From H. E. Litchfield to G. H. Darwin [27 October 1873]

My dear George

I have read over your article twice with interest. I think the account of the different phases of mind through which a man passes on his way from belief to scepticism very true & interesting— I think, however, that it does not coalesce with the main subject of your essay, & in fact as the essay stands it appears to me to be two essays bound up in one.

Your appreciation of Father's theory of the origin of morals to Matt. Arnolds sanction for morality is by far the best part of the essay—& seems to me the only really original part. I think this treated at greater length might make an interesting book—but it would take a good bit of work I expect— My idea would be to take M. Arnold as an instance only of that kind of religion which makes inner consciousness the ultimate test of what is true & right—but to treat the subject more in the broad—but of course this would take a great deal of reading to have a rough idea of what people have said & thought on this subject & then to show by a comparison of all nations & all times how conscience has practically worked. The origin of the different points of morality & how the different conscientious feelings have survived by inheritance beyond the time when they were the fittest—

This is a serious work I am suggesting, but I am inclined to think treated more lightly & suggestively something of the essay kind might be made of it— I think the subject is well worth working out by somebody.

With regard to your essay as it stands, my first impression was that it ought not to be published & after thinking about it I still hold to that opinion— There is one point of view that may not have occurred to you— Everything that you say will be held by the outer world to be an echo of Father's opinion. This may be a mistake on the world's part in any particular instance—but I think upon the whole the world is right— It is impossible for our minds not to be most deeply biased by living all these years with a mind & character far greater & broader than our own. At least I feel it most deeply—more so, naturally, than you boys. However this is beside the point. Rightly or wrongly all you boys have the honour of the Darwin name to uphold. You ought to feel, how will such a publication affect the Evolution theory as represented by my Father? Publishing such an essay is a very important step however much you stood alone—but I think your particular circumstances make it enormously more important.

I quite agree with what you have said in your letter to Father about the evils of concealment about religion & the cowardliness of much that is written upon scientific religion But I don't think, since one sentence in the Origin which I have groaned over in Spirit, Father has ever practised anything but what, I consider, the wise reticence of a man who does not care to give his opinions to the world upon a subject which he has not mastered.

It appears to me, too, that saying what you think upon religion stands upon a different basis to writing upon science, literature etc—I don't mean at all for fear of wounding people's feelings— But in this particular subject it seems to me a fair & reasonable thing that you should be required to show that you are fit to deal with it. It is very difficult for me to get my feelings into words—but I mean that you ought first to do something to show what you are worth—to earn the right to expect the world to listen to you upon the most tremendous of all subjects, where so much besides mere logical power (which you can test yourself) is wanted.

It will interest me to criticise some of your essay— I think the style wants a great deal of rubbing up in many places & I think condensing & simplifying in some. Also I want to say one or two things on the matter— But as I have been very busy these last few days, I haven't finished it & so I'll keep the essay a little longer— Tell me when you would like it back by a ^1/2^{^d}—

I daresay my criticisms won't be worth much & perhaps I shan't find I can do much at it—as no doubt you would see many of them yourself. But I'm led to do it by not thinking your Polit Econ. article carefully enough corrected as to style & even arrangement & condensation but I did not read it carefully enough really to have a right to give my opinion.

You see criticising style to me is like the trumpet to a warhorse.

I am still going on wonderfully well with D^r A. Cl. & walked 40 min. this am. after breakfast—up like a Xtian at breakfast also!

Father is enjoying his Huxley talk who (H) seems wonderfully better as to spirits tho' he looks ill enough.

Ever yours | H.E.L.