My dear Gray

Owing to absence from home at Water-cure & then having to move my sick girl to whence I am now writing,² I have only lately read the discussion in Proc.^s American Acad.³ And I now I cannot resist expressing my sincere admiration of your most clear powers of reasoning. As Hooker lately said in a note to me, you are more than anyone else the thorough master of the subject.⁴ I declare that you know my Book as well as I do myself; & bring to the question new lines of illustration & argument, in a manner which excites my astonishment & almost my envy! I admire these discussions, I think, almost more than your article in Silliman’s Journal.⁵ Every single word seems weighed carefully, & tells like a 32-pound shot. It makes me much wish (but I know that you have not time) that you could write more in detail; & give, for instance, the facts on the variability of the American wild fruits.—

The Athenæum has largest circulation & I have sent my copy to Editor with request that he would republish the first discussion: I much fear he will not, as he reviewed subject in so hostile a spirit & is not a liberal man.—⁶ I fear that I shall lose my copy.—   I have received p. 410 to 416—and pp. 425 to 434—, so that pages 417 to 424 are missing⁷    I wish you would tell me whether I could buy these sheets of Proceedings.—

New York Times had not arrived when I left home.—   Hooker has lent me (& was much puzzled about authorship!) the July Monthly Atlantic:⁸ it is uncommonly pleasantly written, & will tell well on public.—   I shall be curious (& will order) the August number, as soon as I know that it contains your Review of Reviews.—⁹ My conclusion is that you have made a mistake in being a Botanist, you ought to have been a Lawyer, & you would have rolled in wealth by perverting the truth, instead of studying the living truths of this world.—

Of Reviews I have to report one in Quarterly by the Bishop of Oxford (Wilberforce) aided by Owen:¹⁰ it is uncommonly clever, not worth anything scientifically, but quizzes me in splendid style till I chuckled with laughter at myself—   From all that I gather, the B. Assoc. at Oxford advanced subject greatly, owing to effort of Hooker, Huxley & Lubbock, not withstanding incessant attacks. Henslow & Daubeny are shaken.—¹¹ I hear from Hooker that he hears from Hochstetter that my views are making very considerable progress in Germany;¹² & that good workers are discussing the question. Bronn at end of his Translation has a chapter of Criticism; but it is such difficult German, that I have not yet read it.—¹³ Hopkins’ Review in Fraser is thought the best which has appeared against us;¹⁴ I believe that Hopkins is so much opposed because his course of study has never led him to reflect much on such subjects as Geograph. Distribution, Classification, Homologies &c &c; so that he does not feel it a relief to have some kind of explanation.—

I see most clearly that my Book would have been a dead failure, had it not been for all the generous labour bestowed on it (not for my sake, but for subject sake) by yourself, Hooker, Huxley & Carpenter; & to these names I hope soon Lyell’s may be added.—   But I know that the Quarterly will cause Lyell to shake in his shoes.¹⁵ Considering his age, his former views & position in Society, I think his conduct has been heroic on this subject.—

I am tired, so will write no more. Farewell my kind & good friend. | Yours most truly | C. Darwin