- darwin (x)
- 2015-04 (x)
- Naturalists -- Correspondence (x)
- Wallace, Alfred Russel, 1823-1913 (x)
- Search results
Search results
Show moreLetter to Grant Allen to say how much Wallace enjoyed Allen's article "Natural inequality", an article in defense of socialism. Transcription: "Parkstone, Dorset April 21, 1897 My dear Grant Allen I must send you a line to say how much I have enjoyed your "Natural Inequality". It is a most admirable answer to one of the commonest but most stupid objections to Socialism. I only wish it were published in some colume or periodical more likely to be read by our opponents. With very best wishes Believe me yours very sincerely Alfred R. Wallace" Letter, signed by sender. Sent from Parkstone, Dorest.
The Robert M. Stecher Collection of Charles Darwin Books and Manuscripts
Show less
Show moreLetter to Sir Crookes praising him for his papers on psychic force defending spiritualism. Wallace hopes that Crookes can soon exhibit his "self registering" experiments at the Royal Institution. Crookes wrote that Psychic force and modern spiritualism, a reply to the "Quarterly Review" and other critics, London 1872. Transcription: "1616. Hoolly House, Barkery, R. Oct. 8th. 1871 Dear Mr. Crookes Many thanks for the espy of your papers on Psychic Face. The 2nd is most admirable, both in the tone + spirit with which it answers [], + the irresistible force of its new facts. Spiritualists are greatly indebted to you for furnishing them, in your self registered experiments, with a formal answer to the "[]" objection, recently put forth by Balfour Stewart + still more recently made the subject of a book supposed to crush spiritualism, by []. I hope you may soon be able to exhibit these self registering experiments in the theatre of the Royal Listihition. yours very faithfully N. Crookes Esq. Alfred R. Wallace" Letter, signed by sender. Sent from Holly House, Barking, E.
The Robert M. Stecher Collection of Charles Darwin Books and Manuscripts
Show less
![Letter from Alfred Russel Wallace to [Grant Allen]](https://digital.case.edu/sites/default/files/styles/islandora_imagecache_image_style_medium/public/externals/aa789723e0d16e5c1523581774fcdbd6.jpg?itok=6UNPCBUP&pid=ksl:ditalldar00113&iic=true)
Show moreLetter to [Grant Allen] on color perception of animals including man. Significance of colored flowers and fruits. Also discusses Gladstone's paper on Homer's color terms. Transcription: "Rosehill, Dorking Oct. 7th 1877 My dear Sir I have read the passages you marked, as well as a good many other parts of your book with much pleasure. I was particularly pleased with your suggestion (which had not occurred to me) that fruits, in our sense of the word, are more research developments than flowers because they attract chiefls mammals + birds instead of insects. There is I admit a partial contradiction between the view that red excites animals on account of its glaring contrast, + that yet the perception of it by man is recent. The latter view must I believe be incorrect, + should be stated I think even more hypothetically that I have [] it. I have just been reading Mr. Gladstone's interesting paper which is almost wholly on flowers' colour terms or rather the absence of them. The evidence is most curious, but I think it only goes to show that language was imperfect, and that colour was too infinitely [] + of too little importance to early man, to have received a systematic nomenclature. Flowers + birds + insects were despised, + the colours of more important objects as the sea [] earth, [], [] etc. were not only not pure colours (generally) but subject to endless fluctuations. Your remarkson insects are very good. I quite overlooked that case + shall refer to you when I reprint my papers with others in a volume shortly. I think all the coloured fruits which are poisonous to man are eatable to some birds etc. They are far too numerous to be accounted for otherwise. With many thanks Believe me yours faithfully Alfred R. Wallace Grant Allen Esq." Letter, signed by sender. Sent from Rosehill, Dorking.
The Robert M. Stecher Collection of Charles Darwin Books and Manuscripts
Show less
Show moreLetter to Grant Allen for his kind words about Wallace's "Darwinism". Also, he discusses reasons for his rejections of "sexual selection". Transcription: "Parkstone, Dorset. July 22nd. 1889 My dear [Grant] Allen I must write a line to thank you for your kind + far too flattering [] of my "Darwinism." - I feel that your offering sentience is not correct, + that I have received full recognition - even more than full - for all the little I have done in natural history. I accept however with the satisfaction your recognition of my work for "Land Nationalisation" since I myself consider that by for the more important of the two. I am pleased, too, with your recognition of the twofold objects of my book + I am glad to find that you think I have succeeded in both objects. With your remarks in the 3rd Col. if you [] of course I do not agree. You are right in your [] that my spiritualism led me to my views as to man, but I deny altogether that this is an a priori view, since the facts of spiritualism are to me just as real and certain as the facts of organic nature, and I am bound to bring the two into harmony. But you are wrong again as to this view having had any influence in my rejection of -natural- sexual selection. That arose solely from the absence of evidence for it, and the to me enormously improbable assumption that the making of butterflies depends as the choice of the female + that that choice is determined by [] differences of [] I think you are quite wrong as to the importance of [Weissmaus'] theory + the amount of evidence in its favour. I admit that it is not yet established, but I feel almost sure it will be. If the inheritance of all acquired characters + modifications were a law of nature I see no reason for the origin of sex. A short time since I had a delightful + very kind + flattering letter from your father with whom I spent some very enjoyable days, and I have seldom met two more charming people that Mr + Mrs Allen of [Alurington?]. We have removed here from [Godalung?] to get a milder climate + more sun. Should you ever be at Bournemouth (close by) come + see us. Yours very sincerely Alfred R. Wallace P.S. I have just read "Looking Backward" and it has convinced me of the practicability and desirability of Socialism. It is a work of true genius." Letter, signed by sender. Sent from Parkstone, Dorest.
The Robert M. Stecher Collection of Charles Darwin Books and Manuscripts
Show less
Show moreLetter to Lemperly on "Leonainie", a poem believed to have been written by Edgar Allan Poe and later attributed to James Whitcomb Riley. Wallace believed it to be Poe's work, claiming Riley had altered the original slightly and then included it in his collected works as his own. Transcription: "Broadstone, Dorset. March 28th. 1904 Paul [Lemforly?] Esq. Dear Sir I must apologize for delaying so long in replying to [your] of Feb. 22nd., but I hae been so much engaged with various work - especially with the "Leonainie" affair - that I have hardly found time to do so. Your letter + enclosures arrived most opportunely, as you will see by my long letter in the April issue of the "Fortnightly Review", which I think shows that there is still some mystery about the affair which M. Riley has not cleared up. And as this communication of mine will probably bring me still further correspondence, raising perhaps new issues, I venture to keep the long "[]" with Riley in the "Indianapolis []", a little longer, in case I have to refer again to what is given as Riley's own words, + which were presumably passed by him as such. The difficulty to me is, that, two versions of this poem being in existence in America, the one issued by the alleged composer is not only inferior to the other, but contains such incongruities and verbal errors as to seem to show that he did not realise the meaning of the poem, or appreciate its musical rhythm, as a whole. Unless Riley wrote the poem under the spiritual influence of Poe - in an access of inspiration which has never recurred - (which I think quite possible) and then in his normal state altered + spoilt it, I cannot conceive his being the author of it, and treating it afterwards so lightly as he has done. I trust that my communication may lead to the discovery of where my brother copied his version from, + how there came to be such a better version in existence (unknown to Riley!) Mr. Charles F. Richardson, to whom I wrote for information as one of Poe's editors, says, that my version of it is "unquestionably preferable", but he things all the differences "might readily be made by a copyist"! I do not. He also thinks it is "not even one of the better parodies of Poe" - and here again I differ from him. It is stated here in the [spectator?] that the "Chicago Tribune" has recently said, that - W.C.Bryant was one who believed it to be by Poe. Have you got cuttings from the papers at the time of the hoax? Or a list of the known writers + critics who believed it to be Poe's, independently of the actual writing? The criticisms for + against, at the time, would be now most interesting. You will see I have tried to do full justice to Riley as a poet, but I do not think he could have written "[Leonainie?]." As you, no doubt have all his published works, can you send me a copy of any one short poem that has the same exquisite musical [] as "[Leonainie?]"? Believe me Yours very trule Alfred R Wallace ---- The very imaginative exaggeration of Leonainie are against it being a mere imitation and also its originality. Paul Lemperly Cleveland Ohio U.S.A." Letter, signed by sender. Sent from Broadstone, Dorset. Envelope included.
The Robert M. Stecher Collection of Charles Darwin Books and Manuscripts
Show less