i860.] 



THE 'EDINBURGH REVIEW.' 



311 



surprise is at the greatness of the sale. No doubt the public 

 has been shamefully imposed on ! for they bought the book 

 thinking that it would be nice easy reading. I expect the sale 

 to stop soon in England, yet Lyell wrote to me the other day 

 that calling at Murray's he heard that fifty copies had gone in 

 the previous forty-eight hours. I am extremely glad that you 

 will notice in 'Silliman' the additions in the 'Origin.' Judging 

 from letters (and I have just seen one from Thwaites to 

 Hooker), and from remarks, the most serious omission in my 

 book was not explaining how it is, as I believe, that all forms 

 do not necessarily advance, how there can now be simple organ- 

 isms still existing. ... I hear there is a very severe review on 

 me in the ' North British,' by a Rev. Mr. Dunns,* a Free Kirk 

 minister, and dabbler in Natural History. I should be very 

 glad to see any good American reviews, as they are all more 

 or less useful. You say that you shall touch on other reviews, 

 Huxley told me some time ago that after a time he would 

 write a review on all the reviews, whether he will I know not. 

 If you allude to the ' Edinburgh,' pray notice some of the 

 points which I will point out on a separate slip. In the 

 Saturday Review (one of our cleverest periodicals) of May 

 5th, p. 573, there is a nice article on [the 'Edinburgh'] 

 review, defending Huxley, but not Hooker ; and the latter, 

 I think, [the ' Edinburgh ' reviewer] treats most ungenerously.! 

 But surely you will get sick unto death of me and my 

 reviewers. 



With respect to the theological view of the question. This 

 is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no inten- 



* This statement as to author- 

 ship was made on the authority of 

 Robert Chambers. 



f In a letter to Mr. Huxley my 

 father wrote : " Have you seen the 

 last Saturday Review? I am 

 very glad of the defence of you and 

 of myself. I wish the reviewer had 



noticed Hooker. The reviewer, 

 whoever he is, is a jolly good 

 fellow, as this review and the last 

 on me showed. He writes capit- 

 ally, and understands well his sub- 

 ject. I wish he had slapped [the 

 ' Edinburgh ' reviewer] a little bit 

 harder." 



