To G. H. Darwin 1 August [1874]1
Bassett S—ton
August 1st. Sat Aug 1
My dear George
I do not think that your article will do, & I cannot possibly ask Murray to insert any thing of the kind. You forget that Murray thinks it a great honour to insert any thing in the Q, & he might truly say that by giving an abstract of yr paper, he aided the circulation of what he considers pernicious doctrines.2 What is equally important, the length of your article renders the denial of the one point of importance weak & confused.
Your communication ought to be in the form of a letter to the Editor, & shd not exceed 1 or 1 printed pages in length. Such a letter wd be far more likely to catch the attention of readers than a longer article, & wd answer the sole purpose which you ought to have in view. I return your article by this post. I telegraphed for the Contemp. yesterday but unfort. it has not come—3
There is another advantage in brevity as it will make it more difficult for the reviewer to repeat his charge by picking out & mutilating your sentences. I will give the sort of letter which I think you should write, & if you can make it more emphatic & clearer it will be all the better. I think it very important not even to allude to the insanity question or oppressive laws.—4
Yours affect | C. Darwin
P.S. Since my letter was written I have got the Contemp. & have read your essay with attention. It is very interesting; I had forgotten how interesting; & I cannot see a shadow of foundation for the false, scurrilous accusation of lying scoundrel.— | C. D.
[Enclosure]
Sir,
In the July number of the Quarterly Review, reference is made (p. 70) to an essay by me on “Beneficial Restrictions to Liberty of Marriage”, which appeared in the Contemp. Rev. for Aug. 1873. The reviewer, after making some remarks on this subject proceeds “Elsewhere he (Mr G. Darwin) speaks in an approving strain … complex civilization”5 The charge of my encouraging vice in order to check population & the odious insinuation which follows are of so serious a nature, that I claim as an act of justice the insertion in the Quarterly Rev. of my emphatic denial that I have ever written one word which can honestly be thus interpreted. The reviewer justifies his charge by referring to p. 424–5 of my article, where I have given an historical sketch of the disgusting marriage customs of the early German communistic bodies & of certain savages, but I have never thought or hinted that such practices were in any way excuseable. The whole charge is absolutely false & groundless.6
Sir | your obedient servant
To the Editor of the Quarterly Review
Footnotes
Bibliography
Dawson, Gowan. 2007. Darwin, literature and Victorian respectability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gruber, Jacob W. 1960. A conscience in conflict. The life of St. George Jackson Mivart. New York: Columbia University Press for Temple University Publications.
[Mivart, St George Jackson.] 1874b. Primitive man: Tylor and Lubbock. [Essay review of the works of John Lubbock and Edward Burnett Tylor.] Quarterly Review 137 (1874): 40–77.
Wellesley index: The Wellesley index to Victorian periodicals 1824–1900. Edited by Walter E. Houghton et al. 5 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1966–89.
Summary
GHD’s article will not do. It is too long and the denial seems weak and confused; also, it ought to be in the form of a letter to the editor. Encloses draft of the sort of letter of denial he thinks GHD should write.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-9580
- From
- Charles Robert Darwin
- To
- George Howard Darwin
- Sent from
- Bassett
- Source of text
- DAR 210.1: 27, 29, 32
- Physical description
- LS(A) 3pp, encl 2pp & Draft 3pp
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 9580,” accessed on 4 November 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-9580.xml
Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 22