216 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. [ch. xiii. 



I should send it (and of this there can hardly be any ques- 

 tion), and if you think it full and ample enough, please 

 alter the date to the day on which you post it, and let that 

 be soon. The case in the Gardeners' Chronicle seems a little 

 stronger than in Mr. Matthew's book, for the passages are 

 therein scattered in three places ; but it would be mere 

 hair-splitting to notice that. If you object to my letter, 

 please return it ; but I do not expect that you will, but I 

 thought that you would not object to run your eye over it. 

 My dear Hooker, it is a great thing for me to have so good, 

 true, and old a friend as you. I owe much for science to 

 my friends. 



... I have gone over [the Edinburgh] review again, 

 and compared passages, and I am astonished at the mis- 

 representations. But I am glad I resolved not to answer. 

 Perhaps it is selfish, but to answer and think more on the 

 subject is too unpleasant. I am so sorry that Huxley by 

 my means has been thus atrociously attacked. I do not 

 suppose you much care about the gratuitous attack on you. 



Lyell in his letter remarked that you seemed to him as if 

 you were overworked. Do, pray, be cautious, and remember 

 how many and many a man has done this who thought it 

 absurd till too late. I have often thought the same. You 

 know that you were bad enough before your Indian journey. 



C. D. to C. Lyell Down, April [I860]. 



... I was particularly glad to hear what you thought 

 about not noticing [the Edinburgh] review. Hooker and 

 Huxley thought it a sort of duty to point out the alteration 

 of quoted citations, and there is truth in this remark ; but I 

 so hated the thought that I resolved not to do so. I shall 



culture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my 

 entire ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is called 

 for, I will insert to the foregoing effect." In spite of my father's recognition 

 of his claims, Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and complained that an ar- 

 ticle in the Saturday Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, 1860, was " scarcely fair in 

 alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I 

 published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty- 

 nine years ago." It was not until later that he learned that Matthew had also 

 been forestalled. In October 1865, he wrote Sir J. D. Hooker: " Talking of 

 the Origin, a Yankee has called my attention to a paper attached to T)r. 

 Wells' famous Essay on Deiv, which was read in 1813 to the Koyal Soc, but 

 not [then] printed, in which he applies most distinctly the principle of Natu- 

 ral Selection to the races of Man. So poor old Patrick Matthew is not the 

 first, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put on his title-pages, ' Dis- 

 coverer of the principle of ISatural Selection ' ! " 



