Dear Darwin

I am much obliged— I have been going over the R.S. F.M. list with Thomson,¹ & find to my amazement, that Mohl is not on it, as to whose preeminence there can be no question²—also old Fries, who 50 years ago systematized the Fungi, which was I suppose as difficult a piece of work as the Barnacles.³

Thomson is going into the whole matter very thoroughly, with Oliver, Bentham, Bennett & Berkeley,⁴ & will no doubt come to a sound conclusion—

There is no dispute about ADC^s. “Geographie” being in itself worthy the honor,⁵ if there were no competitors in Botany: but the difficulty is to put that one thing that is good, (amongst so much more purely Botanical work that is simply wretched), against the mass of work that others have done, & all of which is good. In Physiological or Histological, or Morphological Botany he is nowhere, in Systematic he can neither analyze nor synthesize; he has no notion, theoretical or practical of a genus or order, & has left many misplaced groups, (in the orders he has worked up), exactly where he found them & misplaced others too.— In descriptive Botany it is the same— he gives no artificial aids & outrages natural ones.—the upshot being, that what with heavy descriptions in which undue prominence is given to variable points, & constant characters overlooked, it is very difficult to determine his plants.

Add to all this, closeness in money affairs, even to the extent of underpaying for the Prodromus, the credit of which he assumes (as Editor & Part Author), & great self-sufficiency—& you have the qualities that render it very difficult to award the credit due (& amply due) to the “Geographie Botanique”.⁶ I know very well that these qualities should not outweigh absolute merit— but they must weigh in estimating a man’s career, & it is for the career that the F.M. is usually given.

I feel myself horridly illiberal & ill-natured, in writing down all this, but I like you to know my motives (even my bad ones), when they influence my opinions of my neighbours.

Lubbock was here the other day— he is shocked at poor Wollaston’s morals—who calls all his creditors swindlers, & runs away, & thus robs his brother debtors!⁷ You may like to see Wollaston’s letters & Stainton’s, so I send them.⁸ Now I do not think a bit the worse of Wollaston for thus “swindling his creditors”— I can quite fancy even a high X parson could not persuade him he was wrong.⁹ I send his C. de Verd book by post.¹⁰

I thought I had answered you about Greg, your letter was a capital one, he has not answered it—¹¹ I am very proud of having put one of your objections to him myself, viz. that he thus removes man from out the category that all other organized beings are in— This I should think was, in the present state of science, a fatal objection; though the same argument might apply to civilization.

I have your new book & am charmed especially with the triumph over John Murray, in getting the edges cut, what a blessing it is—but I can fancy J. M. feeling actually humiliated by it—& that his glory will go with that “holy thing” the paper-cutter.¹²

Then too I think the Introduction as masterly a piece of good scientific writing as I ever read. I must add that I read it immediately after poor Wollastons!

What a fine work D^r Murchison has made of dear old Falconer’s Memoirs, it strikes me that it will be most useful—¹³ I sigh when I think how poor my reprinted Memoirs would appear beside them; if any injudicious post-mortem friend were to issue them. There is something grand in the blunt force of Falconer’s writings, & when he mounts the Pegasus of Theory, he reminds me of the picture of Sintram (ask Henrietta)—¹⁴ with him the very thought of a Speculation is sin, & a very serious thing— it is the original sin, besetting sin, of the scientific man—but when he speculated himself, as on the perfection of the post Tertiary record how lame & impotent he was.¹⁵ he sinned & suffered in short.— His labored attack on Lyell in his paper on early man, is, like Scotch wit, or “wut”—what no man would recognize as an attack, that knew not both all the circumstances, & that it was these circumstances that F. was driving at—¹⁶

Ever your illnatured cynical disagreeable friend | J D Hooker