WCP1920

I have been wonderfully interest[ed] by your <R[eview]>, & I sh[oul]d think that L[yell] will be much gratified. I declare if you I had been editor & you my <Hooker?> though for a week I c[oul]d not have selected points which I sh[oul]d have liked better to see discussed than those which you have chosen. I have often said to G. G. that <they> did not know what a revolution L[yell] had effected, for I began geology at [word deleted] ^{<only?> at} time when Vol. I of <P¹?> <appeared>, nevertheless your <judicious?> <extracts>, <from?> Cuvier <have?> <come?> quite like an <injustice?> on me. — - Though not able really to judge, I cannot must ^{am <inclined?>]} put more confidence in Croll than you seem to do; ^{but I have been much struck by y[ou]r <objective?> <remarks> on degradation.} Thomson's views of <such?> antiquity of <world?> has been for some time one of my most grievous <truths?> & so I was glad to see ^read what you say. Your exposition of N[atural] S[election] [2] is <inimitably> good, & there never was a better expounder than you. I was ^{also much} pleased at what you say about [illeg] with Lamarck. <This?> [illeg] sees the <expression>, I was which I hate, that viz "justice to myself compels me to say &c"; but you are the only man, I ever heard of, who persistently does himself an injustice — - For Indeed you ought in the Review to have alluded to your paper in Linn[ean] Journal, & I feel sure every one of our friends will agree in this. But that you can "Burke" yourself, as may be seen in fully half the articles which appeared. I was asked 2 or 3 days ago by a German Professor to <ferry> him a copy of y[ou]r paper and sent it off.

Altogether I look at your article [3] especially as appearing in L<innean?> as a [illeg] triumph for our cause. — -

I presume your remarks on Man, are what you alluded to in your note & I am sorry to say, that as you expected, I differ grievously. I it can see no necessity for calling in an additional cause viz to <divinely?> <know?> of the Deity with in variability or on Selection. But the subject is too large for a letter. I have been very ^particularly glad indeed, to read your discussion, because it comes in most usefull [sic] to my [illeg] [illeg] I am write writing & thinking ^{only [illeg]} about man. If you had not [illeg] [illeg], I sh[oul]d have thought that they have been put in by <someone?> else[.]

[4] I hope your Malay book sells well: I was very much ^extremely pleased with the Art[icle] in the <L[innean]?> J[ournal]> of Science, in as much as it is thoroughly appreciative of [word deleted] your work: I alas, you will ^fully agree with what the writer says about the uses of the bamboo.

I hear that there is [a] good article in Sat[urday] Rev[iew], but have heard nothing more about it.

Believe me | My dear Wallace | Yours ever very sincerely | C. D. [signature]

[1] [p. 242]

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 14, 1869.

My dear Wallace, — I have been wonderfully interested by your article,¹ and I should think Lyell will be much gratified by it. I declare if I had been editor and had the power of directing you I should have selected for discussion the very points which you have chosen. I have often said to younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) that they did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected; nevertheless, your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me.

Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put more confidence in Croll than you seem to do; but I have been much struck by many of your remarks on degradation.

Thomson's views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles, and so I have been glad to read what you say. Your exposition of Natural Selection seems to me inimitably good; there never lived a better expounder than you.

I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference between our views and Lamarck's. One sometimes sees the odious expression, "Justice to myself compels me to say, etc.," but you are the only man I ever heard of who persistently does himself an injustice and never demands justice. Indeed, you ought, in the review to have alluded to your paper in the Linnean Journal, and I feel sure all our friends will agree in this, but you cannot "Burke" yourself, however much you may try, as may be seen in half the articles which appear.

I was asked but the other day by a German professor for your paper, which I sent him. Altogether, I look at your article as appearing in the Quarterly as an immense triumph for our cause. I presume that your remarks on Man are those to which you alluded in your note. [2]

If you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added by someone else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it.

I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and proximate cause in regard to Man. But the subject is too long for a letter.

I have been particularly glad to read your discussion, because I am now writing and thinking much about Man.

I hope that your Malay book sells well. I was extremely pleased with the article in the Q. J. of Science, inasmuch as it is thoroughly appreciative of your work. Alas! you will probably agree with what the writer says about the uses of the bamboo.

I hear that there is also a good article in the Saturday Review, but have heard nothing more about it. — Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours ever sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

P.S. — I have had a baddish fall, my horse partly rolling over me; but I am getting rapidly well.