WCP1955

[1]¹

To C.Darwin.) The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 31st. 1872

Dear Darwin Many thanks for your long & interesting letter about Bastian's² book, though I almost regret that my asking you for your opinion sh'[oul]d have led you to give yourself so much trouble. I quite understand your frame of mind & think it quite a natural & proper one. You had hard work to hammer your views into people's heads at first, — & if Bastian's theory is true he will have still harder work, because the facts he appeals to are themselves so difficult to establish. Are not you mistaken about the Sphagnum? As I remember it, Huxley³ detected a fragment of Sphagnum leaf in the same solution in which a fungoid growth had been developed. Bastian mistook the Sphagnum also for a vegetable growth, — & on account of this ignorance of the character of Sphagnum, & its presence in the solution Huxley rejected somewhat contemptuously (& I think very illogically) all Bastian's observations. Again, as to the Saline solution without nitrogen, would not the air supply what was required?

I quite agree that the book would have gained force by rearrangement in the way you suggest, — but perhaps he thought, it necessary to begin with a general argument in order to induce peoplee to examine his new collection of facts. I am impressed most by the agreement of so many observers, some of whom struggle to explain away their own facts. What a wonderfully ingenious & suggestive paper that is by Galton⁴, on "Blood Relationship". It helps to render intelligible many of the excentricities of Heredity, Atavism, &c.

Sir Cha[rle]'s Lyell⁵ was good enough to write to Lord Ripon⁶ and Mr Cole⁷ about me & the Bethnal Green Museum, & the answer he got was, that at present, no appointment of a director is contemplated. I suppose they see no way of making it a Natural History Museum, & it will have to be kept going by Loan Collections of miscellaneous works of Art, — in which case of course the S[outh]. Kensington people will manage it. It is a considerable disappointment to me, as I had almost calculated on getting something there.

With best wishes for your good health & happiness[.] Believe me | Dear Darwin Yours very faithfully Alfred R. Wallace.

P.S. I have just been reading Howorth's⁸ paper in the Jour. of Anthrop. Inst.⁹ How perverse it is. He throughout confounds "fertility" with "increas[e] of population," — which seems to me to be the main cause of his errors. His elaborate accumulation of facts in other papers in "Nature" on subsidence & elevation of land, I believe to be equally full of errors, & utterly untrustworthy as a whole. A. R. W.

To C.Darwin.) The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 31st. 1872

Dear Darwin

Many thanks for your long and interesting letter about Bastian’s¹ book, though I almost regret that my asking you for your opinion sh[oul]d have led you to give yourself so much trouble. I quite understand your frame of mind & think it quite a natural & proper one. You had hard work to hammer your views into people’s heads at first,- & if Bastian’s theory is true he will have still harder work, because the facts he appeals to are themselves so difficult to establish. Are not you mistaken about the Sphagnus² ? As I remember it Huxley³ detected a fragment of Sphagnus leaf in the same solution in which a fungold growth had been developed. Bastian mistook the Sphagnus also for a vegetable growth,- &on account of this ignorance of character of Sphagnus, & its presence in the solution Huxley rejected somewhat contemptuously (& I think very illogically ) all Bastian’s observations. Again as to the Saline solution without nitrogen, would not the air supply what was required ?

I quite agree that the book would have gained force by rearrangement in the way you suggest, — but perhaps he thought it necessary to begin with a general argument in order to induce peoples to examine his new collection of facts. I am impressed most by the agreement of so many observers, some of whom struggle to explain away their own facts. What a wonderfully ingenious & suggestive paper that is by Galton⁴, on "Blood Relationship". It helps to render intelligible many of the excentricities [sic] of Heredity, Atavism, &c.

Sir Cha[rles] Lyell⁵ was good enough to write to Lord Hipon and Mr Cole⁶ about me & the Bethnel Green Museum, & the answer he got was, that at present, no appointment of a director is contemplated. I suppose they see no way of making it a Natural History Museum,& it will have to be kept going by Loan Collections of misaellaneous [sic] works of Art, — in which case of course the S. Kensington people will manage it. It is a considerable disappointment to me, as I had almost calculated on getting something there.

With best wishes for your good health and happiness | Believe me | Dear Darwin | Yours very faithfully | Alfred R.Wallace. [signature]

P.S. I have just been reading Howorin’s⁷ paper in Jour[nal] of Anthrop[ology] Inst[itution]. How perverse it is. He throughout confounds "fertility" with "increase of population"- which seems to me to be the main cause of his errors. His elaborate accumulations in other papers in⁸

[1] [p. 276]

The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 31, 1872.

Dear Darwin, — Many thanks for your long and interesting letter¹ about Bastian's² book,³ though I almost regret that my asking you for your opinion should have led you to give yourself so much trouble. I quite understand your frame of mind, and think it quite a natural and proper one. You had hard work to hammer your views into people's heads at first, and if Bastian's theory is true he will have still harder work, because the facts he appeals to are themselves so difficult to establish. Are not you mistaken about the Sphagnum? As I remember it, Huxley⁴ detected a fragment of Sphagnum leaf in the same solution in which a fungoid growth had been developed. Bastian mistook the Sphagnum also for a vegetable growth, and on account of this ignorance of the character of Sphagnum, and its presence in the solution, Huxley rejected somewhat contemptuously (and I think very illogically) all Bastian's [2] [p. 277] observations. Again, as to the saline solution without nitrogen, would not the air supply what was required?

I quite agree that the book would have gained force by rearrangement in the way you suggest, but perhaps he thought it necessary to begin with a general argument in order to induce people to examine his new collection of facts. I am impressed most by the agreement of so many observers, some of whom struggle to explain away their own facts. What a wonderfully ingenious and suggestive paper that is by Galton⁵ on "Blood Relationship."⁶ It helps to render intelligible many of the eccentricities of heredity, atavism, etc.

Sir Charles Lyell⁷ was good enough to write to Lord Ripon⁸ and Mr. Cole^9,10 about me and the Bethnal Green Museum,¹¹ and the answer he got was that at present no appointment of a director is contemplated. I suppose they see no way of making it a Natural History Museum, and it will have to be kept going by Loan Collections of miscellaneous works of art, in which case, of course, the South Kensington people will manage it. It is a considerable disappointment to me, as I had almost calculated on getting something there.

With best wishes for your good health and happiness, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, | ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S. — I have just been reading Howorth's¹² paper in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute.¹³ How perverse it is. He throughout confounds "fertility" with "increase of population," which seems to me to be the main cause of his errors. His elaborate accumulation of facts in other papers in Nature,¹⁴ on "Subsidence and Elevation of Land," I believe to be equally full of error, and utterly untrustworthy as a whole. — A. R. W.