WCP5302

[1] [p. 37]¹

7 Terrace Road

Buxton

Octr. 6^th/65

Dear Darwin

I should have answered your last ere this, if only to say how glad I am that Jones² has done some good, Oh that it may last. First as to my ignoble self. I really improve fast and steadily and if I could but get rid of the slight stiffness and pains in all my joints would be well — they go slowly & will all be gone in time. I wrote to the Board asking an extension of leave till 20^th & they volunteer till end of [2] month. This good feeling is unusual in Boards & gratifies me proportionally, it is a good augury (or whatever it is called)[.]

Now for Novels — I read Silas Marner³ the other day & did not enjoy it — after the quaking[?] excitement of Uncle Silas⁴ & the love scenes of Mill on Floss,⁵ S.M[.] read flat & awfully Eliotian: too didactic & prosy without plot enough or incident enough — (how comparative all our feelings are!). Have you read "Trevlyn Hold"⁶ it is really very good: we ^both tried Scarsdale⁷, & found it execrable trash — & now for a confession I have read Clarissa Harlowe!⁸ I feel that this is self damnatory [3] [p. 38] & can only plead my illness & the tedium of a Watering place. As however "frank confession is good for the soul," I will tell you the first 5 volumes are simply illegible, so dull so poor, so attenuated: that had I stopped there I should have considered the ^former popularity of the book as one of those things which "no fellow can be expected to understand" as Uncle Sam⁹ has it; the 6^th & 7^th (horresco referens [Latin: I shudder to relate]) opened my eyes however; though to me they had no ^{merit or} interest whatever ^{as a tale}, [4 illeg. words deleted] I could quite understand the deep interest they must have had in artificial & vicious age [4] when alone such compositions could be put by mothers into the hands of virtuous daughters, with an injunctions to study them & the immense good they may have done. In an age when men of fashion had no honor & when the prejudices of Education ^{or absence of it} & want of public journals kept women in the dark as to the means men employed, & when maudlin sensational writing did act on the brain in a way it does not now; it is obvious to me that Richardsons [Richardson's]^{10, 11} works must have frightened hosts of young women into caution at any rate, & stimulated a few to good works. Be this as it may, there is no doubt I suppose that his works were [5] [p. 39] perused by thousands as standard literature for young ladies ^{in 1750-1770}; & that the change of manners was so rapid, that in 1780 I find by the life of Reynolds¹² (I am ashamed of owning that I have been reading a solid book) both Richardsons & Fieldings^{13 works} were considered as too coarse for young ladies.

I could not get beyond the first volume of Palgraves book, he is awaiting orders still at Cairo.¹⁴ I must read Millers address,¹⁵ I missed it. Trollope is the only Novelist I know who talks of Parliament as such a stunning walk & [6] enviable life.¹⁶ I can quite feel the abounding self-love that would follow a telling speech (& oh how nice self-love is) & that to rise to Gladstones, Stanleys ^or Derbys or even Dizzys heights would be irresistable [sic] to most men¹⁷ but for a really able man, like Lubbock,¹⁸ to be 3^d rate in the house is to me an intolerable idea, & I do not see how he can be anything higher without he actually proposes to abandon business, science, & domestic happyness [sic]. As to Jeffrey¹⁹ he speaks from Edinbro' & no doubt thought, ^{in common} with his townsmen [7] [p. 40] that the Edinbro law court, (I forget its name) where he was at the top of the tree, was next [2 illeg. words deleted] thing to the H[ouse]. of Commons. There local allusions & local ideas & prejudices, expressed in strong broad Scotch, carried the day. Had he gone into Parliament he would have had to unlearn for 3 years; though he never suspected this. I quite agree that his view is poor & short-sighted.

Many thanks for enclosed of Wallaces²⁰ I did not think either "Simeon & Simony" nor "France & Mexico"²¹ very good, the first my wife²² condemned, the second I thought actually poor & pointless. — so much for opinions[.] I thought the old Reader²³ bad [8] enough & this worse in as much as it has less real Science. As to calling anthropologists a bete noire ^{to Reader} why so it is, only last number they had some 3 or 4 columns of Review of the Anthrops[.] publications, & in a former N^o condemned the Brit. Assoc for refusing an Anthrop. Section. Wallaces judgment of Tylor is unfair, the work is confessedly imperfect & fragmentary & must be so in present state of knowledge²⁴ I doubt if Buckle²⁵ will liberalise opinion so much as Lecky.²⁶ It is all very easy for Wallace to wonder at Scientific men being afraid of saying what they think — he has all "the freedom of motion in vacuo" in one sense, had he as many [9] [p. 41] kind & good relations as I have, who would be grieved & pained to hear me say all I think, & had he children who would be placed in predicaments most detrimental to childrens minds by such avowals ^{on my part,} he would not wonder so much. Wallace is not a man of large sympathies, nor very charitable I think, & is certainly awfully cold & dry at times; yet he is essentially large minded, & very able[.] I hope you saw Seemann's sneers at the "Origin" in his Report of the German Congress,²⁷ & [10] trembled accordingly.

We leave this on Friday next for Lea Hurst, near Matlock, Mr Nightingale's²⁸ where we stay quietly till Monday, it is warmer than this: then we go to Liverpool to visit an Uncle & home by Chester, to Kew about the 20^th. What a heap of Darwins & Wedgwoods are here!²⁹ I am gratified by your expressions about my father.³⁰ He was one of the most truly liberal & modest men I ever knew. He had not an atom of self in him, always thought nothing of [11] [p. 42] himself & never took any ^{self seeking} steps to raise himself in the estimation of the Government or of scientific men. With 1/10^th of the exertion that Murchison³¹ displayed, he would have had honors & titles showered on him: & I hate the R[oya]I. Soc[iet]y for never recognizing the obligations science is under to him. He never received any honor[,] distinction or reward from the Crown or Govt. for all his public services, because he never would put himself into the way of them. I thought the boast of the R.S. was that [12] they sought out such as had similar claims upon science. I know I am not agreed with but I will not give in[.]

Send Fritz Mueller [sic]³² paper to Kew & I will see to it, if I can.

Ever Yr affec | JD Hooker [signature]