i860.] 



->5 



HOPKINS S REVIEW. 



327 



.... Henslow* and Daubeny are shaken. I hear from 

 Hooker that he hears from Hochstetter that my views are 

 making very considerable progress in Germany, and the good 

 workers are discussing the question. Bronn at the end of his 

 translation has a chapter of criticism, but it is such difficult 

 German that I have not yet read it. Hopkins's review in 

 * Fraser ' is thought the best which has appeared against us. 

 I believe that Hopkins is so much opposed because his course 

 of study has never led him to reflect much on such subjects 

 as geographical distribution, classification, homologies, &c, 

 so that he does not feel it a relief to have some kind of 

 explanation. 



C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 



Hartfield [Sussex], July 30th [i860]. 



I had lots of pleasant letters about the Brit. 



Assoc, and our side seems to have got on very well. There 

 has been as much discussion on the other side of the Atlantic 

 as on this. No one I think understands the whole case better 

 than Asa Gray, and he has been fighting nobly. He is a 

 capital reasoner. I have sent one of his printed discussions 

 to our Athenseum, and the editor says he will print it. The 

 ' Quarterly ' has been out some time. It contains no malice, 

 which is wonderful. ... It makes me say many things which 



* Professor Henslow was men- 

 tioned in the December number of 

 1 Macmillan's Magazine' as being 

 an adherent of Evolution. In con- 

 sequence of this he published, in 

 the February number of the follow- 

 ing year, a letter defining his posi- 

 tion. This he did by means of an 

 extract from a letter addressed to 

 him by the Rev. L. Jenyns (Blome- 

 field) which " very nearly," as he 

 says, expressed his views. Mr. 

 Blomefield wrote, " I was not 

 aware that you had become a 



convert to his (Darwin's) theory, 



and can hardly suppose you have 



accepted it as a whole, though, like 



myself, you may go to the length of 



imagining that many of the smaller 



groups, both of animals and plants, 



may at some remote period have 



had a common parentage. I do not 



with some say that the whole of his 



theory cannot be true but that it 



is very far from proved ; and I 



doubt its ever being possible to 



prove it." 



