Has enjoyed FWF's volume [Chapters on language]. Had found Max Müller's theory obscure and weak.
Believes FWF would come to agree with him on species if he studied general questions in natural history. To argue for immutability of species on the basis of geology resembles a wise savage in a nation with no books saying his language has never changed.
Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E.
As I have never studied the science of language it may perhaps be presumptuous, but I cannot resist the pleasure of telling you what interest & pleasure I have derived from hearing read aloud your volume.—
I formerly read Max Müller & thought his theory (if it deserves to be called so) both obscure & weak; & now after hearing what you say, I feel sure that this is the case & that your cause will ultimately triumph.
My indirect interest in your book has been increased from Mr Hensleigh Wedgwood, whom you often quote, being my brother in law.
No one could dissent from my views on the modification <o>f species with
more courtesy <t>han you do. But from the
<te>nor of your mind I feel an entire & comfortable conviction
(& which cannot possibly be disturbed) that if your studies led you to attend
much to general questions in Natural History, you w
Have you ever read Huxley's little book of Six Lectures I w
Considering what Geology teaches us, the argument fo<r> the supposed immutability of specific Types seems to me much the same as if, in a nation whic<h> had no old writings, some wise ol<d> savage was to say that his language had never changed; but my metaphor is too long to fill up.
Pray believe me dear Sir yours very sincerely obliged | Ch. Darwin
- f1 4929.f1The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from F. W. Farrar, 6 November 1865.
- f2 4929.f2Farrar had sent CD a copy of Chapters on language (Farrar 1865; see letter to F. W. Farrar, 11 October  and n. 2).
- f3 4929.f3Friedrich Max Müller had published two volumes on the science of language, based on his lectures at the Royal Institution of Great Britain (Max Müller 1861 and 1864). Max Müller argued that all human languages descended from a common set of `phonetic types' or `roots', which originated in the faculty of giving `articulate expression to the rational conceptions' of the mind (see Max Müller 1861, pp. 342, 369--72). CD read the first volume of Max Müller's lectures in 1862; he expressed dissatisfaction with Max Müller's account of the origin of language, and thought the work contained `covert sneers' at himself (see Correspondence vol. 10, letter to J. D. Hooker, 4 November , and letter to Asa Gray, 6 November  and n. 5). On Max Müller's theory of language, see Schrempp 1983, Knoll 1986, and Radick 2000. His debate with Farrar is discussed in Alter 1999, pp. 79--96. His broader project of comparative philology and its bearing on debates over human origins and racial theory are discussed in Stocking 1987.
- f4 4929.f4Farrar argued that human language originated in the imitation of natural sounds, such as animal noises, and instinctual interjections, such as `ah' (Farrar 1865, pp. 88--103, 109--18). Max Müller had dismissed such views, calling them the `bow-wow' and `pooh-pooh' theories of language (Max Müller 1861, pp. 344--56; but see also Max Müller 1864, pp. 88--92). In Descent 1: 56, CD cited Farrar 1865 and other works in opposition to Max Müller, concluding: `I cannot doubt that language owes its origin to the imitation and modification, aided by signs and gestures, of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, and man's own instinctive cries.'
- f5 4929.f5In his Dictionary of English etymology, Hensleigh Wedgwood defended the view that the original roots of language derived from the imitation of natural sounds (H. Wedgwood 1859--65, 1: iii--xviii). Farrar cited many examples from Wedgwood's Dictionary that supported the imitative theory of language against Max Müller's criticisms (see, for example, Farrar 1865, p. 132). For CD's favourable assessment of Wedgwood's Dictionary, see Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Charles Lyell, 10 January , and letter to J. M. Rodwell, 5 November . See also Correspondence vol. 6, letter from Hensleigh Wedgwood, [before 29 September 1857], and Correspondence vol. 8, letter from Hensleigh Wedgwood, [January? 1860]. In a letter to H. E. Darwin, [17 March 1865] (DAR 219.9: 25), Emma Darwin wrote: `This m
g. [CD] enjoyed a talk with Uncle H[ensleigh] upon Max Müller for one thing who H. says is all wrong & has partly converted Papa to that opinion.'
- f6 4929.f6Farrar's book contained a brief allusion to CD's theory of transmutation (Farrar 1865, p. 51), described as the possibility that:
myriads of centuries ago, there may have been a near genetic connection between the highest of the animals and the lowest of the human race … It is not yet proved that there was; we believe that there was not; but, nevertheless, the hypothesis is neither irreverent nor absurd.
- f7 4929.f7CD refers to the single-volume edition of Thomas Henry Huxley's `On our knowledge of the causes of the phenomena of organic nature', a course of lectures to working men delivered at the Museum of Practical Geology in 1862 (T. H. Huxley 1863b; see L. Huxley ed. 1900, 1: 206). CD's annotated copy of the separately published lectures (T. H. Huxley 1862) is in the Darwin Library--CUL (see Marginalia 1: 425). CD had repeatedly praised the lectures (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 11, letter to T. H. Huxley, 10 [January 1863]).