No: Charles Darwin was relatively perfect; but it was not for either modesty or simplicity that we can commend Erasmus. Miss Seward and Mrs. Schimmelpenninck, in their respective characterisations, may possibly, in some degree, have erred both; but "it is extremely probable," candidly admits Mr. Francis Darwin here," that the faults which they exaggerate were to some extent characteristic of the man, and this leads me to think that Erasmus had a certain acerbity or severity of temper which did not exist in his grandson-the two men were of a different type." Mr. Francis Darwin is evidently an expert in character; but one almost inclines to the idea that it was Charles's own innocency of nature which neutralised or arrested any such force in him. It is not exactly knowledge of character one sees in Mr. Darwin when he comes to give us his views-say of such men as Carlyle and Buckle. He hits the mark, however, when he speaks of his grandfather's "overpowering tendency to theorise and generalise." But, again, considering, on the part of both Charles and his brother Erasmus, their eager welcome of Dr. Ernst Krause in his rehabilitation of Dr. Darwin, and their own necessary endorsement of the decision of Dr. Krause that the work of the grandfather is, point by point, only continued in the grandson, one is apt to speculate when Charles avows that, "on reading the Zoonomia a second time, after an interval of ten or fifteen years, he was disappointed, the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given "-when Charles avows this, I say, one is apt, with the whole context before one, to speculate on amiableness and innocency even under a look of proper pride. Nay, is it not the same half pride and whole innocency we see when, in his Life of Erasmus, he tells us with a smile that Byron called his grandfather "a mighty master of

unmeaning rhyme"? A mighty master! was Byron said so!

And that it

But assuming now, then, the course of Dr. Erasmus's fortunes as a writer before the public to have been, so far, sufficiently suggested, we come to what we have. here specially in mind, that last act in their regard which has been already mentioned that operation, namely, on the part of Dr. Krause which was radically to change what had been the fixed opinion of most people till far on in the century.

In the autobiography of Mr. Darwin communicated by his son, we have (Life and Letters, vol. i. p. 97) this: "In 1879 I had a translation of Dr. Ernst Krause's Life of Erasmus Darwin published, and I added a sketch of his character and habits from material in my possession. Many persons have been much interested by this little Life, and I am surprised that only 800 or 900 copies were sold." At p. 218, again, of the third volume of the same work we have the following on the part of Mr. Francis:-

"In February 1879 an essay by Dr. Ernst Krause on the scientific work of Erasmus Darwin appeared in the evolutionary journal, Kosmos. The number of Kosmos in question was a Gratulationsheft, or special congratulatory issue in honour of my father's birthday, so that Dr. Krause's essay, glorifying the older evolutionist, was quite in its place. He wrote to Dr. Krause, thanking him cordially for the honour paid to Erasmus, and asking his permission to publish an English translation of the essay.—The wish to do so was shared by his brother, Erasmus Darwin the younger, who continued to be associated with the project.-His chief reason for writing a notice of his grandfather's life was 'to contradict flatly some calumnies by Miss Seward.'-Dr. Krause's contribution formed the second part of the Life of Erasmus Darwin, my father supplying a preliminary notice. This expression on the title-page is somewhat misleading; my father's contribution is more than half the book.-Work of this kind was new to him, and, as he said himself, quite beyond his tether."

As we see, Dr. Krause's work is a "glorifying" of Erasmus Darwin into, as has been already said, the

suggestive predecessor in every respect of his more illustrious grandson. That, too, as we have seen, or as has been said, is no drawback to the satisfaction of both the younger Darwins (Charles and his brother) in a rehabilitation at length of the grandfather in whom, for the family and themselves, they entertained so great but troubled an interest. However much he might be shown to have anticipated Charles, Charles in the end could not be supposed likely to suffer; and meanwhile the grandfather would be restored to his proper place in the republic of letters, the rather now, too, that the reflection from Charles would, presumably, only co-operate in the result. As is said also, a certain confutation of Miss Seward is, in the desired restoration and rehabilitation, another, further, and most important element. That word "calumnies" is a strong word, and if Miss Seward has really been guilty of such enormities, it would be well if, in the interest of the family, she were once for all exposed. Mr. Francis Darwin, in whom as a judge of character and as an honourable English gentleman we may put implicit confidence, has been already quoted in regard to an "exaggeration" on the part of Miss Seward of "faults" really "to some extent characteristic of the man." Probably it is only to some such extent that he conceives the lady to have "misrepresented Erasmus Darwin's character." At all events, it seems not impossible that a reader nowadays of both books, Miss Seward's and Mr. Darwin's (Dr. Krause's), may find it not quite easy, on the surface, to believe the lady to have sinned further, in great part perhaps, than in the frailties that may beset any mere human being who undertakes to write the life of another with whom he has been intimate. Even for Charles it is scarcely natural to suppose a burden graver than this to underlie his warning that “everything which Miss Seward says must

be received with caution;" and as for the insinuation that Miss Seward wanted to have married the doctor herself, that surely is too small a gossip for our revered naturalist, even at second hand! What seems brought forward really as the "calumny" on Miss Seward's part is her statement that Dr. Erasmus Darwin, when he heard of the suicide of his second son (also an Erasmus), shall have exclaimed, "Poor insane coward!" Hereupon legally summoned (always a very terrible trial to any outsider, let him or her be guilty, or let him or her be innocent), legally summoned, Miss Seward did retract this exclamation! She repeats, however, that whatever regard and sensibility in his son's reference Dr. Erasmus may have shown in his family, "he seemed to have a pride in concealing (it) from the world." In justice to his memory, she is desirous to correct the misinformation she has received." All the circumstances of the affair are fully narrated in this way by Charles Darwin himself in the Life of the grandfather; and I know not that we nowadays would make so much of the exclamation in question, even if true.

"Dr. Erasmus Darwin had an overpowering tendency," writes Charles Darwin, " to theorise and generalise;" and this is almost the theme, we may say, that Dr. Krause sets himself to expound and expand.

CHAPTER II.

OF CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN THE TIME OF DR. DARWIN, AND, SPECIALLY, OF HIS CRITIC, DR. THOMAS BROWN.

As bearing on the personal character of Dr. Erasmus. Darwin, his reception of Dr. Thomas Brown has been, so far, just named. It may, in the circumstances, be well, however, to see what is concerned here a little more in detail. It is matter of tolerably common knowledge, doubtless, that the very first work of the Edinburgh professor and distinguished philosopher in reference, was Observations on Dr. Darwin's Zoonomia. I have elsewhere spoken of Dr. Brown as "a man who is not only built into our admiration by his rare subtlety, but endeared to our very affections by his sweet candour;" and, no doubt, in Dr. Brown's own works, and in his Life by Dr. Welsh, there occurs ample testimony to no less a praise. But Dr. Welsh would wish for his master and friend a great deal more to be said. Even as a poet Dr. Brown is to him one of the greatest of men. Dr. Brown's descriptions in that character, he says, "may in many cases, for simplicity, fulness, and fidelity, be compared with any in the English language." It would be difficult to point out an equal number of lines in any other author combining so many excellences;" and he has passages of exquisite pathos "passages, indeed, "the most pathetic to be found in poetry."