62 'VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.' [l86/. 



Spectator, and with a new explanation, either by the Duke or 

 the reviewer (I could not make out which), of rudimentary 

 organs, namely, that economy of labour and material was 

 a great guiding principle with God (ignoring waste of seed 

 and of young monsters, &c.), and that making a new plan for 

 the structure of animals was thought, and thought was labour, 

 and therefore God kept to a uniform plan, and left rudiments. 

 This is no exaggeration. In short, God is a man, rather 

 cleverer than us. ... I am very much obliged for the Nation 

 {returned by this post) ; it is admirably good. You say I 

 always guess wrong, but I do not believe any one, except Asa 

 Gray, could have done the thing so well. I would bet even, 

 or three to two, that it is Asa Gray, though one or two 

 passages staggered me. 



I finish my book on ' Domestic Animals,' &c., by a single 

 paragraph, answering, or rather throwing doubt, in so far as 

 so little space permits, on Asa Gray's doctrine that each 

 variation has been specially ordered or led along a beneficial 

 line. It is foolish to touch such subjects, but there have been 

 so many allusions to what I think about the part which God 

 has played in the formation of organic beings,* that I thought 

 it shabby to evade the question. ... I have even received 

 several letters on the subject. ... I overlooked your sen- 

 tence about Providence, and suppose I treated it as Buckland 

 did his own theology, when his Bridgewater Treatise was 

 read aloud to him for correction. . 



* Prof. Judd allows me to quote give a conclusive answer on this 



from some notes which he has point. Professor Judd continues : 



kindly given me : " Lyell once " I made a note of this and other 



told me that he had frequently been conversations of Lyell's at the time, 



asked if Darwin was not one of the At the present time such statements 



most unhappy of men, it being must appear strange to any one who 



suggested that his outrage upon does not recollect the revolution in 



public opinion should have filled opinion which has taken place 



him with remorse." Sir Charles during the last 23 years [1882]." 

 must have been able, I think, to 



