Dear Sir

I venture upon the liberty of writing to you about a portion of the little book Erewhon¹ which I have lately published and which I am afraid has been a good deal misunderstood. I refer to the chapter upon Machines, in which I have developed and worked out the obviously absurd theory that they are about to supplant the human race and be developed into a higher kind of life.

When I first got hold of the idea I developed it for mere fun, and because it amused me and I thought would amuse others, but without a particle of serious meaning; but I developed it and introduced into “Erewhon” with the intention of implying “see how easy it is to be plausible, and what absurd propositions can be defended by a little ingenuity and distortion & departure from strictly scientific methods” and I had Butler’s analogy in my head as the book at which it should be aimed, but prefered to conceal my aim for many reasons.² Firstly the book was already as heavily weighted with heterodoxy as it would bear, and I dare not give another half ounce lest it should break the camel’s back, secondly it would have interfered with the plausibility of the argument, and I looked to this plausibility as a valuable aid to the general acceptation of the book: thirdly it is more amusing without any sort of explanation, and I thought the drier part that had gone before wanted a little relieving; and also the more enigmatic a thing of this sort is the more people think for themselves about it, on the principle that advertisers ask “Where is Eliza?” and “Who is Griffiths?”³ I therefore thought it unnecessary to give any disclaimer of an intention of being disrespectful to the Origin of Species a book for which I can never be sufficiently grateful, though I am well aware how utterly incapable I am of forming any opinion on a scientific subject which is worth a moment’s consideration.

However, you have a position which nothing can shake and I knew very well that any appearance of ridicule would do your theories no harm whatsoever, and that they could afford a far more serious satire than anything in Erewhon— the only question was how far I could afford to be misrepresented as disbelieving in things which I believe most firmly. On thinking it over I determined to say nothing in the preface, but to wait for a second edition before explaining—that is if a second edition were called for.⁴ On the whole I think I did wisely, though I am sincerely sorry that some of the critics should have thought that I was laughing at your theory, a thing which I never meant to do, and should be shocked at having done—

I am Sir | your’s respectfully | S. Butler

P.S. Let me beg of you not trouble to answer this letter