HOME LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE. 337 



of the first article, by the Editor : " Studies on the Plan of the 

 Universe." No. IV. — The Earth a Living Organism. What 

 think you of that ? Categorical ? The second article is like 

 unto it, namely, "On the Independent Existence of Matter 

 and its Laws." Then follow correspondents, who write, first, 

 " On the Inherent Superiority of the Male Sex," being ap- 

 parently a reply to a previous editorial article, which seems to 

 have exalted the female to the highest place. Next follows " A 

 Pyropelagian, on Planetary Growth." (A Pyropelagian is one 

 who lives in a sea of fire. Crabbed.) I need hardly say most 

 of the writers are in the " seventh heaven " (in their own eyes), 

 but in yours would be in the " nethermost hell." 



"Beyond the lowest deep, a lower deep." 



I shall not subscribe, though the price is only four shillings per 

 year. The principles, so far as I comprehend them, appear to 

 be those called Positivism, or French pseudo-philosophy and 

 vain deceit. 



To Dr. Asa Gray. 



November 3, 18G0. 



I have read your Darwin papers with great pleasure and profit. 

 Almost thou persuadest me to be a Grayite. I have no objec- 

 tion per se to a doctrine of derivative descent. Why should I ? 

 One mode of creation is as feasible to the Almighty as another, 

 and, as put by you, is very consonant to sound doctrine. I have 

 had a short friendly correspondence with Darwin on the subject, 

 but without much result one way or the other. I confess, how- 

 ever, since I have read the whole book, to a somewhat changed 

 view. His latter chapters are those which have most impressed 

 me, and particularly that on geographical distribution, aud the 

 geological-geographical distribution successively through ages. 

 Certainly there are many broad facts which can be read by a 

 supposition of descent with variation. How broad those facts 

 are, and how broad the limits of descent with variation may be, 

 are questions which I do not think his theory affords answer 

 to. It opens vistas vast, and so it evidently points whence, 

 through time, light may come by which to see the objects in 

 those vistas, but to my mind it does no more. When he passes 

 this true deductive inference, and proceeds to build further 



z 



