skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project

Search: contains ""

400 Bad Request

Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.


Apache/2.4.7 (Ubuntu) Server at cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk Port 443
Search:
in keywords
2 Items

List of correspondents

Summary

Below is a list of Darwin's correspondents with the number of letters for each one. Click on a name to see the letters Darwin exchanged with that correspondent.    "A child of God" (1) Abberley,…

Matches: 11 hits

  • … Below is a list of Darwin's correspondents with the number of letters for each one. …
  • … (1) Baumhauer, E. H. von (2) Baxter, E. B. …
  • … (1) Carneri, Bartholomäus von (5) Carpenter, W …
  • … C. G. (18) Eichwald, Eduard von (1) …
  • … Alfred (3) Estorff, Karl von (1) …
  • … Felice (1) Fischer, Johann von (2) …
  • … J. B. (1) Giesl, Oskar von (1) …
  • … Emma (1) Giźycki, Georg von (1) …
  • … J. D., Jr (1) Gloeden, [–] von (1) …
  • … Charles (1) Haast, Julius von (21) …
  • … Hoffmann, Hermann (6) Hofmann, A. W. von (3) …

Darwin in letters, 1860: Answering critics

Summary

On 7 January 1860, John Murray published the second edition of Darwin’s Origin of species, printing off another 3000 copies to satisfy the demands of an audience that surprised both the publisher and the author. It wasn't long, however, before ‘the…

Matches: 22 hits

  • critiques of his views. ‘One cannot expect fairness in a Reviewer’, Darwin commented to Hooker after
  • began to fly’. Hisdearly belovedtheory suffered a series of attacks, the most vicious of which
  • …  smashed’ ( letter to T. H. Huxley, 3 July [1860] ). (A chronological list of all the reviews
  • list. Adam Sedgwick, not surprisingly, attacked the book on a number of fronts. But it was his
  • Above all else Darwin prided himself on having developed a theory that explained several classes of
  • statement in his March review that natural selection was a hypothesis, not a theory, therefore also
  • … ‘It seems to me that an hypothesis is  developed  into a theory solely by explaining an ample lot
  • … ). To those who objected that his theory could not be a  vera causa,  he similarly stated thatit
  • readily admitted that his failure to discuss this point was amost serious omissionin his book
  • about global change. Darwin also knew that Lyell was a powerful potential ally. Indeed, the letters
  • selection. Even Huxley, an avowed supporter, proved a formidable critic. Huxley extolled the
  • whereas sterility had long been recognised by naturalists as a criterion of specific difference. He
  • lecture irritating and ultimately considered it more a failure than a success ( see letter to J. D. …
  • because more accustomed to reasoning.’ ( letter to A. R. Wallace, 18 May 1860 ). Darwin
  • by his theoryand once staggered, he believed, it was only a matter of time before a person would
  • supported his theory. Even Carpenter, whom he included as a proponent in this group, offered only
  • selection of chance variations being able to produce such a marvellously perfected structure as the
  • for highly adapted organs had sometimes given even him acold shudder’. Yet it was more trifling
  • discomfort. As he readily admitted to Gray: ‘The sight of a feather in a peacocks tail, whenever I
  • class. But it was precisely the physiologists, steeped in a heavily developmental conception of
  • comfort from news that the doyen of embryology, Karl Ernst von Baer, had expressed support for
  • Edward Cresy; and Cresys acquaintances August Wilhelm von Hofmann, the renowned German organic
letter