Conritpondence irith IJu.rlvij (thoiil Erfutmiis Danriu '203 



Will you liave patience to look at my article on "Origin" in "I^y Serinonu" wntt«n 

 in 18601 



4, Marliiohouoh Place, Aiihkv Uoad, N.W. Oct. 12, 1886. 



My dkak Galton, I have reml Kraii>«? afrt«h and I can only say that if no Ijetter ciumj ia 

 to l>e made out for Kra-HUius Darwin my verdict in the article " Kvolution" in the Encyclopawlia 

 Britunniai — (not the part which I adviwd Mr (tladstone to n'ju\) 



" KraMmus Darwin, thou>;h a zealouti evolutionist, can hanlly be said to have made any real 

 advance on his pre(l<'ccssors" 

 seems to me to exprt-ss the exact truth. 



That Erasmus Darwin anticipatetl Ijimarck's central idea is perfectly true — in(lee<l he wm 

 much more consistent and lojk(ical than I^Auiarck for ho saw the necessity of extending hia view 

 to the vegetahle kinf»fiom, and his conception of heredity and desire in plants, was the neoeasary 

 const^quence of the general theorem that lulaptation has been brought about by desire. Bat this 

 central i<lea of I^jimarck is exactly the most worthless |>art of the "Philosophic Zoologique." 

 Krause expressly admits that Erasmus knew nothing alxiut the stniggle for existence a« a 

 s<^lective agent. Again it is clear that Enismus had no notion of variation in Charles Darwin's 

 sen.se, see p. 183. "The original living filament" is "excitetl into action by the neceasities of 

 the creatures, which jxwsess them and on which their existence dcjH-nds." 



The principles of Charles Darwin if I understand him rightly were these — Two are matter 

 of fact, namely: 



1. Animals and plants vary within limits which cannot be defined and from causes of which 

 we have no knowledge. 



2. Of these variations some give rise to forms better adapted to cope with existing conditions 

 and some to forms worse adapted — -The latter tend to extinction; the former to supersession of 

 the original or at any rate to coexistence with it. The last is .speculation. 



3. The interaction of variation with conditions thus understood is a vera eaiita competent 

 to account for the derivation of later from earlier forms of life. 



This is the Darwinian faith "which except a man ket^p whole and undefilixi without doubt" 

 he shall lie made a bishop- If you can find the smallest inkling of it in Erasmus — I cave in. 



Ever yours very truly, T. H. Huxlbv. 



Of Galton's reply to Huxley I find the following 'rough draft.' 

 Oct. 16/80. 42, Rutland Gate, S.W. 



Mv i>KAR Huxley, Thank you much for your full letter. I see that the proposed epitaph 

 on Dr Erasmus Darwin must be alwndoned, both liecause it is founde<l on Krauso's views, 

 which are del)atable, and l)ecause it expresses tho.se views in a way oj)en to misapprehension. 

 Would you kindly tt>ll me if anything strikes you as objectionable in an epitjiph written in the 

 following .sensel And if you could suggest any well-sounding phrase as well, I should be truly 

 oblige*!. 



In memory of Dr E. D. Author of etc., etc. Gifted with a vivid imagination, uncommon 

 jwwer of observation, an indefatigable love of research, original and prescient in his views, he 

 was among the first who occupied himself with the topics that were sulxsequently explored by 

 his grands<m, Charles Darwin, to whom he transmitted many of his characteristics. 



This I know is bald in the extreme, but if the intended sense is decided on one must hope 

 by much touching up to make it rea<i more suitably. Thinking it might be convenient I copy 

 out some "pieces justificatives" on the opposite page (slightly shortening phrases and sometimes 

 trans|K>sing). Ever sincerely yours, Francis Galton. 



Galton's pieces justificatives contain the views of Charles Darwin as to 

 Enusnius' mental powei"s, some citation of Krause's opinions and extracts 

 from Erasmus Darwin's writings showing that he only attributetl variation 

 in part to desire or will, but in part also to accidentid or spontaneous 

 causes. Galton also indicates that Erasnms had clearly state<l that the final 

 result of the contest between males wa-s that the strongest and most active 

 animal propagated the species and thus it became improved. 



■ta—t 



