The steps are perfectly clear. First Dr. Krause published his article in _Kosmos_ and my book was announced (its purport being thus made obvious), both in the month of February 1879. Soon afterwards arrangements were made for a translation of Dr. Krause’s essay, and were completed by the end of April. Then my book came out, and in some way or other Dr. Krause happened to get hold of it. He helped himself—not to much, but to enough; made what other additions to and omissions from his article he thought would best meet “Evolution, Old and New,” and then fell to condemning that book in a finale that was meant to be crushing. Nothing was said about the revision which Dr. Krause’s work had undergone, but it was expressly and particularly declared in the preface that the English translation was an accurate version of what appeared in the February number of _Kosmos_, and no less expressly and particularly stated that my book was published subsequently to this. Both these statements are untrue; they are in Mr. Darwin’s favour and prejudicial to myself. All this was done with that well-known “happy simplicity” of which the _Pall Mall Gazette_, December 12, 1879, declared that Mr. Darwin was “a master.” The final sentence, about the “weakness of thought and mental anachronism which no one can envy,” was especially successful. The reviewer in the _Pall Mall Gazette_ just quoted from gave it in full, and said that it was thoroughly justified. He then mused forth a general gnome that the “confidence of writers who deal in semi-scientific paradoxes is commonly in inverse proportion to their grasp of the subject.” Again my vanity suggested to me that I was the person for whose benefit this gnome was intended. My vanity, indeed, was well fed by the whole transaction; for I saw that not only did Mr. Darwin, who should be the best judge, think my work worth notice, but that he did not venture to meet it openly. As for Dr. Krause’s concluding sentence, I thought that when a sentence had been antedated the less it contained about anachronism the better. Only one of the reviews that I saw of Mr. Darwin’s “Life of Erasmus Darwin” showed any knowledge of the facts. The _Popular Science Review_ for January 1880, in flat contradiction to Mr. Darwin’s preface, said that only part of Dr. Krause’s article was being given by Mr. Darwin. This reviewer had plainly seen both _Kosmos_ and Mr. Darwin’s book.