APPENDIX 



NOTE I 



Portraits of the Darwin Family 



Portraits of the more immediate ancestors of Charles Darwin and Francis Galton 

 exist at C'reskeld Hall, the seat of Francis Darwin, Esq., and at Newnham Grange, 

 Cambridge, formerly the home of Sir George Howard Darwin. Of the pictures at 

 Creskeld, the most noteworthy are those of Robert Darwin (1682 — 1754) supposed to 

 be by Richardson about 1717, and of his three sons: William Alvey Dai-win (1726 — 

 1783) by Wright of Derby, Robert Waring Darwin (172-4 — 1816) aged 51, painted by 

 John Borridge, 1775, and Erasmus Darwin (1731 — 1802), painted by Wright also. See 

 our Plates VI, VT"" and VI'''. I have heartily to thank Colonel G. W. Darwin for 

 photographs of the pictures of the elder and younger Robert, and Mr William Erasmus 

 Darwin for a photograph of that of William Alvey Darwin. The general resemblance 

 to Erasmus of these portraits is striking. 



Some of the Darwin portraits at Elston Hall were sold by William Brown Darwin, 

 and in part have been I'epurchased by members of the family. Sir Francis Sacheverell 

 Darwin had a copy made of the portrait of his grandfather, Robert Darwin, and he 

 further purchased, about 1850, from a dealer in Newark, a Darwin portrait with which 

 he had been familiar in his youth as part of the Elston collection. These two portraits 

 fle.scrnded to his grandson, Sacheverell Darwin, liy whom they were left to Sir George 

 Howard Darwin. They passed for many years traditionally as those of Robert Darwin 

 (1682 — 1754), and of his father, William Darwin (IG-'iS — 1682), and photographs of 

 them formerly in the possession of Sir Francis Galton are so entitled. An examination 

 of the photographs convinced me, however, that the portrait of the so-called William 

 Darwin must be of a later date than that of Robert Darwin, and could not possibly 

 represent his father. By the kindness of Ijady Darwin I was enabled to examine both 

 pictures at Newnham Grange, and also to see vai-ious correspondence concerning them. 

 Sir George Darwin, I then learnt, had himself felt in doubt as to the William Darwin 

 portrait. The Robert Darwin portrait is rightly ascribed and its ascription agrees 

 with that of the original at C'reskeld ; the copyist has, however, lost something of the 

 delicacy of the original. The history of the "William Darwin " picture is very definite : 

 it includes a written .statement by Reginald Darwin' as to his father, Sir Francis, 

 finding the picture at Newark, and its being then identified as "William Darwin." The 

 Director of the National Portrait Gallei-y has most kindly examined a photograph of this 



' Letter to George Howard Darwin, Esq., Nov. 5, 1890, and also a footnote to a 

 MS. memoir of the Darwins in the possession of the Rev. Darwin Wilmot. 



31—2 



