Down Bromley Kent
Nov 16
My dear Huxley
Many thanks for your kind note & Lecture.1 The latter seems to me excellent—the best expose & classification of the higher objects of Natural History that I have ever read. It is really admirable. I like much your bit about the Roman school-boy.—2 I think you are a little too emphatic against reading, for how the deuce is a poor schoolmaster to learn anything except by reading & comparing with what he sees.3 Your remarks on absolute necessity of observation are capital. When my son was at Rugby4 there was a Botanical prize, which he won, by merely getting up Henslow’s Botany,5 & he never actually looked at a single flower!!
My daughter keeps in much the same state.
I had a letter today from R. Mc.Donnell of Dubline6 (I wonder whether he is the bearded man one sees at B. Assocn. if so I fear he is rash & wild) & he says owing to passage in my Book on Electric fishes he has been dissecting Rays, & believes he finds in same fish the homologues of both the anterior & posterior proper electric organs of fish: which, if true, seems to me an interesting fact.—7
By the way I hear that Agassiz is coming out in next Part of his Contributions, with heavy thunder against the Origin.8 On other hand, I hear from L. Horner9 that Dubois-Reymond10 expresses strong approbation. I suppose you have heard nothing more from Von Siebold;11 what a trump-card he would be on our side.
Owing to all the illness of my poor child & constant change of place I make no progress with my work.—
I shall be very curious to see the 1st nor. of the Review.— Long may you live as “a buttered angel”.
Ever yours most truly | C. Darwin
I suppose we shall have dear old Hooker back soon.—12
Please cite as “DCP-LETT-2986,” in Ɛpsilon: The Charles Darwin Collection accessed on