Darwin Correspondence Project

Down, Bromley, Kent

Feb: 23.

My dear Sir

When your brother's work ``Für Darwin'' appeared, I was anxious that it should be published in England; but I was then much out of health and knew no one fit to translate it. I have now found a very capable man, Mr. Dallas, who translated von Siebold and many papers for Annals & Mag. of Nat. History. Do you think your brother would like to see it translated? it could not now injure sale in Germany. It could only be published on what is called ``on commission'',—that is, I should have to pay all expenses, translation &c, and the publisher would charge percentage on sale. I think I could get our great publisher Mr. Murray to undertake its publication on commission, and his name would be a great advantage. But I should not be willing myself to undertake the expense, except on following terms, viz, to have the use or loan of the woodcuts for nothing or for a very small sum, and then I would agree to pay over the whole of the profits (after all expenses have been deducted) to your brother or his publisher. Of course it is a mere chance whether there will be profits: purely scientific works do not sell well in England; but on the other hand there is much interest at present on the modification of species.—

I do not know on what terms Engelmann of Leipzig published your brother's book; but if you feel nearly sure that your brother would approve of a Translation, would you have the kindness to write and negotiate with Engelmann, and let me soon hear the result. If we can come to terms, I would set Mr. Dallas (who is a busy man and cannot give up all his time) to work, and I would then write to your brother for any corrections or moderate additions, and not begin printing till we hear from him. How soon would answer come?

I hope that you will be so kind as to oblige me on this head; the publication of your brother's book would I am sure do good for our cause in England. Many thanks for Bot. Zeitung; but the copy unfortunately was imperfect, and pages 49, 50, 51 and 52 were missing.— Is it a review of the article which you formerly sent me?