256 THE SPEEAD OP EVOLUTION. [Oh. XIV. 



A letter from Lyell to Hooker (Mar. 9, 1863), published in 

 Ly ell's Life and Letters, vol. ii. p. 361, shows what was his 

 feeling at the time : — 



" He [Darwin] seems much disappointed that I do not go 

 farther with him, or do not speak out more. I can only say 

 that I have spoken out to the full extent of my present con- 

 victions, and even beyond my state of feeling as to man's un- 

 broken descent from the brutes, and I find I am half converting 

 not a few who were in arms against Darwin, and are even now 

 against Huxley." Lyell speaks, too, of having had to abandon 

 " old and long cherished ideas, which constituted the charm to 

 me of the theoretical part of the science in my earlier days, 

 when I believed with Pascal in the theory, as Hallam terms it, 

 of ' the archangel ruined.' " 



G. D. to G. Lyell Down, 12th [March, 1863]. 



My dear Lyell, — I thank you for your very interesting and 

 kind, I may say, charming letter. I feared you might be 

 huffed for a little time with me. I know some men would have 

 been so. . . . As you say that you have gone as far as you believe 

 on the species question, I have not a word to say ; but I must 

 feel convinced that at times, judging from conversation, ex- 

 pressions, letters, &c, you have as completely given up belief 

 in immutability of specific forms as I have done. I must still 

 think a clear expression from you, if you could have given it, 

 would have been potent with the public, and all the more so, as 

 you formerly held opposite opinions. The more I work, the 

 more satisfied I become with variation and natural selection, 

 but that part of the case I look at as less important, though 

 more interesting to me personally. As you ask for criticisms 

 on this head (and believe me that I should not have made them 

 unasked), I may specify (pp. 412, 413) that such words as " Mr. 

 D. labours to show," " is believed by the author to throw light," 

 would lead a common reader to think that you yourself do not 

 at all agree, but merely think it fair to give my opinion. Lastly, 

 you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck's 

 doctrine of development and progression. If this is your 

 deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said, but it does not 

 seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before Lamarck, 

 and others, propounded the obvious view that if species were 

 not created separately they must have descended from other 

 species, and I can see nothing else in common between the 

 Origin and Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is 

 very injurious to its acceptance, as it implies necessary pro- 



