Pleased that GHD will help with second edition of Descent. Cautions him not to alter strength of CD’s expression or improve the style too much.
Showing 21–40 of 202 items
Pleased that GHD will help with second edition of Descent. Cautions him not to alter strength of CD’s expression or improve the style too much.
No summary available.
Returns and sends comments on Clarke Hawkshaw’s essay ‘The persistence of forms of life in the depths of the sea’.
No summary available.
Is sorry to hear the news about the cousin question – a real misfortune.
Congratulates GHD on being nearly finished with work on Descent.
GHD’s corrections seem very good. Murray hopes there will be few corrections in Descent. CD assured him no changes have been made merely for improving style.
Wants very much to hear about "the terrible cousin affair".
No summary available.
D. A. Spalding has asked for information to help with his experiments on sense of direction in animals. Has arrived at same results as GHD with blindfolded children. Will GHD let him have his results?
CD has forwarded proofs of Descent [2d edition]. Urges GHD not to work on them if his poor health makes them too tiring.
Thanks GHD about Spalding [i.e., for responding to Spalding’s request, see 9472].
Comments on GHD’s paper ["Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects", Fortn. Rev. n.s. 18 (1875): 22–41]. Hopes it will be published and read at the Statistical Society.
No summary available.
No summary available.
No summary available.
Advises GHD to get an eminent counsel. If counsel’s opinion is that the reviewer [Mivart, in "Primitive man", Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 40–77] has falsified GHD’s statements, GHD should send the opinion to the Quarterly Review and demand publication, and if refused publish elsewhere. Then CD must decide whether to cut John Murray [publisher of Q. Rev.] which will put CD in a nice perplexity [over his rights to the stereotyped editions of past works].
Hasty note to express his most decided opinion that letter [to Q. Rev.] should not give a sketch of GHD’s essay – only an explicit denial "& do not allude to me".
No summary available.
GHD’s article will not do. It is too long and the denial seems weak and confused; also, it ought to be in the form of a letter to the editor. Encloses draft of the sort of letter of denial he thinks GHD should write.
Has no objection to sending GHD’s letter as it is. The only accusation it seems necessary to rebut is about licentiousness. Regrets this is not made more prominent.
Gives some suggestions for GHD’s reply to Mivart’s attack.
No summary available.
Approves of GHD’s letter [to Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 587–9] and his present plan, which removes all CD’s objections. Will make his own letter to Murray less imperious. "It will be a dreadful evil to me, if … we come to a quarrel."