Words on Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter and Human Evolution (2001) by Randal Keynes

Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter and Human Evolution, by Randal Keynes, 2001 (London: Fourth Estate). £16.99 (hardcover). xiv + 331 p; illustrated; index. ISBN: 1-84115-060-6. 

INTRODUCTION
INDIVIDUALS IN ANNIE'S BOX
STYLE OF ANNIE'S BOX
TRYING TO READ "NOTES TO PAGES"
REFERENCES
FINAL POINTS
COMMENTS ON ANNIE'S BOX WEB PAGE & MATTHEW CHAMPMAN'S TRIALS OF THE MONKEY
CONCLUSIONS
POSTSCRIPT
REFERENCES (SPECIFIC & OTHER) 

INTRODUCTION

In my opinion, Annie's Box, by Randal Keynes (a great-great grandson of Charles Darwin is an interesting book, but it is not a well-written book nor is it a well-designed book. Others, however, have different interpretations of Keynes: "Although this is Keynes's first book, after a successful civil service career in the Ministry of Defense, he writes with great style and assurance" (Clive Cookson, 2001, Death And The Maiden. Weekend Financial Times [London], April 28, page 4). What was "Annie's Box"?

"'Annie's Box' refers to an actual tangible and physical writing case and as The Guardian wrote: "A small Victorian writing box, holding mementoes Charles Darwin's favourite child Annie, was returned yesterday to her home, 150 years after her death from tuberculosis aged 10." Maev Kennedy, May 30, 2001, Darwin's keepsake: Tribute to his daughter on display. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4194665,00.html

Anne Elizabeth Darwin (1841-1851) was the second child born to Emma Wedgwood Darwin (1808-1896) and Charles R. Darwin (1809-1882). "Annie" (as she was called), was born in London, on March 2, 1841, and died on April 23, 1851, in Malvern Wells, a spa town in Herefordshire, England. Charles R. Darwin was with Annie when she died and Emma Darwin was at their home in Kent, England, awaiting the birth of their ninth child, Horace Darwin (born on May 13, 1851 and died September 22, 1928).

Annie's Box, by Randal Keynes, is an attempt to "humanize" Charles R. Darwin and Keynes has the most noble of purposes and I agree with his words: "There is one idea at the heart of my account. Charles's life and his science were all of a piece" (page 1). Indeed, this is the same point that Charles R. Darwin made with his autobiographical words of 1876 (eventually published in 1887): "My chief enjoyment and sole employment throughout life has been scientific work; and the excitement from such work makes me for the time forget, or drives quite away, my daily discomfort." Nora Barlow, 1958, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter (NY: Norton 1969 paperback edition), page 115. In my opinion, Annie's Box suffers from the fact that (#1) it does not provide that much new information, (#2) the information is often presented in a confusing manner, and (#3) it is not a "stand-alone" Darwin item: one must go elsewhere to "round out" the life and times of Charles R. Darwin.

While my view may be unkind, others definitely hold a different opinion of Annie's Box. The organization known as "English Heritage," current custodians of Down House, Darwin's traditional home in Kent, state the following about Annie's Box.

"Annie's box was found by Randal Keynes, Darwin's great-great-grandson, when he was sorting through family documents. In it were Darwin's daily notes on Annie's last illness, which show in haunting detail how he cared for her in the months before she died. The notes inspired him to write the recently published and much praised Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution. The book and the exhibition provide an intimate account of Darwin's life with his family at Down House, and a new understanding of the man who wrote The Origin of Species, one of the most revolutionary works of the Victorian age." Anon., May 29, 2001, Annie Darwin's Treasured Keepsakes Return to Down House. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/news-events/news/ExpandedResult.asp?Id=238

Another statement from a web site has praise for the work of Keynes:

"In Annie's Box, Darwin's great-great-grandson Randal Keynes sets out to humanise his ancestor. He draws extensively on the family archives to present a picture of the scientist as father, husband and friend. Annie was Charles and Emma Darwin's first daughter whose death aged [sic.] ten affected them both deeply. The box was her treasured writing case and it provides Keynes with a key to Darwin's rich emotional life." http://www.handbag.com/arts/book_anniesbox/

Published praises abound:

"I AM not, as discerning readers must have discerned by now, one of nature's groupies. Even my long-suffering secretary Agnes can't remember the last time I rang up a writer to say how much I enjoyed their book. But I made an exception for Randal Keynes, whose Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter and Human Evolution (4th Estate, GBP 16.99) is the best non-fiction book I've read all year, and I'm glad I did." Anon. The Browser, 2001, The Scotsman, May 19, page 5.

"Keynes has reclaimed a piece of the past he aimed for. His bright and devoted biography makes the iconic, elevated figure of his great-great grandfather seem entirely human." Chris Small,, 2001, Review. The Scotsman Publications Ltd. Scotland on Sunday, May 6, page 16.

"Keynes shows elegantly and convincingly how Darwin's mature theory grew out of his intense personal pain. His failure to find spiritual comfort after Annie's death strengthened and confirmed his trust in natural laws - evolutionary theory, later called the survival of the fittest." Lisa Jardine, 2001, Darwin's reflection on the death of a child. The Sunday Times (London), [Features], n.p.

This writer, however, has a decidedly different opinion of Annie's Box. Keynes acknowledges numerous "Darwin scholars and other experts" who provided him with "information and much-needed advice on many points" (page 318), and the listing includes those whom one would expect to see cited (Janet Browne, Ralph Colp, Adrian Desmond, among others). Keynes also acknowledges "Virginia Bonham-Carter, my editor, for her advice and support through the planning and shaping of the book" (page 318). In my own opinion, however, while some of the factual information is quite fascinating, Annie's Box could have used additional editing and re-writing.

INDIVIDUALS IN ANNIE'S BOX

As an anthropologist I enjoy the efficiency of a "kinship" chart, revealing who married whom, when they were born and died, and what offspring they might have had: what "systems of consanguinity and affinity" exist (to use the phrase of the American Anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1881-1881). Consider (for example), excellent charts of the Darwin and Wedgwood families on pages xiv and xv of Janet Browne's outstanding 1995 Charles Darwin Voyaging: Volume I of a Biography (NY: Knopf); or the genealogical charts of the Allen, Wedgwood, and Darwin families on pages 134, 135, and 137 of Edna Healey's fascinating 1986 Wives of Fame: Mary Livingstone, Jenny Marx, Emma Darwin (London: Sidgwick & Jackson). Glance at the charts (pages 10 and 11) in the delightful 1952 Period Piece (NY: W.W. Norton & Co. 1953 edition) by Gwen Darwin Raverat, which Keynes refers to on page 88 (and cites in his notes for Chapter 5, on page 305, as being published in 1987!). Charts such as these provide the reader with an immediate "overview" of the dramatis personnae involved in story: Keynes has a fascinating story but (in my opinion) it is not well presented.

Randal Keynes is a great-great-grandson of Charles R. Darwin. In 1839 Charles R. Darwin (1809-1882) married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood (1808-1896) and one of their ten children was George Darwin (1845-1912). In 1884, George Darwin married Maud Du Puy (1861-1947) and they had four children, the first of whom was Gwendolyn Mary Darwin (1885-1957) who married Jacques Raverat. In 1890 the third child of George Darwin and Maud Du Puy was born, Margaret Elizabeth Darwin. In 1917 Margaret Elizabeth Darwin married Geoffrey Keynes (born in 1887) and in 1919, Richard Darwin Keynes was born. Richard Darwin Keynes eventually married and was the father of Randal Keynes, author of Annie's Box.

Randal Keynes wrote that "My American great-grandmother, Maud Du Puy, met George [Howard Darwin] in 1883 when she came to Cambridge from her home in Philadelphia to find a husband" (page 216). Gwen Darwin Raverat, grand-daughter of Charles R. Darwin, does not support this statement by Keynes in her 1952 Period Piece. Keynes wrote (page 296) that "My grandmother Margaret, Gwen's younger sister, was a lively child." In Period Piece Gwen Darwin Raverat wrote:

"The faint flavour of the ghost of my grandfather [Charles R. Darwin] hung in a friendly way about the whole place [namely Down] house, garden and all. Of course, we always felt embarrassed if our grandfather were mentioned, just as we did if God were spoken of. In fact, he was obviously in the same category as God and Father Christmas. Only, with our grandfather, we also felt, modestly, that we ought to disclaim any virtue of our own in having produced him. Of course it was very much to our credit, really, to own such a grandfather; but one mustn't be proud, or show off about it; so we blushed and were embarrassed and changed the subject. It was probably the same wish not to seem presumptious, which gave my uncles the odd habit of never claiming him as their own father, in conversation with each other. They always said: 'Your father said so-and-so'; to which the other uncles often answered: 'Well he was your father, too' [stress added]." Gwen Raverat, 1952, Period Piece (NY: W.W. Norton & Co. 1953 edition), page 153.

The 1952 Period Piece is truly a delightful item and the author continued with the following:

"In so far as I conceived of my grandfather at all, I thought of him as a kind of synopsis of his five sons, my uncles; with the same warm family voice, the same love of children and dogs; and the same gently humorous charm and transparent honesty and absence of any sort of pretension. His beard made him different, of course, for none of the uncles had long beards, or white beards. Also Aunt Etty [Henrietta Emma Darwin, 1843-1930] said that he had been taller than any of them; and, when he was well, gayer, more spontaneous and enthusiastic than they were. There was more reserve about my grandmother [Emma Darwin], because she was a Wedgwood. My father [George Darwin] explained to me once, that my grandfather was rather different from his children, because he was only half a Wedgwood, while they had a double dose of Wedgwood blood in them, owing to the two Darwin-Wedgwood marriages in two successive generations. 'You've none of you ever seen a Darwin who wasn't mostly a Wedgwood,' he said, rather sadly, as of a dying strain. He can hardly have known any pure Darwin himself, as his grandfather Robert [Waring Darwin, 1766-1848], the last unmitigated Darwin of the line died when he was only three [stress added]." Gwen Raverat, 1952, Period Piece (NY: W.W. Norton & Co. 1953 edition), pages 153-154.

Keynes's listing of "Family and Friends" (pages xi-xiii) in Annie's Box is almost useless since he has arranged the "Darwins" from Bernard (1876-1961) to William (Willy) (1839-1914) in alphabetical order and not in their birth order. Birth and death dates of "Charles Darwin" are not provided in the "Darwins" listing nor is Emma Wedgwood listed in the "Wedgwoods" (also arranged by Keynes from Alfred [1842-1892] to Thomas Wedgwood [1771-1805). On page 3 of Annie's Box one deduces that Charles R. Darwin was born in 1809, and Emma was born in 1808, when Keynes writes the following:

"When at twenty-nine Charles Darwin thought about marrying, he took a piece of paper and wrote: 'This is the question.'…. A few days later, in July 1838, he visited his uncle Josiah Wedgwood II [1769-1843], at his home, Maer Hall, near the Wedgwood factory in Staffordshire. Josiah's daughter Emma was there. She was a year older than Charles…." (page 3).

It would have been so simple to point out, somewhere, that Charles R. Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 and died on April 19, 1882 and Emma Wedgwood was born on May 2, 1808 and died October 2, 1896. Keynes does not do this in Annie's Box. Consider the precision in the following by Philip Appleman who wrote as follows:

"Born February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin grew up in the comfort and security of the well-to-do Darwin and Wedgwood families. His mother was a Wedgwood, and he himself was to marry another, his cousin Emma. The son and grandson of prosperous physicians, he tried medical training himself but found the studies dull, and surgery (before anesthesia) too ghastly even to watch. So he followed the advice of his formidable father (six feet, 2 inches; 336 pounds; domineering in temperament) and went up to Cambridge to study for the ministry." Philip Appleman [Editor], 2001, Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Third Edition (NY: W.W. Norton & Co.), page 3.

Another interpretation by Keynes is that I believe that every book about Emma Wedgwood Darwin and the children she gave birth to gives "ten" for the number of births (children) that she had. For some reason, Keynes prefers to keep the number to eight, not listing (in the "Family and Friends") Mary Eleanor Darwin (born September 23, 1842 and who died October 16, 1842) and not listing "Charles Waring Darwin 1856-1858" (although this child is mentioned in Annie's Box). On page 225. however, Keynes writes of Charles Waring Darwin as follows: "Charles [R. Darwin] played with his tenth child [stress added] as he had done with each of the others, and watched him with the same devoted absorption" but why does Keynes not list Charles Waring Darwin on pages xi-xii listing "Family and Friends?" Keynes is also internally inconsistent elsewhere, for on page 10 he writes that "Emma was to have eight more children [after the birth of William Erasmus Darwin in 1839] in the next twelve years [stress added]."

STYLE OF ANNIE'S BOX

Randal Keynes is one of the great-great grandchildren of Charles R. Darwin but did he have to write in the following style throughout Annie's Box? Consider Chapter 1 ("Macaw Cottage"):

"The house Charles found had a kitchen and a room for the manservant in the basement, the dining room and a study for Charles on the ground floor…. Charles planned to move in before the wedding. … Charles kept the yellow curtains…. Charles looked forward to Emma's arrival…. Remembering splendours in the tropical forests of South America he called it 'Macaw Cottage' because the furniture in the drawing room combined all the macaw's colours 'in hideous discord.' Charles moved in on the last day of December [what year?] …. Charles and Emma were married at Maer in January 1839 [ah, so it was December 1838 previously referred to!]…. Charles and Emma….[stress added]" (pages 6-7).

This "Charles" familiarity is annoying and continues throughout Annie's Box. Consider, for example Janet Browne's style (and information presented) in her 1995 volume and her Chapter 17, also entitled "Macaw Cottage" (pages 400-422):

"The wedding took place on 29 January 1839 in the small church at Maer, two weeks before Darwin's thirtieth birthday. Emma was already thirty years old. It was a quiet occasion, attended only by a handful of relatives; so quiet, it probably seemed a little flat to the main participants. Darwin suffered his inevitable headache, and Emma got through the ceremony 'stout-heartedly.' ... John Allen Wedgwood [1796-1882], the couple's cousin in common, who was the incumbent vicar of Maer, took them through the service promptly, and afterwards they all walked back to say goodbye. There was hardly time for Emma to change her clothes and sit for a moment or two with her sisters before leaving for London. ... The house they had eventually decided to rent was in Upper Gower Street, close to the Bloomsbury area of London, and next to the buildings of University College. ... 'Macaw Cottage' they christened it after seeing the yellow curtains and gaudy blue walls topped off with red plush furniture [stress added]." Janet Browne, 1995, Charles Darwin Voyaging: Volume I of a Biography (NY: Knopf), pages 400-401.

In 1991 Desmond and Moore wrote "'Macaw Cottage' they dubbed it...." (Adrian Desmond and James Moore, 1991, Darwin [NY: Warner Books], page 277). Keynes has Charles R. Darwin naming it and others write that Mr. and Mrs. Darwin named it Macaw Cottage. Which description of the "naming" is correct? The reader must weigh the evidence presented and make a choice: I choose Browne as well as Desmond and Moore.

Keynes has a tendency to "jump around" when it comes to dates or he simply fails to make reference to what year he is writing about. Chapter 1 covered events of 1831, 1838, 1839, 1849, and 1820. Chapter 2 ("Pterodactyl Pie") begins with "When he completed his almanac for 1841, Charles…." and then Keynes goes to Charles R. Darwin as a "young boy in Shrewsbury" and then "his second year at Edinburgh" and then the late 1850s, and 1830 as well as "the early 1820s" as well as "The invitation which came in 1831 to join HMS Beagle" (page 23). One reads on page 25 in Annie's Box of Darwin in the Galápagos Islands and on page 26 one reads of Charles R. Darwin's stops (prior to the Galápagos Islands) in Brazil, Tierra del Fuego, not to mention the first trip of Robert FitzRoy [1805-1865] to South America and some events from 1830!

Keynes would have the reader believe that it was relatively "simple" for Charles R. Darwin to accompany Captain Robert FitzRoy on the planned voyage of HMS Beagle when he writes that "The invitation which came in 1831 to join HMS Beagle was his opportunity, and he eagerly accepted" (page 23), but it was not that easy. Charles R. Darwin wrote about the voyage of HMS Beagle of 1831-1836:

"The voyage of the Beagle has been by far the most important event in my life and has determined my whole career; yet it depended on so small a circumstance as my uncle [Josiah Wedgwood: 1769-1843] offering to drive me 30 miles to Shrewsbury, which few uncles would have done, and on such a trifle as the shape of my nose." Nora Barlow, 1958, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter (NY: Norton 1969 paperback edition), page 76.

Charles R. Darwin was not the first to be invited to join the HMS Beagle expedition. When he eventually did meet with Captain Robert FitzRoy, Captain FitzRoy did not like the shape of Charles R. Darwin's nose! As the delightful 1982 Darwin for Beginners, by Jonathan Miller & Borin Van Loon (NY: Pantheon Books) stated it:

"On the 5th of September [1831], Darwin was interviewed by Captain FitzRoy of HMS Beagle. At this point, the whole project nearly came to grief. FitzRoy, a devotee of the fashionable Science of Physiognomy, took exception to the shape of Darwin's nose, thinking that it betrayed signs of laziness and hesitancy. For some reason, FitzRoy overcame his scruples and Darwin was signed on." Jonathan Miller & Borin Van Loon, 1982, Darwin for Beginners (NY: Pantheon Books), page 64.

In the Summer of 1831 Charles R. Darwin was in Wales with the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873), a Professor of Geology (1818-1873) at Cambridge University. The Reverend John Henslow (1796-1861), Professor of Mineralogy (1822-1827), then Botany (1827-1861), at Cambridge University, was invited by Captain FitzRoy to become the naturalist on board HMS Beagle for the planned circumnavigation of the globe. This invitation actually came in a letter from the Anglican clergyman (and astronomer) George Peacock (1791-1858) who wrote Henslow. Henslow's wife, however, did not wish him to take an extensive voyage (estimated to be two years) so Henslow's brother-in-law (also a clergyman and a naturalist) Leonard Jenyns (1800-1893) was planning to take Henslow's place. At the last minute, Jenyns changed his mind and in Annie's Box we simply read that "The invitation which came in 1831 to join HMS Beagle was his opportunity, and he eagerly accepted" (page 23).

On the 24th of August 1831, Henslow wrote to tell Charles R. Darwin that he had informed Captain FitzRoy that Charles R. Darwin was the most qualified individual to join HMS Beagle when it left England later in 1831. Charles R. Darwin, himself, realized something had occurred and he wrote to his father on August 31, 1831:

"That they must have offered to many others before me the place of Naturalist." Charles Darwin to Dr. Robert Darwin, August 31, 1831. Nora Barlow, 1967, Darwin and Henslow: The Growth of An Idea - Letters 1831-1860 edited by Nora Barlow. (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press), pages 34-35.

Enclosed with this letter to his father, the twenty-two year old Charles R. Darwin enclosed a letter from his uncle Josiah Wedgwood to Dr. Robert Darwin supporting his joining HMS Beagle. Perhaps the most important phrase by his Uncle Josiah Wedgwood was as follows:

"The undertaking would be useless as regards his profession [which still could have been the clergy], but looking upon him as a man of enlarged curiosity, it affords him such an opportunity of seeing men and things as happens to few [stress added]." Josiah Wedgwood to Dr. Robert Darwin, August 31, 1831. Nora Barlow, 1967, Darwin and Henslow: The Growth of An Idea - Letters 1831-1860 edited by Nora Barlow. (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press), pages 35-37.

Dr. Darwin changed his mind and Charles R. Darwin became the volunteer naturalist (without pay) on HMS Beagle. Robert McCormick (1800-1890) had already been designated the official naturalist for the HMS Beagle (as well as being the ship's Surgeon). The outstanding R.B. Freeman, 1978, Charles Darwin: A Companion (Kent, England: Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd.) has the following:

"McCormick, Robert 1800-1890. Surgeon on 2nd voyage of Beagle. 1832 Apr. M returned to England, ostensibly sick, but had quarreled with Fitz-Roy and with [John Clements] Wickham [1798-1864]--J.J. Keevil, J.R. Naval Med.Serv., 29-36-62, 1943; J.W. Gruber, Brit. J. Hist.Sci., 4:266-282, 1969." R.B. Freeman, 1978, Charles Darwin: A Companion (Kent, England: Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd.), page 196.

Rebecca Stetoff, writing in Charles Darwin And The Evolution Revolution (Oxford University Press), has the following:

"In the case of the Beagle, FitzRoy wanted to find a private passenger for the voyage because the rules of naval etiquette prevented the captain from having any social contact with the officers and crew; furthermore, as a descendant of King Charles II [1630-1685: from the restored House of Stuart and monarch from 1660 to 1685], FitzRoy was very proud of his status and felt that no one in the ship's company belonged to his social class. He needed a gentlemen of the proper background and breeding to serve as his companion primarily so that he would not have to eat dinner alone for three years or longer. Darwin was expected to take his meals in the captain's cabin, to be available for conversation when FitzRoy felt sociable, and to assemble a natural history collection that would contribute to the overall glory of the voyage. He felt quite capable of performing all of these duties. As it happened, McCormick left the Beagle after only a few months, annoyed because Darwin had more leisure and resources than he did to devote to collecting and studying specimens. Thereafter Darwin was the Beagle's sole naturalist, although he received much good-natured help from the officers and crew." Rebecca Stetoff, 1996, Charles Darwin And The Evolution Revolution (Oxford University Press), pages 44-45.

The events of 1831 have also been summarized by Desmond and Moore in their eminently readable Darwin:

"FitzRoy fixed him [Charles R. Darwin] up in quayside lodgings with [John Lort] Stokes [1812-1885] and himself so that the Beagle's intelligentsia could become acquainted. After a riotous dinner below deck in the Gun Room, the officers' mess, Darwin was glad of it. The men were 'rather rough, & their conversation…so full of slang & sea phrases' that it was 'unintelligible as Hebrew.' Among them was the Surgeon, Robert McCormick, the ship's official naturalist. He was thirty-one, hospital trained, petulant and the product of three voyages. Surgery was a menial grade in the King's navy, and only gentlemen could share the Captain's table (which is why Darwin was along). Darwin got on amicably with McCormick, even if he was 'an ass' and worried more about the beagle's paintwork than scientific pursuits. 15 [CCD, 1:172, 176-77, 180, 182; J. Gruber, 'Who,' 271ff; Diary, 4-7. So wretched was the navy surgeon's lot that passions were flaring. A riot actually broke out in the London College of Surgeons over the snubbing of ships' surgeons in 1831: London Medical Gazette, 7 (183-31), 765."] Adrian Desmond and James Moore, 1991, Darwin (NY: Warner Books), pages 110-111 and 690.

With a little bit of "Darwin" background from other sources, as one reads Annie's Box, one wonders: (#1) what about certain facts and (#2) what ever became of straight-forward chronological story-telling? If Annie's Box moved smoothly, it wouldn't matter, but after an 1830 date in Chapter 2 (the aforementioned "Pterodactyl Pie," which has a sub-heading listing on page 17 as follows: "Charles's secret - Ideas at Cambridge - HMS Beagle - Species - Human nature - Man and ape - Jenny the orang"), we get information in Chapter 2 concerning events which occurred in October 1836, something in 1837, back to 1836, "1830s" and 1837, 1835, 1837, 1838, something in February (probably 1838?), 1839, and a reference (with no date) to the Scottish Philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) and his Treatise of Human Nature. Going to the "Notes for pages 30-39 (on page 302) one does not read that Treatise was published in 1739, but we do learn of Charles Darwin's interest in Hume from his own Notebooks (listed on page 300), including Keynes's references toTreatise of Human Nature, Harmondsworth, 1969. (1969?!)

Chapter 3 ("Natural History of Babies") and other chapters continue with this hop-scotching through time: "It was now in mid-1838, while Charles's mind was full of apes" (page 41) and Annie's Box is often simply difficult to read. Annie's Box humanizes Charles R. Darwin at the expense of Darwin! Keynes makes reference to publications, such as Hume or John Abercrombie, mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 3, and Abercrombie's Inquiries Concerning the Intellectual Powers, but when was it published? While Annie's Box does haphazardly proceed in a chronological fashion, it doesn't tell a smooth story. In Chapter 12 (pages 212-229), "The Origin of Species" (with a listing on page 212 of "Etty's distress - Time and memory - Struggle for life - Last child - The Origin of Species") the reader must go through sixteen pages to get to Origin and then there is no mention of revisions and other editions of Origins!

When did Charles Darwin publish the other five editions of Origin? When did Charles Darwin publish something that Keynes refers to in the text as follows: "He [Charles R. Darwin] wrote many years later in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals…." (Chapter 4, "Young Crocodiles," page 83). Expression is not listed on page 319 of Keynes's "Published Sources" and on page 299 of "Notes" Keynes has the following: The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, ed. Paul Ekman (London, 1998). Charles R. Darwin first published Expression in 1872 and the complete Ekman title reads as follows: Charles Darwin - The Expression of the Emotions in Man And Animals Third Edition. With an Introduction, Afterword and Commentaries by Paul Ekman. Ekman writes in the book:

"This is the most complete edition of The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals ever published. The first edition was originally published in 1872. The second edition of Expression (like Darwin, I shall use just this one word to refer to the book), was edited by his son Francis. It included revisions and new material which Charles had expected to see in a second edition, but his publisher John Murrary would not bring out a second edition until all the copies of the first were sold. … The second edition appeared in 1889, seven years after Charles Darwin died." Paul Ekman, 1998, Charles Darwin - The Expression of the Emotions in Man And Animals Third Edition. With an Introduction, Afterword and Commentaries by Paul Ekman (NY: Oxford University Press), page xiii.

TRYING TO READ "NOTES TO PAGES"

I "like" Charles R. Darwin and think I know something of the man, his methods, and his moment in time. I also pride myself on some modicum of scholarship and I attempt to find some pattern in the data presented. I feel, at times like Darwin himself (as he wrote for his Autobiography of 1876): "My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collection of facts…." Nora Barlow, 1958, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter (NY: Norton 1969 paperback edition), page 139. Attempting to find a "law" that Keynes might have used proves frustrating and I gave up. Keynes has a writing and referencing style that defies systematization even though he explains it as follows:

"The notes give the sources of all important quotations, and those for other points of interest which may not be easy to find in obvious places. I have given references for domestic details only where the points may be of particular interest for some reason" (page 299).

As mentioned above, I prefer the "domestic" interpretation of Browne (as well as Desmond and Moore) for "Macaw Cottage" over that of Keynes. If one begins to check something as simple as the phrase mentioned on page 3 in Keynes, one has a problem: "When at twenty-nine Charles Darwin thought about marrying, he took a piece of paper and wrote: 'This is the question.'….." the reader sees on page 300 of Annie's Box that the statement is referenced as 'This is the question' and the source in the "Notes" is CCD, 2.444. The "CCD" as Keynes points out on the previous page (page 299), refers to the fantastic The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, 1821-1882 (Cambridge, 1994), an outstanding work! All well and good for the first reference; immediately below, however, on page 300, Keynes has a phrase "He [Charles R. Darwin] found a house" (there are no "" but I have placed them here) and the phrase is referenced as "R.B. Freeman, Darwin and Gower Street, An Exhibition in the Flaxman Gallery of the Library, University College London (London, 1982)." It is at this point the reader discovers that: (#1) there are additional sources that Keynes consulted to write Annie's Box (sources not listed in alphabetical order anywhere) and (#2) the reader questions why is not "He found a house" in any sort of quotes on page 5 of Annie's Box and (#3) what is the source of the Keynes words of Emma Wedgwood on page 4 of Annie's Box, which he has in single quotes as follows:

"'He is the most open transparent man I ever saw and every word expresses his real thoughts.' He was 'the most affectionate person possible'. Like many of the Wedgwood family, she often found it difficult to show her feelings. She felt it was a great advantage to have the power of expressing affection, and was sure that he would 'make his children very fond of him.'"

What is the source of Keynes's statement: "Like many of the Wedgwood family")? Perhaps one thinks this is a single lapse of footnoting but, alas, it goes on (sporadically) throughout Annie's Box! Some items are referenced and some are not! Some items are put into quotes (and referenced) and some are not! And there is no "numbering system" for any references in Annie's Box! Read Keynes without the footnotes and compare the excellent technique utilized (for example) by Paul R. Ehrlich in his 2000 publication entitled Human Natures: Genes, Cultures and the Human Prospect (Washington, D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater Books). With 331 pages of text and 100 pages of 1,901 numbered footnotes, Ehrlich cites 2,574 references (providing the original year of publication and what latest edition he might be citing from) to make his (excellent) Darwinian point! Ehrlich also provides information as to what page or pages he is making reference to when he has quotations, not like the cryptic phrases that appear in Annie's Box. Ehrlich writes:

"The basic explanation of evolution, our own and that of every other organism, traces to one of the most influential books ever written, Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published in 1859." Paul R. Ehrlich. 2000, Human Natures: Genes, Cultures and the Human Prospect (Washington, D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater Books), page 16.

If footnotes are not pleasing to read, consider the 2001 publication by Ehrlich and Andrew Beattie: 228 pages of well-crafted prose, with not a single footnote (but drawing upon the background knowledge of the authors and 53 items for "Recommended Reading"). They begin the final chapter of Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity Is Money in the Bank as follows:

"The biodiversity of Earth is our biological wealth, our biological capital. The savings are every gene, every populattion, every species, and every natural community that inhabits the oceans, the land, and the air. Whether we believe that God put them there or that they evolved from earlier creatures, the stark truth remains that they are the only ones we have--there are no life forms anywhere else." (Chapter 13: Savings and Loans.) Andrew Beattie, Paul R. Ehrlich (with illustrations by Christine Turnbull), 2001, Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity Is Money in the Bank (New Haven/London: Yale University Press), page 222.

REFERENCES

Keynes does provide references to "Published Sources" for Annie's Box (on page 319, which are not to be confused with "Notes" beginning on page 299, concluding on page 317). Twelve items are listed on page 319, beginning with Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man (London 1888), Vol. I, p.14, and ending with (an anonymous? item entitled) The Skip-Jack or Wireworm and the Slug (Edinburgh 1858), p. 23. Considering that Charles R. Darwin was born in 1809 and died in 1882 and the first edition of Descent (in two volumes) was published in 1870 and 1871, what edition is Keynes referring to when he has "1888" in his "Published Sources" on page 319?

In looking at the "Notes" on page 299, Keynes lists twenty items, beginning with The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (London, 1969) and concludes with Voyage (1845) and gives The Voyage of the Beagle, intro. H. Graham Cannon (London, 1959). Questions: (#1) is the 1959 "London" Voyage the same edition as the "1845" Voyage and (#2) when did Darwin's Autobiography first appear? Consider the following information available elsewhere:

"Autobiography 1876 written between late May and Aug.3 with later additions. Ms title 'Recollections of the development of my mind and character. Ms at Cambridge. 1887 first printed in LLi ["Francis Darwin, editor, The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter, 3 vols, London, John Murray, 1887. Edition used is 7th thousand 1888, the definitive text"] 26-160, with omissions which might possibly have caused offense to ED [Emma Darwin]. 1892 abbreviated version printed in Charles Darwin: his life, 5-54. 1958 Nora Barlow, editor, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored, London (F1497): a retranscription of the original mss, which lists, 244-245, the more important omissions." R.B. Freeman, 1978, Charles Darwin: A Companion (Kent, England: Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd.), page 24-25 (and see page 79).

Freeman provides additional information on Darwin's Autobiography and numerous other Darwin details and it is obvious that (#1) a great deal of Darwin information is available and (#2) Keynes could have included some of it. Freeman also has an excellent 1977 volume entitled The Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (Kent, England: Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd.) which is well worth perusing!

Is Keynes's Barlow of 1969, mentioned on page 299 above, the one with "omissions restored"? The reader should not have to go to Barlow but should find the information in Keynes. A similar criticism is leveled when Keynes makes reference to the following: Charles Darwin's Beagle Diary, ed. Richard Darwin Keynes (Cambridge 1988); Freeman has the following: "1933 Charles Darwin's diary of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, transcribed and edited by Nora Barlow" (page 105): are these the same works? In Annie's Box, Keynes does eventually provide 1859 as the date for the first publication of Origin (page 227), but why did Keynes (or the editor) allow the following reference to appear on page 300?: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, ed. J.W. Burrow (Harmondsworth, 1985): 1985?

Keynes correctly quotes the 1859 Origin (on page 229 of Annie's Box): "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that…." Why could Keynes not see fit, however, to include the fact that Darwin revised Origin five times in his lifetime and that beginning with the 2nd edition of Origin in 1860, Darwin inserted the term "Creator" into the above phrase? Keynes must know this as he takes us up to the publication of Darwin's Descent as well as Emma's death in 1896 so why not mention the other editions of Origin and the changes Darwin made? Changes as a result of conversations with Joseph Hooker (1817-1911) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875)? The point I make about Keynes's lack of mentioning other editions of Origin is one I made previously in reviewing the outstanding 2000 publication of James A. Secord, entitled Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (by Robert Chambers [1802-1883], first published anonymously in 1844). A few months ago I wrote the following:

"Secord presents a powerful argument on the impact and importance of Vestiges as well as Darwin's Origin. Secord's scholarship is evidenced by his writing: references abound, footnotes are not unwieldy, and the importance of Vestiges is clearly demonstrated. On one modest negative note: Secord makes reference to Darwin's famous closing words from the 1859 edition of Origin: "There is a grandeur in this view of life…." and this reader wishes that Secord could have made reference to the inclusion of the term "Creator" that Darwin added in the 1860 edition of Origin (and maintained in all subsequent editions in his lifetime)…." (For Configurations, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; and see http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/VestigesReview.html.)

In reviewing the excellent textbook (2001) by Timothy H. Goldsmith and William F. Zimmerman entitled Biology, Evolution, and Human Nature (New York: John Wiley & Sons), I wrote:

"The authors could point out that Origin went through six different editions in Darwin's lifetime (1859, 1860, 1861, 1866, 1869, and 1872). They do reference Darwin's 1859 Origin, as opposed to Frank C. Erk in 1999, who was wrong in writing that "In a sense, Darwin's hand was forced, in spite of his pious inference at the end of the Origin: 'There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one….'" ("Scopes, Evolution and Religion." QRB, Vol. 74, No. 1, March 1999, pp 51-55, p 52). The Darwin of 1859 was not the Darwin Erk refers to; the word "Creator" was not in Origin of 1859 but was added by Darwin in 1860 (and for all subsequent editions in his lifetime). (For The Quarterly Review of Biology [State University of New York, Stony Brook]; and see http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/qrbjuly2001review.htm.)

It is (I truly believe) very important to point out for 21st century readers that there are various editions ("versions") of Charles R. Darwin's Origin and (if one makes or takes the time to read them) they are all different. It behooves an author to point this out to the reader. Even the indefatigable Stephen J. Gould (1941->) omits Charles R. Darwin's reference to the "Creator" in his own popularizing writings. In a 1993 publication Gould ended his essay entitled "Shoemaker And Morning Star" as follows:

"And I remembered that Charles Darwin had drawn the very same contrast in the final lines of the Origin of Species. When asking himself, in one climactic paragraph, to define the essence of the differences between life and the inanimate cosmos, Darwin chose the directional character of evolution vs. the cyclic repeatability of our clockwork solar system [and Gould then quotes the following from Darwin]: 'There is a grandeur in this view of life.... [these "...." are placed by Gould in his quote, which continues as follows] Whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.'" Stephen J. Gould, 1993, Shoemaker And Morning Star. Eight Little Piggies: Reflections In Natural History, pp. 206-217, pages 216-217.

Gould must have had a reason for not mentioning Darwin's reference to the "Creator," but it is not obvious to the casual reader. Why does Gould not quote from editions two (1860) through six (1872)? Charles R. Darwin himself wrote the following about Origin:

"It was published under the title of the Origin of Species, in November 1859. Though considerably added to and corrected in the later editions, it has remained substantially the same book. It is no doubt the chief work of my life. It was from the first highly successful." Nora Barlow, 1958, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter (NY: Norton 1969 paperback edition), page 122.

Annie's Box does "humanize" Darwin and provides information about Darwin's feelings for a "Creator" but why not mention the other five editions of Origin? The Charles R. Darwin statement in all editions of Origin after 1860 published in his lifetime is as follows:

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object of which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of higher animals directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator [stress added] into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

On another aspect of Charles R. Darwin's religious (or "philosophical"?) attitudes, Keynes writes:

"After Annie's death [in 1851], Charles set the Christian faith firmly behind him. He did not attend church services with the family; he walked with them to the church door, but left them to enter on their own and stood talking with the village constable or walked along the lanes around the parish. He did, though, still firmly believe in a Divine Creator. But while others had faith in God's infinite goodness, Charles found him a shadowy, inscrutable and ruthless figure." (page 222)

While this is interesting and touching (and one wonders of Keynes's source for "found him a shadowy, inscrutable and ruthless figure"), Keynes should be read in conjunction with Charles Darwin's own words concerning a supreme being:

"When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. … I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." Nora Barlow, 1958, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter (NY: Norton 1969 paperback edition), pages 92-94.

These same words appear in the abbreviated version of Life and Letters (1887), edited by Francis Darwin (1848-1925), the 7th child of Emma Wedgwood Darwin and Charles Darwin: "…and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." Francis Darwin [Editor], 1892, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters Edited by Francis Darwin (NY: Dover Publications 1958 paperback edition), page 67. Others have written of the death of "Annie" and the two other children who died:

"He [Charles Darwin] was revered by his intimate scientific friends and loved by his family, to whom he was devoted. The family had three children, each bereavement causing Darwin the most intense grief." Jonathan Howard, 1982, Darwin (Oxford University Press), pages 8-9.

"Darwin's own Christianity, never very deeply held, gradually eroded as he worked out his theory of natural selection; the remnants of his faith were wiped out entirely by the suffering and death of his daughter Annie in 1851. Later in life he described himself as an Agnostic--one who questions but does not flatly deny the existence of God. ... [Annie's] death destroyed the last lingering remnants of Darwin's Christianity." Rebecca Stetoff, 1996, Charles Darwin And The Evolution Revolution (Oxford University Press), pages 80-81.

FINAL POINTS

Annie's Box does provide some interesting information but, alas, I think one has more of Randal Keynes's interpretation of Charles and Emma Darwin concerning the death of Anne Elizaneth Darwin rather than the actual "feelings" of Charles and Emma Darwin concerning Annie's death. Charles R. Darwin wrote the following:

"You all know well your Mother [Charles Darwin wrote to his children], and what a good Mother she has ever been to all of you. She has been my greatest blessing, and I can declare that in my whole life I have never heard her utter one word which I had rather been unsaid. … We have suffered only one very severe grief in the death of Annie at Malvern on April 24th, 1851, when she was just over ten years old. She was a most sweet and affectionate child, and I feel sure would have grown into a delightful woman. But I need say nothing here of her character, as I wrote a short sketch of it shortly after her death. Tears still sometimes come into my eyes, when I think of her sweet ways.1 ("1. The fuller account of Annie can be found in Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 132.--N.B.") [stress added]. Nora Barlow, 1958, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter (NY: Norton 1969 paperback edition), pages 97-98.

The complete statement made by Charles R. Darwin concerning their "most sweet and affectionate child" Annie was as follows, as his son Francis Darwin (1848-1925) later wrote: "I quote, as showing the tenderness of his nature, some sentences from an account of his little daughter Annie, written a few days after her death:--"

"I write these few pages, as I think in after years, if we live, the impressions now put down will recall more vividly her chief characteristics. From whatever point I look back at her, the main feature in her disposition which at once rises before me, is her buoyant joyousness, tempered by two other characteristics, namely her sensitiveness, which might easily have been overlooked by a stranger, and her strong affection. Her joyousness and animal spirits radiated from her whole countenance, and rendered every movement elastic and full of life and vigour. Her dear face now rises before me, as she used sometimes to come running downstairs with a stolen pinch of snuff for me, her whole form radiant with the pleasure of giving pleasure. Even when playing with her cousins, when her joyousness almost passed into boisterousness, a single glance of my eye, not of displeasure (for I thank God I hardly ever cast one on her), but of want of sympathy, would for some minutes alter her own countenance."

"The other point in her character, which made her joyousness and spirits so delightful, was her strong affection, which was of a most clinging, fondling nature. When quite a baby, this showed itself in never being easy without touching her mother, when in bed with her; and quite lately she would, when poorly, fondle for any length of time one of her mother's arms. When very unwell, her mother lying down beside her, seemed to soothe her in a manner quite different from what it would have done to any of our other children. So, again, she would at almost any time spend half-an-hour in arranging my hair, 'making it,' as she called it, 'beautiful,' or in smoothing, the poor dear darling, my collar or cuffs--in short, in fondling me."

"Besides her joyousness thus tempered, she was in her manners remarkably cordial, frank, open, straightforward, natural, and without any shade of reserve. Her whole mind was pure and transparent. One felt one knew her thoroughly and could trust her. I always thought, that come what might, we should have had, in our old age, at least one loving soul, which nothing could have changed. All her movements were vigorous, active, and usually graceful. When going round the Sand-walk with me, although I walked fast, yet she often used to go before, pirouetting in the most elegant way, her dear face bright all the time with the sweetest of smiles. Occasionally she had a pretty, coquetish manner towards me, the memory of which is charming. She often used exaggerating language, and when I quizzed her by exaggerating what she had said, how clearly can I now see the little toss of the head, and exclamation of 'Oh, papa, what a shame of you!' In the last short illness, her conduct in simple truth was angelic. She never once complained; never became fretful; was ever considerate of others, and was thankful in the most gentle, pathetic manner for everything done for her. When so exhausted that she could hardly speak, she praised everything that was given her, and said some tea 'was beautifully good.' When I gave her some water, she said, 'I quite thank you; ' and these, I believe, were the last precious words ever addressed by her dear lips to me."

"We have lost the joy of the household, and the solace of our old age. She must have known how we loved her. Oh, that she could now know how deeply, how tenderly, we do still and shall ever love her dear joyous face! Blessings on her!* ["*The words, 'A good and dear child,' from the descriptive part of the inscription on her gravestone. See the Athenœum, Nov. 26, 1887."]

"April 30, 1851." Francis Darwin [Editor], 1892, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters Edited by Francis Darwin (NY: Dover Publications 1958 paperback edition), pages 88-89.

"Annie" Darwin died on April 23, 1851 and Charles R. Darwin wrote powerful and moving words. Annie's Box attempts to improve and contextualize the original words of Charles R. Darwin but, in my opinion, Annie's Box does not do it well. One can read (for example) the outstanding 1986 volume by Edna Healey entitled Wives of Fame: Mary Livingstone, Jenny Marx, Emma Darwin (London: Sidgwick & Jackson), and the following concerning Emma and Charles Darwin:

"Emma carefully collected and kept Annie's treasures, as she had done with those of her sister Fanny [Frances Wedgwood: 1806-1832]. Annie's small box is still prized in the Darwin family. It contains her little thimble and beaded ribbons, her quill pens and embroidered pen-wipers, and a careful, childish letter to the sister of her governess. There are two folds of paper: in one is a lock of light brown hair, still shining; in the other two are withered crocuses, the flowers that Emma had picked from Annie's garden. They are the most loving mementoes of the heartache of that week." Edna Healey, 1986, Wives of Fame: Mary Livingstone, Jenny Marx, Emma Darwin (London: Sidgwick & Jackson), page 172.

"The death of Annie left a deep scar; neither Emma nor Charles would ever be the same again. Some of that merriment and gaiety that Aunt Jessie had so frequently admired in Emma was slowly subdued. And Emma, who had never fussed over children, who had allowed the boys to wander off through the woods alone, now became careful of their health." Edna Healey, 1986, Wives of Fame: Mary Livingstone, Jenny Marx, Emma Darwin (London: Sidgwick & Jackson), page 172.

While Keynes did write that "I owe special thanks also to Edna Healey for her wise advice in our many conversations about Emma Darwin" (page 318) he does not specifically reference or cite Healey's 1986 Wives of Fame.

Is there something new in Annie's Box? I think much of Annie's Box is not new and some of Annie's Box, as a result of not citing specific sources and references, can (and should) be questioned. As Steven Rose wrote in The Times (London) on May 9, 2001:

"The book adds little to our knowledge of Darwin the public figure. Do not read it expecting to learn much about the debates over evolutionary theory or human origins. But for someone who now looms so large in the modern world's scientific and intellectual history, Darwin was an intensively private man, living for most of his life in family seclusion in the then remote village of Downe, in Kent. He and Emma had ten children, two of whom died in infancy, and Annie, whose agonising death, probably from tuberculosis, is so minutely recorded here. The Darwins were well off, part of the growin upper middle class living on their investments, and supported by a domestic staff of at least eleven. What the book reveals is the intimacies of living for such a family. In doing so it rescues Emma from the subordinate role into which the popular Darwin biographies have locked her. Above all this is a love story: the love of Charles and Emma, whose marriage united the powerful Darwin and Wedgwood families; and the love of both for their children. ... In Keynes's account, which veers uneasily (and in proper Victorian style) between sentiment and mawkishness, this innocent death is the key to Charles's final loss of religious faith. But Annie's death was eight years before the Origin appeared and it would be many more years before Darwin's theories of human evolution were published; the relationship between Annie's box and Keynes's subtitle is more forced than real [stress added]." Steven Rose, 2001, He knew well natural selection's painful price. The Times (London), May 9, n.p. [Features].

Other statements made in Annie's Box cause one to question interpretations. Keynes writes (page 269) about Charles R. Darwin and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903):

"Charles [Darwin] was always respectful towards Herbert Spencer, the social philosopher linked with the ideas which became known as 'social Darwinism', but he often felt that his writing were too abstract, and admitted that he did not understand them."

Because of the referencing system of Annie's Box it is difficult to determine how (or even when) Charles R. Darwin made such a statement, considering that Charles R. Darwin wrote the following:

"Herbert Spencer's conversation seemed to me very interesting, but I did not like him particularly, and did not feel that I could have become intimate with him. I think he was extremely egotistical. After reading any of his books, I generally feel enthusiastic admiration for his transcendent talents, and have often wondered whether in the distant future he would rank with such great men as Descartes, Leibnitz, etc., about whom, however, I know very little. Nevertheless I am not conscious of having profited in my own work by Spencer's writings [stress added]." Nora Barlow, 1958, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter (NY: Norton 1969 paperback edition), pages 108-109.

Charles R. Darwin did borrow the phrase "survival of the fittest" from Spencer yet the phrase did not appear in the first edition of Origin in 1859 but was only incorporated for the first time in 1869 in the 5th edition of Origin. It appears in my copy of sixth edition of 1872 as follows:

"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient." [Chapter III: "Recapitulation And Conclusion"]

The reason it is important to point out the various editions of Origin is demonstrated by the following chart, based on information in the excellent 1959 publication of Morse Peckham [Editor] entitledThe Origin Of Species By Charles Darwin: A Variorum Text). Every edition of Origin published in Charles R. Darwin's lifetime is different! He re-wrote every-single-one and all are different! The concept of change is definitely vital to an understanding of Darwin, whether you are reading Darwin himself or reading about him and I include the following tabular information on Darwin's Origin in virtually everything I present or write:

YEAR/Ed.	COPIES	Sentences	Sentences	Sentences	TOTAL	% CHANGE
1859/1st	1,250				3,878
1860/2nd	3,000	9 eliminated	483 rewritten	30 added	3,899	7 %
1861/3rd	2,000	33 eliminated	617 rewritten	266 added	4,132	14 %
1866/4th	1,500	36 eliminated	1073 rewritten	435 added	4,531	21 %
1869/5th	2,000	178 eliminated	1770 rewritten	227 added	4,580	29 %
1872/6th	3,000	63 eliminated	1699 rewritten	571 added	5,088	21-29 %

Charles R. Darwin took great care not to write about Homo sapiens in Origin in 1859 and all he had to say about "man" in 1859 was:

"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history. [Chapter XV: "Recapitulation And Conclusion"]

By the 6th edition of Origin in 1872, Darwin had re-written the above as follows:

"In the future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be securely based on the foundation already well laid by Mr. Herbert Spencer, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history. [Chapter XV: "Recapitulation And Conclusion"]

With proper reading and an understanding of Charles R. Darwin's Origin (and how it came to be, including the death of "Annie" in 1851), we can better interpret the past, judge the present, and undertand ourselves in hoping for the future! That is why "Darwin lives" today and why it is important to contextualize the changes in Charles R. Darwin over time.

COMMENTS ON ANNIE'S BOX WEB PAGE & MATTHEW CHAMPMAN'S TRIALS OF THE MONKEY

"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened." Charles R. Darwin, 1871, The Descent of Man And Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton University Press edition, 1981, with Introduction by John T. Bonner and Robert M. May), Chapter 21, page 385.

As I have tried to demonstrate, Annie's Box, by Randal Keynes (a great-great grandson of Charles Darwin) is an interesting book, but it is not a well-written book nor is it a well-designed book. I enjoy some of what Keynes has written but I do not appreciate the manner in which it was written. This, I believe, is more of an editorial problem than a writer's problem. Keyne's did provide some nice line sketches and photos for Annie's Box and they are enjoyable. Compare the published Annie's Box with a nice web site (referenced on page 299 of Annie's Box): http://www.fourthestate.co.uk/anniesbox/flash_home.htm. The site deals with Annie's Box and on June 4, 2001, you can read that Keynes had a "Question and Answer" session posted which is a delightful read and he ended it by saying "I am waiting for the heavyweight reviews!" While I certainly do not view these brief words as a "heavyweight" review, I trust it proves of some value for those who wish to delve further into facts concerning Charles R. Darwin.

The Annie's Box web page led me to the book by Randal Keynes's cousin, Matthew Chapman (born in 1950). It appears that in 2000 Matthew Chapman publishedTrials of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir in the United Kingdom and in September 2001 it was published in the United States (by Picador USA, used by St. Martin's Press, under license from Pan Books Limited). On June 24, 2001, Keynes stated that "...my cousin Matthew Chapman has been to Tennessee and has written about his meetings with anti-Darwinists." Readers: believe me, Chapman, another great-great-grandson of Charles R. Darwin has written much more than "his meetings with anti-Darwinists." Chapman's "accidental memoir" (while incredibly interesting and fascinating and revealing and well-worth reading!) may not make many of Chapman's relatives altogether happy and it is well worth a read! Chapman wrote:

"By an accident of birth, I was the descendant of one of the most influential men of the last two millennia, a man whose research and theories challenged not only Christianity but most other religions as well. ... When Darwin called his second book The Descent of Man he was thinking of his progeny. One only has to study the chronology to see the truth of this. First there was Charles Darwin, two yards long and nobody's fool. Then there was his son, my great-grandfather, Sir Francis Darwin [1848-1925], an eminent botanist. Then came my grandmother Frances [1886-1960], a modest poet who spent a considerable amount of time in rest homes for depression. From her issue my beloved mother, Clare [1924-1992], who was extremely short, failed to complete medical school, and eventually became an alcoholic. Then we get down to me. I'm in the movie business. At prep school in Cambridge, where I was brought up, I could not figure out what rung I was supposed to occupy on the social ladder. It was hard to believe I was beneath the brutish offspring of titled pig farmers and Tory MPs, but they clearly thought so. When I asked my father for help in the matter, he informed me I was 'a member of the intellectual aristocracy.' He said it with a laugh but he was right, and like most aristocracies it is in decline. I went to a Darwin reunion a few years back and it seemed to me that the whole family tree was hopping with regression, every smile verging on the imbecelic, every suit stuffed with the same sorry cargo of morphological deterioriations [stress added]." Matthew Chapman, 2000/2001, Trials of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir (New York: Picador USA, used by St. Martin's Press, under license from Pan Books Limited), page x and page 6.

The Trials of the Monkey does cover the celebrated "Scopes Trial" on 1925, held in Dayton, Tennessee, USA, but Trials of the Monkey is much more than that. This is not the page to elaborate on Chapman's book, but just as I have been to Down House (1991 and 1999) and the Galápagos Islands (2000), I have also been to the Rhea County Courthouse (1997), location of the famous trial, where on the second day of the trial (July 13, 1925) the immortal words of Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) flowed:

"If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After while, your honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind [stress added]."Anon., 1925, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case (1925) (First reprinted 1978; Second reprint edition 1990 published by Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee), page 87.

Chapman knows whereof he speaks (and his prose flows). Writing on the above speech, Matthew Chapman has the following:

"Although some of the audience hissed at the end of the speech, most said it was one of Darrow's best. 'It was not designed for reading,' wrote [Henry Louis] Mencken [1880-1956]." Matthew Chapman, 2000/2001, Trials of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir (New York: Picador USA, used by St. Martin's Press, under license from Pan Books Limited), page 154.

I highly recommend Trials of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir by Matthew Chapman; as Steve Weinberg wrote on September 16, 2001: "It is not only an accidental memoir, as the subtitle says. It is also an accidental success." In the same review, he also wrote:

"The great-great grandson of Charles Darwin, british-born Matthew Chapman decided to capitalize on his accident of birth by using it to justify writing a book. 'Trials of the Monkey' is candid, confessional, raunchy and learned - not four words usually used in the same sentence to describe a work of nonfiction. It is certain to offend some readers, while other readers are just as certain to laugh out loud [stress added]." Steven Weinberg, 2001, Darwin descendant's work evolves into memoir. The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), September 16, 2001, Sunday Arts - Books, page I12.

CONCLUSIONS

As Jonathan Howard wrote in 1982, "Darwin biographers are faced with an embarrassment of riches" (Jonathan Howard, 1982, Darwin [Oxford University Press] page 1). In my opinion, the author of any published item that describes (or interprets) an event of the past (and who now makes that event accessible to those who weren't present at the original event) should create the best possible "description" at a particular point in time: namely now, when the information is presented. This "description" (and hence, "interpretation") is done through the use of words (including visuals) and should follow a certain set of rules. For a work of fiction, a feeling of verisimilitude is created in the mind of the reader as the conflict within the story plays itself out. A good work of "fiction" (in my opinion) causes the reader to think: "it could be true."

When an author deals with an event which has obviously occurred in the past, and there is ample evidence to support the story describing the event, then those facts should be presented in a standard format. This format should be similar to other "stories" which describe either the same event or similar events: chronological story-telling combined with maps as well as charts. Specific "facts" that certain readers might find of value (which the author may not appreciate because of their potential controversy) should be included or made reference to (in a systematic fashion) somewhere in the text. The art and craft of writing is not a "neutral" process and the personality and background of every author (the environment in which they are "surviving") influences what he or she writes: this is clearly true for Darwin, Ehrlich, Keynes, Urbanowicz, or anyone! As the distinguished anthropologist Gregory Bateson (1904-1980) once wrote:

"The unit of survival [or adaptation] is organism plus environment. We are learning by bitter experience that the organism which destroys its environment destroys itself. If, now, we correct the Darwinian unit of survival to include the environment and the interaction between organism and environment, a very strange and surprising identity emerges: the unit of survival turns out to be identical with the unit of mind" [italics in original; stress added]." Gregory Bateson [1904-1980], 1972, Steps To An Ecology of Mind (NY: Ballantine Books), page 483.

History is important and as Steven Rose, the same Steven Rose whose review of Annie's Box has already been mentioned, has written:

"While it is the case, as the population geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky [1900-1975] put it, that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, his claim requires extension. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of history--the evolutionary history of the species, the developmental history of the individual living organism, and, for humans, of course, social, cultural and technological history. To this must be added the history of our own sciences, which provides the framing assumptions within which we attempt to view and interpret the world [stress added]." Steven Rose, 2000, Escaping Evolutionary Psychology. Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology, edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose (NY: Harmony Books), pages 299-320, pages 307-308.

The reader has noted that whenever an individual was introduced onto this web page, an attempt was made to present both a "birth date" and a "death date" for that individual: this is because of the simple fact that people "change" over time and Charles Darwin's "1831 mind" was different from his "1836 mind" (after he returned from the voyage of HMS Beagle) and was different from his "1851 mind" or his "mind" at various points in time! People change their opinions, ideas, behavior, and values; it is important, I believe, to use time as an organizing device. Individuals who have minds change their minds over time. Charles R. Darwin changed his mind at various points in time, and survived, and we are the better for it. As Phillip Appleman wrote in 2001 in his Darwin:

"...the growth of scientific knowledge has tended to have socially progressive effects. On the whole, factual knowledge of the physical world has been a far better basis for human understanding, human solidarity, and human sympathy than were folklore or superstition. The old myths of tribal and racial superiority, for instance, have now been thoroughly discredited by the biological understanding that we are one people, one species, in one world. ... The future is by definition obscure and risky, and admonitions about it notoriously fallible. But Darwin's sensible advice--'educating and stimulating in all possible ways the intellectual faculties of every human being'--probably gives us our best chance at what he himself called a 'higher destiny in the distant future.' [stress added]." Philip Appleman [Editor], 2001, Darwin (NY: W.W. Norton & Co.), page 19 and 20.

Every published item, as far as possible (be it web page or lecture or published article or volume), should be a "stand-alone-item" which provides the reader with as much of the current essential information relevant to that subject to date at that point in time. It should also allow the reader to go beyond the current document as a result of well-referenced sources cited and the documentation presented. While Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter and Human Evolution, by Randal Keynes, is a good book, it could have been a better book.

POSTSCRIPT FROM ROSE WILLIAMS (p. LXXXI)

It is recorded that the poet Marcus Valerius Martialis, better known as Martial (c. 40-104 A.D.) once wrote:

Although I have not "published" in the "traditional" book / journal sense, any reader is encouraged to examine numerous "web pages" dealing with Charles R. Darwin, commencing, beginning perhaps, with http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Darwin2000.html [from November 2000], a comprehensive listing of my "Darwin" web pages to that date.

Research is currently in progress for presentations on October 25, 2001 [http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/DarwinForum2001.html] and November 4, 2001 [http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/FA2001Unitarian.html].

This web page was completed and posted to the World Wide Web on September 23, 2001, my 59th birthday. On September 23, 1842, Mary Eleanor Darwin (the third child of Emma and Charles Darwin) was born at Down House. Mary Eleanor Darwin died October 16, 1842.

REFERENCES (Specific)

Anon., 1925, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case (1925) (First reprinted 1978; Second reprint edition 1990 published by Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee)

Anon., 2001 [May 29], Annie Darwin's Treasured Keepsakes Return to Down House. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/news-events/news/ExpandedResult.asp?Id=238

Anon., 2001, http://www.handbag.com/arts/book_anniesbox/ {Entertainment]

Anon., 2001, http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/keynes/ [BBC on Keynes]

Anon., 2001, http://www.fourthestate.co.uk/anniesbox/flash_home.htm [Fourth Estate on Annie's Box].

Anon. The Browser, 2001, The Scotsman, May 19, page 5.

Philip Appleman [Editor], 2001, Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Third Edition (NY: W.W. Norton & Co.).

Nora Barlow, 1958, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter (NY: Norton 1969 paperback edition).

Nora Barlow, 1967, Darwin and Henslow: The Growth of An Idea - Letters 1831-1860 edited by Nora Barlow. (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press).

Gregory Bateson, 1972, Steps To An Ecology of Mind (NY: Ballantine Books).

Andrew Beattie, Paul R. Ehrlich (with illustrations by Christine Turnbull), 2001, Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity Is Money in the Bank (New Haven/London: Yale University Press).

John T. Bonner and Robert M. May , 1981,The Descent of Man And Selection in Relation to Sex, by Charles R. Darwin, 1871 (Princeton University Press edition).

Janet Browne, 1995, Charles Darwin Voyaging: Volume I of a Biography (NY: Knopf).

http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Departments/Darwin/calintro.html [On-line Calendar of the Correspondence of Charles Darwin} The University of Cambridge]

Matthew Chapman, 2000/2001, Trials of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir (New York: Picador USA, used by St. Martin's Press, under license from Pan Books Limited).

Clive Cookson, 2001, Death And The Maiden. Weekend Financial Times (London), April 28, page 4 and 5.

Charles R. Darwin, 1859 (as well as): 1860, 1861, 1866, 1869, and 1872, On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life [Note: this is the on-line version of the 1859 edition].

Charles R. Darwin, 1871, The Descent of Man And Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton University Press edition, 1981, with Introduction by John T. Bonner and Robert M. May).

Charles Darwin, 1872, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life [1958 paperback edition with an Introduction by Sir Julian Huxley] (NY: Mentor).

Francis Darwin [Editor], 1892, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters Edited by Francis Darwin (NY: Dover Publications 1958 paperback edition).

Adrian Desmond and James Moore, 1991, Darwin (NY: Warner Books).

Paul R. Ehrlich. 2000, Human Natures: Genes, Cultures and the Human Prospect (Washington, D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater Books).

Paul Ekman, 1998, Charles Darwin - The Expression of the Emotions in Man And Animals Third Edition. With an Introduction, Afterword and Commentaries by Paul Ekman (NY: Oxford University Press).

Frank C. Erk, 1999, 1999, Scopes, Evolution and Religion. Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 74, No. 1, March 1999, pp 51-55.

R.B. Freeman, 1977, The Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist [Second edition, revised and enlarged] Kent, England: Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd.).

R.B. Freeman, 1978, Charles Darwin: A Companion (Kent, England: Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd.).

Timothy H. Goldsmith and William F. Zimmerman, 2001, Biology, Evolution, and Human Nature (NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).

Stephen J. Gould, 1993, Shoemaker And Morning Star. Eight Little Piggies: Reflections In Natural History, pp. 206-217.

J.W. Gruber, 1969, Who was the Beagle's Naturalist? British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 4, pp. 266-282.

Edna Healey, 1986, Wives of Fame: Mary Livingstone, Jenny Marx, Emma Darwin (London: Sidgwick & Jackson).

J.J. Keevil, 1943, J.R. Naval Med.Serv., 29-36-62.

Jonathan Howard, 1982, Darwin (Oxford University Press).

Lisa Jardine, 2001, Darwin's reflection on the death of a child. The Sunday Times (London), [Features], n.p.

Maev Kennedy, May 30, 2001, Darwin's keepsake: Tribute to his daughter on display. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4194665,00.html.

Randal Keynes, 2001, Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter and Human Evolution (London: Fourth Estate).

Jonathan Miller & Borin Van Loon, 1982, Darwin for Beginners (NY: Pantheon Books).

Morse Peckham [Editor], 1959, The Origin Of Species By Charles Darwin: A Variorum Text (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).

Gwen Darwin Raverat, 1952, Period Piece (NY: W.W. Norton & Co. 1953 edition).

Hilary Rose and Steven Rose [Editors], 2000, Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology, edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose (NY: Harmony Books).

Steven Rose, 2000, Escaping Evolutionary Psychology. Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology, edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose (NY: Harmony Books), pages 299-320.

Steven Rose, 2001, He knew well natural selection's painful price. The Times (London), May 9, [Features], n.p.

James A. Secord, 2000,Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (University of Chicago Press).

Chris Small, 2001, Review. The Scotsman Publications Ltd. Scotland on Sunday, May 6, page 16.

Rebecca Stetoff, 1996, Charles Darwin And The Evolution Revolution (Oxford University Press).

Charles F. Urbanowicz, 2000, Teaching As Theatre: Some Classroom Ideas, Specifically Those Concerning Charles R. Darwin (1809-1882). (For the session entitled "Another Bag Of Teaching Tricks" on 15 November 2000 at the 99th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, California (November 15-19, 2000) [http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Darwin2000.html]. [To return to the beginning of this page, please click here.]

Charles F. Urbanowicz, 2001a, http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/VestigesReview.html [Review of James A. Secord, 2000, Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press), for Configurations, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.].

Charles F. Urbanowicz, 2001b, www.csuchico.edu/~curban/qrbjuly2001review.htm [Review of Biology, Evolution, and Human Nature, by Timothy H. Goldsmith and William F. Zimmerman. New York (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), for The Quarterly Review of Biology [State University of New York, Stony Brook].

Charles F. Urbanowicz, 2001c, http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/DarwinForum2001.html [On Darwin At The 21st Century. For the "Anthropology Forum" at California State University, Chico, October 25, 2001].

Charles F. Urbanowicz, 2001d, http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/FA2001Unitarian.html [Darwin, Dying, and Death: Philosophical Perspectives. For the Unitarian Fellowship of Chico, 1289 Filbert Avenue, November 4, 2001].

Steven Weinberg, 2001, Darwin descendant's work evolves into memoir. The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), September 16, 2001, Sunday Arts - Books, page I12.

Rose Williams [Compiler and Translator], 2000, Latin Quips At Your Fingertips (NY: Barnes & Noble).

REFERENCES (Other)

Charles Darwin: - Part Two: The Voyage, [2001] ~Twenty-two Minute Instructional Videotape (Edited by Ms. Vilma Hernandez and Produced by Donna Crowe: Instructional Media Center, CSU, Chico) [which may be viewedvia the Internet with a REAL PLAYER].

Charles Darwin: - Part One: The Voyage, ~Twenty-two Minute Instructional Videotape [1999] Produced by Ms. Donna Crowe: Instructional Media Center, CSU, Chico) [which may be viewedvia the Internet with a REAL PLAYER].

Charles Darwin: Reflections - Part One: The Beginning, [1997] Seventeen Minute Instructional Videotape: Reflections: Part One, Produced by Ms. Donna Crowe: Instructional Media Center, CSU, Chico) [which may be viewedvia the Internet with a REAL PLAYER].

http://darwin.ws/day/ [Darwin Day Home Page]

http://www.galapagos.org/cdf.htm [Charles Darwin Foundation, Inc.]

http://www.aboutdarwin.com/ [About Darwin.com]

http://www.gruts.demon.co.uk/darwin/index.htm [The Friends of Charles Darwin Home Page]

wysiwyg://5/http://www.iexplore.com/multimedia/galapagos.jhtml [The Galápagos Islands!]

http://www.natcenscied.org [The National Center for Science Education]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm [Scopes Trial Home Page} UMKC School of Law]

http://65.107.211.206/victov.html [The Victorian Web} An Overview]

http://www.elite.net/~hclark/light.htm [Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution} T. Dobzhansky]

http://www.darwinawards.com/ [Official Darwin Awards} "...showing us just how uncommon common sense can be." Wendy Northcutt, 2000, The Darwin Awards: Evolution in Action (Dutton).

Copyright © 2001; all rights reserved by Charles F. Urbanowicz

23 September 2001 by CFU