less expressly and particularly stated that my book was published
subsequently to this. Both these statements are untrue; they are in
Mr. Darwin's favour and prejudicial to myself.

All this was done with that well-known "happy simplicity" of which
the Pall Mall Gazette, December 12, 1879, declared that Mr. Darwin
was "a master." The final sentence, about the "weakness of thought
and mental anachronism which no one can envy," was especially
successful. The reviewer in the Pall Mall Gazette just quoted from
gave it in full, and said that it was thoroughly justified. He then
mused 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." Again my vanity suggested to me that I
was the person for whose benefit this gnome was intended. My vanity,
indeed, was well fed by the whole transaction; for I saw that not
only did Mr. Darwin, who should be the best judge, think my work
worth notice, but that he did not venture to meet it openly. As for
Dr. Krause's concluding sentence, I thought that when a sentence had
been antedated the less it contained about anachronism the better.

Only one of the reviews that I saw of Mr. Darwin's "Life of Erasmus
Darwin" showed any knowledge of the facts. The Popular Science
Review for January 1880, in flat contradiction to Mr. Darwin's
preface, said that only part of Dr. Krause's article was being given
by Mr. Darwin. This reviewer had plainly seen both Kosmos and Mr.
Darwin's book.

In the same number of the Popular Science Review, and immediately
following the review of Mr. Darwin's book, there is a review of
"Evolution, Old and New." The writer of this review quotes the