by Janet Browne
14. Topham 1992. The sale is reported in Athenaeum, 26 November 1859, p. 706, and Publisher’s Circular, 1 December 1859, pp. 599–600.
15. Greist 1970. Finkelstein 1993 uncovers Mudie’s financial collusion with three London publishing houses.
16. Betham-Edwards 1919.
17. Unpublished lecture, Janet Browne, “Science and Medicine in Mudie’s Circulating Library,” University of London, February 2000. On science reading in the period see Brock 1996.
18. Undated letter to Mr. and Mrs. Mudie, Illinois University Library, Calendar 13829.
19. Correspondence 7:395.
20. Correspondence 7:339, 340.
21. Wilson 1970. See also Bartholomew 1973.
22. K. M. Lyell 1890, vol. 2, p. 329.
23. Correspondence 7:409.
24. Correspondence 7:359 and 9:188.
25. Correspondence 7:383, 426.
26. Arbuckle 1983, p. 186.
27. Life and Letters 2:197, repeated in L. Huxley 1900, vol. 1, p. 170. Huxley’s response more generally is discussed in Bartholomew 1975, Paradis 1978, Di Gregorio 1984, and A. Desmond 1994.
28. Correspondence 7:391.
29. Correspondence 7:398.
30. Correspondence 7:396.
31. Emma Darwin 2:187.
32. See McDannell and Lang 1988, Rowell 1974, and Wheeler 1990.
33. Correspondence 8:134.
34. The original letter is not extant. The quotation is taken from a letter from FitzRoy to William Hepworth Dixon, printed in Correspondence 7:414n3.
35. Times, 1 December 1859, p. 8.
36. Correspondence 7:413.
37. Correspondence 7:380. For Kingsley, see Colloms 1975 and Brock 1996.
38. The remark is printed in Origin, 2d ed., p. 481. Its course through later editions is mapped in Peckham 1959, p. 748.
39. Peckham 1959, p. 753.
40. Murray 1909, p. 542.
41. Rupke 1994, pp. 12–105, and Appendix VI, Correspondence 7, Memorials presented to the British government. Stearn 1981 describes the founding of the Natural History Museum in South Kensington, London. Gunther 1975 gives an idea of the work of natural history keepers in the British Museum.
42. See particularly A. Desmond 1982 and 1994.
43. Origin 310.
44. Correspondence 7:421–23.
45. Origin 184.
46. Times, 26 December 1859, p. 8; Correspondence 7:458.
47. From a wide range of literature see Feather 1988, Eco 1979, and Sutherland 1976. Meadows 1980, Sheets-Pyenson 1985, Brock and Meadows 1998, J. Secord 2000, and Frasca-Spada and Jardine 2000 deal with the rise in science publishing.
48. Various elements of this revolution in reading patterns are discussed in Altick 1957, Ellegard 1957, and Feather 1988. Widening literacy rates are in Cipolla 1969.
49. For newspapers see A. Smith 1979, for magazines see A. Sullivan 1984, and for periodicals see Shattock and Wolff 1982 and Vann and Van Arsdel 1994. Medical journals are discussed in Bynum, Lock, and Porter 1992. General reviews of Darwin’s major works are itemised and discussed in Ellegard 1990, the scientific reviews in Hull 1973. Houghton 1966–89 is the standard source for leading Victorian periodicals.
50. J. Secord 2000 gives Vestiges’ publication figures. Even though Darwin’s theories were discussed in a greater number and wider variety of organs than Vestiges, it appears that until the 1880s there were more actual copies of Vestiges in circulation than of the Origin. I thank John van Wyhe for an illuminating chart comparing the relative numbers of copies of Vestiges with George Coombe’s Constitution of Man, and Darwin’s Origin from 1835 to 1895. Coombe easily outstripped the other two.
51. A comprehensive list is in Ellegard 1990.
52. Bevington 1941, pp. 238–88. Thomas Rymer Jones occasionally did natural history for the Saturday Review. Even Huxley could not squeeze the name out of the editor, John Douglas Cook. The Wellesley Index (Houghton 1966–89) lists most of the names but not this.
53. Darwin’s pamphlet collection is held in the Darwin Archive, Cambridge University Library, indexed by P. Vorzimmer. A fresh listing is due to appear by Di Gregorio and Gill; see Di Gregorio 1990. The newspaper clippings are in DAR 226.
54. “List of reviews of Origin of Species,” DAR 262.
55. L. Huxley 1900, vol. 1, p. 363.
56. Imperial College Archives, Huxley Papers, 31 December 1859, 22. Also in Caudill 1994.
57. Bartholomew 1975.
58. Correspondence 8:117n11. Darwin refers to T. H. Huxley 1860a.
59. T. H. Huxley 1860b.
60. Correspondence 7:432.
61. T. H. Huxley 1860b, p. 556.
62. Barton 1983 and A. Desmond 1994.
63. L. Huxley 1900, vol. 2, p. 114.
64. Quoted from Hull 1973, p. 223.
65. Correspondence 7:423. See also Herschel’s printed opinion in Herschel 1861, p. 12.
66. Life and Letters 2:261n.
67. Lyell to Darwin, 1–2 May 1856, Correspondence 6:89.
68. Wollaston 1860. Quoted from Hull 1973, p. 140.
69. Correspondence 8:444.
70. Origin 285.
71. John Phillips, Presidential Address, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1860, pp. xxxvi, xlix–1.
72. Correspondence 8:495.
73. Hooker thought the review was by the Rev. Richard Whatley; see L. Huxley 1918, vol. 1, pp. 512, 515. For Sedgwick see Clark and Hughes 1890, vol. 2, p. 360.
74. Clark and Hughes 1890, vol. 2, pp. 360–61.
75. Cambridge University examination papers, Geology, March 1860.
76. Matthew’s claim was stated in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 7 April 1860, 312–13, relating to his book Matthew 1831. Darwin’s response was also printed in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 21 April 1860, 362–63. See Correspondence 8:154–55, 156, and Dempster 1996.
77. Life and Letters 3:41.
78. Freke 1860. See Correspondence 9:10.
79. Correspondence 8:189.
80. Harvey’s letters were dated August and October 1860; Correspondence 8:322–32, 415–421. See also L. Huxley 1918, vol. 1, pp. 515–20.
81. Punch, 10 November 1859, p. 182. Humour and satire in the history of science is discussed in Rudwick 1975, Browne 1992, and Paradis 1997.
82. R. Owen 1860. Darwin’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Archive.
83. Correspondence 8:154.
84. Rupke 1994 makes the point that the ultimate success of Darwinism encourages historians to be over-eager to accept Darwin’s point of view in this affair. Owen’s son ignored the quarrel in R. S. Owen 1894.
85. Essays and reviews was published 15–31 March 1860, confirmed by the Publisher’s Circular, 2 April 1860, p. 166. See Parker 1860. A general historical analysis is in Ellis 1980 and Altholz 1994.
86. Altholz 1994, p. 68.
87. Discussed in Ellis 1980 and Altholz 1994.
88. Elwin to Murray, 3 December 1859, John Murray Archives, London. I am grateful to John Murray for allowing me access to the archives. See Shattock 1989 for the politics of the Edinburgh Review and the Quarterly.
89. Meacham 1970.
90. Eventually published as Wilberforce 1861. The author is identified as Wilberforce in Houghton 1966–89, vol. 1, p. 743. Elwin had previously argued with Wilberforce on doctrinal matters, so this commission was something of a rapprochement; see Elwin 1902, vol. 1, pp. 189–92.
91. Parker 1860, p. 139. See particularly Corsi 1988a for Powell. Wilberforce was involved in a response issued in Goulburn 1862.
92. Wilberforce 1860, p. 258.
93. Wilberforce 1860, pp. 235, 239.
94. Helpful accounts of nineteenth-century secularisation are to be found in Chadwick 1975 and Brooke 1991. See also Moore 1979, Lightman 1987, and Lindberg and Numbers 1986.
95. Morrell and Thackray 1981.
96. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford 1860, Committee lists. See also Morrell and Thackray 1981.
<
br /> 97. Brock and Curtois 1977, p. 708, and Acland and Ruskin 1859. I am grateful to Colin Hughes for allowing me to consult his work on the museum.
98. Meacham 1970. Temple’s sermon was on “the present relations of science to religion”; Temple 1860.
99. Correspondence 8:200–1.
100. The occasion is described in Clark and Hughes 1890, vol. 2, pp. 361–62, and in a letter to Hooker (Henslow’s son-in-law) printed in L. Huxley 1918, vol. 1, pp. 512–14. On Victorian Cambridge see Winstanley 1947.
101. Henslow’s Class list, Cambridge University Archives, O.XIV.261. There were eighty-four students in 1860.
102. Cambridge Herald and Huntingdonshire Gazette, 19 May 1860.
103. Published later on, with a few expansions, in Phillips 1860.
104. Hooker to Huxley, September 1859, Huxley Papers, Imperial College London.
105. Quoted from Jensen 1988, p. 164. See also Lucas 1979 and Gilley 1981. Blinderman 1971 and C. Gross 1993a and 1993b discuss the hippocampus minor.
106. Draper 1860, later expanded into Draper 1864. Draper’s earlier writings on these subjects touched on the same issues, although his clearest statement of conflict between science and religion was in Draper 1875. See Fleming 1950. Historical accounts of the theme of conflict between science and religion are in Moore 1979 and Brooke 1991.
107. Crichton-Browne 1930, p. 188.
108. Chambers 1860. His review of the Origin was favourable; see Chambers 1859.
109. Mellersh 1968, p. 274.
110. The meeting is reported in Athenaeum, 14 July 1860, pp. 64–65. See also Wilberforce 1860, p. 239.
111. Tuckwell 1900, pp. 51–54. On 4 July 1860, Lyell reported that Wilberforce referred to Huxley’s grandfather and grandmother. K. M. Lyell 1881, vol. 2, p. 335.
112. Jenson 1988, p. 168.
113. Cohen 1985, p. 598.
114. Athenaeum, 14 July 1860, p. 65.
115. Stoney’s letter is in DAR 106/7:36. The Bible-waving incident is possibly apocryphal. The first printed account of it seems to be in West 1937, p. 252, probably using Stoney’s letter as an uncited source. The incident is not mentioned in Mellersh 1968. See also letter from J. V. Carus, 15 November 1866, DAR 161.
116. Recollections were sent to Francis Darwin after Darwin’s death; DAR 106/7 (ser. 2):22, 30. There are further recollections in DAR 112(A): 1–114.
117. Gilley 1981.
118. Discussed in F. M. Turner 1993. See also Haskell 1984.
119. Correspondence 8:277, 280.
CHAPTER 4: FOUR MUSKETEERS
1. Correspondence 8:305.
2. Vanity Fair, by “Ape” (Carlo Pelligrini). Wilberforce (Statesmen No. 25) “Not a brawler”; and Huxley (Men of the Day No. 19) “A great medicine-man among the inquiring redskins.”
3. Life and Letters 2:325n. Original in DAR 112 (ser. 2):88.
4. L. Huxley 1900, vol. 1, pp. 180–89, gives an account of the meeting gathered from recollections, but several of these are repeated verbatim from other biographies; see Browne 1978. Erasmus Darwin’s undated remark comes from his letters in the Wedgwood/Mosely archive, Wedgwood Archive Collection, Keele University, and is cited by courtesy of the Trustees of the Wedgwood Museum, Barlaston.
5. Wilberforce 1860, p. 264.
6. Correspondence 8:293.
7. Correspondence 8:281–82, 285.
8. Correspondence 8:403, in which Darwin said, “I am utterly ashamed & groan over my handwriting.”
9. Correspondence 8:274.
10. Correspondence 8:294.
11. Correspondence 8:277. See also Correspondence 9:368, in which he told Asa Gray, “I care more for your & Hooker’s opinion than for that of all the rest of the world, & for Lyell’s on geological points.”
12. Lewes 1860, p. 603.
13. Morrell and Thackray 1981, L. Stone and Stone 1986. See also R. Young 1985, pp. 23–55, on the comon intellectual context of Victorian England. Altick 1974, Briggs 1965, and Curtin 1987 examine Victorian class and manners.
14. Cooter and Pumfrey 1994 and Poovey 1995 discuss the theme in historical context. A. Secord 1994 illuminates science in the pub. A. Desmond 1989 and J. Secord 2000 reveal other evolutionary interests in Victorian England.
15. Quoted from Ellegard 1990, p. 41.
16. Annan 1955, J. Gross 1969. See also Rudwick 1985 for the geological elite.
17. Bartholomew 1974, Bynum 1984. On geological images and representations of geological time see Rudwick 1992.
18. The imperial role of the Hookers at Kew is analysed in Brockway 1979, Drayton 2000, Hobhouse 1985, and Bellon 2001. For biographical studies of Hooker see Allan 1967 and R. Desmond 1998 and 1999. Bellon 2001 examines Hooker’s scientific status.
19. Dupree 1988, pp. 174–232, passim.
20. Victorius 1932. These are described in Freeman 1977, items 377, 378. The Appleton edition, item 379, called “Revised edition” was almost certainly issued to keep sales buoyant while the firm negotiated with Gray. For authorship and copyright legislation see Barnes 1974, Saunders 1992, and Feather 1994.
21. Freeman 1977, item 380.
22. Freeman 1977 lists all of Appleton’s editions of the Origin and Darwin’s other titles. On Darwinism in America more generally see Russett 1976 and Numbers 1998.
23. Origin, historical preface, reprinted in Appendix IV, Correspondence 8:571–83.
24. Dupree 1988, p. 267.
25. In a letter from Asa Gray to Hooker, reprinted in Life and Letters 2:268. See also L. Agassiz 1860.
26. Most conveniently found in Gray 1861. The American response to the religious issues raised by Darwin’s work is in Moore 1979, Lindberg and Numbers 1986, Livingstone 1987, and J. Roberts 1988. The response of James Dwight Dana, also an opponent, was of interest to Darwin. See Sanford 1965.
27. Correspondence 8:298.
28. Correspondence 8:350.
29. Correspondence 8:405.
30. Life and Letters 3:113. Huxley’s scientific life is documented in Paradis 1978, Di Gregorio 1984, and A. Desmond 1994 and 1997.
31. Correspondence 8:366.
32. On the hippocampus debate see C. Smith 1992, C. Gross 1993a and 1993b, and Wilson 1996.
33. L. Huxley 1900, vol. 1, p. 210.
34. Huxley’s aims for the Natural History Review are given in A. Desmond 1994, pp. 284, 289–90, 295. For Darwin’s response, see Correspondence 8:294–95. Huxley continued to protest that it was “not a party journal”; ibid. p. 527.
35. Correspondence 9:1.
36. L. Huxley 1900, vol. 1, p. 190.
37. Correspondence 8:232.
38. Correspondence 8:220.
39. Wallace 1905, vol. 1, p. 374.
40. Farley and Geison 1974. Bronn is discussed in Junker 1991. Bronn’s review of the Origin of Species is translated in Hull 1973.
41. For Darwin and Darwinism in Germany see Kelly 1981, Corsi and Weindling 1985, and Montgomery 1988. For metaphors see Weingart 1995. For translations in science see Rupke 2000. More generally, see also Jordan and Patten 1995 and Topham 1998.
42. Belloc 1941, p. 12.
43. Correspondence 8:64, 71.
44. J. Harvey 1997.
45. J. Harvey 1997. I have used Dr. Harvey’s translations from the French with grateful acknowledgement.
46. Correspondence 10:398–400.
47. Darwinism in France is discussed by Conry 1974, Corsi and Wendling 1985, Stebbins 1988, J. Harvey 1997, and Gayon 1998.
48. J. Harvey 1997, pp. 80–121.
49. Correspondence 9:200. Something of Julia Wedgwood’s life is given in Wedgwood and Wedgwood 1980 and Curle 1937.
50. Emma Darwin 2:193.
51. Correspondence 8:395.
52. Correspondence 8:451.
53. Life and Letters 1:137, Emma Darwin 2:180.
54. Correspondence 9:9.
55. Correspondence 9:21.
56. Correspondence 8:491.
57. Bonney 1919, p. 154. The text of the paper is not extan
t, although many of Darwin’s notes are in DAR 54. See Appendix IV, Correspondence 9:405–6 for an account of the meeting.
58. Correspondence 9:33–34.
59. Quoted from A. Desmond 1994, p. 294.
60. Macmillan’s Magazine 3 (1861):336 and Jenyns 1862, pp. 212–13.
61. Clark and Hughes 1890, vol. 2, p. 371; see also Bunbury 1891–93, Middle Life 3, p. 264.
62. Correspondence 9:98–99.
63. Gray 1861. See also Correspondence 8:388. Darwin’s list of presentation copies of Gray’s pamphlet is transcribed in Appendix III, Correspondence 9:393–404.
64. DAR 262.11 and Journal, p. 15.
65. Addressed in Ritvo 1987.
66. Vaucaire 1930, Mandelstam 1994, and McCook 1996.
67. Du Chaillu 1861a. His book was published as Du Chaillu 1861b.
68. Punch, 18 May 1861, p. 206. See A. Desmond 1994, p. 296.
69. Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, 89 (1861):614–17. On satire see Browne 1992 and Paradis 1997.
70. Paradis 1997. On scientific caricature see Rudwick 1973 and Browne 2001.
71. Athenaeum, 13 April 1861, p. 498.
72. Correspondence 9:100.
73. Athenaeum, 21 September 1861, pp. 372–73, and 28 September 1861, p. 408. The gorilla wars are in McCook 1996. Blinderman 1971 deals with the aftermath of the Oxford debate.
74. Kingsley 1862. For accounts of Kingsley see Colloms 1975 and Brock 1996.
75. Charles Kingsley, The Water Babies, London, 1863, pp. 156–57. Alexander Macmillan’s remark is quoted from Colloms 1975, p. 256.
76. The first illustrator of Kingsley’s Water Babies was J. Noel Paton. By 1886 Sambourne was acknowledged as Britain’s greatest living caricaturist, the chief illustrator of Punch.
77. L. Huxley 1900, vol. 2, pp. 435–39.
78. Blackwood’s Magazine 89 (1861):166.
CHAPTER 5: EYES AMONG THE LEAVES
1. Correspondence 9:269.
2. Note on the general aspect, Down House MS 4.3. See also More Letters 1:33–36.
