ch. xiii.] REVIEWS AND CRITICISMS, 1860. 215 



pre-eminence ! Well, you have helped to make me so, and 

 therefore you must forgive me if you can. 



My dear Gray, ever yours most gratefully. 



C. D. to C. Lyell. Down, April 10th [18G0]. 



I have just read the Edinburgh* which without doubt 



is by . It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear 



will be very damaging. He is atrociously severe on Hux- 

 ley's lecture, and very bitter against Hooker. So we three 

 enjoyed it together. Not that I really enjoyed it, for it 

 made me uncomfortable for one night ; but I have got quite 

 over it to-day. It requires much study to appreciate all the 

 bitter spite of many of the remarks against me ; indeed I 

 did not discover all myself. It scandalously misrepresents 

 many parts. He misquotes some passages, altering words 

 within inverted commas. . . . 



It is painful to be hated in the intense degree with 

 which hates me. 



Now for a curious thing about my book, and then I have 

 done. In last Saturday's Gardeners' Chronicle^ a Mr. Pat- 

 rick Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on 

 Naval Timber and Arboriculture published in 1831, in 

 which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of 

 Natural Selection. I have ordered the book, as some few 

 passages are rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a 

 complete but not developed anticipation ! Erasmus always 

 said that surelv this would be shown to be the case some 

 day. Anyhow, one may be excused in not having discov- 

 ered the fact in a work on Naval Timber. 



C. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down [April 13th, I860]. 



My dear Hooker, Questions of priority so often lead 

 to odious quarrels, that I should esteem it a great favour if 

 you would read the enclosed.]; If you think it proper that 



* EdinhnraJb Reviexo, April, 1860. 



t April 7, I860. 



X My father wrote {Gardeners* Chronicle, April 21, I860, p. 362) : " I have 

 been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew's communication in the num- 

 ber of your paper dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew 

 has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the 

 origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one 

 will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had 

 heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and 

 thatthey appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arbori- 



