shd. very much like to possess yours.—4 LS(A) Bonhams, New York (dealers) (4 December 2019, lot 19) 1 2

3 4

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letters from Charles Kingsley, 30 May 1865 and 10 June 1865 (Correspondence vol. 13). See Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Charles Kingsley, 30 May 1865. The photograph was probably one taken by CD’s eldest son, William Erasmus Darwin, in 1864 (see Correspondence vol. 12, letter from W. E. Darwin, [19 May 1864], and frontispiece). On CD’s health during this period, see Correspondence vol. 13, Appendix IV. CD started an album of photographs of scientific friends in 1864 (see Correspondence vol. 12, letter to T. H. Huxley, 5 November [1864]). It has not been found.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

252

To Hermann Kindt   [18–22 October 1865]1 [Down.] I have now recapitulated the chief facts and considerations, which have thoroughily convinced me that species have been modified, during a long course of descent, by the preservation or the natural selection of many successive slight favourable variations. I cannot believe that a false theory would explain, as it seems to me that the theory of natural selection does explain, the several large classes of facts above specified. It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. Who can explain what is the essence of attraction of gravity? No one now objects to following out the results consequent on this unknown element of attraction; not-withstanding that Leibnitz formerly accused Newton of introducing “occult qualities & miracles into philosophy.”— Charles Darwin p 514 3d Edit of “Origin”2 Nate D. Sanders Auctions (dealer) (30 March 2017) 1 2

The date range is established by the relationship between this letter and the letters from Hermann Kindt, 17 October 1865 and 23 October 1865 (Correspondence vol. 13). Kindt had asked CD to provide an autograph extract from Origin for facsimile reproduction in a journal that he edited, the Autographic Mirror (L’autograph cosmopolite; see Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Hermann Kindt, 17 October 1865). The autograph by CD appeared in the Autographic Mirror 3 (1865), no. 262. CD referred to Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.

To John Higgins   21 November 1865 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Nov. 21. 1865 My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for the sum of £257–12.2. placed to my account at the Union Bank—1 I am dear Sir | yours | very faithfully | Ch. R. Darwin J. Higgins Esq LS Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent.

To Hermann Kindt   22 November 1865 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. 22. Nov. 1865. Dear Sir Absence from home & illness have prevented me sooner answering your letter.1

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

253

The imitation of my handwriting is I think very good, but perhaps a shade too free. In the letter press I observe two mis-prints than for then & Monography for Monograph2     As far as I know your account of Dr Darwin is quite correct, but I cannot be answerable for any of the dates. I enclose three letters for you to use any of them you like.3 When done with, please to return them to “Miss Meteyard Wild Wood North End Hampstead N.” as Miss M. is using them in her Life of Wedgwood & his son.4 Believe me dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S. I wish I could offer you any writing of Josiah Wedgwood but I possess none— LS Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Nachl. 480 (Slg. Runge), 4: Darwin, Charles, Bl. 1–2) 1

2 3

4

See Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Hermann Kindt, 13 November 1865. CD stayed with his brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, in London, from 8 to 20 November, and fell ill while he was there (Correspondence vol. 13, Appendix II; Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Kindt had published a facsimile of CD’s handwriting and a brief biography of CD in a journal that he edited, the Autographic Mirror. See Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Hermann Kindt, 23 October 1865. Kindt had asked for a sample of the handwriting of Erasmus Darwin, CD’s paternal grandfather, and enclosed a biographical notice of Erasmus (Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Hermann Kindt, 13 November 1865). One of the letters was reproduced in the Autographic Mirror 4 (1866): no. 70 (see Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Hermann Kindt, 24 November 1865). Eliza Meteyard was writing a biography of CD’s maternal grandfather, Josiah Wedgwood I (Meteyard 1865–6); see Correspondence vol. 13, letter to Eliza Meteyard, 16 November [1865]. She was also planning a work on Josiah’s son Thomas Wedgwood, published as A group of Englishmen (Meteyard 1871). See Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Eliza Meteyard, 25 April 1865.

To [John Gould?]   [before 10 May 1866?]1 in the [north] of Engla〈nd〉 〈   〉 〈   〉 & with the 〈   〉 〈   〉 that (for the convenience 〈   〉 〈   〉 everybody concerned) 〈      〉 you 〈      〉 the day Would you have the kindness to add to next page the name of Humming Bird & tear off sheet & post it in enclosed envelope.— Yours sincerely obliged | Ch. Darwin Incomplete Jeff Weber (dealer) (October 2018) 1

h

d i

The date and recipient are conjectured from the possible relationship between this letter and the letter from John Gould, 10 May 1866 (Correspondence vol. 14).

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

254 To John Higgins   14 May 1866

Down Bromley Kent May 14 1866

My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for the sum of £262–8s–8d for rent placed to my account at the Union Bank.1 I had not heard that you had suffered so much from the cattle plague in Lincolnshire & am very much obliged to you for giving me information on the subject.2 I am extremely sorry to hear of the great loss which my sister’s tenant & your son have suffered.3 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. R. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre— LS(A) Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1 2

3

The payment was for six months rent on CD’s farm at Beesby, Lincolnshire (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS), p. 20). Higgins was CD’s land agent. Higgins’s letter has not been found. Lincolnshire had seen a sharp increase in cattle infected with cattle plague or rinderpest, a cattle disease with very high mortality rates, since the beginning of 1866 (see Stamford Mercury, 2 March 1866, p. 6). Susan Elizabeth Darwin’s tenant at Claythorpe in Lincolnshire was Joseph Gilbert. John Higgins’s son was John Higgins (1826–1902).

To Charles Kingsley   15 July [1866]1

Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. July 15

My dear Mr Kingsley I am much obliged to you for telling me where your lectures are published as living in the country I might not have heard of their publication. I shall certainly read them & have not the least doubt they will interest me much, judging from an abstract which I saw in some newspaper.2 I can form no opinion about the wonderful case of the migration of the eye in flat-fish; whether Steenstrup is right who seems to think that the eye itself moves by absorption on one side & growth on the other; or whether Thompson is right who thinks that the eye itself does not move, but that the adjoining parts are developed in a wonderfully unequal manner on the two sides of the head.3 The power of development on either side seems to me one of the most curious points of the case. When I read the paper I speculated how the unequal development cd have originated & imagined that a fish feeding on the ground with its body held laterally might be benefitted by the eye on the lower side becoming deeper & deeper imbedded in the skull, & instead of becoming blind & useless, travelling to the upper side, but this is all baseless speculation.4 With many thanks for your kind note believe me | yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS(A) Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (6 April 2022, lot 237)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 1 2

3

4

255

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Charles Kingsley, 12 July 1866 (Correspondence vol. 14). Kingsley had drawn CD’s attention to two lectures on science and superstition that he had delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain and that were published in Fraser’s Magazine (Kingsley 1866a and 1866b). CD may have seen the abstract in the Morning Post, 27 April 1866, p. 5. In his letter of 12 July 1866 (Correspondence vol. 14), Kingsley had mentioned an article by Charles Wyville Thomson, ‘Notes on Prof. Steenstrup’s views on the obliquity of flounders’, in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History (C. W. Thomson 1865). Thomson gave an abstract, with commentary, of a paper by Japetus Steenstrup on the migration of the eye of flounders. CD discussed the migration of the eye in Pleuronectidae, or flatfish (now righteye flounders), in Origin 6th ed., pp. 186–8. See also Correspondence vol. 14, letter from Charles Kingsley, 12 July 1866, n. 3.

To John Higgins   [16 November 1866]

[Down.]

for your kind invitation to him.—1 Pray believe me | My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin J. Higgins Esqre Incomplete Endorsement: ‘Nov 16/66’ Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

This letter is a fragment from an autograph album. In it, CD presumably thanked Higgins for a payment to his account of £252 19s. 2d, six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby in Lincolnshire (CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS)). Higgins also managed the estate of CD’s sister Susan Elizabeth Darwin at Claythorpe in Lincolnshire; she died in October 1866, and the estate was inherited by CD’s son William Erasmus Darwin. It is possible that Higgins had invited to William to visit him.

To Charles Lyell   [22 November 1866 – 14 December 1871]1

6. Q. Anne St Thursday

My dear Lyell May I call tomorrow at about 912 oclock? If Saturday wd. suit you better I cd come on that day. Ever yours | C. Darwin Please send verbal answer.— Natural History Museum, Library and Archives (L DC AL 1/2) 1

h

d i

The date range is established from the fact that the letter was written to Lyell at 73 Harley Street, London, on a Thursday, suggesting a meeting on Friday or Saturday. Lyell’s house on Harley Street was renumbered from 53 to 73 in September or October of 1866. CD’s first visit after September 1866 to the house of his brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, at 6 Queen Anne Street, London, began on Thursday 22 November 1866. His last visit to Queen  Anne Street before Lyell’s death in 1875 took place from 10 January 1874, but CD arrived and left on a Saturday (10 and 17), which makes it unlikely that he would have suggested meeting at any time on Saturday. The visit before that began on 17 December 1872, but according to Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), CD was in bed on the only possible Thursday, which makes it unlikely that he would have committed himself to a meeting so soon. The visit before that started on 14 December 1871, a Thursday. (CD’s ‘Journal’, Correspondence vols. 19, 20, 22, Appendix II.)

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

256 To ?   17 December [1866]1

Down Bromley Kent Dec. 17th Dear Sir Four Editions of the Origin have appeared; that published last month is considerably added to & can be procured through any bookseller2   I am glad to hear that you are interested on the subject.— Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin Bloomsbury Auctions (dealers) (22 June 2017) 1 2

The year is established by the reference to Origin 4th ed., which was published in 1866. For the numerous additions to Origin 4th ed., which was published five years after the third edition, see Correspondence vol. 14, Introduction, pp. xv–xvi.

To J. D. Hooker   [23 January 1867] [Down.] My dear H.— I shd much like Miquel’s Photograph—1 Give him my address & do not bother yourself with sending it— Thanks for your pleasant letter just received—2 We are very glad Mrs H. goes on well3 Ever yours | C. Darwin You had better not send, if in earnest, the earth from St. Helena to me, as I could not distinguish commonest weed from the rarest now extinct plant—4 Endorsement: ‘Jany 23/67’ Bonhams (dealers) (4 December 2019, lot 51) 1 2 3 4

Friedrich Anton Wilhelm Miquel. See Correspondence vol. 15, letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 January 1867. Frances Harriet Hooker had recently given birth. CD had joked that he would like a cask or two of St Helena earth from below the surface so that he could try to revive lost species of plants (see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 January [1867] and n. 8, and letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 January 1867).

To E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung   27 March [1867]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Mar 27. Dear Sir I write a line merely to thank you for your letter & to say that I do not care which photograph is engraved.2 As soon as I hear from you that you are going to write to Mr Murray about the wood cuts I will write myself, & that will produce a better effect than my writing some time before.3 Dear Sir | yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

257

PS When next you write to Prof. Carus, please tell him that I hope in a few weeks to get for him specimens of Eozoon Canadense.4 LS(A) Jeremy Norman (dealer) (catalogue 69, item 14) 1 2

3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 22 March 1867 (Correspondence vol. 15). In his letter of 22 March 1867, Christian Friedrich Schweizerbart had asked whether CD had any preferences about which photograph of him was reproduced in the German translation of Origin 4th ed. (Bronn and Carus trans. 1867). Schweizerbart wanted John Murray to provide stereotypes of the woodcuts in Variation. See Correspondence vol. 15, letter from J. V. Carus, 11 February 1867, and letter to J. V. Carus, 17 February [1867]. Julius Victor Carus was CD’s German translator. In 1864, John William Dawson identified samples taken from pre-Silurian strata in eastern Canada as fossilised Foraminifera, single-celled protists with shells; he named the species Eozoon canadense, the ‘Dawn animal from Canada’ (Dawson 1864). Further samples were sent to William Benjamin Carpenter, an expert on Foraminifera, who confirmed Dawson’s interpretation (Carpenter 1864a). CD added information on the discovery of Eozoon canadense to Origin 4th ed., p. 371, as substantiating his claim, made in Origin, p. 307, that life existed before the Silurian period. The interpretation of the samples as pre-Silurian fossils remained controversial, however (see, for example, Carpenter 1866, and King and Rowney 1866); and by the end of the century, comparisons with similar, more recent, formations indicated that the samples were mineral in origin (see Schopf 2000).

To John Higgins   23 May 1867 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. May 23rd. 1867 My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for the sum of £159.11"2 being half a years rent, less certain charges & the payment of half the cost of the new cottages.1 I am glad to hear that the cottages are so nearly finished. Believe me, My dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Ch. R. Darwin To J. Higgins Esq LS Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for CD’s farm at Beesby in Lincolnshire; Higgins was CD’s land agent. Higgins’s letter to CD has not been found.

To J. W. Salter   19 [June 1867]1 6 Queen Anne St | Cavendish Sqr. W. Wednesday 19th Dear Mr Salter No one can be more sincerely glad than I am, on your own account & on that of Science, to hear that your circumstances are amended & your anxieties lessened.2 As

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

258

you are so kind as to offer so freely the Supp. Eng. Bot. I shall be very much pleased to accept it, & you can send it by Deliv. Co. either here, or to “C. Darwin care of G. Snow Nag’s Head Borough.”3 I am generally so much tired in the evening, that I can go no where, but should I feel unususually strong I will attend at Geolog. Soc tonight.4 It has been a very great loss to me that I have been compelled to give up attending all Scientific meetings.— Pray believe me | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Christie’s, London (dealers) (online 31 October – 8 November 2018, lot 4) 1 2 3

4

The month and year are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. W. Salter, 18 June 1867 (Correspondence vol. 15). For Salter’s financial and mental state, see Secord 1985. See Correspondence vol. 15, letter from J. W. Salter, 18 June 1867. Salter was the proprietor of the Supplement to the English botany of the late Sir J. E. Smith and Mr. Sowerby (W. J. Hooker, Sowerby [et al.] 1831–63). There is a copy of it in the Darwin Library–CUL. George Snow was the Down carrier; his London terminus was the Nag’s Head Inn in Borough. Salter gave two papers at the 19 June meeting of the Geological Society of London: ‘On some tracks of Pteraspis (?) in the Upper Ludlow Sandstone’, and, jointly with Henry Hicks, ‘On a new Lingulella from the Red Lower Cambrian rocks of St. Davids’ (see Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 23 (1867): 333–41). There is no record of CD’s having attended.

From Charles Lyell   16 July 1867 73 Harley S.t London 16 July 1867 To Charles Darwin Esq My dear Darwin … What a change in 14 years—all the neolithic & paleolithic period, & your “Origin” since my 9th Edition!1 I shall be very curious to read what you will say on Man & his Races. It was not a theme to be dismissed by you in a chapter of your present work.2 You must have so much to say & gainsay. If you had treated of Man in your present book, I think I should have been disposed to keep back mine, that I might start from the new goal, but as it is, I am content to declare, that any one who refuses to grant that Man must be included in the theory of Variation & Natural Selection, must give up that theory for the whole of the organic world. Have you seen Rüttemayer “Die Herkunft unserer Thierwelt”.3 I must read it. He seems to take the derivation hypothesis for granted in all his reasoning. I do not like to have to controvert Sir John Herschel, but surely his recently published doctrine of almost every active volcano being at the junction of continents & the sea, is untenable.4 The number of insular volcanoes rising from the deep ocean is very great, & where the ocean is from three to six miles deep, there are probably

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

259

as many unknown to us, as in the less profound parts of the ocean. We should have known nothing of Madeira & the Canaries, if they had been strictly in MidAtlantic. Herschel’s explanation is that rivers carry down a great weight of matter from the land to the bed of the sea. The latter area is loaded while the land is relieved of pressure, then comes a crack in the solid crust along the coast line for the crust overlies the internal fluid nucleus. Up goes the light area, & down goes the heavy one, & the lava oozes out like water when ice cracks.— How does this account for the eruption which happened the other day in the deep sea in the Samoa group of islands in the Pacific.5 To me it seems that the absence of water is the reason why we have not inland volcanoes. They require steam, they get this first near the land, then a thousand miles or more distant from it, as in the Azores, & then probably in deeper water where we cannot witness the outburst at the surface. But Herschel says that the waste of the continents causes the laying on of so much new solid substance over the bottom of the Pacific as to cause that bottom to be sinking (p. 12. Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects). Have you any where spoken of the cause of volcanoes not being far from the sea?6 We go to Paris in a fortnight & then to Scotland to return in Septr. | Ever affectly rs Y | Cha Lyell Copy incomplete The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/B9) 1

2

3 4 5 6

Lyell was working on the tenth edition of his Principles of geology (C. Lyell 1867–8); the ninth edition had been published in 1853 (C. Lyell 1853). Origin had been published in 1859. Lyell discussed the finding of stone tools from the Palaeolithic and Neolithic in C. Lyell 1867–8, 2: 558–64. CD was working on the proofs of Variation (published in January 1868; see Correspondence vol. 15, Appendix II). He had decided not to include a chapter on humans; the material he had collected was later developed into Descent and Expression. See Correspondence vol. 15, letter to J. D. Hooker, 8 February [1867]. Ludwig Rütimeyer, Rütimeyer 1867b (The origin of our animal world). See John Frederick William Herschel’s Familiar lectures on scientific subjects (Herschel 1866, pp. 1–46). See also C. Lyell 1867–8, 2: 229. On the submarine volcanic eruption beginning in September 1866, near the islands of Tau and Olosenga (now Ta‘u and Olosega), see the Salisbury and Winchester Journal, 20 April 1867, p. 2. For CD’s reply, see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to Charles Lyell, 18 July [1867].

To Hermann Müller1   16 August [1867]2 Down, Bromley, Kent Aug: 16. Dear Sir Ich bin Ihnen für Ihren höchst interessanten Brief sehr verbunden, aber es macht mir Sorge, dass Sie sich so viele Arbeit gemacht haben, mich zu verpflichten. … Sie theilen offenbar Ihres Bruders wundervolle Beobachtungsgabe, sowie seine Fertigkeit, sich englisch auszudrücken und seine Geschicklichkeit im Zeichnen. Ich hoffe, dass Sie Ihre excellente Beschreibung veröffentlichen werden.3 I was made

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

260

aware by Prof. Asa Gray (either in a paper in the Amer. Journal of Science or in a letter) of my error with respect to Cypripedium.4 By an odd chance I put an Andrena into the labellum, and saw what you describe as naturally taking place.5 Ich kann nicht umhin, ein wenig an der Vergiftung der Bienen zu zweifeln, da es die Ueberführung des Pollens von Pflanze zu Pflanze durchkreuzen würde Bienen sterben, wenn sie stark angestrengt werden, bald an Erschöpfung. Der grosse Robert Brown behauptet indessin, dass der Nektar der Asclepias Bienen vergifte, und das unterstützt Ihre Ansicht.6 Sie erwähnen nicht der wohlangepassten Einwärtskrümmung des Randes der Lippenöffnung, welche die Insekten verhindert, herauszukriechen.7 Ihre Beobachtungen an Epipactis erscheinen mir noch werthvoller. E. viridiflora scheint in demselben Falle wie Cephalanthera zu sein, aber man kann von dem Vorhandensein des Nektars daselbst schliessen, dass Insekten gelegentlich Pollen von Pflanze zu Pflanze führen. Könnten Sie nicht mit Anwendung des Pollens einer verschiedenen Pflanze und andererseits ihres eigenen experimentiren, und den Inhalt der Kapseln vergleichen? I do not doubt that this species is generally selffertilized; and I am aware that I erred in supposing that this happened to so few species.8 Neottia nidus avis is often self-fertilized.9 Epipactis latifolia I find is always fertilized by wasps (vespa)10 — — — — Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin Copy and printed source, incomplete DAR 146: 429; Krause 1884, p. 17 1

2

3

4

5

6

h

d i

0 0

The English parts of this letter, from a copy made for Francis Darwin, were previously published in Correspondence vol. 15; the German translation of some missing parts were later transcribed from Krause 1884. For a translation of the German of the printed source, see Appendix I. The year is established by the reference, in the letter to Fritz Müller, 15 August [1867] (Correspondence vol. 15), to a letter from Hermann Müller containing observations on the fertilisation of orchids. Hermann began his work on orchids in the summer of 1867 (Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 111). Müller’s letter has not been found (see n. 1, above). Müller published his observations, with two plates illustrating the reproductive morphology of the orchids mentioned, in ‘Beobachtungen an westfälischen Orchideen’ (Observations on Westphalian orchids; H. Müller 1868). In Orchids, pp.  274–5, CD had speculated on the means by which flowers of Cypripedium might be pollinated, concluding that an insect would have to insert its proboscis through one of two small openings above the lateral anthers. Gray concluded, from observations of American species of Cypripedium, that an insect would enter a flower through the large opening on the dorsal surface of the flower, then crawl out through one of the small openings above the anthers (see Correspondence vol. 10, letter to Asa Gray, 10–20 June [1862] and n. 16). Gray later published his observations in the American Journal of Science and Arts (A. Gray 1862). In Orchids 2d ed., pp. 230–1, CD described his experiment with a small bee of the genus Adrena and referred to the observations of Gray and Müller (see also Correspondence vol.  11, letter to Asa Gray, 20 April [1863]). In the published version of his observations on Westphalian orchids, Müller described the fertilisation of Cypripedium calceolus (lady’s slipper), noting that the bee’s path through the flower necessitated its touching the stigma before the anthers, thus ensuring cross-fertilisation (H.  Müller 1868, pp. 1–3). In H. Müller 1868, pp. 4–5, Müller described his observations and initial conclusion that the odour of the lady’s slipper orchid had killed the honey-bee. He added CD’s observation about the design of the rim of the labellum and concluded that the death of the honey-bees was due to the fact that they

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

7 8

9 10

261

could not exit in the same manner as the smaller Adrena bees, through the narrow posterior openings, and simply died of exhaustion. Brown had written a paper, ‘On the organs and mode of fecundation in Orchideæ and Asclepiadeæ’ (Brown 1831), but he did not mention his observation on the nectar of Asclepias (milkweed). In his published paper, Müller described the inward curvature of the rim of the labellum (see H. Müller 1868, p. 2). Müller’s observations on Epipactis viridiflora (a synonym of E. leptochila, narrow-lipped helleborine) were published in H. Müller 1868, pp. 7–10, and Orchids 2d ed., pp. 102–3). Müller observed that the flower lacked a rostellum, which in most orchids separates the anther from the fertile stigma, and so was easily self-pollinated. In Orchids, p. 358, CD had concluded that self-fertilisation in orchids was a ‘rare event’, but in the second edition he modified his view, acknowledging that some species were ‘regularly or often self-fertilised’ (Orchids 2d ed., p. 290). In Orchids 2d ed., p. 290, CD included Neottia nidus-avis (bird’s-nest orchid) among those species capable of self-fertilisation, but more often fertilised by insects. Vespa is a genus in the family Vespidae (hornets, paper wasps, potter wasps, yellowjackets). In Orchids 2d ed., pp. 101–2, CD noted that wasps were the only insects he had seen visiting Epipactis latifolia (a synonym of E. helleborine, broad-leaved helleborine). Müller cited CD’s letter informing him of this fact in his paper on Westphalian orchids (H. Müller 1868, p. 12).

To Hermann Müller1   [9 October 1867]2 [Down.] Ihre Beobachtungen über Orchideen sind ausgezeichnet, besonders die Bestätigung in Bezug auf Cypripedium, und dies sollte sicherlich eines Tages veröffenlicht werden.3 Es ist fast ein so schönes Beispiel wie das von Coryanthes mit ihrer mit Wasser gefüllten Lippe, wie es Crüger beschrieben hat4    Sie sprechen von dem Geruch des Cypripedium, aber bei einigen ausländischen Arten sah ich kleine Flüssigkeitströpfchen an den Haaren innerhalb der Lippe, welche ein wahrscheinlicheres Auziehungsmittel bilden. Sie haben Erfolg gehabt, in Dingen, die mir in früheren Jahren der Beobachtung fehlschlungen, z. B indem Sie ein Insekt an der Ophrys sahen, aber ich kann mich nicht davon überzeugen, dass die Schnäbelchen (rostella) den Anziehungspunkt bildeten.5 Das Insekt muss, wie ich denke, sehr durstig gewesen sein; ich selbst habe eine Wespe gesehen, welche sich am Auge eines Mannes niederliess und die Thränen sog […] Krause 1884, p. 18 1 2 3

4 5

h

d i

For a translation of the German of the printed source, see Appendix I. The date is given in the printed source (see Krause 1884, p. 18). In an earlier, now missing letter, Müller had suggested that bees were poisoned by the odour of Cypripedium calceolus (lady’s slipper; see this volume, Supplement, letter to Hermann Müller, 16 August [1867] and n. 6). He evidently wrote to CD confirming CD’s observation that the inward curvature of the labellum prevented insects from exiting the flower as they had entered, that is, by pushing open the bladder-like labellum. Hermann Crüger had described the ‘bucket’ of fluid in Coryanthes macrantha (bucket orchid) in Crüger 1864, p. 130. Most orchids possess a rostellum, a beak-like structure that separates the anthers from the stigma and secretes a sticky stigmatic fluid, termed by CD the ‘viscid disc’ (see Orchids, pp. 6–7), and in modern terminology the viscidium. Müller had probably suggested that this fluid attracted insects.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

262

To George Warington   11 October [1867]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Oct 11 Dear Sir I am much obliged for your answer, & for your pamphlet which I am glad to possess although I had procured the Transactions.2 With respect to the subject of your note, it seems to me perfectly clear that my views on the Origin of Species do not bear in any way on the question whether some one organic being was originally created by God, or appeared spontaneously through the action of natural laws. But having said this, I must add that judging from the progress of physical & chemical science I expect (not that my knowledge entitles me to judge) that at some far distant day life will be shewn to be one the several correlated forces & that it is necessarily bound up with other existing laws. But even if it were ever proved that a living being thus appeared, this belief, as it appears to me, would not interfere with that instinctive feeling which makes us refuse to admit that the Universe is the result of chance. It is not at all likely that you wd wish to quote my opinion on the theological bearing of the change of species, but I must request you not to do so, as such opinions in my judgment ought to remain each man’s private property. I am much obliged to you for informing me about the discussion at the Church congress, of which I had heard nothing.—3 With sincere respect I beg leave to remain | Dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Bonhams (dealers) (15 November 2017) 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to George Warington, 7 October [1867] (Correspondence vol. 15). Warington’s letter has not been found. There is an offprint of Warington’s lecture ‘On the credibility of Darwinism’ (Warington 1867) in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. It was published in the Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute. The Church Congress is an annual meeting of members of the Church of England, both clergy and laity; in 1867 it took place in Wolverhampton. On 3 October papers were read on the subject of the Bible and science; speakers included William Allen Miller and Henry Baker Tristram. Warington contributed to the discussion that followed. See Authorized report of the papers, prepared addresses, and discussions of the Church Congress held at Wolverhampton … 1867 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1867), pp. 165–206.

From George Brown   [before 1868]1 [Down.] [Mr. G. Brown, of the Cirencester Agricultural College, who has particularly attended to the dentition of our domestic animals, writes to me that he has “several times noticed eight permanent incisors instead of six in the jaw.”]2 Variation 1: 50

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 1 2

263

The date is established by the publication of this fragment in Variation 1: 50; Variation was published early in 1868 (see Correspondence vol. 16). Brown’s correspondence with CD has not been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL.

From Richard Barwell   [1868?]1 [Damaged: lachrymation and bright light as cause of sneezing.]2 Incomplete DAR 160: 52a 1

2

The year is conjectured from the fact that 1868 is the year in which CD’s correspondence most frequently mentions the orbicularis muscle; see, for example, Correspondence vol. 16, letter from William Bowman, 2 April [1868]. An early summary mentioned the orbicularis muscle and named the author as Richard Barwell, although the reasons for these choices are no longer clear, possibly as a result of further deterioration of the letter. In Expression, p. 41, CD mentioned a bright light causing sneezing as the ‘radiation of nerve-force from strongly-excited nerve-cells to other connected cells’.

From Asa Gray   [25 February 1868 or later]1 〈reprint〉, your new book,— promise to allow you copy right equivalent— will not wait for electrotypes of the cuts.—2 But they (& I) want you to send a note or two—to go at end, and a preface—a few words—to identify it as your ed. & to secure the market against any other reprint. Send at once any corrections you are making for your 2d ed.3 I noted, with pleasure, your son’s success at Cambridge.4 At my house, a neighbor mentioned a case of man, he knew, born legless—two of whose children were equally so. I am trying to get authentic evidence about it. 〈section missing〉 Do you know of dogs which—without ever having been taught, lick their paws and then wash their faces like a cat? A black- & tan we have does so regularly, I know not where he picked up the habit.— he must have inherited it.5 Ever Yours, | A. Gray Incomplete DAR 165: 102 CD annotations 1.1 〈reprint〉 … about it. 4.2] crossed pencil 5.1 Do you … regularly, 5.2] double scored blue crayon End of letter: ‘(Instinct—)’ | ‘Animaux fossile de [Pikermi]’ pencil; ‘Index | London’ ink, crossed ink; ‘Extraordinary kind— *another set of [interl] new sheets—& scored sheets— return latter. A few additions for final note   Preface consult Lyell—’6 ink, crossed ink 1

h

d i

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Asa Gray, 9 February [1868] (Correspondence vol. 24, Supplement), which Gray received on 25 February 1868 (Correspondence

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

264

2 3

4 5 6

vol. 16, letter from Asa Gray, 25 February [1868]). This letter may be part of a continuation of Gray’s letter of 25 February, or it may have been sent separately. It was previously published in Correspondence vol. 8 with the incorrect date of [17 January 1860]. Gray was negotiating with the publisher Orange Judd & Co. about the publication of a US edition of Variation. See Correspondence vol. 16, letter from Asa Gray, 24 February 1868. CD had told Gray of the planned second printing of Variation in his letter of 9 February [1868] (Correspondence vol. 24, Supplement). Orange Judd’s edition is based on the second printing, and includes a new preface and three pages of factual corrections dated 28 March 1868 (Freeman 1977; Variation US ed.). George Howard Darwin had come second in the final examinations for the mathematical tripos at Cambridge (see Correspondence vol. 24, Supplement, letter to Asa Gray, 9 February [1868]). The dog was Max and had been born in 1863 at the earliest. See also Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Asa Gray, 14 February 1870, and Correspondence vol. 25, letter from Asa Gray, 27 September 1877. Charles Lyell. CD’s reply to Gray has not been found. CD refers to Albert Gaudry’s Animaux fossiles de Pikermi (Gaudry 1866).

To J. E. Gray   2 March [1868]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. March 2d My dear Gray I write one line to thank you sincerely for your trouble, more especially as you are now suffering in your eyes, for answering so fully & clearly my questions.—2 Yours sincerely | Ch Darwin Winterbourne House and Garden, University of Birmingham (University Herbarium) (WBHERB. HST.L.25.1) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. E. Gray, 2 March 1868 (Correspondence vol. 16). Gray had sent CD information about canine teeth in deer (Correspondence vol. 16, letter from J. E. Gray, 2 March 1868. He mentioned that he was suffering from an inflammation of the iris.

From Gerolamo Boccardo1   23 April 1868 R. Istituto Tecnico | Industriale Professionale | e di Marina Mercantile Della Provincia di Genova Genova 23 Aprile | 1868. Mio Caro Signore Permetta che io Le scriva questa volta nella mia propria lingua, nella quale potrò, più chiaramente che nel bellissimo idioma di V. S., esprimerle alcuni pensieri che vorrei in modo particolare raccomandare alla sua attenzione.2 La ringrazio prima di tutto della gentilissima sua lettera dei 13.  corrente.3 Io conserverò quell’autografo tra i documenti a me più cari e preziosi. Le sono pure gratissimo del dono dell’ ultima e magnifica sua opera “Plants and Animals under Domestication”, che io mi avevo però già provveduta a Londra il giorno stesso ch’era stata pubblicata.4

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

265

Profittando ora della squisita bontà che Ella si degna dimostrarmi, mi faccio ardito a pregarla di due segnalati favori, i quali spero la cortesia sua vorrà accordarmi. Io mandai in dono il mio libro “Fisica del Globo” all’illustre Sig. Baronetto Carlo Lyell, al Presidente della Royal Society, al Presidente della Royal Geographical Society, al Presidente della Anthropological Society.5 Non avendo io ricevuto da alcuno di quei Signori cenno alcuno di risposta, temo che i volumi non sieno loro pervenuti. Io La pregherei adunque, quando ciò non dovesse costarle soverchio incomodo, di volere avvertire i Signori summentovati, coi quali ha certamente personali rapporti, che io ho spedito loro la mia opera, la quale se non è ginuta nelle loro mani, deve sicuramente trovarsi agli uffici postali, ove li prego quindi di volerne fare ricerca. La secunda preghiera che ho io in animo di farle, mi sta ancora più a cuore della precedente. Nel mio volume io ho procurato con tutta diligenza di fare tesoro dei grandi lavori scientifici Inglesi; ed Ella stessa si è compiaciuta di farmene un gentile elogio nella sua lettera. Ora io bramerei che la dotta Inghilterra sapesse che in Italia si sa apprezzare degnamente il merito dei meravigliosi ingegni di quella fortunata Nazione. Potrebbe Ella adunque procurare che qualche Giornale Scientifico e qualche Accademia facessero conoscere al pubblico Inglese il mio lavoro? Sarebbe questo per fermo il titolo maggiore della mia riconoscenza verso la S. V., alla quale debbo già tanto siccome ad uno de’ maestri più venerati.6 La diffusione delle dottrine Darwiniane in Italia incontra ostacoli d’una natura affatto particolare, e che sarebbe molto difficile il comprendere da chi vive e lavora in un paese da secoli avvezzo alla libertà del pensiero. Io ho però cosi profonda fede nella causa della Verità, che punto non dubito che molti anni non trascorreranno che anche nella mia patria essa dovrà ottenere pieno e sicuro trionfo. Perdoni, Illustre Signore, se ho preso tanta sicurtà di V. S., da farle le accennate mie due preghiere, e se oso ancora sperare che Ella vorrà onorarmi di una sua risposta intorno alle medesime. Viva sano, e mi creda | Suo Devotisso. Serv’re | Gerolamo Boccardo P.S.  La prego di accettare il tenue omaggio di un mio recentissimo Discorso Accademico, ch’Ella riceverà per posta con la presente.7 DAR 160: 233 1 2 3 4

5

6

h

d i

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. It was originally published in Correspondence vol. 16, and is republished here with an improved transcription. No earlier letter from Boccardo has been found. CD’s letter to Boccardo of 13 April 1868 has not been found, but see Correspondence vol. 16, letter to John Murray, 13 April [1868] and n. 2. Boccardo refers to Variation, which was published on 30  January 1868 (Freeman  1977). CD had instructed his publisher, John Murray, to send a copy of Variation to Boccardo (see Correspondence vol. 16, letter to John Murray, 13 April [1868] and n. 2). The Royal Society of London and the Royal Geographical Society have copies of Boccardo 1868a. The Anthropology Library at the British Museum (the collection of the Anthropological Society) does not have a copy. No reply to this letter has been found.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

266 7

No discourse by Boccardo has been found in the Darwin Archive. Boccardo may have sent La connessione delle scienze (Boccardo 1868b).

To George Cupples   29 May [1868]1 Down. | Bromley.| Kent. S. E. May 29th My dear Sir I am much obliged for the information about the Terrier & for your kind promise to observe the size of your dogs with advancing age.—2 I have written to Mr Wright to thank him for his courtesy; & have asked him nearly the same questions as I asked you.—3 But I do not suppose I shall continue to attend to domestic animals, except so far as they illustrate points in the Nat. Hist. of wild animals.—4 Believe me | with my best thanks | Yours very faithfully | C. Darwin 19th Century Shop (dealer) April 2016 1 2

3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from George Cupples, 26 May 1868 (Correspondence vol. 16). See Correspondence vol. 16, letter from George Cupples, 26 May 1868. In Descent 2: 260–2, CD gave information from Cupples on differences in the size of male and female deerhounds from birth to adulthood. CD’s letter to John Wright has not been found, but see Correspondence vol. 16, letter from John Wright, 11 June 1868. CD’s book Variation of animals and plants under domestication had been published in early 1868; he was now working on Descent, which included a long section on sexual selection in wild animals.

To H. B. Tristram   4 July 1868 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. July 4 1868 My dear Sir I thank you very sincerely for your letter which is most interesting to me. Your answers are quite clear & full, & give me exactly the information I which I wanted.1 I am afraid I have caused you a great deal of trouble— Pray accept my thanks & believe me yours very faithfully | & much obliged | Ch. Darwin How very curious the case of the bright-colour〈ed〉 birds which conceal themselves in holes!2 LS(A) photocopy The British Library (Surrogate RP 9485) 1

h

d i

0 0

Tristram had answered CD’s questions about the coloration of desert birds; see Correspondence vol. 24, Supplement, letter to H. B. Tristram, 4 June 1868, and Correspondence vol. 16, letter from H. B. Tristram, 1 July 1868.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 2

267

In his letter of 1 July 1868 (Correspondence vol. 16), Tristram had commented, ‘I should add that in a group of desert birds which depend for their safety not on escaping observation, but on refuge in holes or crevices of rocks, the plumage is remarkably bright & conspicuous.’

To G. H. Lewes   7 August [1868]1 Dumbola Lodge. | Freshwater | Isle of Wight Aug. 7th My dear Mr Lewes. I have found very little to say, as you will soon discover; & the little is very badly said.—2 I have not noticed what I admire, but I must be permitted to say that on the second reading I have admired the whole, even much more than I did the first time. The articles strike me as quite excellent, & I hope they will be republished; but I fear that they will be too deep for many readers. Shd. I have anything to remark on any future article, I will write. Accept my cordial thanks for the kind & honouring way in which you allude to my work, & for the great pleasure which I have derived from reading the whole.— Pray think a little over the verbal distinction of the action of the medium in causing variability & in leading to the preservation of the best adapted forms. This surely is an important distinction; & it drives me half mad to see them brought all under one expression.— Yours very sincerely | C. Darwin [Enclosure] No XVI p. 368 I have not seen Baer’s original statement, only an abstract; but I think his arguments for the identity of the guinea-pig & aperea are weak. Isid. G. St Hilaire makes out a strong case against their identity. I can now add from Denny that their pediculi are (almost or quite) generically different. It seems to me rash to trust in Baer’s view.3 p. 372— Near bottom. Sentence about “specifically” & “genetically” distinct seems to me obscure (and this is something wonderful in your writing;) a clear minded person conversant with the subject to whom I shewed the sentence could not understand it.4 No XVIII p. 627. This page also does not strike me as very clear; when you speak of “fundamental characters” being similar any one would suppose that you meant homological.5 No XVIII. p 627 (Near bottom) You will find in the Origin a discussion, which I was compelled greatly to abbreviate, on analogical resemblances, not due to community of descent. I hope you will take the trouble just to look at this, owing to what you say at p. 625 & especially at p. 75 in No XIX.6 I think you will see that I do not attribute all organic resemblances to community of kinship: I wish I had published more on this subject.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

268

No XIX p. 64. I think a sentence ought to be added that the mystery which perplexes naturalists is why one, for instance, of two closely allied plants is greatly affected by a slightly higher temperature & not the other.7 p. 68. You will never, I think, get rid of the term rudimentary organ for what evidently would be an organ if it could act. A violin with broken strings would by every one be called an instrument tho’ at that time not capable of yielding music.8 p. 76 I quite agree & have always thought that such facts as the tendency to ramification in many parts of various organisms was simply due to the same so-called inorganic laws having acted on them.9 p. 76. I have also in my own mind always taken nearly the same view, I think, as you maintain, about the luminous organs of insects or the electric organs of fishes; but if you maintain that these organs are the direct result of the conditions of life or the medium, independently of natural selection, I cannot follow you. In my opinion there will always be confusion in every discussion, as long as the action of the external & internal conditions of life in causing variability is mixed up with either natural or artificial selection. In the formation of a breed of pigeons for instance, the conditions cause the successive variations, but man makes the breed by selection; & this distinction equally holds good under nature, though the conditions here determine what kind of variation shall be preserved. I could almost as soon admit that the whole structure of a woodpecker had originated from the action of the medium, as that organs so complex & so well co-ordinated to the whole organization as the luminous or electric organs should have thus originated. The impression which I have taken from the study of nature is strong that in all cases, if we cd collect all the forms which have ever lived, we shd have a close gradation from some most simple beginning. If similar conditions sufficed without the aid of selection to give similar parts or organs, independently of blood relationship, I doubt much whether we should have that striking harmony which we almost everywhere see, between the affinities, embryological development, geographical distribution, & geological succession of all allied organisms. We shd be much more puzzled than we are to class in a natural method the many existing & extinct forms. It is puzzling enough to distinguish between resemblances due to descent & to adaptation through selection; but (fortunately for naturalists) owing to the strong power of inheritance & the excessively complex causes & laws of variability, when the same end or object has been gained, somewhat different parts have generally been modified, or modified in a somewhat different manner, so that the resemblances due to descent & adaptation can usually be distinguished. I shd. like to add, that we may understand each other, how, as I suppose, the luminous organs of insects, for instance, have been developed; but I must depend on conjecture, for so few luminous insects exist that we have no means of judging through the preservation of ancient slightly modified forms, of the probable gradations through which these organs have passed.10 Nor do we know of what use they are. We see that the tissues of many animals, as of certain centipedes,

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

269

are liable under unknown conditions of food, temperature &c, occasionally to become luminous, like the inorganic pyrophorous mixtures. Such luminosity having been in some way advantageous to certain insects, the tissues as I suppose become specialized for this purpose in a regular manner & in an intensified degree, in one part of the body in some kinds & in other parts in other kinds. Hence I believe if all extinct insect-forms cd be collected we shd have a perfect gradation from the Elateridæ with their highly luminous thorax & from the Lampyridæ with their highly luminous abdomen to some ancient insect, which was occasionally luminous like the centipede.11 I do not know, but I suppose that the microscopical structure of the luminous organs in these two families is nearly the same, & I shd attribute to inheritance from a common progenitor that similarity in their tissues, which under similar conditions caused them to vary in the same manner, & thus through natural selection for the same general purpose, to arrive at the same result.12 Mutatis mutandis I shd apply the same doctrine to the electric organs of fishes; but here I have to make the violent assumption that some ancient fish was occasionally slightly electrical without having any special organs for this purpose. It has however been stated, but on evidence not trustworthy that certain reptiles are thus electrical. It is possible that the so-called electric organs of fishes, whilst partially developed, may have sub-served some distinct function; at least I am nearly sure that Matteucci cd detect no free electricity in certain fishes provided with the proper organs.13 In one of your former letters you alluded to nails, claws &c.14 From their perfect co-adaptation with the rest of the organization I cannot believe that they cd have been formed simply by the direct action of the medium. H. Spencer’s view that they were first developed from indurated skin, the result of pressure on the extremities, seems to me probable.15 In regard to thorns & spines, I suppose that stunted & somewhat hardened processes were primarily left by the abortion of various appendages, but I must believe that their extreme sharpness is the result of fluctuating variability & the “survival of the fittest”. The precise form, colour &c of the thorns I freely admit to be the result of the laws of growth of each particular plant & of the medium. It wd be an astounding fact if any varying plant suddenly bore perfect thorns without the aid of reversion or selection. That natural selection wd tend to produce formidable thorns will be admitted by every one who has observed the distribution in S. America & Africa (vide Livingstone) of thorn-bearing plants, for they always appear where the bushes grow isolated & are thus exposed to the attacks of mammals.16 In this country it has been noticed that all spine-bearing & sting-bearing plants are palatable to quadrupeds when the thorns are crushed. With respect to the Malayan climbing palm, what I meant to express was that the hooks were not perhaps first developed for climbing; but having been formed for protection were subsequently used & further modified for climbing.17 As the view which you have taken on the subject here discussed seems firmly fixed, I do not suppose anything which I have written, even supposing it mainly true,

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

270

will have much influence; for I know by my own experience that a conclusion slowly arrived at cannot be quickly changed. But I have liked to say my say, though too briefly & very badly done, & I hope it will not trouble you to read & consider it.— C. Darwin DAR 185: 42; Argyll Papers, Inveraray Castle (NRAS 1209/985) 1

2

3

4

5 6

7 8 9

10

11 12 13

h

d i

0 0

The year is established by the date on a draft of the enclosure in DAR 52: A1–4. This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 16, with a transcription of the draft enclosure. The original enclosure, reproduced here, was discovered in the Argyll Papers, Inveraray. See enclosure. Lewes had asked CD to comment on his articles in the Fortnightly Review on the theory of the origin of species by natural selection (Lewes 1868), as he intended to turn them into a book (see Correspondence vol. 16, letter from G. H. Lewes, 26 July 1868). In Lewes 1868, p. 368, Lewes cited Karl Ernst von Baer for the statement that the zoologists of the sixteenth century said that the guinea pig was unknown in Europe before the discovery of America, but that by the nineteenth century the guinea pig, as people then knew it, was only found in Europe (see Baer 1864–76, pt 1 p. 53; Baer had noted that guinea pigs with more than one colour in their coats were not found outside Europe, while the wild South American animal always had a grey-brown coat). Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire discussed the guinea pig in Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1854–62, 3: 72. Henry Denny had found that the lice on Cavia aperea (the wild guinea pig) were of a different genus to those on the domesticated guinea pig, which led him to doubt that the domestic guinea pig was descended from the wild guinea pig (Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Henry Denny, 23 March [1865] and n. 3). See also Variation 2: 152. ‘Mr. Darwin justly holds it to be “incredible that individuals identically the same should have been produced by natural selection from parents specifically distinct,” but he will not deny that identical forms may issue from parents genetically distinct, when those parent forms and the conditions of production are identical.’ Lewes wrote that the wing of an insect, of a bird, and of a bat were ‘in fundamental characters’ very similar. In Lewes 1868, p. 627, Lewes wrote that it was hard to distinguish between homologies, which suggested community of descent, and analogies, which showed in his view only ‘a community in organic laws’. In ibid., p. 625, he argued that resemblances between organisms were not proof of common descent. In ibid., p. 75, he wrote, ‘Mr. Darwin assumes a community of kinship as the explanation of all organic resemblances, whereas I assume it only as the explanation of many, the others being due to similarities in the causal nexus.’ For CD’s discussion of analogical resemblances, see Origin 4th ed., pp. 502–6. On this page, Lewes had discussed how organisms were affected (and sometimes not affected) by their environment. See also Origin 4th ed., p. 167. Lewes had written, ‘The teeth in the gum of the (fœtal) whale are no more “organs” than the violin without strings is a “musical instrument.”’ On this page, Lewes had argued that it was not justifiable to assert that two organisms were descended from a common ancestor, simply because they resembled one another, and that similar conditions inevitably brought about similar results. In Lewes  1868, p.  76, Lewes had written, ‘In noctilucae, earth-worms, molluscs, scolopendra, and fire-flies, we may easily suppose the presence of similar organic conditions producing the luminosity; it requires a strong faith to assign Natural Selection as the cause.’ Noctiluca is a genus of dinoflagellates, single-celled marine organisms. Within the phylum Mollusca, only the classes Gastropoda, Bivalvia, and Cephalopoda are known to have species that can luminesce. Scolopendra is a genus of centipedes; it formerly included many species now classified within other genera; it is now reserved for very large, mostly tropical species. Fireflies are beetles of the family Lampyridae. The families Elateridae (click beetles) and Lampyridae (fireflies) belong to the superfamily Elateroidea, which includes other families with species that can luminesce. For CD’s observations on insect luminosity in both fireflies and click beetles, see Journal of researches 2d ed. pp. 30–1, and Descent 1: 255, 345. Carlo Matteucci. See Origin 4th ed., p. 224, and Pauly 2004, s.v. electric organs.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 14 15 16 17

271

See Correspondence vol. 16, letter from G. H. Lewes, 2 March 1868. Herbert Spencer; see Spencer 1864–7, 2: 297. CD’s annotated copy of Spencer 1864–7 is in the Darwin Library–CUL. See Variation 2: 296–7. CD refers to David Livingstone and Livingstone 1857; see also Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Daniel Oliver, 24 [September 1860] and n. 3. In Lewes 1868, p. 78, Lewes quoted a passage from Origin 4th ed., p. 235, as an example of CD’s giving weight to ‘organic laws’ rather than natural selection. The passage in Origin 4th ed. reads: A trailing palm in the Malay Archipelago climbs the loftiest trees by the aid of exquisitely constructed hooks clustered around the ends of the branches, and this contrivance, no doubt, is of the highest service to the plant; but as we see nearly similar hooks on many trees which are not climbers, the hooks on the palm may have arisen from unknown laws of growth, and have been subsequently taken advantage of by the plant undergoing further modification and becoming a climber. In Origin 5th ed., pp. 241–2, CD altered the second part of the passage to read: but as we see nearly similar hooks on many trees which are not climbers, and which there is reason to believe from the distribution of the thorn-bearing species in Africa and South America, serves [sic] as a defence against browsing quadrupeds, so the hooks on the palm may first have been developed for this object, and subsequently been taken advantage of by the plant as it underwent further modification and became a climber. For CD’s observations on the paucity of vegetation other than thorn bushes in the valleys of Patagonia, see Journal of researches 2d ed., p. 179.

To J. J. Moulinié   29 August [1868]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Aug 29. My dear Sir I shall be delighted to see you here & I am much obliged to you for offering to pay me a visit.2 Your best plan will be to come by the S.E. Railway from Charing Cross to Orpington Station which is 312 miles from my house & where you will find carriages waiting. I hope you will be able to spare time to sleep here & I will convey you to the station the next morning. I do not know whether Professor Carl Vogt is in London but if so I wish you could persuade him to give me the pleasure & honour of seeing him here at the same time.3 I am bound to tell you that my health is so weak that I find my head will not stand the excitement of more than half an hour’s conversation at a time. If it should be convenient for you to come tomorrow (Sunday) pray do not mind about giving me notice as I shall be most glad to see you. Pray believe me | My dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Bibliothèque de Genève (Ms. fr. 1557, ff. 213–14) 1 2 3

h

d i

The year is established by the reference to Moulinié’s visit to Down House (see n. 2, below). Moulinié visited Down on 31 August 1868 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Vogt had proposed Moulinié as the French translator of Variation (Correspondence vol. 15, letter from Carl Vogt, 23 April 1867); he, and presumably Moulinié, had attended the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Norwich in August 1868 (Correspondence vol. 16, letter from J. D. Hooker, 30 August 1868 and n. 7). There is no record of Vogt’s visiting Down at this time.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

272

To H. B. Tristram   8 September 1868 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Sep 8 1868. My dear Sir Many thanks for you〈r〉 answers to my questions, whi〈ch〉 are quite sufficient for me & distinct. I am very much obliged for your kind offer of lending me the specimens but I think this wd be superfluous, & I shd be sorr〈y〉 that they should run an〈y〉 risk.1 Believe me | Yours very truly obliged | Charles Darwin LS photocopy The British Library (Surrogate RP 9485) 1

See Correspondence vol. 16, letter from H. B. Tristram, 5 September 1868. CD’s questions, which were evidently about sexual difference in desert birds, have not been found. Tristram had offered CD specimens of birds.

To J. S. Bristowe   18 September 1868 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Sep 18. 1868 Dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for your great kindness in taking the trouble to send me the facts about the coloured grapes; but I need not ask you to take any further trouble as I have already heard of several analogous cases—1 Some cases are given in the chapter on Bud-variation in my last published book—2 With my thanks | I remain dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS University of Chicago Library, Special Collections Research Center (Joseph Halle Schaffner collection, box 1, folder 2) 1 2

See Correspondence vol. 16, letter from J. S. Bristowe, 17 September 1868. Bristowe had written about a grapevine that bore different coloured grapes. See Variation 1: 375 and 399–400. Variation was published in early 1868.

To John Higgins   16 November 1868 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Nov 16 1868 My dear Sir I am much obliged for your note which gives so good an account of Mr Hardy’s management of the farm. I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for the sum of £259–11–10 due as rent & placed to my account at the Union Bank—1 My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully Ch. R. Darwin J. Higgins Esq

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

273

LS Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

The payment was for CD’s farm at Beesby in Lincolnshire; Higgins was CD’s land agent. Higgins’s letter to CD has not been found. Francis Hardy was CD’s tenant.

To F. M. Malven   [after 12 February 1869]1 Seit meiner Knabenzeit verehrte ich den Namen Humboldt’s, und seine Werke waren es, welche den Wunsch in mir erweckten, tropische Länder zu sehen und zu prüfen; daher betrachte ich es als eine sehr große Ehre, daß mein Name in Verbindung mit jenem dieses Führers der Wissenschaft genannt werden sollte, aber ich bin nicht so schwach, um anzunehmen, daß mein Name jemals in dieselbe Classe mit seinem gesetzt werden könnte.2 Incomplete Neue Freie Presse (Vienna), 4 March 1869, p. 8 1 2

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from F. M. Malven, 12 February [1869] (Correspondence vol. 17). In his letter, Malven had written that he had proposed the celebration of CD’s birthday to the editor of the Neue Freie Presse, a Viennese daily paper, and that CD’s name was as honoured in Germany as that of Alexander von Humboldt. The article on CD’s birthday was published in Neue Freie Press, 12 February 1869, pp. 1–2. This extract from CD’s letter was published in a later short note, with the comment that it gave the lie to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s famous dictum, ‘Nur die Lumpe sind bescheiden’ (Only nobodies are modest). On CD’s admiration for Humboldt, see Correspondence vol. 3, letter to J. D. Hooker, [10 February 1845].

To ?   20 February [1869]1 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. [6 Queen Anne Street, London.] Feb 20th Dear Sir I have the pleasure to say that I have formed a very high opinion of Mr Rouse. I am not a mathematician, but I can implicitly trust my son & his brothers, & they think he has got on very well.—2 He is quite strongly attached to Mr Rouse.— My son has persuaded his great friend’s father3 to send him also to Mr Rouse’s; & it is no small advantage that there will now be there at least two young men who like working & have a strong taste for mathematicks.— I had not heard that my son had a chance of a minor scholarship, though I know he is well advanced in mathematicks, but backward in other subjects.—4 I fear, however, that his health, which has not been strong, will interfere with success.— As far as I can judge no one would repent of sending a young man to Mr Rouse; not that, as I presume you will agree, any tutor can make an idle young man, industrious.— Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Xiling Yinshe Auction Company (dealers) (Spring 2014, lot 188)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

274 1

2 3 4

The year is established from the fact that Horace Darwin began studying with Rolla Charles Meadows Rouse in or after March 1868 (see Correspondence vol. 16, letter to Alfred Wrigley, 7 March [1868]), and from the headed notepaper, which is of a sort that CD stopped using in March 1869. Horace’s brothers were William Erasmus, George Howard, Francis, and Leonard Darwin. Horace’s friend has not been identified. Horace was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, as a pensioner (that is, without financial support from the college) in October 1868, and matriculated in October 1870; there is no record of his having a scholarship (Alum. Cantab.).

To Armand de Quatrefages   6 March 1869 Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E. Mar 6. 1869 Dear Sir As you have always shewn so friendly a feeling towards me, I hope that you will allow me to introduce to you my son Mr George Darwin.1 He is fond of science & is a very good mathematician, but has not paid particular attention to natural history. He is anxious to have the honour of being introduced to you, but will cause you no other trouble. As I live in the country I do not see many periodicals, & was surprized to observe, a few days ago in the January number of the Revue des deux Mondes your second article on general natural history. As it was on a friend’s table, I had not time to read it, but I saw that you take the kindest & most honourable notice of my works, notwithstanding that you differ entirely from my conclusions.2 I ordered both numbers, but have received only the first, as the second is already out of print, I shall however be able to borrow it from some library or friend— With my best thanks & the most sincere respect | I remain dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Bibliothèque nationale de France, département des Manuscrits (Manuscripts NAF 11824 ff. 72–3) 1 2

George Howard Darwin travelled to Paris in early March 1869 (see Correspondence vol. 17, letter from G. H. Darwin, [23 February 1869]). CD was in London from 16 to 24 February 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17, Appendix II). Quatrefages’s three-part article was his ‘Origines des espèces animales et végétales’ (Origins of animal and plant species; Quatrefages 1868–9). The first part was titled ‘Les précurseurs français de Darwin’, and the second ‘Théorie de Darwin’; in the second part, he praised CD’s ‘conscientious perseverance’ (ibid., p. 209). CD’s annotated copy of the articles is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

To ?   2 May [1869 or later]1 Beckenham May 2 [discouraging the publication of ill-advised speculations]

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

275

[…] When a man has laboured hard in science & has proved that he is capable of original research, he may [some]times indulge in speculation [&] the public will indulge him. But even in this case it is a common error to speculate too largely, for speculation is far easier than observation or experiments […] Incomplete2 Sotheby’s (dealers) (28 March 1983) 1 2

The year range is established by the address, which is given in the sale catalogue; CD used a form of his address including ‘Beckenham’ from 1869 onwards. According to the sale catalogue, the letter is ‘damaged with paper losses’. The length is unknown, as it was sold with two other letters in a lot that totalled five pages. It is not clear whether it is in CD’s hand or not. The other letters were to A. E. Nordenskiöld, 21 December 1881 (see Correspondence vol. 29), and to ?, 29 March 1882 (see this volume).

To William Bowman   16 May [1869–81]1 Down, Beckenham, Kent May 16 I shall not be in London on Monday, but I have written to my Brother to ask him to aid you2 Ch Darwin Incomplete3 George Houle Autographs (dealer) (Catalogue 61, March 1992) 1 2 3

The year range is established by the address, and by CD’s brother’s death in August 1881. The address is given by the dealer; CD started using Beckenham as part of his address in April 1869. CD’s brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, lived in London. The original letter is complete, and according to the sale catalogue is one page long. The transcription is the dealer’s.

To John Higgins   27 May 1869 N.B. | Down Beckenham | Kent. May 27. 1869. My dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for the sum of £263–13–6 being half a years rent & placed to my credit at the Union Bank—1 My dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esqre— LS(A) Dominic Winter Auctioneers (dealers) (10 April 2019, lot 138) 1

h

d i

The payment was for CD’s farm at Beesby in Lincolnshire; Higgins was CD’s land agent.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

276

To George Cupples   [after June 1869]1 I wish you had said something about your own health.— Pray give our very kind remembrances to Mrs Cupples & believe me Ch Darwin Incomplete Fraser’s Autographs (dealer) (2013) 1

The date is established by the reference to Anne Jane Cupples. The sending of regards suggests that CD and Anne Cupples had met in person; they met in June 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17, letter from George Cupples, 20 June 1869).

To Louis Rérolle   2 August [1869]1 Down, Beckenham | Kent Aug 2d Dear Sir I am glad to learn that you are making such rapid progress in your translation.—2 “Distal ” is a term used by English anatomists to express the part at greater distance from the body: as the tibia is the distal half of the leg.— It means the extreme or more remote half of the labellum from centre of flower.— Thrips is name of genus or group, & is used by Latreille, who places it under his “Aphidiens”: but it is very different from an Aphis or puceron. I believe that entomologists do not now place Thrips & Aphis close together.3 Pray use your own discretion about such epithets as “saddle-formed”—“boatshaped” &c &c—; but I think it would be advisable to use them once.— By “bank” at p.40 I referred to a steep grassy slope, with no bushes & fully exposed to strong winds.— I am much obliged for your offer to look at your M.S, but as I am far from strong & much engaged, I will not accept your kindness.— The day before yesterday I despatched a note (& it is the last which I shall have to send) on Epipactis palustris, addressed to “Place d’Ainay, Lyon”: if you have not received it, will you be so good as to enquire at your post-office.4 Pray believe me | dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Aguttes (dealers) (20 February 2020, lot 240) 1 2 3

h

d i

0 0

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Louis Rérolle, 30 July 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17). Rérolle was translating Orchids into French (Rérolle trans. 1870). Pierre André Latreille had included the genus Thrips in his family Aphidien; see Latreille [1802–5], 12: 338–52. In 1836, Alexander Henry Haliday erected a new order for Thrips, the Thysanoptera, which he separated from the Hemiptera (true bugs), the order that included aphids (see Haliday 1836, p. 440). Puceron: aphid (French). See Orchids 2d ed., pp. 122, 126.

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 4

277

CD’s letter to Rérolle has not been found, but his additional notes on orchids were published in ‘Fertilization of orchids’ and Orchids 2d ed. CD had asked Alexander Goodman More to make observations on Epipactis palustris (Correspondence vol. 17, letter to A. G. More, 24 June [1869]). CD’s account of More’s observations is in ‘Fertilization of orchids’, pp. 149–50 (Collected papers 2: 146). See also Orchids 2d ed., pp. 98–9, and Rérolle trans. 1870, pp. 101–2.

To Anton Kerner von Marilaun   27 October 1869 Down. | Beckenham | Kent. Oct 27 1869 Dear Sir I am very much obliged for the present of your work Die Abhangigkeit &c.1 I observe from the headings that you discuss some points of especial interest to me; & I hope soon to read the greater portion of your work.2 Your previous essays have done excellent service to the cause which we both advocate; but I am so poor a German scholar, that I have as yet read only a part of 2 of your former essays which I possess.3 I see that you have honoured me by prefixing to yr present book a quotation from my Origin of species.4 With my best thanks & the most sincere respect, I remain | dear Sir | yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Archive of the University of Vienna (151.273-1) 1

2

3

4

h

d i

There is a copy of Kerner von Marilaun’s Die Abhängigkeit der Pflanzengestalt von Klima und Boden (The dependence of plant form on climate and soil; Kerner 1869) in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection– CUL. The essay was originally published as part of a Festschrift in honour of the forty-third meeting of the Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte (German Naturalists and Physicians; Rembold and Barth eds. 1869). Kerner von Marilaun had attempted to trace the relation of species of Cytisus (the genus of broom) and Tubocytisus (a synonym of Chamaecytisus), and described the evolutionary pattern and geographical distribution of the various species. There is a copy of Kerner von Marilaun’s book Die Cultur der Alpenpflanzen (The cultivation of alpine plants; Kerner 1864) in the Darwin Library–CUL, and a copy of his article ‘Gute und schlechte Arten’ (Good and bad species; Kerner 1866) in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. The page after the title page of Kerner 1869 contained a quotation, not from Origin, but from the German translation of Variation 1: 9. The text in English reads: The principle of natural selection may be looked at as a mere hypothesis, but rendered in some degree probable by what we positively know of the variability of organic beings in a state of nature,—by what we positively know of the struggle for existence, and the consequent almost inevitable preservation of favourable variations,—and from the analogical formation of domestic races. Now this hypothesis may be tested,—and this seems to me the only fair and legitimate manner of considering the whole question,— by trying whether it explains several large and independent classes of facts; such as the geological succession of organic beings, their distribution in past and present times, and their mutual affinities and homologies. If the principle of natural selection does explain these and other large bodies of facts, it ought to be received. On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we gain no scientific explanation of any one of these facts.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

278

To Charles Lyell   1 [November 1869]1 6. Queen Anne St Monday 1st My dear Lyell We have just come to London.— If I do not hear that some other morning wd. be more convenient, I will come tomorrow at about 912 & sit at your Breakfast.— Ever yours | C. Darwin Edinburgh University Library, Centre for Research Collections (Lyell Collection) 1

The month and year are established by the fact that the only occasion on which CD arrived at 6 Queen Anne Street on a Monday that was also the first day of the month was in November 1869.

To James Paget   8 November [1869]1 6. Queen Anne St Nov. 8 My dear Paget. Cordial thanks for your confirmation about the extent of the blush, & for your case of inheritance.— I do love such little facts.2 I passed your door the other day, & wished much to come in, but thought I shd. only waste your time, & virtuously refrained. I now wish I had not been so selfrestraining.— We are off home early tomorrow morning.3 Yours most sincerely, | Ch. Darwin The Argyll Papers, Inveraray Castle (NRAS 1209/856) 1 2

3

The year is established by the references to CD’s returning home on 9 November (see n. 3, below), and to Paget’s having given information about blushing (see n. 2, below). Paget’s letter has not been found, but CD cited him for information on blushing, including a case of an apparently inherited pattern of blushing, in Expression, pp. 312–14. In his letter to Paget of 29 April [1869], CD had written, ‘If ever you come across an extra blushing damsel do not forget the downward extent of the blush’ (Correspondence vol. 17). Paget lived in Hanover Square, London. CD stayed from 1 to 9 November 1869 at the house of his brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin.

To A. W. Bennett   9 November [1869]1 Down Nov. 9th Dear Sir Absence from home has prevented my returning the Proofs at once.—2 I have made one or two trifling corrections. The notice seems to me very good & is, I am sure, highly honourable to me.—3 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S. I hope you will kindly send me a copy of your Journal4

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

279

Provenance unknown: formerly Sang Collection of Autographs and Manuscripts, Illinois Institute of Technology 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from A. W. Bennett to Nature, 8 November 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17). CD was visiting his brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, in London from 1 to 9 November 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17, Appendix II). This was the only year in which he arrived home at Down on or very shortly before 9 November. Bennett published a note in the second issue of the newly established journal Nature summarising correspondence he had had with CD about the fertilisation of winter-flowering plants (see Correspondence vol. 17, letter from A. W. Bennett to Nature, 8 November 1869). The letter was published in Nature on 11 November 1869. Bennett was the biological subeditor of Nature. CD made his first comments on Nature in his letter to J. D. Hooker, 19 November [1869] (Correspondence vol. 17).

To Charles Layton   24 November [1869]1

Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. Nov. 24th.

Dear Sir I am much obliged by your note. You say that Messrs. Appleton “would also like to have a set of stereotyped plates of new edit of Origin of Species on same terms.” I am not sure that I understand this, for I have not permitted the Origin to be stereotyped in England. If it means that Messrs. Appleton will print a new edition in Stereotype Plates (or in common type which would be much preferable) I gladly agree to his terms for this edition & for my next book. I have long earnestly wished for a new edition of the Origin in the United States, as it is 92 pages longer than the 2nd. edition, besides endless small though important corrections.2 I feel sure that the continued large sale of this book in England Germany & France has depended on my keeping up each edition to the existing standard of science.3 I hope I am right in supposing that Messrs. Appleton are willing to print in some form a new edition; for though unwilling to act in a disobliging manner towards them I had resolved soon to write to Professor Asa Gray to ask him to find some publisher who would print the new edition of the Origin, on condition of my supplying him with the sheets of my new book as they were printed & which book will probably have a large sale.4 Will you be so kind as to let me hear soon how the case stands; & I should like in case the answer is favourable to send in M.S. half a dozen small corrections for the Origin.5 I must inform you that although Mr. Murray has inserted a notice of my new book, I do not suppose it will be printed for nearly a year, although a considerable portion is ready for the press.6 Dear Sir, | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin You will understand that I cannot agree with Mr Appleton about my new book, unless he is willing to print a new Edit of Origin.7 The price of the latter might fairly be raised a little; as Mr Murray has by 1.s & it shd be advertised as largely added to & corrected. LS(A) Marshall Rare Books (dealer) (January 2022)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

280 1

2 3 4

5

6 7

Parts of this letter were published in Correspondence vol. 17, and vol. 24, Supplement. Images of the complete letter were published online in 2022. The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Charles Layton, 22 November 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17). See Correspondence vol. 17, letter from Charles Layton, 22 November 1869. The first US edition of Origin was published from stereotypes of the second English edition by D. Appleton & Co. in 1860. On foreign language translations of Origin, see Freeman 1977. CD had asked Orange Judd & Co., the American publishers of Variation, about the possibility of publishing a new American edition of Origin; see Correspondence vol. 17, letter from Orange Judd & Co., 21 April 1869. CD did not favour use of stereotype plates as suggested in the letter from Charles Layton, 22 November 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17); see ibid, letter to Asa Gray, 1 June [1869] and n. 9. CD had recently sent a few corrections to the fifth English edition of Origin (1869) for its publication in French and German (see Correspondence vol. 17, letter to J. V. Carus, 20 November 1869, and letter to J. J. Moulinié, 20 November 1869). An advance notice of the publication of Descent had been published by John Murray in the Academy, 9 October 1869, pp. 15–16. Descent was published on 24 February 1871 (Freeman 1977). Origin 2d US ed. was based on the fifth English edition with additions and corrections and published by D. Appleton in 1870.

To Charles Layton   26 November [1869]1 Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. Nov. 26 Dear Sir The last or 5th. Edit. of the Origin was printed off some months ago & it is impossible to supply stereotypes.—2 I hope that you will inform Mssrs Appleton of what I have said of the increased size &c of this last & 5th. Edit. As 2000 copies of this Edit were printed, there will not be a new Edit. for a considerable time. I am not at all surprised at the sale having been slack of the old Edit. with all its imperfections3 If Mssrs. Appleton will reprint this 5th edition, of the Origin I will pledge myself to endeavour to persuade Mr Murray to supply stereotype Plates of my new Book on the Descent of Man;; but as I never before heard of such a scheme, I have no idea whether he will comply.— In any case I will pledge myself, on the above conditions & on the terms suggested in your letter, to send over the sheets as printed & stereotype casts of the woodcuts. But please remember my new book will not go to press for many months.4 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Bonhams, New York (dealers) (13 June 2019, lot 5) 1 2 3

4

h

d i

0 0

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Charles Layton, 25 November 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17). Layton had asked for stereotypes of Origin 5th ed. for a new US edition; Origin 5th ed. was published in late June (Correspondence vol. 17, letter from R. F. Cooke, 22 June 1869). See Correspondence vol. 17, letter to Charles Layton, 24 June [1869]. On additions to Origin 5th ed., see ibid., Introduction, pp. xv–xvii. The second US edition of Origin was published in 1870; the first had been published in 1860. Descent was published in 1871; the text of the US edition was not printed from stereotypes (Freeman 1977).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

281

To ?   13 December [1869]1 Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. Dec. 13 Dear Sir Will you be so good as to inform Mr Duncker that I have given the right of Translation of my next book, with all profit from such right, to Profr. Victor Carus of Leipzig; so that Mr. D, if, he thinks fit, may communicate direct with him.— I imagine that he will publish with Herr Koch of Stuttgart.— My book will not be ready for a considerable time.2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin The National Library of Israel (Abraham Schwadron collection, Schwad 03 04 07) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. V. Carus, 30 October 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17). Alexander Duncker was a German publisher. CD’s next book was Descent, published in 1871. He had asked Julius Victor Carus to translate it, but left the final choice of publisher to Carus (Correspondence vol. 17, letter to J. V. Carus, 9 November [1869]). Eduard Koch of E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung was Carus’s usual publisher, and did in fact publish the German translation of Descent (Carus trans. 1871).

From E. A. Darwin   [1870–81]1 L & N W Consol: Stock2 I have heard from Herries3 that he has received the Interim Certif: of the Balance with call notes attached. If you received the Certif: of the 20% paid on allotment thro’ your Bank it is probably all right & the Bank has got the Certif: & Call notes but it will be as well to make sure that all is right. EAD DAR 105: 111 1 2

3

The date range is established by the entries for London and North Western Railway Company stock in CD’s Investment book (Down House MS; see n. 2, below). Erasmus Alvey Darwin died in 1881. CD had stock in the London and North Western Railway Company; he sold his shares in 1852, but purchased more around 1870, which he held until his death (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS)). Herries, Farquhar, Chapman & Co. were a banking firm at 16 St James’s Street, London (Post Office London directory 1878).

To ?   [1870s?]1 you to come by the 4.12 train as we send to meet my son George2 at the same hour viz 4.51—

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

282

Mrs Darwin3 joins me in hoping we may have the pleasure of seeing you. Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS incomplete The National Library of Wales (NLW Dolaucothi L 5984) 1

2 3

The year range is conjectured from the mention of the 4.12 from Charing Cross to Orpington. CD also recommended this train in 1874, 1877, and 1879 (Correspondence vol. 22, letter to J. D. Hooker, 7 [April 1874], Correspondence vol. 25, letter to W. H. Flower, 19 May [1877], and this volume, Supplement, letter to G. J. Romanes, 27–8 May [1877]). George Howard Darwin. Emma Darwin.

To ?   12 February [1870–82]1 Down. | Beckenham. Feb 12 Dear Sir, I regret that I cannot give you much assistance, though I should be glad to do so if it were in my power Only one bust has been made of me, and this, though the work of our best sculptor, is not generally thought to be a good likeness.2 I do not unfortunately know where casts of the bust are to be had. I think the best chance of finding this out would be by letter to the sculptor T. Woolner Esq 29 Welbeck St London W who would be able to give you the necessary information. Regretting that I cannot give you better information I am, dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Erbengemeinschaft Alberts (private collection) 1

2

The year range is established by the address, and by CD’s death in April 1882. Down’s post town was changed from Bromley to Beckenham in 1869 (Correspondence vol. 17, letter to J. V. Carus, 21 June [1869]). The headed notepaper is not the headed notepaper that CD used from 1871, however; before then, he usually changed ‘Bromley’ to ‘Beckenham’ by hand. Thomas Woolner made a bust of CD in 1867 (see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to J. D. Hooker, 25 November [1867]).

To Robert Garner   22 February [1870–1]1 Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. Feb 22d Dear Sir I am much obliged to you for sending me the Hybrid, gathered from a place to which I am so much attached as Maer.—2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

283

You speak of the fruit of this hybrid, but say nothing on the seed. If it be a real hybrid & not a strong variety, I shd think, at least if protected from the pollen of its pure parents, that it would be utterly sterile, or very nearly so.— Perhaps this point wd. be worth your attention. With my thanks, I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS University of Oklahoma Libraries History of Science Collections (bound into Garner 1844) 1

2

The year range is established by the form of the address on the printed notepaper (Down, with Bromley altered by hand to Beckenham). CD used this form from April 1869 until May 1871. A note on the back of the letter says that the letter was sent to Garner in 1864, but the notepaper used makes this unlikely. This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 18 from a dealer’s description. Maer Hall in Staffordshire had been the home of Josiah Wedgwood II and Elizabeth Wedgwood, Emma Darwin’s parents.

To Hermann Müller1   14 March 1870 Down, Beckenham, Kent March 14. 1870. My dear Sir I think you have set yourself a new, very interesting and difficult line of research.2 As far as I know, no one has carefully observed the structure of insects in relation to flowers, although so many have now attended to the converse relation. As I imagine few or no insects are adapted to suck the nectar or gather the pollen of any single family of plants, such striking adaptations can hardly, I presume, be expected in insects as in flowers.—3 … Die Wichtigkeit der keinen Pollen verzehrenden Schmetterlinge für die Blumen ist mir niemals eingefallen, und Ihre Gesichtspunkte erklären die ungeheuere Entwickelung der nächtlichen Arten.4 Es scheint mir sehr seltsam, dass es keine nächtlichen blumensaugenden Zweiflügler und Hautflügler geben soll.5 Hat irgend wer den Magininhalt der Fledermäuse untersucht? Nach den Hummeln und Honigbienen, die oft verschiedene Arten besuchen, und nach dem Beispiele der Wespen und der Epipactis latifolia kann ich nicht umhin, zu denken, dass der Geschmack des Nektars die Besuche der Schmetterlinge sogar noch mehr bestimmen muss, als der Bau der Blume.6 Würde es sehr schwierig sein, das Verhältniss der in Deutschland vorkommenden Blumen mit so langen Nektarien oder so verlängerter Röhre, dass sie nur durch Schmetterlinge ausgebeutet werden können, festzustellen? Die in meinem Orchideenbuche versuchte Erklärung der Länge des Nektarium von Angraecum, kann, wie ich vermuthe, auf andere Fälle ausgedehnt werden.7 Sie müssten, denke ich, von Pictet’s oder anderen Werken die frühesten geologischen Formationen festellen, in welchen die verschiedenen Ordnungen der Insekten aufgefunden worden sind.8 Es ist, wie ich glaube, viel Wahres in dem, was ich in einer der späteren Ausgaben des “Ursprungs der Arten” folgerte, dass, bevor Insekten erschienen, die Pflanzen nicht mit ornamentalen Blüthen geschmückt gewesen sind.9 Ich zweifle einigermassen daran, dass irgend eine Beziehung zwischen den glänzenden Farben der Schmetterlinge, ihren Blumenbesuchen und

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

284

der geschlechtlichen Zuchtwahl bestehe, denn die Geschlechter variiren in der Farbe so häufig im ganzen Thierreich. … Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Copy incomplete DAR 146: 432; Krause 1884, pp. 19–20 1

2

3

4 5 6 7

8

9

This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 18, with only the English text; the German translation of the rest of the letter has been added from Krause 1884. For a translation of the German of the printed source, see Appendix I. See Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Hermann Müller, 8 March 1870. Müller had sent CD a copy of his paper ‘Die Anwendung der Darwin’schen Lehre auf Blumen und blumen-besuchende Insekten’ (The application of Darwinian theory to flowers and flower-visiting insects; H. Müller 1869). Müller had earlier studied the adaptation of Syrphidae (hoverfly) mouthparts to various sizes of pollen (see Correspondence vol. 15, letter from Hermann Müller, 23  October  1867). He found that different species possessed specialised channels adapted to different sizes of pollen. Müller had noted that several flowers opened only at night; these were never visited by diurnal species like bees or flies but only by butterflies and especially moths (H. Müller 1869, pp. 64–5). The order Diptera comprises true flies and midges; Hymenoptera are bees, wasps and ants. In his letter to Müller of 16 August [1867] (this volume, Supplement), CD noted that he had only ever seen wasps visiting Epipactis latifolia (a synonym of E. helleborine, broad-leaved helleborine). CD received a specimen of Angraecum sesquipedale (comet orchid) in January 1862 and was astounded by the length of its nectary (see Correspondence vol. 10, letter to J. D. Hooker, 25 [and 26] January [1862]). In Orchids, p.  198, CD concluded: ‘in Madagascar there must be moths with probosces capable of extension to a length of between ten and eleven inches!’ CD probably refers to François Jules Pictet de la Rive’s Traité de paléontologie, ou histoire naturelle des animaux fossiles considérés dans leurs rapports zoologiques et géologiques (Treatise on palaeontology, or natural history of fossil animals considered in their zoological and geological relationships; Pictet de la Rive 1853–7). See Origin 4th ed., pp. 239–40.

To C. W. Stoddard   5 May [1870]1 Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. May 5th Dear Sir I am much obliged for your extremely courteous letter. It is of course a great satisfaction to me to hear that my works have in any way interested an instructed & observing person.— I am rather surprised at what you say about certain plants not fruiting or flowering in the Sandwich Islands; though this is very common in hotter countries.— There is nothing I shd enjoy so much as to visit California, but I am growing old & my health is weak.—2 With my best thanks, I beg leave to remain Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S. I am obliged for your enclosures—3 The Huntington Library (HM 72755) 1

h

d i

0 0

This letter was previously published from a sale catalogue description in Correspondence vol. 18. The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from C. W. Stoddard, 11 April 1870 (Correspondence vol. 18).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 2 3

285

See Correspondence vol. 18, letter from C. W. Stoddard, 11 April 1870. Stoddard had enclosed some of his verses with his letter of 11 April 1870.

To E. P. Wright   25 May [1870] Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. May 25th. My dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in sending me Part I of your Spicilegia biologica, which contains your many valuable papers.1 I read most of them when they first appeared, but not all; & I shall be glad of the opportunity of looking at them again. With my best thanks, pray believe me, yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS Endorsement: ‘1870’ Malmö Museer (MM 031994) 1

Part 1 of Wright’s Spicilegia biologica (Biological gleanings; E. P. Wright [1870]) contained reprints of papers from the Annals and Magazine of Natural History and elsewhere.

To Armand de Quatrefages   20 July [1870]1 Down Beckenham | Kent July 20th My dear Sir A German friend lately asked me for a complete copy of my publications; & I have thought it best to send you a copy, though fuller than you require.—2 I am sure that I feel very grateful & much honoured by the interest which you have taken about my election.— I saw in one of our newspapers the number of votes which I obtained & which I owe to you, & the number was far higher than I had expected.3 With very sincere respect & cordial thanks, I remain | Yours very truly obliged | Ch. Darwin [Enclosure]4 General Works Journal of researches into the Nat. History & geology of the countries visited by H.M.S. Beagle5 The Zoology of the voyage of HMS Beagle only edited & superintended by C. Darwin 1840. Consisting of 5 parts. Notes are added by me on the habits & geographical range of the species.6 On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection 18597 The variation of plants & animals under domestication in 2 Vols. 18688

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

286

Geological Works The structure & distribution of coral-reefs—with several maps 1842. p1–214.9 Geological observations on volcanic islands with woodcuts 1844. p1–175.10 Geological observations on S. America 1846 p. 1–279— with coloured geological sections & 5 large folding plates of fossil shells, described by Mr Sowerby. The type is small & this a large work in matter.11 On the connection of the Volcanic phenomena in S. America &c— Vol V. Transact. Geolog. Soc— Read Mar 183812 On the distribution of the Erratic Boulders in S. America. Geolog. Trans. Vol VI Read April 1841.13 Geolog. works— On the transportal of erratic boulders from a lower to a higher level. Journal of Geolog. Soc. 1848. p 31514 Notes on the ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire— London Phil. Mag. Vol XXI 1842. p 18015 On the geology of the Falkland I.s Journal of Geological Soc. 1846. p. 26716 On a remarkable bar of sandstone off Pernabuco   London. Phil. Mag. Oct 1841 p 25717 On the formation of mould    Trans. Geolog. Soc. Vol 5. p 505— Read Nov. 183718 On the parallel roads of Glen Roy— Trans. of Philosoph. Soc. 1839— p 39—19 On the power of ice bergs to make grooves on a submarine surface—London Phil. Mag. Aug. 185520 An account of the fine dust which often falls on vessels in the Atlantic Ocean   Proceedings of Geolog. Soc. 1845. p. 2621 Geolog works Origin of saliferous deposits of Patagonia. Journal of Geolog. Soc— Vol. 2. p 127— 183822 Botanical works— On the various contrivances by which British & foreign orchids are fertilized. 1862.23 On the movements & habits of Climbing plants. Journal of Linnean Soc. Vol 9. 1865 (Bot) p 1— to 118— This paper has also been published as a separate work.24 On the action of sea-water in the germination of seeds. Journal of Linn. Soc Vol 1. 1857. (Bot) p 130.25 On the agency of bees in the fertilization of papilionaceous flowers. Annals of Nat. Hist. Vol 2. 1858 p. 459—26 On the two forms or dimorphic condition of the species of Primula   Journal of Linn. Soc Vol. 1 1862 (Bot) p. 7727 Botanical works continued On the existence of two forms & their reciprocal sexual relations in the genus Linum. Journal of Linn. Soc. Vol 7 1863. (Bot) p. 69.28 On the sexual relations of the three forms of Lythrum. Journal of Linn. Soc. Vol 8. 1864 p 16929

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

287

On the character & Hybrid-like nature of the illegitimate offspring of dimorphic & trimorphic plants: Journal of Linn. Soc. Vol 10 1857 (Bot). p 393.30 On the specific difference between Primula Veris & Vulgaris, & on the hybrid nature of the common oxlip. Journal of Linn. Soc Vol 10 1867 (Bot). p 437 to 45431 Notes on the fertilization of Orchids— Annals & Mag. of Nat. Hist. Sep. 186932 Zoological works A monograph of the Cirripedia Part 1—Lepadidæ— Ray Soc. 1851. p1. to 400 with many plates A monograph of the Cirripedia part 2 Balanidæ.   Ray Soc. 1854 p 1 to 684— Plates Monograph of fossil Lepadidae: Palæontog. Soc. 1851 p.1 to 86 Plates Ditto of fossil Balanidæ & Verrucidæ: Pal. Soc. 1854 p.1–4433 Observations on the structure of the genus Sagitta. Annals Nat. Hist. Vol 3. 1844 p.134 Brief descriptions of several terrestrial Planariæ & of some marine species    Annals of Nat. Hist. Vol 14. 1844. p. 24135 LS(A) American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.377); University Archives (dealers) (14 April 2021, lot 74) 1

2

3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

h

d i

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Armand de Quatrefages, 18 July 1870 (Correspondence vol. 18). This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 18 without the enclosure, which was discovered subsequently. See Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Armand de Quatrefages, 18 July 1870 and n. 2. William Preyer had asked CD for a list of his publications for a biographical sketch (see Correspondence vol. 17, letter from W. T. Preyer, 21 March 1869 and n. 2). Quatrefages had supported CD’s candidacy for election to the French Académie des sciences. The newspaper CD refers to has not been identified, but the number of votes he received was noted in the Pall Mall Gazette, 6 July 1870, p. 4. According to the report in the Comptes rendus hébdomadaires des sciences de l’Académie des sciences 71 (1870): 41, CD received sixteen votes, Johann Friedrich von Brandt had nineteen votes, Thomas Henry Huxley had three, and Sven Lovén had one. At the second ballot, Brandt received twenty-two votes and CD sixteen. The enclosure is in Emma Darwin’s hand. Journal of researches. Zoology (1838–43). Origin. Variation. Coral reefs. Volcanic islands. South America. George Brettingham Sowerby. ‘Volcanic phenomena and the formation of mountain chains’. ‘Distribution of the erratic boulders’. ‘Transportal of erratic boulders’. Repeated headings from ‘Geolog. works—’ onwards are at the heads of new pages in the manuscript. ‘Ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire’. ‘Geology of the Falkland Islands’. ‘Sandstone off Pernambuco’. ‘Formation of mould’. ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’. ‘Power of icebergs’. ‘Account of the dust which falls on vessels in the Atlantic’. ‘Origin of saliferous deposits’.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

288 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Orchids. ‘Climbing plants’; Climbing plants. ‘Action of sea-water on the germination of seeds’. ‘Fertilization of papilionaceous flowers’. Also published in Correspondence vol. 7, letter to Gardeners’ Chronicle, [before 13 November 1858]. ‘Dimorphic condition in Primula’. ‘Two forms in species of Linum’. ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’. ‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’. ‘Specific difference in Primula’. ‘Fertilization of orchids’. Living Cirripedia (1851), Living Cirripedia (1854), Fossil Cirripedia (1851), Fossil Cirripedia (1854). ‘Observations on Sagitta’. ‘Planariae’.

To J. D. Hooker   17 September 1870 [Down.] Sir J Lubbock’s woods were planted about 30 years ago. When Land here is no longer cultivated it becomes thickly covered with coarse vegetation, and I have never seen charlock growing in such places.1 This summer Sir. J. L. had a space of about 2 ft around the choicer shrubs, cleared of herbage and deeply forked, on both sides of the long middle drive. In 49 cases (i.e. in about three fourths of the cleared spaces,) I observed yesterday one or several charlock plants growing. The wood-covered slope consistes of the same soil throughout; but down the middle, and across the drive, there are plain traces of an old hedge, shewing that two large fields were originally enclosed and planted, and probably were under different culture. Now on both sides of this line the ground has been forked round the shrubs; but all the charlock plants that I saw on the 49 spaces were on one side of this line; and literally not one charlock plant on the forked spaces on the other side of the line, and therefore in what was formerly a different field. Considering more especially this latter fact, and that charlock seed has no pulp for birds and cannot easily be blown about, it seems to me almost certain that the seeds have lain in the ground for nearly 30 years.2 C. Darwin Sept 17. 1870 In the parallel case observed in my own little wood & formerly described in Gard: Chronicle, the interval since planting had been only, I think, 12 or 14 years.—3 LS(A) Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (JDH/2/2/1 f. 307) 1 2

h

d i

0 0

John Lubbock was CD’s neighbour; some of his land adjoined CD’s (Freeman 1978). Charlock is Sinapis arvensis. In 1855, CD had investigated the length of dormancy and the vitality of charlock seeds, and he and Hooker had debated the issue of general seed viability at length (see Correspondence vol. 5).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 3

289

See Correspondence vol. 5, letter to Gardeners’ Chronicle, 13 November [1855].

To George Cupples   20 September [1870]1 Down | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. Sept. 20 My dear Mr Cupples. I am delighted to hear about the Dog; but as I said before you have been too generous to make me such a present.2 I do not feel worthy of it, except so far that when I know a dog, I love it with all my heart & soul.— Whenever I hear of the dog & train & station in London & hour of arrival I will send a servant to meet the train in London, & he shall either keep in London or bring the dog home the same night according to the hour. […] I should be very grateful for a few instructions about food & name of Father or near relatives that we may Christian him3 […] Any hints, if necessary, about teaching him to be quiet & not attack men or animals wd. be advisable. I can assure you, we will all make much of him. I am very hard at work correcting proofs of my new book, “on the Descent of Man &c” which turns out unfortunately large, viz 2 volumes. I need not say that a copy will of course be sent you when published; but I shall be at least 2 more months at the abominable work of making my rugged style passably smooth.— 4 With cordial thanks— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin We are pleased to hear that he is not grey but cream-coloured! Pray give our very kind remembrances to Mrs Cupples.—5 Incomplete6 Christie’s, New York (dealers) (19 December 2002, lot 41) 1 2 3 4 5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from George Cupples, 17 September 1870 (Correspondence vol. 18). Cupples had offered to send CD a deerhound puppy (see Correspondence vol. 18, letter from George Cupples, 29 April 1870). The puppy was called Bran (Correspondence vol. 18, letter from George Cupples, 14 November 1870). Descent was published in early 1871; Cupples’s name appears on CD’s presentation list (Correspondence vol. 19, Appendix IV). Anne Jane Cupples. The original letter is complete and is described by the dealer as being four pages long; the transcription is partly from photographs, and partly from quotations from the dealer’s description.

To A. S. Strahan   29 November 18701 Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. Nov 29—1870 Dear Sir I have been informed that an application is to be made to Government for a pension for Mr Cupples.2

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

290

Although I am not personally acquainted with this gentleman, I have corresponded with him on scientific subject during several years.3 On some very intricate points he has been so kind as not only to collect, at the cost of much trouble, information from various sources, but has likewise made for me valuable observations. Therefore he has my sincere good wishes for his success. I have confined myself to the above points relating to Science, as I consider Literature beyond my province— I beg leave to remain | dear Sir | yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Heritage Book Shop (dealers) (January 2018) 1 2 3

This letter was previously published from a draft at DAR 161: 280v in Correspondence vol. 18. The current transcription is from images of the original letter. See Correspondence vol. 18, letter from A. J. Cupples, [28 November 1870]. See Correspondence vols. 16–18.

From Maria   [1871–82]1 IHS | M.V.I.2 Sir! Not knowing whether you are a stranger to German language—pardon my English, but I am so impatient for your reply … Allow me a few questions. I was told Mr Darwin prays much and loves God a religious man to a high degree! Is it possible? thought I, and how does he agree with what he believes and with what he does not believe? For instance, you believe in life after death?—I heard you do. Well, those heroes of virtue renouncing to themselves 〈on〉 earth for Love for Perfection, personally taken—for God—living after death, their soul only meanwhile, must be in a far higher position to that they occupied while living—let us say, they arrived at what they aimed to; so, this memory serves as a moral law, I mean their lives a modell for imitation,—that is how they act in a passive sense—and they pray to God for us—second service—to be understood in a certain passive sense, because by doing so, they don’t try to alter the Will of God, called Predestination!— They are middlers between God and mankind for both these reasons and we call to them for reasons resulting.—of our own heart—wishing—what it never understands    Beatitude!—Eternal Satisfaction—God!— But, if there is no life after death—why should we pray? why adore a Being that made Himself so happy—as not to want any thing and nobody—and allows existence but does no farther meddle with it?? But I was told, you believe in Christ, the God-Man. (:It is a pity one cannot write at once what on a sudden rises in the mind, like a〈n〉 eye overlooking, an eye, this little thing, overlooking a good part of the world:) First of all let us answer to all doubts in general, of a soul believing in God the Unity who never comunicated with mankind—but of justly called God, understood

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

291

as a Potence, to which nothing is impossible, directed by a will whose radix is Love, produced by the highest perfection of Goodness. Such a God is able of what He never did,—also. As Spirit He interfered and—for reasons not entering now closely our question— He interfered as God-Man. —Development, if showing every kind in nature in a state of mixture and climbing to a higher degree, until now did not show a Second God-Man—nor even a man, participating in this life of his own better state after death—but if you believe in Christ’s biography, He must have been God. As man He should be a liar—you know what He said of Himself, testifying to be God; how can we esteem Him a perfect man only, when He lies? But He not only said, what nobody said before and after Him—He acted like a God! If God did not unite Himself to human nature by development—His race had nothing Godlike— —but necessary even was the Immaculated Conception because God could not be Son of a Man: but willing to interfere as Man … the most innocent Virgin was united to the Spirit = I say: if God did not develop Himself out of mankind … my soul has no origin in the rational part of the beast. My soul is a creation of God—to Him is directed the aim of my life, I feel to be in a certain connection with God. following this secret call, we are in Grace, Grace gives us a clearer idea of what we do not understand, we know that we must and cannot help believing. We believe and—we know! It is a knowledge given us, not acquired; therefore we call it Revelation,— Let us stop here, and begin at the beginning—you say there is no beginning, I say there is no end, and we are right both of us: time began in Eternity and ends in Eternity—Eternity never began and never ends, being before and after what had been created and did not exist, what must end when the new world begins in eternity. A world newly created—for we live after death, but don’t develop ourselves to the futur state—we reach the better state by destruction! Let us begin by the beginning I said and meant: 3 can come from putting one to one three times, or from putting 2 to one, or from many other particles;—who can say it developed itself by one of these methods only? 3 can also just as well be called 1000, if the quality is the same and vice versa, you can call 1000=3 Why should I believe in the development of the world if it is not impossible to God to create a world? If He allows only and does not prevent my existence, what for my free will claiming justice? Beatitude I mean whenever I choose to be virtuous. But God=Love in connection with mankind called Mercy cannot remain absolutely alone, allowing our existence, or we should never have recognised His existence. So it must have been His Will—and if you say you never pretended the contrary I answer: Will and Action was contemporary in God: He began by willing and doing, what we don’t understand, leaving to our doubt and scrutinizing and meritorious believe many possibilities how and why He did so—but then—Revelation began,— when the first man was created by His will. Eternity cannot be explained to temporary beings in any terms—it is not impossible to God to put a certain understanding of it in a highly graced soul—therefore we

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

292

cannot say, where time lies in Eternity and why God did not choose to create earlier or later by His will—but it was done in its time being in the centre of Eternity. Please to address: Maria Haupt-Post restante Wien DAR 201: 24 1 2

The author of the letter has not been identified. The letter is in a folder of ‘curious’ letters; the other letters date between 1871 and 1882. IHS is the Christogram, the first three letters of Jesus in Greek. The second abbreviation has not been identified: it may stand for Maria virgo immaculata.

To Maria   [1871–82]1 Dear Madam— I am sorry to say that I can not spare the time to discuss the many abstruse points touched on in your letter.— Nor do I understand fully on what subject you require information.— I may add that my belief is not nearly so [sure], as you suppose2 Madam | your obed sert | Ch. Darwin ADraftS DAR 201: 24v 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Maria, [1871–82]. On CD’s religious beliefs, see ‘Recollections’, pp. 391–7.

From Maria   [1871–82]1 IHSMVI.2 Sir You are a victim—to science! You have no time to spare3 … True and granted. Although when you are eating and drinking and sleeping—surely you are robbing yourself of that time = Life claims to its rights! But we kill scarcely perceiving it our life’s Life; the nourishment would cheat us out of principles, of what we are wont to; it would cost us at the least as much time as we want for our affairs answering our career; still the judge examining truth as our proverb says ought to have two equal ears. Suppose, you had never given yourself to your sciences, should you ever have reached— — —and enriched— — — I don’t pay compliments. At all events not so thouroughly did you contemplate the Word of God! for I’m sure there too you would have stripped truth from abysses of mystic.— Science is

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

293

knowledge of the truth, no matter which, but it is said: Science comes from God and leads to God! One way of finding God, of finding reason in faith is no doubt studying the Scripture. Willing not to deny a Perfect Being superior to all we ever shall imagine until we have pondered—(and then we shall no more deny)—these words of wisdom and best tendency = gates will open, larger than those, which led you in to listen to nature’s transitory wonders. Then you too would exclaim: O Thou Eternal Beauty how late did I love Thee! But this result wants time, as any thing. An other way of finding God is, don’t laugh at me, if I cite—Goethe. Wer nie sein Brod mit Thränen ass Wer nie die kummervollen Nächte Auf seinem Bette weinend sass Der kennt Euch nicht Ihr himmlischen Mächte! Who never ate his bread in tears Who never sat on his bed weeping sorrowful nights throughout Does not know ye Heavenly Powers!!4 Sir we may call it frenzy, when misery leads to despair and murder, but when misery leads to frenzy of Love to God—at the foot of the Cross— — —there is no wiser than such a frantic soul! When you compare the scope of Scripture’s parables, it is not a mere remedy to hold humanity back from bestiality, not a mere remedy to elevate the mind for temporal advantages—suffering patiently not because we cannot help suffering but for Christ and Eternity—that is a method worthy of God! I don’t know Sir how sensitive you are, but without being sentimental, certainly you had epocs in your life you would not sacrifice to science and would not sell what is dear to you for a discovery. A true Catholic does not sell his God neither.— Faust who spent his youth and old age in researches; when in despair—for want of time—his life was near its end … did not ask answering success—strange! his heart makes the dictator “Satisfaction to the insatiable desire of the noblest feeling”! What a loss of time—for Eternity, when at the end of our lives we know all—but ourselves! All but the One thing as it is said in the Scripture, the One thing necessary—and Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus, listening to His Words, although blamed by her busy sister, was praised by the Lord answering Martha her sister’s complaint: “One thing is necessary—Mary has chosen the best part”! (Catholics rejoice in her memory to day 22/7:)5 She left all alone and took time to listen, to His Word. We run a dreadful risk, if we are ignorant of what we cannot make out—jumping in science of all sciences, over head and heels perhaps=dying. What would we give then for a single moment—the time for repentance!—Time is money— time is Eternal Beatitude say combating catholics, for we want time to conquer it by merits.— Faust little believed, perhaps less than he would confess; so, when Gretchen asked in a trembling tone: Do you believe in God?6 she got the plain answer: Call him as

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

294

you like! As if the name were a hollow sound, not mentioning what we are really to understand calling Him God!— Why then, when we are in deepest sorrow or in extreme anxiety—do we feel the necessity of prayer?!—The thought of nature’s regular and irregular course does it comfort us, when our heart is breaking? The ungrateful son in Schiller’s Räuber what a horrible scene, when he prays, persuaded all at once that God only could help—but he is not able to say a good prayer as his words show distinctly.7 Grillparzer—mark the contrast Sir—full of noblest feelings complained=, assisting at the funerals of a young lady who died on the day she dreamt a year ago, to be her last=“If I could but pray”!8 Why did he not exclaim, if a certain time was over,—time is calming … or why was he not silent rejoicing in dissipation to come and forgetfulness? He felt the necessity of prayer, having no mind to deliver himself to deceiving illusions.— But if he wished to pray, why could he not? He was no criminal man   he was a man of intellect and not pushed by common fear. Whence the constraint of worshipping God? and what prevents him of doing so. Humility! is the word which explains all. He was downcast and low-spirited but he was not humble by free will. Humility grants access to God and success but this word is exceedingly hard. To fall in love with our own weakness in order to be helped by Providence!! We are dreaming and we suppose to live   take that literally Sir only in respect to awakening. Every thing seems so true while we are dreaming and we have no idea there is a state to come that makes it untrue. How glad was the hero of Grillparzer’s—Traum ein Leben9—as he awoke from a dream at the moment when a horrible sentence was to be fulfilled—he altered his resolution to go on a journey next morning—and enjoyed a happy home—the superstitious!!! man. A Quidam10 felt himself dying. And before his spiritual eye recollection, stood all his past life’s sins, and he knew time will bring him before the Tribunal of God—he had no time to spare— An instant and he is judged for ever— — — — — — — — —He awoke!— He was not the dying old man! He was a young man at the beginning of life! But he was cured for life by this New-years-dream. Believe me Sir your truest friend | Maria | Hauptpost restante | Wien Please Sir to send me word if you know German in order to read a little book I wished to send you long ago.— I forgot to tell you Sir, there is not a soul on earth knowing of this correspondence.— You believe me. DAR 201: 25 1 2 3

h

d i

0 0

The author of the letter has not been identified. The letter is in a folder of ‘curious’ letters; the other letters date between 1871 and 1882. IHS is the Christogram, the first three letters of Jesus in Greek. The second abbreviation has not been identified: it may stand for Maria virgo immaculata. See this volume, Supplement, letter to Maria, [1871–82].

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

295

The poem is from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre, vol. 1, book 2, chapter 13 (Goethe 1857, 1: 170). It was set to music by Franz Schubert in 1822 (Gesänge des Harfners (D478)). July 22 is the feast day of Mary Magdelene. For Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha, see Luke 10:25–37. They were often conflated in Roman Catholic tradition. See Goethe 1880, p. 252. Friedrich von Schiller; Schiller 1781, act 5, scene 1, p. 200. For the anecdote about Franz von Grillparzer, see Drake 1953, p. 77. Grillparzer 1840. Quidam: a certain person (Latin).

From R. H. Wedgwood   [1871–82]1 I want to tell you of an instance of long memory in a horse. I have just driven my pony down from London here, and though she has not been here for eight years, she remembered her way quite well, and made a bolt for the stables where I used to keep her.2 Romanes 1882a, p. 330 1 2

The year range is conjectured from the assumption that the letter was inspired by CD’s work on the mental powers of animals, published in Descent in 1871. CD died in April 1882. CD had discussed the instinctive behaviours and mental powers of animals, including horses, in Descent1: 34–106.

To Miss Fenwick   8 February [1871–82]1 Mr Darwin presents his compliments to Miss Fenwick & sends two waste sheets of M.S. of his Descent of Man & Miss F. can cut out any portion which she may like2 Down. Beckenham Kent | Feb 8th— John Hay Library, Brown University (Hay MSS Ms.44.31) 1 2

The date range is established by the reference to Descent, which was published in 1871, and by CD’s death in 1882. Miss Fenwick has not been identified, although CD corresponded with John George Fenwick in March 1876 (Correspondence vol. 24, letter from J. G. Fenwick, 17 March 1876, and letter to J. G. Fenwick, 19 March 1876).

To Arthur Nicols   [8–10 March 1871]1 [Down.] The facts which you relate about the phascolarctos are very surprising, and I will carefully preserve your note for use on some future occasion.2 Incomplete Nicols 1883, p. 74

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

296 1 2

The date range is established by the relationship between this letter and the letters from Arthur Nicols, 7 March 1871 and 11 March 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19). See Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Arthur Nicols, 7 March 1871. Nicols had written about pet koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) that acquired a taste for tobacco and rum.

To Lewin Hill   23 March [1871]1 Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. March 23d Dear Sir Though you are so considerate as to tell me not to write (& in truth my correspondence is very heavy) I must thank you for your very curious case of the peculiar form of quasi inheritance, where many descendants from the same parents are similarly affected.—2 This holds good in a remarkable manner with the deaf- & dumb; & is, I believe, quite inexplicable.—3 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Dr Robert McLennan-Smith (private collection) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lewin Hill, 17 March 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19). Lewin Hill had written to CD that ten out of the thirty members of his generation of his father’s family had a defective right knee joint (Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Lewin Hill, 17 March 1871). See Variation 2: 22.

To Louisa Stevenson   8 April 1871 Down. | Beckenham | Kent. S.E. Ap. 8 1871 Madam I have the honour to acknowledge, on the part of Mrs Darwin & myself, the request that we should agree to our names being added to the General Committee for securing medical education to women.1 I shall be very glad to have my name put down, or that of Mrs Darwin but I should not like both our names to appear.2 With sincere good wishes for the cause you are so generously aiding I beg leave to remain | Madam | your obedient servant | Charles Darwin LS National Library of Scotland (Acc. 6414) 1

2

h

d i

0 0

Stevenson’s letter to CD has not been found. Stevenson was an honorary secretary of the Committee for Securing a Medical Education to the Women of Edinburgh, which was formed in support of Sophia Jex-Blake (ODNB s.v. Stevenson, Louisa; Roberts 1993, pp. 97–100). CD’s name appeared on the committee (Roberts 1993, p. 97).

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

297

To Alexander Buchan   22 May [1871]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. May 22d Dear Sir I am greatly indebted to you for your kindness in sending me your Text-Book of Metoreology, which I have no doubt I shall find very useful & interesting.2 With my best thanks, I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully & obliged | Charles Darwin National Records of Scotland (MET 1/7/1) 1 2

The year is established by the publication date of Buchan’s book (see n. 2, below). Buchan’s Introductory text-book of meteorology (Buchan 1871) was published in June 1871 (Publishers’ Circular, 1 July 1871, p. 402); CD evidently received a pre-publication copy.

To John Higgins   3 June 1871 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. June 3d. 1871 My dear Sir I am much obliged for your letter, & beg leave to acknowledge the sum of £ 266 " 11s " 9d. placed to my account at the Union Bank.—1 My dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. R. Darwin To | J. Higgins Esq— Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/6/14) 1

The payment was for six months’ rent on CD’s farm at Beesby in Lincolnshire; Higgins was CD’s land agent.

To Alexander Agassiz   28 August [1871]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Aug. 28 My dear Mr. Agassiz I cannot thank you enough for your letter of Aug 9th, which, even if I had not wished much to learn something about the pedicillariæ, would at any time have interested me beyond measure.2 It is a splendid case of gradation of structure. I wish extremely I could give the whole of the case, but this is impossible from want of space, even if I had the requisite knowledge to do it well; but I must give some of your conclusions & remarks.3 Over & over again I have come across some structure, & thought that here was an instance in which I shd. utterly fail to find any intermediate or graduated structure; but almost always by keeping a look out I have found more or less plain traces of the lines through which development has proceeded by short

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

298

& easy & serviceable steps. Rarely, however, have I learnt so fine an instance as this of yours.— I have been very unwell for the last 5 weeks with giddiness & horrid head feelings & have done nothing: I was not able to read your letter at one time, but now I have just finished it, & it has served as a more splendid stimulus than any physic, & has enabled me to write myself this note. Accept my cordial thanks, & believe me | yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin I am very much obliged for the beautiful book, “Sea-side Studies”, which I will read as soon as my odious head allows me to read anything.4 Sotheby’s, New York (dealers) (13 December 2018, lot 236) 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter, the letter from Alexander Agassiz, [before 1 June 1871], and the letter to Alexander Agassiz, 1 June [1871] (Correspondence vol. 19). Agassiz’s letter has not been found. CD and Agassiz had discussed the development of pedicellariae (small pincer-like appendages in echinoderms; see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Alexander Agassiz, [before 1 June 1871] and n. 11, and letter to Alexander Agassiz, 1 June [1871] and n. 3). Agassiz published on the subject in A. Agassiz 1873. See Origin 6th ed., pp. 191–2 (published in 1872). Agassiz’s view that the pedicellariae were modified spines, and were of use to the animals throughout their process of development, was an argument against St George Jackson Mivart’s argument that since they were useless unless fully developed they could not have evolved by natural selection. There is an annotated copy of the second edition of Seaside studies in natural history, by Elizabeth Agassiz and Alexander Agassiz (E. C. Agassiz and Agassiz 1871), in the Darwin Library–CUL. Elizabeth Agassiz was Alexander Agassiz’s mother.

To M. T. Masters   31 August [1871]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Aug. 31st My dear Sir I send a little article by this post, if you think it worth inserting in G. Chronicle.—2 If not, throw it into the fire. Should you print it, perhaps it wd. be well to send me a proof, as my hand-writing is so bad.— My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Herne Bay Historical Records Society (Dr Tom Bowes’s scrapbook 4 p. 71) 1 2

The year is established by the headed notepaper, which is of a sort that CD used between May 1871 and January 1872. CD sent an article about fertilisation in Leschenaultia (a synonym of Lechenaultia; see Correspondence vol. 19, letter to Gardeners’ Chronicle, [before 9 September 1871], which can now be dated [31 August 1871]).

To Chauncey Wright   23 September [1871]1 Down, Beckenham Kent Sept 23d My dear Sir:— The enclosed, I daresay, relates to your pamphlet. I sent a copy to Kingsley.—2 I have despatched about 220 copies to all persons, whom I cd think of & to the Societies— Copies have also been sent to all Reviews. I have had 2 or 3 letters

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

299

from persons, who guessed I had sent them copies, expressing much interest in your article.—3 I heard yesterday that Huxley has already sent M.S. review of Mivart to the Contemporary & he attacks Mivarts Divinity & Metaphysics.—4 In Haste | yours very sincerely | C. Darwin I am convinced that your paper will do our cause real good service.— Mivart is even affecting the opinions of Naturalists in Italy.5 Massachusetts Historical Society (George E. Nitzsche Unitariana collection, box 4) 1 2

3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Chauncey Wright, 11 October 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19). CD arranged for Wright’s review of St George Jackson Mivart’s On the genesis of species (C. Wright 1871a; Mivart 1871a) to be published by John Murray at CD’s expense (C. Wright 1871b); see Correspondence vol. 19, letter to Chauncey Wright, 13 and 14 July [1871] and n. 5. The enclosure was a letter from Charles Kingsley to Wright that had evidently been sent first to Murray (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter to John Murray, 23 September [1871]). See Correspondence vol. 19, letter from W. W. Reade, 18 September 1871, and letter from Roland Trimen, 20 September 1871. See Correspondence vol. 19, letter from T. H. Huxley and H. A. Huxley, 20 September 1871. Thomas Henry Huxley published an article in the Contemporary Review titled ‘Mr Darwin’s critics’ (T. H. Huxley 1871). See Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Michele Lessona, 5 August 1871 and n. 3. Michele Lessona had defended CD’s statement concerning the malar bone (cheekbone) against Mivart’s criticism in his unsigned review of Descent ([Mivart] 1871b, p. 64).

To ?   27 September [1871–81]1

Down, Beckenham, Kent September 27

Dear Sir, I am much obliged for the book which you have been so kind as to send to me, & for the flattering notice of me. I am so much overworked at present that I cannot read it now, & I am a very poor German scholar. I am sorry not to be able to comply with your request; but remarks of not a few lines in length will be worth nothing, & I have no strength at times to do more […] Ch. Darwin. David Schulson (dealer) (August 2005) 1

The year range is established by the printed address, which is described in the sale catalogue. CD used two sorts of notepaper marked ‘Down, Beckenham, Kent.’ between 1871 and 1874, and notepaper with the railway station added after the same address until his death in April 1882.

To Edward Bartlett   17 October [1871] I am greatly obliged for your note received this morning1 | Ch. Darwin Down | Oct. 17th. pcS(A) Postmark: OC 18 | 71 Gerard A. J. Stodolski (dealer) (January 2022, item 210266)

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

300 1

See letter from Edward Bartlett, 16 October 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19).

From W. D. Fox   2[0–9?] October [1871 or 1873?]1 Oct 2〈  〉 〈My dear〉 〈D〉arwin [Damaged: passes on information on pigs; hopes to meet CD in London in November.]2 DAR 164: 222 1

2

The years are suggested from the apparent invitation to a meeting in London in November. Between 1869 and 1874, Fox, who lived in Northwich, Cheshire, spent the winter on the Isle of Wight, travelling through London in October or November (Correspondence vol. 18, letter from W. D. Fox, 15 February [1870], and Correspondence vol. 22, letter from W. D. Fox, 8 May [1874]). The content of other letters between CD and Fox in this period suggests that 1871 and 1873 are the only possible years in which this letter could have been written. For the day and month: a scrap with only the date ‘Oct 2’ written on it exists, but other references to ‘next month’ and ‘November’ suggest the date may have been between 20 and 29 October. The letter consists of separate fragments. The summary is based on two of the larger scraps, which give partial texts as follows: ‘in London next month … Erasmus’s or elsewhere’; ‘I lately m〈et〉 ... told me he ... to you some ... of Pigs’.

To Louis Bouton   26 October 1871 Down Beckenham Kent, October 26th 1871. Dear Sir, I am much obliged for your kind and interesting letter […]1 what you say about the men of the Seychelles islands is quite new to me.2 The case seems nearly parallel, though of a reverse nature, with that of the difference in stature between the inhabitants of the lofty volcanic and low coral islets of the Pacific. With my thanks. | I remain, Dear Sir, | Yours very faithfully, | Ch. Darwin. Transactions of the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of Mauritius n.s. 6 (1871–2): 168 1 2

Ellipses are in the original printed text. Bouton had written about the immense strength and vigour of the men of the Seychelles (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Louis Bouton, 22 September 1871).

From W. E. Darwin to John Higgins   30 October [1871] Down, | Beckenham, Kent. October 30th Dear Sir, I have today talked over the Matters respecting Claythorpe with my Father, and considering all the circumstances he agrees with me that I need feel no scruples

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

301

whatever in declining to continue Mr Gilberts representative as my tenant at Claythorpe.1 Such being the case I shall be much pleased if your son will become my tenant.2 It seems to me to be a very good thing for the progress of farming generally, when Gentlemen will devote their spare time to make a sort of science as well as amusement of the art of farming. Will you please ask your son to consider the best site for a couple of new cottages, to be built in the spring. Of course I should supply a cottage rent free for your Son’s bailiff. My Father wishes to be very kindly remembered to you. | I am, Dear Sir, | Yours very truly | W. E. Darwin John Higgins Esq Endorsement: ‘30 Octr. 1871’ Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/5/11) 1

2

Higgins had managed the estate of CD’s sister Susan Elizabeth Darwin at Claythorpe in Lincolnshire; she died in October 1866, and the estate was inherited by CD’s son William Erasmus Darwin (Correspondence vol. 14, letter to W. E. Darwin, 8 November [1866]). Joseph Gilbert, William’s tenant at Claythorpe, died in September 1871. He was a bachelor. His representative was presumably his brother and executor, William Gilbert, also a farmer in Lincolnshire. (England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1995 (Ancestry.com, accessed 7 May 2020).) Frederic Higgins was farming at Claythorpe by 1872 (W. White 1872, p. 256).

To ?   18 November [1871–81]1 Down, Beckenham, Kent With Mr. Charles Darwin’s compliments enclosing one guinea. Swann Auction Galleries (dealers) (14 September 1993) 1

The year range is established by the address supplied by the sale catalogue; CD started using headed paper with Beckenham in the address in 1871, and continued using various types with the same address until his death in April 1882. The day and month are supplied by the description in the sale catalogue. The recipient and occasion have not been identified.

From Caroline Shuttleworth   27 November [1871–80?]1 Wykeham Rise | Totteridge | N Nov. 27 Sir I am taking the liberty of writing to tell you of a curious instance of what appears to me like aberration of instinct (insanity?) on the part of a fantail pigeon, wh. on no theory can I account for. It is several years ago, before I was acquainted with t yr. writings.2 I only wish that I still possessed the eccentric bird that I m. add to my

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

302

audacity in asking you to do it & me the honor of paying us a visit. But alas! it is no more. Still I have so often wondered how you wd. have accounted for its conduct, that at last I am constrained to write & ask you: At that time we kept a few white fantail pigeons in a pigeon-house at the top of the coach house. One day I picked up somewhere an empty ginger-beer bottle—of the ordinary brown stone description, & I threw it, I dont know why, into the middle of the stable yard, just below the pigeon house. Immediately the father of the fantail family flew down in a state of intense excitement, & to my great amusement began to perform the most extraordinary genuflexions, evidently in homage to the bottle. He walked solemnly round & round it, cooing continually, & trailing his wing, & bobbing his head up & down, with the most exaggerated antics I ever beheld on the part of an enamoured pigeon. This went on for hours, but he never went quite up to it, & it never ceased until the bottle had been removed. And this object never failed to attract him. Whenever an amusement was required for our visitors, I produced the bottle with invariably the same results. He flew down with quite as great alacrity, & usually far greater, than when his peas were thrown out for his dinner. The other members of his family regarded his performances with contemptuous indifference, taking no interest whatever themselves in any ginger beer bottle. I often tried him with other things, but only the bottle ever attracted him. Now what was the cause of this infatuation? He cd. not possibly have thought it was a pigeon. If it was insanity it was a monomania, for on all other points he was as sane a bird as you cd. find. With many apologies for troubling you with this anecdote3 I am | yr. obedient servant | C. Shuttleworth DAR 177: 158 1

2 3

The year range is conjectured from the fact that the letter may have been inspired by Descent, published early in 1871, and from the fact that Shuttleworth had probably left Wykeham Rise, Totteridge, by 1881 (Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/1370/96/2)). CD discussed the ‘love-antics and dances’ of birds in Descent 2: 68–71. George John Romanes followed up this story, which became well known through his account of ‘derangement of instinctive organization’ (Romanes 1883, pp. 172–4). The account was illustrated by Harrison William Weir in Chatterbox (1889): 391–2. See plate on p. 303.

To Nevil Story-Maskelyne   6 December 1871 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Dec 6 1871 Dear Sir I am very sorry that I have no spare copies (all having been given away) of the papers for which Mrs Maskelyne wishes, with the exception of one on orchids. But I add copies of a few others which it is possible that she may like to possess—1 Believe me | dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

An eccentric pigeon and a ginger-beer bottle, Chatterbox (1889): 392. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

304

P.S. I forgot to add that my paper on Climbing Plants, which seems to me a very curious subject, can be procured at Mss. Williams & Norgate | Henrietta St   Covent s Garden | for 3s or 4.— I have not one clean copy of it.— LS(A) The British Library (Add MS 88953/4) 1

For Thereza Mary Story-Maskelyne’s request, see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Nevil Maskelyne to John Lubbock, 3 December 1871. Thereza had asked for ‘Two forms in species of Linum’, ‘Climbing plants’, and ‘Fertilization of orchids’.

From Hubert Airy   12 December 1871 Flamsteed House. | Greenwich | London S.E. 1871. Dec. 12. My dear Sir Pray accept my 〈    〉 for your very kind l〈    〉 for the help you give m〈    〉 learning something about 〈ph〉yllotaxy. Nägeli’s observa〈tion〉 seems to be a〈n〉 important one; and, if borne o〈ut〉 by the facts, will make rather for tha〈n〉 against my view, I conceive.1 For I 〈sh〉d suppose (till I find his own 〈wo〉rds) he means that the bud in its earliest dissect-able condition—in the summer—has its emb〈ryonic〉 leaves in some disorder and gradually acquires an orderly arrangement as it swells into the full winter-bud. This would certainly favour my view, that the orderly arrangement is due t〈o〉 the need of economy of space, 〈  〉ng especially felt when 〈    〉 leaves are swelling a 〈    〉ta〈  〉 the autumn. As far as 〈my〉 observations go, 〈the〉 young le〈aves ar〉e arranged in perfect order in the 〈win〉ter-bud, and I have often found it easy to determine the leaf-arrangement in the bud, when it was most difficult to d〈o〉 so in the developed twig, on ac〈cou〉nt of unequal twists in 〈the〉 internodes. My attempts 〈at〉 dissection of summer-buds (〈    〉 hiding at the base of the green leaf) h〈ave〉 not been successful. We might look for evidence from embryology, in leaves as in animals. —May we regard the axillary bud as a kind of parthenogenetic ovary of the leaf to which it belongs? Let me thank you f〈or〉 your k〈ind〉 offer to lend me Mr Wright’s 〈p〉aper when you have i〈t a〉t liberty2   I shall be very glad indeed to see it. I heard the Rev. G. Hensl〈ow〉 deliver a lecture on Phyll〈otaxis〉 at the Victoria Institute i〈n〉 the early part of the year.3 It was a capital exposition of the 〈pur〉ely mathematical and mystic 〈v〉iew, but that was just what I 〈had〉 lately escaped from, and I 〈wa〉s not satisfied. He made m〈uch〉 of a few irregularities (notably 〈    〉 to be fou〈nd in〉 the stem 〈of〉 the Jer〈usalem〉 artichoke) 〈    〉 〈see〉med to be unacquainted with 〈in〉stances of regular irregularity su〈ch〉 as that in Spanish che〈stn〉ut.4 It is curious to see how the same tree will sometimes affect different leaf-orders in different shoots. The laurel, for instance〈,〉 has two ranks of leaves on its latera〈l〉 twigs, but you w〈i〉ll 〈o〉ften find 〈a〉 healthy leading-shoot with five. The same is the case 〈with the〉 nut and the ivy.5

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

305

〈    〉 will remember the platysma against the next shivering fit I see or feel.6 With many thanks I remain | My 〈de〉ar Sir | Yours very sincerely | Hubert Airy

Charles Darwin Esqre. F.R.S. DAR 159: 14 1

2 3 4

5 6

This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 19; after conservation, more text has become visible. Airy had suggested that the form of the bud was an important element in phyllotaxy (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Hubert Airy, 9 December 1871 and n. 3). In his reply, CD had cited Carl Wilhelm von Nägeli’s observation that the position of leaves in the bud was not fixed (see ibid., letter to Hubert Airy, 10 [December] 1871 and n. 6). Airy refers to Chauncey Wright. See Correspondence vol. 19, letter to Hubert Airy, 10 [December] 1871. George Henslow’s lecture ‘Phyllotaxis; or, the arrangement of leaves in accordance with mathematical laws’ (Henslow 1871) was read on 20 February 1871. For Henslow’s comments on the variable phyllotaxis in the Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), see Henslow 1871, p. 133. The Spanish chestnut is Castanea sativa; it has a variable phyllotaxis which is usually 2/5 in the main vertical shoots, but 1/2 in the horizontal shoots. The laurel (Laurus nobilis), nut (probably a reference to Corylus avellana, common hazel), and ivy (Hedera helix) have variable phyllotaxis. CD had mentioned his interest in the contraction of the platysma muscle while shivering in his letter to Airy of 10 [December] 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19).

To Louis Bertillon   18 December 1871 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Dec 18. 1871 Dear Sir I beg leave to thank you sincerely for having sent me yr essay & for the kind words in relation to my works in your letter to Dr Beddoe.1 I have read yr essay with the greatest interest. Your discussion on the nature of the hypotheses, which may be legitimately used in science appears to me the most philosophical which I have ever read. It puts in a clear manner thoughts which had vaguely passed thro’ my head.2 With respect to the second part of your essay, I venture to differ from you on several points; but on so intricate a subject I suppose no two persons wd altogether agree. I should not dare to trust so much as you do in Agassiz’ conclusions, although they are favorable to our general view.3 I am particularly glad that you have published yr essay, as I believe there are but few in France who admit the doctrine of evolution; & this is a strange fact, considering that France has produced Buffon, Lamarck & the two Geoffroys.4 With my best thanks & sincere respect, I remain | dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS Librairie la 42ème Ligne, Paris (dealers) (2018) 1

h

d i

CD had corresponded with the anthropologist John Beddoe in 1869 (see Correspondence vol. 17). There is an offprint of Bertillon’s paper ‘Valeur de l’hypothèse du transformisme’ (Value of the transformist hypothesis; Bertillon 1870) in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL; the offprint is dated 1871 and the title is Valeur philosophique de l’hypothèse du transformisme.

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

306 2

3

4

Bertillon distinguished different sorts of scientific hypotheses, and likened the theory of evolution to theories of the genesis of the cosmos or the development of language, insofar as eyewitness proof of historical origins was not to be expected; he also argued that such general theories could not be expected to explain every individual phenomenon that fell within their scope. (Bertillon 1870, pp. 489–99.) Bertillon reflected on Louis Agassiz’s support for the idea of a God who was alternately creator and destroyer of species in multiple locations over time. Agassiz concluded that the development of an embryo corresponded to the historical progressive development of species, while maintaining that each species was a separate creation (Bertillon 1870, pp. 512–15). Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de Buffon; Jean Baptiste de Lamarck; Étienne and Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.

From Francis Darwin   [after 1871?]1 Dear Father I send you the abstract; I am very sorry that I havnt been able to get it done before— I’m afraid you will find it very obscure: my German says it is obscure in the original; there are several things I cant make out—. I will bring the book on Sat. for you to look at the figures— I cant say that I think he proves his point, but as I cant understand what he means very often I cant judge v well. I shall come by the 5.5 on Sat fr Charig X.2 FD DAR 274.1: 6 1

2

The date is conjectured from the earliest reference in the extant correspondence to Francis making abstracts of German texts for CD; see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Francis Darwin, [after 22 May 1871]. Charing Cross railway station in London. Neither the book nor the German informant has been identified.

To ?   [1872 or later?]1 (Does the same infant or young child cry or scream all the time, & on successive occasions, in about the same pitch of voice?) (Do different infants or young children cry at about the same pitch of voice?—) (The same questions about laughter.)— (When young children are impatient & call louder & louder for anything, does the pitch change?) (If the pitch changes during crying or laughter, or impatience or crossness, I shd be very glad of any remarks on the nature of the change.)— (Is the pitch higher in crying or screaming than in laughing?)2 Remember that I am as ignorant as a pig all about pitches & tones & such things. C. Darwin

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

307

Photocopy, incomplete The British Library (Surrogate RP 8051) 1

2

3

The date is conjectured from the fact that CD was writing on the voice as a means of expression at the end of 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19, letter to H. E. Litchfield, [before 2 December 1871]. Henrietta Emma Litchfield has altered the first question to read ‘& on successive occasions, on approximately the same note’, and the second question to read ‘Do different infants or young children cry on the same note relatively to their usual voice?’. This letter was previously published in Correspondence vol. 20, Expression supplement, from a transcription in a sale catalogue. CD discussed the pitch of children’s speech in Expression, p. 86, and the possible relationship between the shape of children’s mouths when crying and the sound resulting in Expression, pp. 91–2. CD had circulated a questionnaire about expression from 1867 onwards, but there is no evidence that these questions were circulated. This draft may be connected with the letter to Emily Talbot, 19 July 1881 (Correspondence vol. 29). In that letter, CD suggests that it may be worth investigating uniformity of pitch in the voices of young children under various frames of mind. His letter was published with other items in as section of the Journal of Social Science 15 (1882): 1–52 on infant development. The section concludes with a questionnaire for parents, although it does not include any of the questions CD asks here. The inserted text is not visible on the photocopy but was transcribed in a sales catalogue (Bonhams, 13 March 2002).

To [Walter Besant?]   10 January [1872–4]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Jan 10. Mr C. Darwin presents his compliments to Mr Besant & regrets that the state of his health will prevent his having the honour of accepting his very kind invitation.2 L eBay UK: worthpoint.com/worthopedia/emma-darwin-original-letter-1871-286171432, accessed 30 January 2020 1

2

The year range is established by the headed notepaper, which is of a sort that CD used between 1872 and 1874. Walter Besant, a literary man in London and secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund, is suggested as a possible recipient. The occasion of the invitation has not been identified; no other evidence of contact with a Mr Besant has been found.

From Henry Johnson   12 January [1872?] 1

Shrewsbury Jan 12

Dear Darwin, You need not make any apology for troubling me, as you call it, by helping you in your investigation of the subject of mould. I have great pleasure in doing it.2 My Son Arthur has endeavoured to shade the map so as to represent the slope of the ground from the field B. towards the “Old wall” &. the Blacksmiths shop; and it should have been down to the River.3 I cannot tell how many feet the upper part of the field is higher than the lower, but I think I could form a guess by going over again.

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

308

It is very singular, as you say, that in all the 3 pits at the top of the field B—an obstruction was found at 9 or 10 inches, whilst at the bottom of the same field the mould was deeper. The best way to decide the matter will be for us to dig a few more holes at the very top of the field B, & see if the mould always rests upon stony obstruction, or if we find it exceed 9 inches when there Incomplete DAR 168: 65 1 2

3

The year is conjectured from the possible relationship between this letter and the letter to Henry Johnson, 23 December 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19). CD had asked Johnson to observe the thickness of mould covering the Roman remains at Wroxeter, Shropshire (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter to Henry Johnson, 23 December 1871, and Earthworms, pp. 221–8). Arthur Peters Johnson. The map has not been found.

To J. D. Hooker   [16 or 23 February or 1 or 8 or 15 March 1872]1 9. Devonshire S.t Portland Place Friday My dear Hooker.— Shall you be at home on Sunday & may we drive down on Sunday morning & spend an hour or 112 hour at most with you? We cd start at 9o clock & I suppose arrive about 10° 14. & leave again about 1114 or 12.— I shd so much like just to see you & have a look at the great Hot-Houses.— Please send a Post-Card with “yes” or “no”2 Ever yours | C. Darwin Newcastle University Special Collections (Pybus (Professor Frederick) Archive GB186 FP/2/7/35) 1

2

The dates are established by the address. CD stayed at 9 Devonshire Street, London, from 16 February to 21 March 1872 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). The Fridays during this period were 16 and 23 February, and 1, 8, and 15 March. No reply has been found, and it is not known whether the Darwins visited Kew at this time.

From Charles Lyell   29 February 1872 29. Feb. 1872 I have been searching without success in the text & indexes both of your “Origin” & “Variation” for something about the doctrine of “rotation of crops” & the much disputed question which the elder De Candolle raised long ago & got Macaire & other chemists to experiment upon, as to the chemical effect of the growth of one crop upon the soil rendering it unfit for the same species to be planted in it the following year.1 I understand their doctrine to have been that in the formation of seed & other nutritious parts of plants the sap is digested, that it takes up certain elements &

h

d i

0 0

9 8 009233606 008

bli h d

li

b C

b id

i

i

Supplement

309

deposits others which are the residue of the process & which exude by the roots— Further that as the excrement of certain animals is fitted for the support of other animals though quite useless to sustain life in the same species so a plant of a totally different genus or family may find good nutriment in the refuse left behind by the plant previously grown in the soil. If you can refer me to nothing touching upon this point in your works, will you give me your opinion as to whether there is likely to be any truth in this statement.— In vol II of your Variation p 146–148 you come very near to the question but do not exactly touch it.2 Copy incomplete The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/B9) 1

2

Augustin Pyramus de Candolle discussed crop rotation in A. P. de Candolle 1831 (see also his Physiologie vegetale, A. P. de Candolle 1832, 3: 1493–520). Isaac-François Macaire published his work in Macaire 1832. On Candolle and Macaire’s work on crop rotation and