[Enclosure 1]

‘evolution old and new.’⁸

I beg leave to lay before you the following facts:—

On February 22nd, 1879, my book, ‘Evolution Old and New,’ was announced. It was published May 3rd, 1879. It contained a comparison of the theory of evolution as propounded by Dr. Erasmus Darwin with that of his grandson, Mr. Charles Darwin, the preference being decidedly given to the earlier writer. It also contained other matter which I could not omit, but which I am afraid may have given some offence to Mr. Darwin and his friends.

In November, 1879, Mr. Charles Darwin’s ‘Life of Erasmus Darwin’ appeared.⁹ It is to the line which Mr. Darwin has taken in connexion with this volume that I wish to call attention.

Mr. Darwin states in his preface that he is giving to the public a translation of an article by Dr. Krause, which appeared “in the February number of a well-known German scientific journal, Kosmos,” then just entered on its second year. He adds in a note that the translator’s “scientific reputation, together with his knowledge of German, is a guarantee for its accuracy.”¹⁰ This is equivalent, I imagine, to guaranteeing the accuracy himself.

In a second note, upon the following page, he says that my work, ‘Evolution Old and New,’ “has appeared since the publication of Dr. Krause’s article.”¹¹ He thus distinctly precludes his readers from supposing that any passage they may meet with could have been written by the light of, or with reference to, my book.

On reading the English translation I found in it one point which appeared to have been taken from ‘Evolution Old and New,’ and another which clearly and indisputably was so; I also found more than one paragraph, but especially the last—and perhaps most prominent in the book, as making the impression it was most desired the reader should carry away with him—which it was hard to believe was not written at myself; but I found no acknowledgment of what seemed taken from ‘Evolution Old and New’ nor any express reference to it.

In the face of the English translation itself, it was incredible that the writer had written without my work before him; in the face of the preface it was no less incredible that Mr. Darwin should have distinctly told his readers that he was giving them one article, when he must have perfectly well known that he was giving them another and very different one.

I therefore sent for the February number of Kosmos and compared the original with what purported to be the translation. I found many passages of the German omitted, and many in the English which were wholly wanting in the German. Among these latter were the passages I had conceived to have been taken from me and the ones which were most adverse to me.

Dr. Krause’s article begins on p. 131 of Mr. Darwin’s book. There is new matter on pp. 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, while almost the whole of pp. 147–152 inclusive and all the last six pages are not to be found in the supposed original.

I then wrote to Mr. Darwin, putting the facts before him as they appeared to myself, and asking an explanation; I received answer that Dr. Krause’s article had been altered since publication, and that the altered MS. had been sent for translation. “This is so common a practice,” writes Mr. Darwin, with that “happy simplicity” of which the Pall Mall Gazette (Dec. 12th, 1879) declares him “to be a master,” “that it never occurred to me to state that the article had been modified; but now I much regret that I did not do so.” Mr. Darwin further says that, should there be a reprint of the English life of Dr. Darwin, he will state that the original as it appeared in Kosmos was modified by Dr. Krause. He does not, however, either deny or admit that the modification of the article was made by the light of, and with a view to, my book.¹²

It is doubtless a common pratice for writers to take an opportunity of revising their works, but it is not common when a covert condemnation of an opponent has been interpolated into a revised edition, the revision of which has been concealed, to declare with every circumstance of distinctness that the condemnation was written prior to the book which might appear to have called it forth, and thus lead readers to suppose that it must be an unbiassed opinion.

S. Butler.

P.S.— A reviewer in the Pall Mall Gazette (Dec. 12th, 1879) quotes the last sentence of the spurious matter, apparently believing it to be genuine.¹³ He writes:—“Altogether the facts established by Dr. Krause’s essay thoroughly justify its concluding words:— ‘Erasmus Darwin’s system was in itself a most significant first step in the path of knowledge which his grandson has opened up for us, but the wish to revive it at the present day, as has actually been seriously attempted, shows a weakness of thought and a mental anachronism which no one can envy’.” On this (which has no place in the original article, and is clearly an interpolation aimed covertly at myself) the reviewer muses forth a general gnome that “the confidence of writers who deal in semi-scientific paradoxes is commonly in inverse proportion to their grasp of the subject.” When sentences have been misdated, the less they contain about anachronisms the better, and reviewers who do not carefully verify Mr. Darwin’s statements should not be too confident that they have grasped their subject.

I have seen also a review of Mr. Darwin’s book in the Popular Science Review for this current month, and observe that it does “occur to” the writer to state (p. 69), in flat contradiction to the assertions made in the preface of the book he is reviewing, that only part of Dr. Krause’s original essay is being given by Mr. Darwin. It is plain that this reviewer had seen both Kosmos and Mr. Darwin’s book.¹⁴

The writer of the review of ‘Evolution Old and New’—which immediately follows the one referred to in the preceeding paragraph—quotes the passsage above given as quoted in the Pall Mall Gazette. I see it does “occur to” him, too—again in flat contradiction to Mr. Darwin’s preface—to add that “this anachronism has been committed by Mr. Samuel Butler, in a … little volume now before us, and it is doubtless to this, which appeared while his own work was in progress (italics mine), that Dr. Krause alludes in the above passage.”¹⁵

Considering that the editor of the Popular Science Review and the translator of Dr. Krause’s article for Mr. Darwin are one and the same person, it is likely that the Popular Science Review has surmised correctly that Dr. Krause was writing at ‘Evolution Old and New’: yet he seems to have found it very sufficiently useful to him.

[Enclosure 2]

Sir.

M^r Butler in his letter in your last number seems to think me guilty of intentional duplicity in not having stated in the preface to my notice of the life of Erasmus Darwin, that D^r Krause had considerably altered the article in Kosmos before he sent it to M^r Dallas for translation. In my private letter to M^r Butler I said that it was so common a practice for an author to alter an article before its re-publication, that it never occurred to me to state that this had been done in the present case.¹⁷ Afterwards a dim recollection crossed my mind that I had written something on the subject, & I looked at the first proof received from Mess^rs Clowes, & found in it the following passage, here copied verbatim

(To the Compositor, be so good as to insert inverted commas to the whole of this extract)¹⁸

“Dr. Krause has taken great pains, and has added largely to his essay as it appeared in ‘Kosmos;’ and my preliminary notice, having been written before I had seen the additions, unfortunately contains much repetition of what Dr. Krause has said. In fact the present volume contains two distinct biographies, of which I have no doubt that by Dr. Krause is much the best. I have left it almost wholly to him to treat of what Dr. Darwin has done in science, more especially in regard to evolution.”

This proof sheet was sent to D^r Krause, with a letter in which I said that on further reflection it seemed to me absurd to publish two accounts of the life of the same man in the same volume; & that as my Notice was drawn up chiefly from unpublished documents, it appeared to me best that my account alone of the life should appear in England, with his account of the scientific works of Erasmus Darwin; but that he could of course publish the extracts from Miss Seward &c in the German edition. D^r Krause, with the liberality & kindness which has characterized all his conduct towards me, agreed instantly to my suggestion; but added that he thought it better that the text of the German edition should correspond with the English one, & that he would add the extracts &c in a supplement or in foot-notes. He then expressly asked me to strike out the passage above quoted, which I did; & having done so, it did not occur to me to add, as I ought to have done, that the retained parts of D^r Krause’s article had been much modified.¹⁹ It seems to me that any one, on comparing the article in Kosmos with the translation, & on finding many passages at the beginning omitted, & many towards the end added, might have inferred that the author had enlarged & improved it, without suspecting a deep scheme of duplicity. Finally I may state, as I did in my letter to M^r Butler, that I obtained D^r Krause’s permission for a translation of his article to appear in England, & M^r Dallas agreed to translate it, before I heard of any announcement of M^r Butler’s last book—²⁰

A??

As M^r Butler evidently does not believe my deliberate assertion that the omission of any statement that D^r Krause had altered his article before sending it for translation, was unintentional or accidental, I think that I shall be justified in declining to answer any future attack which M^r Butler may make on me.

Sir | your obedient servant— | Charles Darwin

Down Beckenham | Jan 24^th. 1880.²¹

A (a sentence that [most] objected to)²²

He is mistaken in supposing that I was offended by this book, for I looked only at the part about the life of Erasmus Darwin; I did not even look at the part about evolution; for I had found in his former work that I could not make his views harmonise with what I knew.²³ I was indeed told that this part contained some bitter sarcasms against me; but this determined me all the more not to read it.

[Enclosure 3]

Sir,

In regard to the letter from M^r Butler which appeared in your columns last week under the above heading, I wish to state that the omission of any mention of the alterations made by D^r Krause in his article before it was re-published had no connection whatever with M^r Butler. I find in the first proofs received from Mess^rs Clowes, the words “D^r Krause has added largely to his essay as it appeared in Kosmos”.²⁵ These words were afterwards accidentally omitted, & when I wrote privately to M^r Butler I had forgotten that they had ever been written. (I could explain distinctly how the accident arose, but the explanation does not seem to me worth giving.) This omission, as I have already said, I much regret. It is a mere illusion on the part of M^r Butler to suppose that it could make any difference to me, whether or not the public knew that D^r Krause’s article had been added to or altered before being translated. The additions were made quite independently of any suggestion or wish on my part. (As M^r Butler evidently does not believe my deliberate assertion that the above omission was unintentional, I must decline any further discussion with him.)

Sir, | Your obedient servant | Charles Darwin

To the Editor of the Athenæum

Down, Beckenham, Kent. Feb. 1. 1880