WCP1855

[1]

To C. Darwin.

5, Westbourne Grove Terrace,

W.

Jan 2nd. 1864.

My dear Darwin,

Many thanks for your kind letter. I was afraid to write because I heard such sad accounts of your health but I am glad to find that you can write & I presume read, by deputy. My little article¹ on Haughton’s² paper was published in the "Annals of Nat. Hist." about Aug. or Sept. last I think, but I have not a copy to refer to. I am sure it does not deserve Asa Gray’s³ praises for though the matter may be true enough, the manner I know is very inferior. It was written hastily & when I read it in the "Annals" I was rather ashamed of it as I knew so many could have done it so much better.

I will try & see Agga Agassiz’⁴ paper & book. What I have hither-to see of his Glacial subjects seems very good, but in all his Nat. Hist. theories, he seems so utterly wrong & so totally blind to the plainest deduction from facts, & at the same time so vague & obscure in his language, that it would be a very long & wearisome task to answer him.

With regard to work I am doing but little — I am afraid I have no good habit of systematic work. I have been gradually getting parts of my collections in order, but the obscurities of synonymy & descriptions, the difficulty of examining specimens & my very limited library, make it wearisome work.

I have been lately getting the first groups of my butterflies in order, & they offer some most interesting facts in variation & distribution, — in variation some very puzzling ones. Though I have very fine series of specimens I find in many cases I want more, in fact if I could have afforded to have had all my collections kept till my return I should I think have found it necessary to retain twice as many as I now have.

I am at last making a beginning of a small book⁵ on my Eastern journey, which if I can persevere I hope to have ready by next ‘Xmas. I am a very bad hand at writing anything like narrative, I want something to argue on & then I find it much easier to go ahead. I rather despair therefore of making so good a book as Bates’⁶, though I think my subject is better. Like every other traveller I suppose, I feel dreadfully the want of copious notes on common [2] everyday objects, sights & sounds & incidents, which I imagined I could never forget but which I now find it impossible to recall with any accuracy.

I have just had a long & most interesting letter from my old companion Spruce⁷ — He says he has had a letter from you about Melastomas, but has not he says for three years seen a single Melastomaceous plant! They are totally absent from the Pacific plains of trop. America though so abundant on the Eastern plains. Poor fellow he seems to be in a worse state than you are. Life has been a burden to him for three years owing to lung & heart disease, & rheumatism, brought on by exposure in a high hot & cold damp valleys of the Andes. He went down to the dry climate of the Pacific coast to die more at ease, but the change improved him, & he thinks to come home, though he is sure he will not survive the first winter in England. He had never been able to get a copy of your book⁸, though I am sure no one would have enjoyed or appreciated it more.

If you are able ton bear reading will you allow me to take the liberty of recommending you a book? The fact is I have been so astonished & delighted with the perusal of Spencer’s⁹ works that I think it a duty to Society to recommend them to all my friends who I think can appreciate them. The one I particularly refer to now is "Social Statics"¹⁰, a book which is by no means hard to read; it is even amusing, & owing to the wonderful clearness of its styles may be read & understood by any one. I think therefore as it is quite distinct from your special studies at present, you might consider it as "light literature" and I am pretty sure it would interest you more than a great deal of what is now considered very good. I am utterly astonished that so few people seem to read Spencer, & the utter ignorance there seems to be among politicians & p¹¹olitical economists of the grand views & logical stability of his works. He appears to me as far ahead of John Stuart Mill¹² as J.S.M. is of the rest of the world, and I may add as Darwin is of Agassiz. The range of knowledge is no less than its accuracy. His "Nebular Hypothesis"¹³ in the last vol. of his essays is the most masterly astronomical paper I have ever read, and in his [3] forthcoming volume on Biology¹⁴ he is I understand going to show that there is something else besides "Nat. Selection" at work in nature. So you must look out for a "foeman worthy of your steel"!

But perhaps all this time you have read his books — if so excuse me, & pray give me your opinion of him as I have hitherto only met with one man (Huxley¹⁵) who has read and appreciated him.

Allow me to say in conclusion how much I regret that unavoidable circumstances have caused me to see so little of you since my return home, & how earnestly I pray for the steady speedy restoration of your health.

Yours most sincerely | Alfred R. Wallace.

[1]

To C. Darwin.) 5, Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. Jan 2nd. 1864.

My dear Darwin,

Many thanks for your kind letter. I was afraid to write because I heard such sad accounts of your health but I am glad to find that you can write & I presume read, by deputy. My little article¹ on Haughton’s² paper was published in the "Annals of Nat. Hist." about Aug. or Sept. last I think, but I have not a copy to refer to. I am sure it does not deserve Asa Gray’s³ praises for though the matter may be true enough, the manner I know is very inferior. It was written hastily & when I read it in the "Annals" I was rather ashamed of it as I knew so many could have done it so much better.

I will try & see Agga Agassiz’⁴ paper & book. What I have hither-to see of his Glacial subjects seems very good, but in all his Nat. Hist. theories, he seems so utterly wrong & so totally blind to the plainest deduction from facts, & at the same time so vague & obscure in his language, that it would be a very long & wearisome task to answer him.

With regard to work I am doing but little — I am afraid I have no good habit of systematic work. I have been gradually getting parts of my collections in order, but the obscurities of synonomy & descriptions, the difficulty of examining specimens & my very limited library, make it wearisome work.

I have been lately getting the first groups of my butterflies in order, & they offer some most interesting facts in variation & distribution, — in variation some very puzzling ones. Though I have very fine series of specimens I find in many cases I want more, in fact if I could have afforded to have had all my collections kept till my return I should I think have found it necessary to retain twice as many as I now have.

I am at last making a beginning of a small book⁵ on my Eastern journey, which if I can persevere I hope to have ready by next ‘Xmas. I am a very bad hand at writing anything like narrative, I want something to argue on & then I find it much easier to go ahead. I rather despair therefore of making so good a book as Bates’⁶, though I think my subject is better. Like every other traveller I suppose, I feel dreadfully the want of copious notes on common [2] everyday objects, sights & sounds & incidents, which I imagined I could never forget but which I now find it impossible to recall with any accuracy.

I have just had a long & most interesting letter from my old companion Spruce⁷ — He says he has had a letter from you about Melastomas, but has not he says for three years seen a single Melastomaceous plant! They are totally absent from the Pacific plains of trop. America though so abundant on the Eastern plains. Poor fellow he seems to be in a worse state than you are. Life has been a burden to him for three years owing to lung & heart disease, & rheumatism, brought on by exposure in a high hot & cold damp valleys of the Andes. He went down to the dry climate of the Pacific coast to die more at ease, but the change improved him, & he thinks to come home, though he is sure he will not survive the first winter in England. He had never been able to get a copy of your book⁸, though I am sure no one would have enjoyed or appreciated it more.

If you are able ton bear reading will you allow me to take the liberty of recommending you a book? The fact is I have been so astonished & delighted with the perusal of Spencer’s⁹ works that I think it a duty to Society to recommend them to all my friends who I think can appreciate them. The one I particularly refer to now is "Social Statics"¹⁰, a book which is by no means hard to read; it is even amusing, & owing to the wonderful clearness of its styles may be read & understood by any one. I think therefore as it is quite distinct from your special studies at present, you might consider it as "light literature" and I am pretty sure it would interest you more than a great deal of what is now considered very good. I am utterly astonished that so few people seem to read Spencer, & the utter ignorance there seems to be among politicians & p¹¹olitical economists of the grand views & logical stability of his works. He appears to me as far ahead of John Stuart Mill¹² as J.S.M. is of the rest of the world, and I may add as Darwin is of Agassiz. The range of knowledge is no less than its accuracy. His "Nebular Hypothesis"¹³ in the last vol. of his essays is the most masterly astronomical paper I have ever read, and in his [3] forthcoming volume on Biology¹⁴ he is I understand going to show that there is something else besides "Nat. Selection" at work in nature. So you must look out for a "foeman worthy of your steel"!

But perhaps all this time you have read his books — if so excuse me, & pray give me your opinion of him as I have hitherto only met with one man (Huxley¹⁵) who has read and appreciated him.

Allow me to say in conclusion how much I regret that unavoidable circumstances have caused me to see so little of you since my return home, & how earnestly I pray for the steady speedy restoration of your health.

Yours most sincerely | Alfred R. Wallace.

[1] [p. 148]

5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. January 2, 1864.

My dear Darwin,— Many thanks for your kind letter. I was afraid to write because I heard such sad accounts of your health, but I am glad to find that you can write, and [2] [p. 149] I presume read, by deputy, my little article on Haughton's paper was published in the Annals of Natural History about August or September last, I think, but I have not a copy to refer to. I am sure it does not deserve Asa Gray's praises, for though the matter may be true enough, the manner I know is very inferior. It was written hastily, and when I read it in the Annals I was rather ashamed of it, as I knew so many could have done it so much better.

I will try and see Agassiz's paper and book. What I have hitherto seen of his on Glacial subjects seems very good, but in all his Natural History theories, he seems so utterly wrong and so totally blind to the plainest deduction from facts, and at the same time so vague and obscure in his language, that it would be a very long and wearisome task to answer him.

With regard to work, I am doing but little — I am afraid I have no good habit of systematic work. I have been gradually getting parts of my collections in order, but the obscurities of synonymy and descriptions, the difficulty of examining specimens, and my very limited library, make it wearisome work.

I have been lately getting the first groups of my butterflies in order, and they offer some most interesting facts in variation and distribution — in variation some very puzzling ones. Though I have very fine series of specimens, I find in many cases I want more; in fact if I could have afforded to have all my collections kept till my return I should, I think, have found it necessary to retain twice as many as I now have.

I am at last making a beginning of a small book on my Eastern journey, which, if I can persevere, I hope to have ready by next Christmas. I am a very bad hand at writing anything like narrative. I want something to argue on, and then I find it much easier to go ahead. I rather despair, therefore, of making so good a book as Bate's, though I [3] [p. 150] think my subject is better. Like every other traveller, I suppose, I feel dreadfully the want of copious notes on common everyday objects, sights and sounds and incidents, which I imagined I could never forget but which I now find it impossible to recall with any accuracy. I have just had a long and most interesting letter from my old companion Spruce. He says he has had a letter from you about Melastoma, but has not, he says, for three years seen a single melastomaceous plant! They are totally absent from the Pacific plains of tropical America, though so abundant on the Eastern plains. Poor fellow, he seems to be in a worse state than you are. Life has been a burden to him for three years owing to lung and heart disease, and rheumatism, brought on by exposure in high, hot, and cold damp valleys of the Andes. He went down to the dry climate of the Pacific coast to die more at ease, but the change improved him, and he thinks to come home, though he is sure he will not survive the first winter in England. He had never been able to get a copy of your book, though I am sure no one would have enjoyed or appreciated it more.

If you are able to bear reading, will you allow me to take the liberty of recommending you a book? The fact is I have been so astonished and delighted with the perusal of Spencer's works that I think it a duty to society to recommend them to all my friends who I think can appreciate them. The one I particularly refer to now is "Social Statics," a book which is by no means hard to read; it is even amusing, and owing to the wonderful clearness of its style may be read and understood by anyone. I think, therefore, as it is quite distinct from your special studies at present, you might consider it as "light literature," and I am pretty sure it would interest you more than a great deal of what is now considered very good. I am utterly astonished that so few people seem to read Spencer, and the utter ignorance [4] there seems to be among politicians and political economists of the grand views and logical stability of his works. He appears to me as far ahead of John Stuart Mill as J. S. M. is of the rest of the world, and, I may add, as Darwin is of Agassiz. The range of his knowledge is no less than its accuracy. His nebular hypothesis in the last volume of his essays is the most masterly astronomical paper I have ever read, and in his forthcoming volume on Biology he is I understand going to show that there is something else besides Natural Selection at work in nature. So you must look out for a "foeman worthy of your steel"! But perhaps all this time you have read his books. If so, excuse me, and pray give me your opinion of him, as I have hitherto only met with one man (Huxley) who has read and appreciated him.

Allow me to say in conclusion how much I regret that unavoidable circumstances have caused me to see so little of you since my return home, and how earnestly I pray for the speedy restoration of your health.—

Yours most sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE.