To Daniel Sharpe 12 November 
Down Farnborough Kent
My dear Sir
I have been to London just lately & am compelled very soon to go again, & I really cannot screw up my courage to go up for Wednesday, though I shd like it extremely. Moreover I am not at all sure that I could go, as I have guests in the house, & I do not know on what day they depart.— I am really very sorry to miss your paper,1 as I feel a lively interest on the subject. I observed in the Athenæum that Forbes at the Brit. Assoc. has been observing on this subject,2 & slightly mis-represents my views in calling foliation identical with cleavage,3 for I believe I have always called it the same process or action carried to an extreme.
Have you considered Mr Sorby’s paper;4 I have only seen a notice of it? I wish you success, the day will come, when little if any of the metamorphic schists will be considered on the Huttonian & Lyellian view5 as mere metamorphosed layers of different ingredients, I feel profoundly convinced.—
Dear Sharpe | Yours very truly | C. Darwin
Regrets he cannot come to hear DS’s paper ["On the structure of Mont Blanc", Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 11 (1855): 11–27]. Has a lively interest in the subject.
Edward Forbes has misrepresented his view on foliation and cleavage [Athenæum 30 Sept 1854].
CD is convinced DS’s view will replace Huttonian and Lyellian view of metamorphic schists.
Recommends H. C. Sorby’s paper [probably "On the origin of slaty cleavage", Edinburgh New Philos. J. 55 (1853): 137–50].
- negative criticism of correspondent
- positive attitude/assessment
- theory (including philosophy)
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 1599,” accessed on 28 September 2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-1599