skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project

The Lyell–Lubbock dispute

Lyell Lubbock composite.jpg

[Right] Charles Lyell, photograph by Ernest Edwards, 1863, From L. Reeve ed. 1863-6 CUL Ii.4.35

In May 1865 a dispute arose between John Lubbock and Charles Lyell when Lubbock, in his book Prehistoric times, accused Lyell of plagiarism. The dispute caused great dismay among many of their mutual scientific friends, some of whom took immediate action to mediate a solution. Charles Darwin had close ties with both men and both sought his advice, but Darwin’s correspondence during this period reveals his reluctance to become directly involved in the dispute.

 In the concluding paragraphs of Origin, Darwin had predicted that a ‘revolution in natural history’ would result when his views on the Origin  of species were ‘generally admitted’ (Origin, p. 484). He went on to suggest that new areas of research would emerge, and claimed simply, ‘Light will be thrown on the origin  of man and his history’ (Origin, p. 488). During the first half of the nineteenth century, the amount of empirical evidence about early humans was increasing, but no unifying hypothesis about human origins had found acceptance at the time Origin was published. In 1836, Jacques Boucher de Perthes had found flint implements in the gravel-beds of the Somme Valley and subsequently had argued strongly that the human race was older than had hitherto been supposed, but his views were generally derided.1

 In 1859, Lyell visited several sites in France where flints that appeared to have been worked had been found, and at the 1859 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he announced his belief that these were indeed implements of early humans (C. Lyell 1859). In September 1860 he visited sites in both France and Germany (K. M. Lyell ed. 1881, 2: 336). In April 1860, Lubbock travelled with Joseph Prestwich, Douglas Strutt Galton, and George Busk to France, to visit the Somme Valley. They met Boucher de Perthes and examined flint implements he had discovered that were contemporaneous with the remains of extinct species such as the mammoth (Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Charles Lyell, 4 May [1860] and n. 3; Hutchinson 1914, 1: 51). This was the first of many visits Lubbock would make to sites in various European locations in search of evidence regarding the age of the human species. The visits by both Lyell and Lubbock reflected the growing interest, following the publication of Origin, in discovering evidence to establish the age of the human race.

 In 1861, Lubbock joined Thomas Henry Huxley, Busk, and several other supporters of Darwin in editing the Natural History Review, and wrote ‘The kjökkenmöddings: recent geologico-arch{aeological researches in Denmark’ (Lubbock 1861) for the October 1861 issue. The article reported on his recent visit, with Busk, to study the kjökkenmöddings (kitchen-middens) of ancient Danish settlements. Lubbock reviewed the literature on the topic and noted that Charles Adolphe Morlot had summarised, in French, earlier reports written in Danish (Morlot 1859, Forchhammer et al. 1851–5); Lubbock cited Morlot as the source of many of the ‘details’ for his article (Lubbock 1861, p. 494). Meanwhile, Lubbock continued his work on ancient settlements and produced three more articles for the Natural History Review based on visits to Switzerland, France, and Scotland (Lubbock 1862a, 1862b, and 1863a). In the July 1864 issue of Natural History Review, Lubbock produced a final article on ‘Cave-men’ (Lubbock 1864) that summarised recent evidence for the existence of humans coeval with the quaternary mammals. These five articles later formed the basis of Lubbock’s book, Prehistoric times (Lubbock 1865).

 By 1860, Lyell had begun work on a sixth edition of Elements of geology (C. Lyell 1865). At the same time, he was working on a new book, to be named Antiquity of man, which would present all the recent material available pertaining to the antiquity of humans. In 1865, he wrote that the section on kitchen-middens that appeared in this new book had been completed and set in type for Elements of geology in 1860 and then re-set in 1861 for Antiquity of man (see below, ‘Textual changes made to C. Lyell 1863c’). On 6 February 1863, Antiquity of man (C. Lyell 1863a) was published. The second chapter dealt with Danish kjökkenmöddings and began with a note citing the work of Morlot as the source for information on the topic. Lyell also added the following note on page 11:

*Mr. John Lubbock published, after these sheets were written, an able paper on the Danish ‘shell-mounds’ in the October Number of the Natural History Review, 1861, p. 489, in which he has described the results of a recent visit to Denmark, made by him in company with Messrs. Busk, Prestwich, and Galton.

  In February 1863, Lubbock received a letter from Lyell, evidently in response to an earlier letter from Lubbock, discussing various aspects of Lyell’s book. Lyell requested that Lubbock give him ‘the benefit of errata’ that he may have seen, and then mentioned:2

have struck out Galton & Prestwich at p. 11 who will be surprisd [sic] to learn that they were in Denmark.

Lyell had been mistaken when he wrote in the first note that Galton and Prestwich accompanied Lubbock and Busk during the trip to Denmark to study the kjökkenmöddings. Lubbock had apparently not made any other comment on the note and did not pursue the matter further at this time. His correspondence with Lyell on scientific topics continued to be very cordial; for example, he provided Lyell with information about the level of the Nile when Lyell was preparing his presidential address for the British Association meeting at Bath in 1864 (C. Lyell 1864).3

 By November 1863 a third edition of Antiquity of man had already appeared, an indication of its popularity, which was no doubt partly inspired by the controversies associated with it.4 One area of controversy centred around claims by Hugh Falconer that Lyell had failed to credit him and Joseph Prestwich properly for their work in the Brixham cave explorations of 1858 and 1859.5 Another controversy arose when Richard Owen, writing in the Athenæum, accused Lyell of misrepresenting his position in the debate over the comparative anatomy of human and ape brains.6 Many of Lyell’s supporters were privately critical of several aspects of the book. Throughout the first half of 1863, Darwin discussed the book in correspondence with Joseph Dalton Hooker, Asa Gray, and Huxley but he never spoke out publicly about any controversial aspect.

 Darwin’s chief complaint about the book was more personal. He confided to Hooker that he was ‘deeply disappointed’ that Lyell had avoided taking a clear position on the transmutation of species.7 Later, he wrote to Lyell himself, expressing considerable dissatisfaction that Lyell had not ‘given judgment & spoken fairly out’ what he thought about ‘the derivation of Species’.8 Darwin continued to feel aggrieved about Lyell’s failure to support him. In April 1863, in a letter to the Athenæum, he discussed a passage in Lyell’s book which touched on the theory of transmutation; he also wrote to Lyell telling him about the letter to the Athenæum.9

 In the same letter, Darwin touched on an area of public controversy when he expressed support for Lyell’s recent response to Falconer’s accusation, which had just appeared in the Athenæum. Darwin had not advised Falconer personally, but had tried, indirectly, to influence him. He told Hooker:10

Do see Falconer & see whether you can at all influence him, by saying what ill appearance Reclamations always have, & that the future historians of Science alone ought to settle such points.— It is wretched to see men fighting so for a little fame.—

 During this initial period of controversy, Lubbock also urged Falconer to tone down his attack on Lyell and agreed, on Hooker’s advice, to soften a passage in the manuscript of his own review of Antiquity of man in which he had Origin ally argued that Lyell had done ‘an injustice’ to Falconer and Prestwich.11 In the same review Lubbock expressed publicly what Darwin had said privately; that is, that Lyell should have been more explicitly supportive of the theory of descent with modification, given that ‘the whole tenor of his argument’ supported Darwin’s theory ([Lubbock] 1863b, p. 213).

 In May 1864, Lubbock received a letter from Falconer, who reiterated his version of the events leading to his own accusations against Lyell. Falconer accused Lyell of making use of information received ‘in conversation in friendly & intimate intercourse’ with him, and referring to it ‘in language such as men use when they speak of their own Origin al researches’. He then added:12

Very many other parts of the book were submitted to me when passing through the press for correction but all the parts which had any reference to myself were studiously withheld from a fine sense of delicacy on the part of the author and so with Prestwich also

Lubbock himself still did not pursue any grievance against Lyell until the spring of 1865.13

 In the course of preparing his own book, Prehistoric times (Lubbock 1865), for publication, however, Lubbock sought to clarify the relationship between his previous work on human origins and Lyell’s Antiquity of man. In particular, he took exception to the wording of the note on p. 11 of C. Lyell 1863c, which implied that Lubbock 1861 had been written after the chapter on shell-mounds in Lyell’s book. Lubbock would later argue that the close similarity of certain passages in C. Lyell 1863c and Lubbock 1861 (and consequently in Lubbock 1865), combined with the wording of Lyell’s note, could lead some readers to the conclusion that Lubbock had copied passages from Lyell without acknowledgment. Sometime between the end of February and the beginning of March 1865, Lubbock wrote the note which would later appear at the end of the preface of Prehistoric times (Lubbock 1865, p. x).14

Note – In his celebrated work on the ‘Antiquity of man,’ Sir Charles Lyell has made much use of my earlier articles in the ‘Natural History Review,’ frequently, indeed, extracting whole sentences verbatim, or nearly so. But as he has in these cases omitted to mention the source from which his quotations were derived, my readers might naturally think that I had taken very unjustifiable liberties with the work of the eminent geologist. A reference to the respective dates will, however, protect me from any such inference. The statement made by Sir Charles Lyell, in a note to page 11 of his work, that my article on the Danish Shell-mounds was published after his sheets were written, is an inadvertence, regretted, I have reason to believe, as much by its author as it is by me.

Evidently, he then showed the note to Huxley and asked for his opinion on the matter. Huxley wrote, ‘I have read over & weighed carefully what you have written and I think it is all perfectly justifiable & proper’, but went on to advise caution, suggesting that Lubbock inform Lyell of his complaint and seek an explanation from him, or at least show him the note before it appeared in print15 Lubbock wrote to Lyell a few days later, explaining his position and citing passages in Lubbock 1861 and C. Lyell 1863c that were almost identical. He did not, as Huxley had suggested, send Lyell the text of the proposed note, but concluded16

If I allow this to pass unnoticed, I lay myself open to the misapprehension of having transcribed verbatim, & without acknowledgment from your work. I should be glad if you would authorise me to say that the reverse of this, through an inadvertence, I suppose, on your part, has occurred.

Lyell’s answer to Lubbock has not been found, but in rough notes for a response he wrote:17

You can say that the early chapters [of Antiquity] were written many months & for some time in print before I availed myself of the information obtained from your paper to make a few additions & corrections but that I was unable to recast the first chapters which I must have done in order to do justice to all the new information which you had laid before the public

Lubbock evidently was unsatisfied with this response and proceeded with his plan to insert the note at the end of the preface. There is no evidence to suggest that Lubbock warned Lyell that the note would, in fact, appear.

 When Lyell received a copy of Lubbock’s book, published in mid-May 1865, he immediately wrote to express his dissatisfaction with the note Lubbock had inserted at the end of the preface and went on to say that he intended to make a copy of his letter to show to friends.18 In addition to the perceived accusation of plagiarism against him by Lubbock, Lyell had also recently received a similar accusation from Andrew Crombie Ramsay in a note to an article published in the April 1865 issue of the Philosophical Magazine.19

Lubbock responded, expressing surprise at Lyell’s reaction, reiterating his own position, and adding that he felt that several of their mutual friends supported his position.20 Lyell wrote back quickly suggesting that had the friends seen Lyell’s initial explanation of the facts their reaction would have been different.21 As he had promised, Lyell sent copies of all three letters to a number of friends, including Darwin.22

Just before he received these letters from Lyell, Darwin had discussed the matter in person with Lubbock, and Emma Darwin wrote to Henrietta Emma Darwin, ‘whereas after talking to John, he thought him not wrong, after seeing all the letters, he thinks he was quite wrong not to allude to Sir C’s explanation of the matter’.23 Hooker, who had also been sent copies of the letters, wrote to Darwin to ask what he thought of the affair (letter from J. D. Hooker, [2 June 1865]). Hooker, for his part, could see little evidence of plagiarism by Lyell, thought Lubbock had ‘taken up the matter in a very evil spirit’, and described Lubbock’s note as ‘rude & insulting’ and, in part, hardly intelligible. Darwin responded that, while he thought Lubbock should have given Lyell’s explanation in print, he disagreed with Hooker’s assessment of Lubbock’s note, saying it was not insulting and ‘only too intelligible’. Moreover, he reiterated his admiration for Lubbock’s book (letter to J. D. Hooker, [4 June 1865]). A week later he sent Lubbock a letter, praising both the book and Lubbock himself in glowing terms, while avoiding any mention of the note in the preface (letter to John Lubbock, 11 June [1865]). No correspondence with Lyell on the topic of the dispute has been found, but Lyell sent Darwin the corrected proofs of the revisions he made to his preface and note (see below, ‘Textual changes made to C. Lyell 1863c’). By this time, Darwin clearly wished to avoid direct involvement in the dispute. When Hooker pressed him for an opinion (letter from J. D. Hooker, 13 July 1865), Darwin wrote back (letter to J. D. Hooker, [29 July 1865]):

Lyells corrected pages came when I was extra miserable; I read them & threw them away & now to my surprise find that I have no clear recollection about them,—only a feeling that I was disgusted with everything in world—

  Another indication of Darwin’s wish to avoid involvement is the fact that, although he corresponded with Huxley in June and July and had seen Huxley’s letter to Hooker about the affair,24 he does not seem to have mentioned the dispute in his letters to Huxley.

 Lyell and Lubbock had no direct communication after the end of May 1865, each appealing to friends to resolve the dispute. Lubbock continued to seek advice from Huxley, Hooker, and other X-club friends25 and, as mentioned above, discussed the matter in person with Darwin. Lyell wrote to Darwin, Hooker, and Huxley and also showed the correspondence to Busk.26 In the end, it was Huxley who advised both parties on a course of action to resolve the dispute. He encouraged Lyell to cancel the offending note and make some acknowledgment of Lubbock in his preface27 Hooker also encouraged Lyell to follow Huxley’s advice, and told Huxley, ‘Lyell has nothing to do but make a clean breast of it— then, & not till then, can one deal with Lubbock’.28 Lyell quickly agreed to Huxley’s proposal, although he decided to change, rather than cancel the note, and within a few days told Huxley that he had sent the printer his manuscript of the addition to the preface. Huxley received proofs of the amended preface the next day (see below, ‘Textual changes made to C. Lyell 1863c’, for the revisions Lyell made to the note and the preface).29

 Lubbock reluctantly agreed to delete his own note. In his last letter to Huxley dealing with the affair, he revealed that while he was satisfied with Lyell’s new note, ‘as far as it goes’, he still intended to keep a note in his own book, concluding, ‘I must of course still say something.’30 However, two weeks later, in his last letter to Hooker on the matter, Lubbock’s tone was resigned. He pleaded with Hooker to try to understand his point of view but concluded:31

I hope I have now heard the end of it. It is a hateful business, & sometimes I almost wish that I had run the risk of misinterpretation.

Thus, in print-runs after the end of June 1865, Lubbock had cancelled his note at the end of the preface to Lubbock 1865 and Lyell had re-written a portion of the preface of C. Lyell 1863c and reworded the note on p. 11.

 Unlike the earlier controversies of 1863 where the disputants had quarrelled openly on the pages of the Athenæum, this controversy was debated and settled privately among a small group of advisors who were friends of both interested parties. Only one known review of Lubbock 1865 draws attention to Lubbock’s note; this was in the October 1865 issue of the Anthropological Review. The unnamed reviewer quoted the note verbatim and went on to say that, in effect, it accused Lyell of taking ‘unjustifiable liberties’ with Lubbock’s work. The reviewer argued that since the disputed material was not Origin al work (Lubbock had based much of his 1861 article on earlier Danish studies) it therefore did not ‘justify so severe an attack on Sir Charles Lyell’.32

 Darwin’s analysis of the situation was succinct. In his letter to Hooker of [4 June 1865] he warned that no one could do much to heal the breach, concluding: ‘Time alone could do it if it ever can be done.’ In the end, the dispute was resolved but the breach between the two men seems to have persisted. There was never a return to the friendly correspondence that had previously existed; in fact, no further correspondence between Lubbock and Lyell has been found.

Textual changes made to C. Lyell 1863c

 Lyell revised both the preface and the note on page 11 of the third edition of Antiquity of man (C. Lyell 1863c; see letter from J. D. Hooker, [15 June 1865] and n. 13). The third edition had Origin ally appeared in November 1863. In spite of Lyell’s 1865 revisions, the title page of copies appearing after August 1865 was never altered and there is no indication that the print-run occurred in 1865 or that any changes had been made. Very few copies of this revised version of C. Lyell 1863c were ever produced.33 The Origin al and revised versions of the end of the preface and of the note on page 11 are included below.

 Preface, C. Lyell 1863c, pp. vii–viii (Original version of the last section, printed in November 1863)

In conclusion, I wish it to be understood that the present work makes no pretensions to give a complete analysis of all even the most important memoirs lately published on the coexistence of man with many species of extinct animals. I have thought it best, for the sake of brevity, and sufficient for the object of my work, to treat of those instances which I had been able to verify by personal examination of the localities referred to; or if in some cases I have departed from this rule, it was only where my intimacy with the original observers, and my opportunities of freely communicating with them, and of seeing their collections of fossils and works of art, made me feel competent to test the value of the evidence appealed to.

 53 Harley Street: November 1863

 Preface, C. Lyell 1863c, pp. vii–ix (revised version of last section, printed in August 1865, but dated 1863 on the title page)

In conclusion, I will take the opportunity of stating that the second chapter of this work, treating of the Danish peat-mosses and kitchen-middens, as well as the Swiss lake-dwellings, was originally written in 1860 for the sixth edition of the ‘Elements of geology34 [C. Lyell 1865], and the printed proofs were transferred early in the autumn of the next year to be set up in another form for the present work, which I had then determined to get out before the ‘Elements.’ In the shape which this chapter then assumed it remained in type for two years, being unchanged in substance and in the sequence of the arguments, and receiving no more additions than was consistent with the paging remaining undisturbed.

I mention this fact as an apology for not having availed myself more largely of several valuable contributions to our knowledge both of Danish and Swiss antiquities of the stone and bronze periods, which were published in the interval between the autumn of 1861 and February 1863. In this long interval my thoughts had been entirely absorbed in the composition and printing of the chapters on the glacial phenomena, and those relating to theories of the Origin  of species. My account of the Danish peat-mosses and shell-mounds had been derived chiefly from the admirable digest given by my friend M. Morlot of the labours of the Danish and Swiss archæologists and naturalists, which he had kindly sent me in English in MS. before its appearance in print; first in French, dated Berne, Sept. 1859, in the ‘Mémoires de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles, Tome VI.;’ and afterwards in English, in a translation for the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1861.35

The distinguished zoologist M. Claparède had also conversed with me in 1859 on the researches of the best Danish writers, especially Steenstrup and Forchhammer, whom he had lately seen, and of whose papers, with others written in Swedish, he gave me an abstract for my use, in a letter dated December 1859. He referred me chiefly to ‘Oversigt over det Konglike Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlingen.’ It was impossible for me, with the aid of such able investigators, to overlook any of the most striking discoveries and conclusions which had been made before 1860; but I gladly took advantage of the later numbers of Keller’s ‘Pfahlbauten,’ and of Mr. Lubbock’s ‘Memoir on the Danish Kjökkenmöddings,’ printed in the October number of the ‘Natural History Review’ for 1861, to improve the wording, and occasionally the subject-matter, of certain passages for which M. Morlot had already supplied the principal data. I had no space, without disturbing my type, for entering on a single new field of enquiry, or any new deductions  furnished by Messrs. Keller, Lubbock, or other writers. Had I attempted to do justice to them, or to any authors of later date than the summer of 1860, I must have expanded the plan of my whole book, and seriously delayed the publication of the first edition, as well as of the subsequent issues.”

Note on page 11, C. Lyell 1863c (original version)

*Mr. John Lubbock published, after these sheets were written, an able paper on the Danish ‘shell-mounds’ in the October Number of the Natural History Review, 1861, p. 489, in which he has described the results of a recent visit to Denmark, made by him in company with Mr. Busk.

Note on page 11, C. Lyell 1863c (revised version)

*Mr. John Lubbock published, in the October Number of the Natural History Review, 1861, p. 489, an able paper on the Danish ‘shell-mounds,’ in which he has described the results of a recent visit to Denmark, made by him in company with Mr. Busk.— See above, Preface, p. vii.

 

Notes:

1. Oldroyd 1980, p. 299. For more on Victorian debates over human antiquity, see Grayson 1983, Stocking 1987, and Van Riper 1993.

2. Letter from Charles Lyell to John Lubbock, 20 February 1863 (British Library, Add. MSS 49640).

3. Letters from Charles Lyell to John Lubbock, 22 February 1864 and 24 February 1864 (British Library, Add. MSS 49640).

4. For an overview of CD’s correspondence relating to the appearance of C. Lyell 1863a, see Darwin's Life in Letters, 1863, (introduction to Correspondence vol. 11, pp. xv–xvii). For a comparison of the first three editions of Antiquity of man, see Grayson 1985.

5. For two interpretations of Hugh Falconer’s attack on Charles Lyell, see Bynum 1984 and L. G. Wilson 1996.

6. Owen’s complaints about C. Lyell 1863a are discussed in Bynum 1984, pp. 154–9.

7. See Correspondence vol. 11, letter to J. D. Hooker, 24[–5] February [1863]. On Lyell’s unwillingness to commit himself to CD’s theory of transmutation, see Bartholomew 1973.

8. See Correspondence vol. 11, letter to Charles Lyell, 6 March [1863] and n. 7.

9. See Correspondence vol. 11, letter to Athenæum, 18 April [1863], and letter to Charles Lyell, 18 April [1863].

10. Correspondence vol. 11, letter to J. D. Hooker, 17 March [1863].

11. See Correspondence vol. 11, letter from J. D. Hooker, [24 March 1863] and n. 9. In his published review, Lubbock wrote that though Lyell had failed to give ‘due prominence’ to Falconer and Prestwich, his omission was ‘unintentional’ ([Lubbock] 1863b, p. 214).

12. Letter from Hugh Falconer to John Lubbock, 24 May [1864], in (British Library, Add. MSS 49640). Another portion of this letter is quoted in L. G. Wilson 1996.

13. For two interpretations of the dispute that arose between Lyell and Lubbock, see Bynum 1984 and L. G. Wilson 2002.

14. As no manuscript copy of the note still exists, the published version has been reproduced. It is likely that the published version of the note had been toned down. Huxley told Hooker: ‘It was as much as I could do to get him [Lubbock] to write to Lyell for an explanation before coming out with a preface to which what you have seen is milk & water’ (see enclosure to letter from J. D. Hooker, [15 June 1865]). Later, Lubbock claimed that he had relied on an unnamed friend to compose the note which appeared at the end of the preface to Lubbock 1865. He told Hooker, ‘I did not trust myself to write the note. It was written for me by a mutual friend of ours’ (letter from John Lubbock to J. D. Hooker, 23 June 1865, in Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Letters to J. D. Hooker, vol. 14, doc. 183–4).

15. Letter from T. H. Huxley, 7 March 1865, in BL MSS ADD 49641.

16. Letter from John Lubbock to Charles Lyell, 13 March 1865 (University of Edinburgh, Lyell 1, Gen. 113: 3644–5).

17. Rough notes for letter from Charles Lyell to John Lubbock, undated, in University of Edinburgh Lyell 1 Gen. 113: 3649.

18. For the announcement of the publication of Lubbock 1865, see Publishers’ Circular, 1 June 1865. For Lyell’s response to Lubbock’s note, see the first enclosure (letter from Charles Lyell to John Lubbock, 25 May 1865) to the letter from Charles Lyell to J. D. Hooker, [31 May 1865].

19. See letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 May 1865 and n. 10.

20. See the second enclosure (letter from John Lubbock to Charles Lyell, 29 May 1865) to the letter from Charles Lyell to J. D. Hooker, [31 May 1865].

21. See the third enclosure (letter from Charles Lyell to John Lubbock, 30 May 1865) to the letter from Charles Lyell to J. D. Hooker, [31 May 1865].

22. See letter from Charles Lyell to J. D. Hooker, [31 May 1865] and n. 1.

23. Letter from Emma Darwin to Henrietta Emma Darwin, [1 June 1865] (DAR 219.9: 28).

24. See the enclosure to the letter from J. D. Hooker, [15 June 1865].

25. Lubbock wrote to Huxley, ‘I should be quite satisfied with anything you & Tyndall & Busk settle’ (letter from John Lubbock to T. H. Huxley, 7 June 1865, Imperial College, Huxley papers 6: 110). For more on the X-club, see Barton 1998.

26. Lyell mentioned he had shown the correspondence to Busk in a letter to Huxley, 5 June 1865 (Imperial College, Huxley papers 6: 104).

27. Rough draft of a letter from T. H. Huxley to Charles Lyell, [3 June 1865] (Imperial College, Huxley papers 6: 102).

28. Letter from J. D. Hooker to T. H. Huxley, 6 June 1865 (Imperial College, Huxley papers 3: 109).

29. Letters from Charles Lyell to T. H. Huxley, 7 June 1865, and 8 June 1865 (Imperial College, Huxley papers 6: 108, 111).

30. Letter from John Lubbock to T. H. Huxley, 9 June 1865 (Imperial College, Huxley papers 6: 110).

31. Letter from John Lubbock to J. D. Hooker, 23 June 1865 (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Letters to J. D. Hooker, vol. 14, doc. 183–4).

32. See Anthropological Review 3 (1865): 340.

33. Huxley wrote to Lyell to tell him that he had arranged for proofs of the revised preface and note to go to the printer. The instructions for the printer read: ‘Print 100 copies’ (rough draft of letter from T. H. Huxley to Charles Lyell, 11 June 1865, Imperial College, Huxley papers 6: 116).

34. C. Lyell 1865.

35. See letter from Charles Lyell to J. D. Hooker, [31 May 1865] and n. 8. last 

Terms: 

About this article

Based on Appendix V to The correspondence of Charles Darwin vol. 13.