Dear Darwin

A long letter from you is no new sensation—though I have experienced but little of its delights of late.¹

Our Drosophyllum flowered itself to death last summer— it went on from May till September & then could not stop its flowering, nor its consequent apotheosis. We have given so many young plants away that I can easily get you a couple.²

Greg’s “Enigmas”³ is one of the most eloquent books I ever read, & it quite fascinated me by it’s manner, not by its matter, which is singularly weak & inconclusive. I wrote to him combating some of his positions, & met him soon after, & had a delightful conversation. As to the poor man’s faith, he frankly admitted to me that, as I put it, all scientific evidence is in favor of extinction upon death, & that any reasoning to the contrary was “ingenious wriggling.”— I quite agreed with him however, that this was not conclusive, & that there was no inexcusable presumption in the conclusion, that there was a future state. It is a book that cannot but be disappointing: remember all it pretends to do is, not to crush hope, but to foster the presumption of hope being tenable—barely tenable perhaps!

I like Greg exceedingly, & should like to bring him to Down.⁴ (of course the Scientific part proper of the book is all but a mistake.) Ayrton I hear nothing of; our armed truce holds.⁵ I quite believe that Gladstone has literally muzzled him as regards Kew—i.e. told him to interfere in nothing—i.e. to originate no change whatever.⁶ The Belgian Academy were very civil—& wrote to me saying they intended making the opportunity of a vacancy the occasion of marking their disapprobation of the treatment I have received.⁷

I am extremely vexed at being dragged into hostility towards the British Museum, through Mr. Carruthers intolerable insolence—& presumption—⁸ the carelessness of his statements really amounts to falsity.— I have born as gently on his misstatements as I could— He must be a very odd man— within 3 months he has grossly & unprovokedly insulted, myself, Lockyer, Dyer, Bate, & Bentham,⁹ all on different matters— I had no idea that he was such an ill conditioned Cur.— his letters to me are most insolent.

We have just returned from a visit to Cardwells, near Godalming—¹⁰ both he & his wife are singularly pleasing persons at home— He is almost a religious man, or I should say a devout one perhaps. We had some long talks about faith & prayer— he was very frank, admitting to the full how much more difficult it was for a Scientific man to believe, than for any other—that the Miracles were open questions, of Evidence entirely—& that prayer in the common sense was wrong—he much regretted such occasional outbursts as Huxley’s,¹¹—but blamed the Clergy more.

He was singularly earnest candid & calm, even on such matters as Darwinism! which he only a little believes—much disliking some of the results (monkeydom eg.) but could see even in this no opposition to any religion worth holding.

I have just skimmed DeCandolle & thought it very interesting indeed, except the last chapters, of which I read but one or two, & thought it twaddle.¹² I have sent my copy to Gladstone, being indignant at his speech, in which he puts England’s position in respect of abstract Science far below that of France & Germany. He is going to print that address, & it will be laughed at in America & Germany, & come with a very bad grace indeed from the Prime Minister of England.¹³ I glanced at his “Juventus Mundi” yesterday & was astonished at its puerility— Wedgwood is a science to some parts of it!¹⁴

Have you heard that they intend to run me against the D. of Devonshire as P.R.S.¹⁵ I do dread the weight of the position more than I can tell, & would not listen to it for a moment, but that I owe a deep debt of gratitude to the scientific men who have proposed me, for their generous support last summer—¹⁶ I was told of it at the X last Thursday as a settled thing.¹⁷ About half the Council are supposed to be prepared to support me. Airy & the Cantabs¹⁸ all going in for the Duke— an excellent choice in my opinion (God prosper him!). They are greatly angered at Sabine’s¹⁹ having written to the Duke, without acquainting the Council inviting him to stand.

Archibald Smith’s death is a great loss to me. We had been intimate from very early years, & I had an equal affection & esteem for him— he was a neighbour too.²⁰

I have wandered away from Drosera & the question you put.²¹ In so far as I can remember it is an accepted dogma that there is no cutaneous absorption in living plants & that glandular hairs are excretory only. I will however ask Dyer, who is away with a cold— he is translating Sachs, & will be up to the latest discoveries.²² I will also ask Berkeley.²³ Your aggregation of the protoplasmic contents of the cell, reminds me of the contraction of the chlorophyll contents & ? inner cell wall of the cells under Sun-light in a Selaginella (serpens I think).²⁴

Have you tried Begonia leaves, or shall I look out for some plants with hyaline²⁵ bladdery epidermal cells for you to operate upon— Can you correlate the specific action of the Ammonia on the protoplasm of the cells, with that of its effect in the blood of animals poisoned by snake bites.— Is it not the case that snake poisons affects the blood corpuscles?²⁶

Ever yours affec | J D Hooker

What a yarn I have spun!