^8 FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. [1862. 



Dr. Gray, '' I am fairly astonished at the success of my book 

 with botanists." Among naturalists who were not botanists, 

 Lyell was pre-eminent in his appreciation of the book. I 

 have no means of knowing when he read it, but in later life, 

 as I learn from Professor Judd, he was enthusiastic in praise 

 of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' which he considered "next 

 to the ' Origin,' as the most valuable of all Darwin's works." 

 Among the general public the author did not at first hear of 

 many disciples, thus he wrote to his cousin Fox in September 

 1862: "Hardly any one not a botanist, except yourself, as 

 far as I know, has cared for it." 



A favourable notice appeared in the Saturday RevieWy 

 October i8th, 1862 ; the reviewer points out that the book 

 would escape the angry polemics aroused by the 'Origin.'* 

 This is illustrated by a review in the Literary Churchman, in 

 which only one fault found, namely, that Mr. Darwin's ex- 

 pression of admiration at the contrivances in orchids is too 

 indirect a way of saying, " O Lord, how manifold are Thy 

 works ! " 



A somewhat similar criticism occurs in the * Edinburgh 

 Review ' (October 1862). The writer points out that Mr. 

 Darwin constantly uses phrases, such as " beautiful contri- 

 vance," "the labellum is . . . in order to attract," "the 

 nectar is purposely lodged." The Reviewer concludes his 

 discussion thus : " We know, too, that these purposes 

 and ideas are not our own, but the ideas and purposes of 

 Another." 



The ' Edinburgh ' reviewer's treatment of this subject vvas 

 criticised in the Saturday Review, November 15th, 1862 : 

 With reference to this article my father wrote to Sir Joseph 

 Hooker (December 29th, 1862) : — 



" Here is an odd chance ; my nephew Henry Parker, an 

 Oxford Classic, and Fellow of Oriel, came here this evening ; 



* Dr. Gray pointed out that if the Orchid-book (with a few trifling 

 omissions) had appeared before the ' Origin,' the author would have been 

 canonised rather than anathematised by the natural theologians. 



