Summary

Thanks CD for the second volume of Descent.

Summary

"If you feel astonished at my bringing man & brutes so near together in their whole nature (though with a wide hiatus) I feel still more astonished, as I believe, at your judgment on this head. I much wish you had enlarged your concluding sentence a little so as to say whether you consider the ordinary mental faculties so distinct, or whether you confine the enormous difference to spiritual powers including the moral sense.––"

Summary

Feels their conflict lies in the field of philosophy rather than in that of physical science. Regrets that they differ so widely.

Summary

On amount of modification and lines of descent in determining the position in man.

Reference to StGJM’s article "On the appendicular skeleton of the primates" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. [157 (1867): 299–430],

and his [and James Murie’s] article on lemurs ["On the anatomy of Lemuroidea"] Trans. Zool. Soc. [7 (1872): 1–114].

Summary

Has seen an article by Chauncey Wright ["Darwinism", North Am. Rev. 113 (1871): 63–103] and has heard it has been enlarged and reprinted [1871]. As CD has been distributing copies StGM wonders whether he might have one.

Summary

Sends a reprint of Chauncey Wright’s article ["Darwinism", North Am. Rev. 113 (1871): 63–103].

Summary

Thanks for Chauncey Wright’s article. Admits it is clever, but hardly expected CD to think it a serious defence of his position.

Summary

Sends his reply to Huxley’s criticisms [Contemp. Rev. 19 (1872): 168–97].

Summary

Feels that StGJM’s review of Descent [Q. Rev. 131 (1871): 47–90] greatly misrepresents CD’s opinions and conclusions. Feels their differences of opinion are so great that discussion of almost any subject would be a waste of both their time.

Summary

As a man of science, StGM has no choice but to pursue what he sees as the truth. Will happily admit he has misrepresented CD if CD will disclaim the position that StGM attacks.

Summary

Wishes their correspondence regarding their differences to be dropped, as CD feels that nothing he could say would have any influence on StGJM.

Summary

Agrees to close their correspondence. Defends his position against criticisms of Huxley and Chauncey Wright; assures CD of his continuing friendly feelings.

Summary

CD believes that StGJM has been unfair in his criticisms and has misrepresented him; he begs him not to write again. "Agassiz has uttered splendid sarcasms on me, but I still feel quite friendly towards him. M. Flourens cd. not find words to express his contempt of me: Pictet & Hopkins argued with great force against me: Fleeming Jenkin covered me with first-rate ridicule; & his crticisms were true & most useful: but none of their writings have mortified me as yours have done …" [See 8154.]

Summary

Asks StGJM to confirm that he is the author of the article on Tylor and Lubbock ["Primitive man", Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 40–77] in which an attack was made on George Darwin.

Summary

Is writing confidentially not to justify the passage referred to [see 9759], which he much regrets, but to state facts. He never intended any personal hostility to [George] Darwin and seeks advice about how to make reparation.

Summary

A severe letter of rebuke to Mivart for his attack on G. H. Darwin.

Summary

A confidential letter explaining in detail the extent to which he regrets his attack upon [George] Darwin’s article.

Summary

StGJM’s article in the Quarterly Review [137 (1874): 40–77] contains wholly false and malicious accusations against CD’s son George. Since StGJM has refused to make any sort of retraction, CD will not hold any future communication with him.