Canterbury Pieces | Page 5

was always my wish for years, that I had begun six
years ago, as soon as ever I found that I could not conscientiously take
orders; my father so strongly disapproved of the idea that I gave it up
and went out to New Zealand, stayed there for five years, worked like a
common servant, though on a run of my own, and sold out little more
than a year ago, thinking that prices were going to fall--which they
have since done. Being then rather at a loss what to do and my capital
being all locked up, I took the opportunity to return to my old plan, and
have been studying for the last ten years unremittingly. I hope that in
three or four years more I shall be able to go on very well by myself,
and then I may go back to New Zealand or no as circumstances shall
seem to render advisable. I must apologise for so much detail, but
hardly knew how to explain myself without it.
I always delighted in your ORIGIN OF SPECIES as soon as I saw it
out in New Zealand--not as knowing anything whatsoever of natural
history, but it enters into so many deeply interesting questions, or rather
it suggests so many, that it thoroughly fascinated me. I therefore feel all
the greater pleasure that my pamphlet should please you, however full
of errors.
The first dialogue on the ORIGIN which I wrote in the PRESS called
forth a contemptuous rejoinder from (I believe) the Bishop of
Wellington--(please do not mention the name, though I think that at this
distance of space and time I might mention it to yourself) I answered it
with the enclosed, which may amuse you. I assumed another character
because my dialogue was in my hearing very severely criticised by two
or three whose opinion I thought worth having, and I deferred to their
judgment in my next. I do not think I should do so now. I fear you will

be shocked at an appeal to the periodicals mentioned in my letter, but
they form a very staple article of bush diet, and we used to get a good
deal of superficial knowledge out of them. I feared to go in too heavy
on the side of the ORIGIN, because I thought that, having said my say
as well as I could, I had better now take a less impassioned tone; but I
was really exceedingly angry.
Please do not trouble yourself to answer this, and believe me,
Yours most sincerely, S. Butler.
This elicited a second letter from Darwin:-
Down, Bromley, Kent. October 6.
My dear Sir,--I thank you sincerely for your kind and frank letter,
which has interested me greatly. What a singular and varied career you
have already run. Did you keep any journal or notes in New Zealand?
For it strikes me that with your rare powers of writing you might make
a very interesting work descriptive of a colonist's life in New Zealand.
I return your printed letter, which you might like to keep. It has amused
me, especially the part in which you criticise yourself. To appreciate
the letter fully I ought to have read the bishop's letter, which seems to
have been very rich.
You tell me not to answer your note, but I could not resist the wish to
thank you for your letter.
With every good wish, believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours sincerely, Ch. Darwin.
It is curious that in this correspondence Darwin makes no reference to
the fact that he had already had in his possession a copy of Butler's
dialogue and had endeavoured to induce the editor of an English
periodical to reprint it. It is possible that we have not here the whole of
the correspondence which passed between Darwin and Butler at this
period, and this theory is supported by the fact that Butler seems to take
for granted that Darwin knew all about the appearance of the original
dialogue on the ORIGIN OF SPECIES in the PRESS.
Enough, however, has been given to explain the correspondence which
the publication of the dialogue occasioned. I do not know what
authority Butler had for supposing that Charles John Abraham, Bishop
of Wellington, was the author of the article entitled "Barrel- Organs,"
and the "Savoyard" of the subsequent controversy. However, at that
time Butler was deep in the counsels of the PRESS, and he may have

received private information on the subject. Butler's own reappearance
over the initials A. M. is sufficiently explained in his letter to Darwin.
It is worth observing that Butler appears in the dialogue and ensuing
correspondence in a character very different from that which he was
later to assume. Here we have him as an ardent supporter of Charles