"[W]hat utter guesswork all this is and people call it science" — annotation on page 365

The first printing of ORIGIN famously sold out in a single day in November 1859, leading publisher Murray to issue a second edition as soon as Darwin had made revisions, in January 1860. The book was met with both considerable acclaim and criticism, sparking heated debates across the country. It is possible that our annotator was among those who rushed out to obtain a copy of the second edition amidst this furor, as aniline ink was commercially available by the 1860s.

The comments range in length, tone, and depth of engagement, suggesting an intense and frankly emotional reading experience for the annotator. Some annotations are insulting or flippant, as when the annotator calls Darwin "cocksure" (477) or simply writes, "stuff!" (as in "rubbish," often used as a euphemism in place of cursing). Other annotations engage with the substance of the science, asking "how can a genus descend from a species" (446), which does indeed contradict Linnaeus's traditional hierarchical taxonomy; and comparing Darwin unfavorably to Lyell, whom "one has not to read over and over again in hopeless despair of finding meaning!" (282).

ORIGIN OF SPECIES "dealt a body blow to traditional Western religious thought" (Larsen, 89) and some of the annotations are religiously inflected, especially on the question of how Darwin's arguments were perceived to conflict with the belief in a divine Creator. The annotator argues, "of course to talk of a Creator or God to [sic] odious to Mr D" (413) — a not unfounded comment, as Darwin had actually revised this second edition to add the phrase "by the Creator" on the last page "in order to conciliate angry clerics" (Kutschera). Indeed, even Darwin's supporters were aware of the threatening religious implications: Thomas Henry Huxley claimed in an 1860 review that "Old ladies, of both sexes, consider it a decidedly dangerous book" (quoted in Larson, 83).

These religious comments appear to underlie the fury of the annotator, who expands them into a moral argument: "How arrogant how almost insolent for any man to write in this style as if he had been present throughout the ages and know the whole secret of animated nature" (356). The annotator injects morality into the science, as when he complains about Darwin germinating seeds sourced from the droppings of birds: "I hope for the sake of his family he washed his hands. But these naturalists are dirty both in thought and conduct" (361). In a section on fertility in flowers, the annotator argues, "He must have had a very bawdy mind" (257) and wishes Darwin had never been born: "I wish to heavens either his male or female progenitor had been sterile" (256).

The private nature of the marginalia here allows us an unfiltered glimpse at the raw response of a contemporary reader. At a later point someone appears to have attempted to erase many of them, suggesting the effacer was themself angered or embarrassed (or just annoyed) by the commentary — yet the annotations remain important as both a distillation and reflection a broader wave of outrage that the book's publication spurred, perhaps best summed up by the final marginal comment. Darwin's last line describes "endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." The annotator has underlined "and are being" and written, "are they?" A tremendously rich copy, worthy of further research, offering a detailed case study in the contemporary backlash to one of the most controversial books of all time.

Read more: R. B. Freeman, "On the Origin of Species: An Introduction" on Darwin Online; Larson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory; Kutschera, "Darwin's Philosophical Imperative and the Furor Theologicus," Evolution: Education and Outreach vol. II, Sept 2009.