Volume Ii Part 24 (2/2)
It is also very unsatisfactory, the impossibility of conjecturing where direct action of external circ.u.mstances begins and ends--as he candidly owns in discussing the production of woody tissue in the trunks of trees on the one hand, and on the other in spines and the sh.e.l.ls of nuts. I shall like to hear what you think of this number when we meet.
LETTER 569. TO A. GAUDRY. Down, November 17th, 1868.
On my return home after a short absence I found your note of Nov. 9th, and your magnificent work on the fossil animals of Attica. (569/1. The ”Geologie de l'Attique,” 2 volumes 4to, 1862-7, is the only work of Gaudry's of this date in Mr. Darwin's library.) I a.s.sure you that I feel very grateful for your generosity, and for the honour which you have thus conferred on me. I know well, from what I have already read of extracts, that I shall find your work a perfect mine of wealth. One long pa.s.sage which Sir C. Lyell quotes from you in the 10th and last edition of the ”Principles of Geology” is one of the most striking which I have ever read on the affiliation of species. (569/2. The quotation in Lyell's ”Principles,” Edition X., Volume II., page 484, is from M.
Gaudry's ”Animaux Fossiles de Pikermi,” 1866, page 34:--
”In how different a light does the question of the nature of species now present itself to us from that in which it appeared only twenty years ago, before we had studied the fossil remains of Greece and the allied forms of other countries. How clearly do these fossil relics point to the idea that species, genera, families, and orders now so distinct have had common ancestors. The more we advance and fill up the gaps, the more we feel persuaded that the remaining voids exist rather in our knowledge than in nature. A few blows of the pickaxe at the foot of the Pyrenees, of the Himalaya, of Mount Pentelicus in Greece, a few diggings in the sandpits of Eppelsheim, or in the Mauvaises Terres of Nebraska, have revealed to us the closest connecting links between forms which seemed before so widely separated. How much closer will these links be drawn when Palaeontology shall have escaped from its cradle!”)
LETTER 570. A. SEDGWICK TO CHARLES DARWIN.
(570/1. In May, 1870, Darwin ”went to the Bull Hotel, Cambridge, to see the boys, and for a little rest and enjoyment.” (570/2. See ”Life and Letters,” III., 125.) The following letter was received after his return to Down.)
Trinity College, Cambridge, May 30th, 1870.
My dear Darwin,
Your very kind letter surprised me. Not that I was surprised at the pleasant and very welcome feeling with which it was written. But I could not make out what I had done to deserve the praise of ”extraordinary kindness to yourself and family.” I would most willingly have done my best to promote the objects of your visit, but you gave me no opportunity of doing so. I was truly grieved to find that my joy at seeing you again was almost too robust for your state of nerves, and that my society, after a little while, became oppressive to you. But I do trust that your Cambridge visit has done you no const.i.tutional harm; nay, rather that it has done you some good. I only speak honest truth when I say that I was overflowing with joy when I saw you, and saw you in the midst of a dear family party, and solaced at every turn by the loving care of a dear wife and daughters. How different from my position--that of a very old man, living in cheerless solitude! May G.o.d help and cheer you all with the comfort of hopeful hearts--you and your wife, and your sons and daughters!
You were talking about my style of writing,--I send you my last specimen, and it will probably continue to be my last. It is the continuation of a former pamphlet of which I have not one spare copy.
I do not ask you to read it. It is addressed to the old people in my native Dale of Dent, on the outskirts of Westmorland. While standing at the door of the old vicarage, I can see down the valley the Lake mountains--Hill Bell at the head of Windermere, about twenty miles off.
On Thursday next (D.V.) I am to start for Dent, which I have not visited for full two years. Two years ago I could walk three or four miles with comfort. Now, alas! I can only hobble about on my stick.
I remain your true-hearted old friend A. Sedgwick.
LETTER 571. TO C. LYELL. Down, September 3rd [1874].
Many thanks for your very kind and interesting letter. I was glad to hear at Southampton from Miss Heathcote a good account of your health and strength.
With respect to the great subject to which you refer in your P.S., I always try to banish it from my mind as insoluble; but if I were circ.u.mstanced as you are, no doubt it would recur in the dead of the night with painful force. Many persons seem to make themselves quite easy about immortality (571/1. See ”Life and Letters,” I., page 312.) and the existence of a personal G.o.d, by intuition; and I suppose that I must differ from such persons, for I do not feel any innate conviction on any such points.
We returned home about ten days ago from Southampton, and I enjoyed my holiday, which did me much good. But already I am much fatigued by microscope and experimental work with insect-eating plants.
When at Southampton I was greatly interested by looking at the odd gravel deposits near at hand, and speculating about their formation. You once told me something about them, but I forget what; and I think that Prestwich has written on the superficial deposits on the south coasts, and I must find out his paper and read it. (571/2. Prof. Prestwich contributed several papers to the Geological Society on the Superficial Deposits of the South of England.)
From what I have seen of Mr. Judd's papers I have thought that he would rank amongst the few leading British geologists.
LETTER 572. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(572/1. The following letter was written before Mr. Darwin knew that Sir Charles Lyell was to be buried in Westminster Abbey, a memorial which thoroughly satisfied him. See ”Life and Letters,” III., 197.)
Down, February 23rd, 1875.
I have just heard from Miss Buckley of Lyell's death. I have long felt opposed to the present rage for testimonials; but when I think how Lyell revolutionised Geology, and aided in the progress of so many other branches of science, I wish that something could be done in his honour.
On the other hand it seems to me that a poor testimonial would be worse than none; and testimonials seem to succeed only when a man has been known and loved by many persons, as in the case of Falconer and Forbes.
Now, I doubt whether of late years any large number of scientific men did feel much attachment towards Lyell; but on this head I am very ill fitted to judge. I should like to hear some time what you think, and if anything is proposed I should particularly wish to join in it. We have both lost as good and as true a friend as ever lived.
LETTER 573. TO J.D. HOOKER.
<script>