CHAPTER 2.IV.
THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.
'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS'
1863-1866.
[His book on animals and plants under domestication was my father's chief
employment in the year 1863. His diary records the length of time spent
over the composition of its chapters, and shows the rate at which he
arranged and wrote out for printing the observations and deductions of
several years.
The three chapters in volume ii. on inheritance, which occupy 84 pages of
print, were begun in January and finished on April 1st; the five on
crossing, making 106 pages, were written in eight weeks, while the two
chapters on selection, covering 57 pages, were begun on June 16th and
finished on July 20th.
The work was more than once interrupted by ill health, and in September,
what proved to be the beginning of a six month's illness, forced him to
leave home for the water-cure at Malvern. He returned in October and
remained ill and depressed, in spite of the hopeful opinion of one of the
most cheery and skilful physicians of the day. Thus he wrote to Sir J.D.
Hooker in November:--
"Dr. Brinton has been here (recommended by Busk); he does not believe my
brain or heart are primarily affected, but I have been so steadily going
down hill, I cannot help doubting whether I can ever crawl a little uphill
again. Unless I can, enough to work a little, I hope my life may be very
short, for to lie on a sofa all day and do nothing but give trouble to the
best and kindest of wives and good dear children is dreadful."
The minor works in this year were a short paper in the 'Natural History
Review' (N.S. vol. iii. page 115), entitled "On the so-called 'Auditory-
Sac' of Cirripedes," and one in the 'Geological Society's Journal' (vol.
xix), on the "Thickness of the Pampaean Formation near Buenos Ayres." The
paper on Cirripedes was called forth by the criticisms of a German
naturalist Krohn (Krohn stated that the structures described by my father
as ovaries were in reality salivary glands, also that the oviduct runs down
to the orifice described in the 'Monograph of the Cirripedia' as the
auditory meatus.), and is of some interest in illustration of my father's
readiness to admit an error.
With regard to the spread of a belief in Evolution, it could not yet be
said that the battle was won, but the growth of belief was undoubtedly
rapid. So that, for instance, Charles Kingsley could write to F.D. Maurice
(Kingsley's 'Life,' ii, page 171.):
"The state of the scientific mind is most curious; Darwin is conquering
everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and
fact."
Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating the growing
tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth in the 'Origin of
Species.' He gave a series of lectures to working men at the School of
Mines in November, 1862. These were printed in 1863 from the shorthand
notes of Mr. May, as six little blue books, price 4 pence each, under the
title, 'Our Knowledge of the Causes of Organic Nature.' When published
they were read with interest by my father, who thus refers to them in a
letter to Sir J.D. Hooker:--
"I am very glad you like Huxley's lectures. I have been very much struck
with them, especially with the 'Philosophy of Induction.' I have
quarrelled with him for overdoing sterility and ignoring cases from Gartner
and Kolreuter about sterile varieties. His Geology is obscure; and I
rather doubt about man's mind and language. But it seems to me ADMIRABLY
done, and, as you say, "Oh my," about the praise of the 'Origin.' I can't
help liking it, which makes me rather ashamed of myself."
My father admired the clearness of exposition shown in the lectures, and in
the following letter urges their author to make use of his powers for the
advantage of students:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
November 5 [1864].
I want to make a suggestion to you, but which may probably have occurred to
you. -- was reading your Lectures and ended by saying, "I wish he would
write a book." I answered, "he has just written a great book on the
skull." "I don't call that a book," she replied, and added, "I want
something that people can read; he does write so well." Now, with your
ease in writing, and with knowledge at your fingers' ends, do you not think
you could write a popular Treatise on Zoology? Of course it would be some
waste of time, but I have been asked more than a dozen times to recommend
something for a beginner and could only think of Carpenter's Zoology. I am
sure that a striking Treatise would do real service to science by educating
naturalists. If you were to keep a portfolio open for a couple of years,
and throw in slips of paper as subjects crossed your mind, you would soon
have a skeleton (and that seems to me the difficulty) on which to put the
flesh and colours in your inimitable manner. I believe such a book might
have a brilliant success, but I did not intend to scribble so much about
it.
Give my kindest remembrance to Mrs. Huxley, and tell her I was looking at
'Enoch Arden,' and as I know how she admires Tennyson, I must call her
attention to two sweetly pretty lines (page 105)...
...and he meant, he said he meant,
Perhaps he meant, or partly meant, you well.
Such a gem as this is enough to make me young again, and like poetry with
pristine fervour.
My dear Huxley,
Yours affectionately,
CH. DARWIN.
[In another letter (January 1865) he returns to the above suggestion,
though he was in general strongly opposed to men of science giving up to
the writing of text-books, or to teaching, the time that might otherwise
have been given to original research.
"I knew there was very little chance of your having time to write a popular
Treatise on Zoology, but you are about the one man who could do it. At the
time I felt it would be almost a sin for you to do it, as it would of
course destroy some original work. On the other hand I sometimes think
that general and popular treatises are almost as important for the progress
of science as original work."
The series of letters will continue the history of the year 1863.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, January 3 [1863].
My dear Hooker,
I am burning with indignation and must exhale...I could not get to sleep
till past 3 last night for indignation (It would serve no useful purpose if
I were to go into the matter which so strongly roused my father's anger.
It was a question of literary dishonesty, in which a friend was the
sufferer, but which in no way affected himself.)...
Now for pleasanter subjects; we were all amused at your defence of stamp
collecting and collecting generally...But, by Jove, I can hardly stomach a
grown man collecting stamps. Who would ever have thought of your
collecting Wedgwoodware! but that is wholly different, like engravings or
pictures. We are degenerate descendants of old Josiah W., for we have not
a bit of pretty ware in the house.
...Notwithstanding the very pleasant reason you give for our not enjoying a
holiday, namely, that we have no vices, it is a horrid bore. I have been
trying for health's sake to be idle, with no success. What I shall now
have to do, will be to erect a tablet in Down Church, "Sacred to the
Memory, etc.," and officially die, and then publish books, "by the late
Charles Darwin," for I cannot think what has come over me of late; I always
suffered from the excitement of talking, but now it has become ludicrous.
I talked lately 1 1/2 hours (broken by tea by myself) with my nephew, and I
was [ill] half the night. It is a fearful evil for self and family.
Good-night. Ever yours.
C. DARWIN.
[The following letter to Sir Julius von Haast (Sir Julius von Haast was a
German by birth, but had long been resident in New Zealand. He was, in
1862, Government Geologist to the Province of Canterbury.), is an example
of the sympathy which he felt with the spread and growth of science in the
colonies. It was a feeling not expressed once only, but was frequently
present in his mind, and often found utterance. When we, at Cambridge, had
the satisfaction of receiving Sir J. von Haast into our body as a Doctor of
Science (July 1886), I had the opportunity of hearing from him of the vivid
pleasure which this, and other letters from my father, gave him. It was
pleasant to see how strong had been the impression made by my father's
warm-hearted sympathy--an impression which seemed, after more than twenty
years, to be as fresh as when it was first received:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO JULIUS VON HAAST.
Down, January 22 [1863].
Dear Sir,
I thank you most sincerely for sending me your Address and the Geological
Report. (Address to the 'Philosophical Institute of Canterbury (N.Z.).'
The "Report" is given in "The New Zealand Government Gazette, Province of
Canterbury", October 1862.) I have seldom in my life read anything more
spirited and interesting than your address. The progress of your colony
makes one proud, and it is really admirable to see a scientific institution
founded in so young a nation. I thank you for the very honourable notice
of my 'Origin of Species.' You will easily believe how much I have been
interested by your striking facts on the old glacial period, and I suppose
the world might be searched in vain for so grand a display of terraces.
You have, indeed, a noble field for scientific research and discovery. I
have been extremely much interested by what you say about the tracks of
supposed [living] mammalia. Might I ask, if you succeed in discovering
what the creatures are, you would have the great kindness to inform me?
Perhaps they may turn out something like the Solenhofen bird creature, with
its long tail and fingers, with claws to its wings! I may mention that in
South America, in completely uninhabited regions, I found spring rat-traps,
baited with CHEESE, were very successful in catching the smaller mammals.
I would venture to suggest to you to urge on some of the capable members of
your institution to observe annually the rate and manner of spreading of
European weeds and insects, and especially to observe WHAT NATIVE PLANTS
MOST FAIL; this latter point has never been attended to. Do the introduced
hive-bees replace any other insect? etc. All such points are, in my
opinion, great desiderata in science. What an interesting discovery that
of the remains of prehistoric man!
Believe me, dear Sir,
With the most cordial respect and thanks,
Yours very faithfully,
CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO CAMILLE DARESTE. (Professor Dareste is a well-known
worker in Animal Teratology. He was in 1863 living at Lille, but has since
then been called to Paris. My father took a special interest in Dareste's
work on the production of monsters, as bearing on the causes of variation.)
Down, February 16 [1863].
Dear and respected Sir,
I thank you sincerely for your letter and your pamphlet. I had heard (I
think in one of M. Quatrefages' books) of your work, and was most anxious
to read it, but did not know where to find it. You could not have made me
a more valuable present. I have only just returned home, and have not yet
read your work; when I do if I wish to ask any questions I will venture to
trouble you. Your approbation of my book on Species has gratified me
extremely. Several naturalists in England, North America, and Germany,
have declared that their opinions on the subject have in some degree been
modified, but as far as I know, my book has produced no effect whatever in
France, and this makes me the more gratified by your very kind expression
of approbation. Pray believe me, dear Sir, with much respect,
Yours faithfully and obliged,
CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, February 24 [1863].
My dear Hooker,
I am astonished at your note, I have not seen the "Athenaeum" (In the
'Antiquity of Man,' first edition, page 480, Lyell criticised somewhat
severely Owen's account of the difference between the Human and Simian
brains. The number of the "Athenaeum" here referred to (1863, page 262)
contains a reply by Professor Owen to Lyell's strictures. The surprise
expressed by my father was at the revival of a controversy which every one
believed to be closed. Prof. Huxley ("Medical Times", October 25, 1862,
quoted in 'Man's Place in Nature,' page 117) spoke of the "two years during
which this preposterous controversy has dragged its weary length." And
this no doubt expressed a very general feeling.) but I have sent for it,
and may get it to-morrow; and will then say what I think.
I have read Lyell's book. ['The Antiquity of Man.'] the whole certainty
struck me as a compilation, but of the highest class, for when possible the
facts have been verified on the spot, making it almost an original work.
The Glacial chapters seem to me best, and in parts magnificent. I could
hardly judge about Man, as all the gloss of novelty was completely worn
off. But certainly the aggregation of the evidence produced a very
striking effect on my mind. The chapter comparing language and changes of
species, seems most ingenious and interesting. He has shown great skill in
picking out salient points in the argument for change of species; but I am
deeply disappointed (I do not mean personally) to find that his timidity
prevents him giving any judgment...From all my communications with him I
must ever think that he has really entirely lost faith in the immutability
of species; and yet one of his strongest sentences is nearly as follows:
"If it should EVER (The italics are not Lyell's.) be rendered highly
probable that species change by variation and natural selection," etc.,
etc. I had hoped he would have guided the public as far as his own belief
went...One thing does please me on this subject, that he seems to
appreciate your work. No doubt the public or a part may be induced to
think that as he gives to us a larger space than to Lamarck, he must think
there is something in our views. When reading the brain chapter, it struck
me forcibly that if he had said openly that he believed in change of
species, and as a consequence that man was derived from some Quadrumanous
animal, it would have been very proper to have discussed by compilation the
differences in the most important organ, viz. the brain. As it is, the
chapter seems to me to come in rather by the head and shoulders. I do not
think (but then I am as prejudiced as Falconer and Huxley, or more so) that
it is too severe; it struck me as given with judicial force. It might
perhaps be said with truth that he had no business to judge on a subject on
which he knows nothing; but compilers must do this to a certain extent.
(You know I value and rank high compilers, being one myself!) I have taken
you at your word, and scribbled at great length. If I get the "Athenaeum"
to-morrow, I will add my impression of Owen's letter.
...The Lyells are coming here on Sunday evening to stay till Wednesday. I
dread it, but I must say how much disappointed I am that he has not spoken
out on species, still less on man. And the best of the joke is that he
thinks he has acted with the courage of a martyr of old. I hope I may have
taken an exaggerated view of his timidity, and shall PARTICULARLY be glad
of your opinion on this head. (On this subject my father wrote to Sir
Joseph Hooker: "Cordial thanks for your deeply interesting letters about
Lyell, Owen, and Co. I cannot say how glad I am to hear that I have not
been unjust about the species-question towards Lyell. I feared I had been
unreasonable.") When I got his book I turned over the pages, and saw he
had discussed the subject of species, and said that I thought he would do
more to convert the public than all of us, and now (which makes the case
worse for me) I must, in common honesty, retract. I wish to Heaven he had
said not a word on the subject.
WEDNESDAY MORNING:
I have read the "Athenaeum". I do not think Lyell will be nearly so much
annoyed as you expect. The concluding sentence is no doubt very stinging.
No one but a good anatomist could unravel Owen's letter; at least it is
quite beyond me.
...Lyell's memory plays him false when he says all anatomists were
astonished at Owen's paper ("On the Characters, etc., of the Class
Mammalia." 'Linn. Soc. Journal,' ii, 1858.); it was often quoted with
approbation. I WELL remember Lyell's admiration at this new
classification! (Do not repeat this.) I remember it, because, though I
knew nothing whatever about the brain, I felt a conviction that a
classification thus founded on a single character would break down, and it
seemed to me a great error not to separate more completely the
Marsupialia...
What an accursed evil it is that there should be all this quarrelling
within, what ought to be, the peaceful realms of science. I will go to my
own present subject of inheritance and forget it all for a time. Farewell,
my dear old friend,
C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, February 23 [1863].
...If you have time to read you will be interested by parts of Lyell's book
on man; but I fear that the best part, about the Glacial period, may be too
geological for any one except a regular geologist. He quotes you at the
end with gusto. By the way, he told me the other day how pleased some had
been by hearing that they could purchase your pamphlet. The "Parthenon"
also speaks of it as the ablest contribution to the literature of the
subject. It delights me when I see your work appreciated.
The Lyells come here this day week, and I shall grumble at his excessive
caution...The public may well say, if such a man dare not or will not speak
out his mind, how can we who are ignorant form even a guess on the subject?
Lyell was pleased when I told him lately that you thought that language
might be used as an excellent illustration of derivation of species; you
will see that he has an ADMIRABLE chapter on this...
I read Cairns's excellent Lecture (Prof. J.E. Cairns, 'The Slave Power,
etc.: an attempt to explain the real issues involved in the American
contest.' 1862.), which shows so well how your quarrel arose from Slavery.
It made me for a time wish honestly for the North; but I could never help,
though I tried, all the time thinking how we should be bullied and forced
into a war by you, when you were triumphant. But I do most truly think it
dreadful that the South, with its accursed slavery, should triumph, and
spread the evil. I think if I had power, which thank God, I have not, I
would let you conquer the border States, and all west of the Mississippi,
and then force you to acknowledge the cotton States. For do you not now
begin to doubt whether you can conquer and hold them? I have inflicted a
long tirade on you.
"The Times" is getting more detestable (but that is too weak a word) than
ever. My good wife wishes to give it up, but I tell her that is a pitch of
heroism to which only a woman is equal. To give up the "Bloody Old
'Times'," as Cobbett used to call it, would be to give up meat, drink and
air. Farewell, my dear Gray,
Yours most truly,
C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, March 6, [1863].
...I have been of course deeply interested by your book. ('Antiquity of
Man.') I have hardly any remarks worth sending, but will scribble a little
on what most interested me. But I will first get out what I hate saying,
viz., that I have been greatly disappointed that you have not given
judgment and spoken fairly out what you think about the derivation of
species. I should have been contented if you had boldly said that species
have not been separately created, and had thrown as much doubt as you like
on how far variation and natural selection suffices. I hope to Heaven I am
wrong (and from what you say about Whewell it seems so), but I cannot see
how your chapters can do more good than an extraordinary able review. I
think the "Parthenon" is right, that you will leave the public in a fog.
No doubt they may infer that as you give more space to myself, Wallace, and
Hooker, than to Lamarck, you think more of us. But I had always thought
that your judgment would have been an epoch in the subject. All that is
over with me, and I will only think on the admirable skill with which you
have selected the striking points, and explained them. No praise can be
too strong, in my opinion, for the inimitable chapter on language in
comparison with species.
(After speculating on the sudden appearance of individuals far above the
average of the human race, Lyell asks if such leaps upwards in the scale of
intellect may not "have cleared at one bound the space which separated the
higher stage of the unprogressive intelligence of the inferior animals from
the first and lowest form of improvable reason manifested by man.") page
505--A sentence at the top of the page makes me groan...
I know you will forgive me for writing with perfect freedom, for you must
know how deeply I respect you as my old honoured guide and master. I
heartily hope and expect that your book will have gigantic circulation and
may do in many ways as much good as it ought to do. I am tired, so no
more. I have written so briefly that you will have to guess my meaning. I
fear my remarks are hardly worth sending. Farewell, with kindest
remembrance to Lady Lyell.
Ever yours,
C. DARWIN.
[Mr. Huxley has quoted (vol. i. page 546) some passages from Lyell's
letters which show his state of mind at this time. The following passage,
from a letter of March 11th to my father, is also of much interest:--
"My feelings, however, more than any thought about policy or expediency,
prevent me from dogmatising as to the descent of man from the brutes,
which, though I am prepared to accept it, takes away much of the charm from
my speculations on the past relating to such matters...But you ought to be
satisfied, as I shall bring hundreds towards you who, if I treated the
matter more dogmatically, would have rebelled."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, 12 [March, 1863].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you for your very interesting and kind, I may say, charming letter.
I feared you might be huffed for a little time with me. I know some men
would have been so. I have hardly any more criticisms, anyhow, worth
writing. But I may mention that I felt a little surprise that old B. de
Perthes (1788-1868. See footnote below.) was not rather more honourably
mentioned. I would suggest whether you could not leave out some references
to the 'Principles;' one for the real student is as good as a hundred, and
it is rather irritating, and gives a feeling of incompleteness to the
general reader to be often referred to other books. As you say that you
have gone as far as you believe on the species question, I have not a word
to say; but I must feel convinced that at times, judging from conversation,
expressions, letters, etc., you have as completely given up belief in
immutability of specific forms as I have done. I must still think a clear
expression from you, IF YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN IT, would have been potent
with the public, and all the more so, as you formerly held opposite
opinions. The more I work the more satisfied I become with variation and
natural selection, but that part of the case I look at as less important,
though more interesting to me personally. As you ask for criticisms on
this head (and believe me that I should not have made them unasked), I may
specify (pages 412, 413) that such words as "Mr. D. labours to show," "is
believed by the author to throw light," would lead a common reader to think
that you yourself do NOT at all agree, but merely think it fair to give my
opinion. Lastly, you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of
Lamarck's doctrine of development and progression. If this is your
deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said, but it does not seem so to
me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before Lamarck, and others, propounded
the OBVIOUS views that if species were not created separately they must
have descended from other species, and I can see nothing else in common
between the 'Origin' and Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case
is very injurious to its acceptance, as it implies necessary progression,
and closely connects Wallace's and my views with what I consider, after two
deliberate readings, as a wretched book, and one from which (I well
remember my surprise) I gained nothing. But I know you rank it higher,
which is curious, as it did not in the least shake your belief. But
enough, and more than enough. Please remember you have brought it all down
on yourself!!!
I am very sorry to hear about Falconer's "reclamation." ("Falconer, whom I
referred to oftener than to any other author, says I have not done justice
to the part he took in resuscitating the cave question, and says he shall
come out with a separate paper to prove it. I offered to alter anything in
the new edition, but this he declined.--C. Lyell to C. Darwin, March 11,
1863; Lyell's 'Life,' vol. ii. page 364.) I hate the very word, and have a
sincere affection for him.
Did you ever read anything so wretched as the "Athenaeum" reviews of you,
and of Huxley ('Man's Place in Nature,' 1863.) especially. Your OBJECT to
make man old, and Huxley's OBJECT to degrade him. The wretched writer has
not a glimpse what the discovery of scientific truth means. How splendid
some pages are in Huxley, but I fear the book will not be popular...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down [March 13, 1863].
I should have thanked you sooner for the "Athenaeum" and very pleasant
previous note, but I have been busy, and not a little uncomfortable from
frequent uneasy feeling of fullness, slight pain and tickling about the
heart. But as I have no other symptoms of heart complaint I do not suppose
it is affected...I have had a most kind and delightfully candid letter from
Lyell, who says he spoke out as far as he believes. I have no doubt his
belief failed him as he wrote, for I feel sure that at times he no more
believed in Creation than you or I. I have grumbled a bit in my answer to
him at his ALWAYS classing my work as a modification of Lamarck's, which it
is no more than any author who did not believe in immutability of species,
and did believe in descent. I am very sorry to hear from Lyell that
Falconer is going to publish a formal reclamation of his own claims...
It is cruel to think of it, but we must go to Malvern in the middle of
April; it is ruin to me. (He went to Hartfield in Sussex, on April 27, and
to Malvern in the autumn.)...
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, March 17 [1863].
My dear Lyell,
I have been much interested by your letters and enclosure, and thank you
sincerely for giving me so much time when you must be so busy. What a
curious letter from B. de P. [Boucher de Perthes]. He seems perfectly
satisfied, and must be a very amiable man. I know something about his
errors, and looked at his book many years ago, and am ashamed to think that
I concluded the whole was rubbish! Yet he has done for man something like
what Agassiz did for glaciers. (In his 'Antiquites Celtiques' (1847),
Boucher de Perthes described the flint tools found at Abbeville with bones
of rhinoceros, hyaena, etc. "But the scientific world had no faith in the
statement that works of art, however rude, had been met with in undisturbed
beds of such antiquity." ('Antiquity of Man,' first edition, page 95).)
I cannot say that I agree with Hooker about the public not liking to be
told what to conclude, IF COMING FROM ONE IN YOUR POSITION. But I am
heartily sorry that I was led to make complaints, or something very like
complaints, on the manner in which you have treated the subject, and still
more so anything about myself. I steadily ENDEAVOUR never to forget my
firm belief that no one can at all judge about his own work. As for
Lamarck, as you have such a man as Grove with you, you are triumphant; not
that I can alter my opinion that to me it was an absolutely useless book.
Perhaps this was owing to my always searching books for facts, perhaps from
knowing my grandfather's earlier and identically the same speculation. I
will only further say that if I can analyse my own feelings (a very
doubtful process), it is nearly as much for your sake as for my own, that I
so much wish that your state of belief could have permitted you to say
boldly and distinctly out that species were not separately created. I have
generally told you the progress of opinion, as I have heard it, on the
species question. A first-rate German naturalist (No doubt Haeckel, whose
monograph on the Radiolaria was published in 1862. In the same year
Professor W. Preyer of Jena published a dissertation on Alca impennis,
which was one of the earliest pieces of special work on the basis of the
'Origin of Species.') (I now forget the name!), who has lately published a
grand folio, has spoken out to the utmost extent on the 'Origin.' De
Candolle, in a very good paper on "Oaks," goes, in Asa Gray's opinion, as
far as he himself does; but De Candolle, in writing to me, says WE, "we
think this and that;" so that I infer he really goes to the full extent
with me, and tells me of a French good botanical palaeontologist (name
forgotten) (The Marquis de Saporta.), who writes to De Candolle that he is
sure that my views will ultimately prevail. But I did not intend to have
written all this. It satisfies me with the final results, but this result,
I begin to see, will take two or three lifetimes. The entomologists are
enough to keep the subject back for half a century. I really pity your
having to balance the claims of so many eager aspirants for notice; it is
clearly impossible to satisfy all...Certainly I was struck with the full
and due honour you conferred on Falconer. I have just had a note from
Hooker...I am heartily glad that you have made him so conspicuous; he is so
honest, so candid, and so modest...
I have read --. I could find nothing to lay hold of, which in one sense I
am very glad of, as I should hate a controversy; but in another sense I am
very sorry for, as I long to be in the same boat with all my friends...I am
heartily glad the book is going off so well.
Ever yours,
C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down [March 29, 1863].
...Many thanks for "Athenaeum", received this morning, and to be returned
to-morrow morning. Who would have ever thought of the old stupid
"Athenaeum" taking to Oken-like transcendental philosophy written in
Owenian style! (This refers to a review of Dr. Carpenter's 'Introduction
to the study of Foraminifera,' that appeared in the "Athenaeum" of March
28, 1863 (page 417). The reviewer attacks Dr. Carpenter's views in as much
as they support the doctrine of Descent; and he upholds spontaneous
generation (Heterogeny) in place of what Dr. Carpenter, naturally enough,
believed in, viz. the genetic connection of living and extinct
Foraminifera. In the next number is a letter by Dr. Carpenter, which
chiefly consists of a protest against the reviewer's somewhat contemptuous
classification of Dr. Carpenter and my father as disciple and master. In
the course of the letter Dr. Carpenter says--page 461:--
"Under the influence of his foregone conclusion that I have accepted Mr.
Darwin as my master, and his hypothesis as my guide, your reviewer
represents me as blind to the significance of the general fact stated by
me, that 'there has been no advance in the foraminiferous type from the
palaeozoic period to the present time.' But for such a foregone conclusion
he would have recognised in this statement the expression of my conviction
that the present state of scientific evidence, instead of sanctioning the
idea that the descendants of the primitive type or types of Foraminifera
can ever rise to any higher grade, justifies the ANTI-DARWINIAN influence,
that however widely they diverge from each other and from their originals,
THEY STILL REMAIN FORAMINIFERA.")...It will be some time before we see
"slime, protoplasm, etc.," generating a new animal. (On the same subject
my father wrote in 1871: "It is often said that all the conditions for the
first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever
have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in
some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,
light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a proteine compound was
chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the
present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which
would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.") But I
have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the
Pentateuchal term of creation (This refers to a passage in which the
reviewer of Dr. Carpenter's books speaks of "an operation of force," or "a
concurrence of forces which have now no place in nature," as being, "a
creative force, in fact, which Darwin could only express in Pentateuchal
terms as the primordial form 'into which life was first breathed.'" The
conception of expressing a creative force as a primordial form is the
Reviewer's.), by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown
process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life;
one might as well think of the origin of matter.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, Friday night [April 17, 1863].
My dear Hooker,
I have heard from Oliver that you will be now at Kew, and so I am going to
amuse myself by scribbling a bit. I hope you have thoroughly enjoyed your
tour. I never in my life saw anything like the spring flowers this year.
What a lot of interesting things have been lately published. I liked
extremely your review of De Candolle. What an awfully severe article that
by Falconer on Lyell ("Athenaeum", April 4, 1863, page 459. The writer
asserts that justice has not been done either to himself or Mr. Prestwich--
that Lyell has not made it clear that it was their original work which
supplied certain material for the 'Antiquity of Man.' Falconer attempts to
draw an unjust distinction between a "philosopher" (here used as a polite
word for compiler) like Sir Charles Lyell, and original observers,
presumably such as himself, and Mr. Prestwich. Lyell's reply was published
in the "Athenaeum", April 18, 1863. It ought to be mentioned that a letter
from Mr. Prestwich ("Athenaeum", page 555), which formed part of the
controversy, though of the nature of a reclamation, was written in a very
different spirit and tone from Dr. Falconer's.); I am very sorry for it; I
think Falconer on his side does not do justice to old Perthes and
Schmerling...I shall be very curious to see how he [Lyell] answers it to-
morrow. (I have been compelled to take in the "Athenaeum" for a while.) I
am very sorry that Falconer should have written so spitefully, even if
there is some truth in his accusations; I was rather disappointed in
Carpenter's letter, no one could have given a better answer, but the chief
object of his letter seems to me to be to show that though he has touched
pitch he is not defiled. No one would suppose he went so far as to believe
all birds came from one progenitor. I have written a letter to the
"Athenaeum" ("Athenaeum", 1863, page 554: "The view given by me on the
origin or derivation of species, whatever its weaknesses may be, connects
(as has been candidly admitted by some of its opponents, such as Pictet,
Bronn, etc.), by an intelligible thread of reasoning, a multitude of facts:
such as the formation of domestic races by man's selection,--the
classification and affinities of all organic beings,--the innumerable
gradations in structure and instincts,--the similarity of pattern in the
hand, wing, or paddle of animals of the same great class,--the existence of
organs become rudimentary by disuse,--the similarity of an embryonic
reptile, bird, and mammal, with the retention of traces of an apparatus
fitted for aquatic respiration; the retention in the young calf of incisor
teeth in the upper jaw, etc.--the distribution of animals and plants, and
their mutual affinities within the same region,--their general geological
succession, and the close relationship of the fossils in closely
consecutive formations and within the same country; extinct marsupials
having preceded living marsupials in Australia, and armadillo-like animals
having preceded and generated armadilloes in South America,--and many other
phenomena, such as the gradual extinction of old forms and their gradual
replacement by new forms better fitted for their new conditions in the
struggle for life. When the advocate of Heterogeny can thus connect large
classes of facts, and not until then, he will have respectful and patient
listeners.") (the first and last time I shall take such a step) to say,
under the cloak of attacking Heterogeny, a word in my own defence. My
letter is to appear next week, so the Editor says; and I mean to quote
Lyell's sentence (See the next letter.) in his second edition, on the
principle if one puffs oneself, one had better puff handsomely...
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, April 18 [1863].
My dear Lyell,
I was really quite sorry that you had sent me a second copy (The second
edition of the 'Antiquity of Man' was published a few months after the
first had appeared.) of your valuable book. But after a few hours my
sorrow vanished for this reason: I have written a letter to the
"Athenaeum", in order, under the cloak of attacking the monstrous article
on Heterogeny, to say a word for myself in answer to Carpenter, and now I
have inserted a few sentences in allusion to your analogous objection
(Lyell objected that the mammalia (e.g. bats and seals) which alone have
been able to reach oceanic islands ought to have become modified into
various terrestrial forms fitted to fill various places in their new home.
My father pointed out in the "Athenaeum" that Sir Charles has in some
measure answered his own objection, and went on to quote the "amended
sentence" ('Antiquity of Man,' 2nd Edition page 469) as showing how far
Lyell agreed with the general doctrines of the "Origin of Species': "Yet
we ought by no means to undervalue the importance of the step which will
have been made, should it hereafter become the generally received opinion
of men of science (as I fully expect it will) that the past changes of the
organic world have been brought about by the subordinate agency of such
causes as Variation and Natural Selection." In the first edition the words
(as I fully expect it will," do not occur.) about bats on islands, and then
with infinite slyness have quoted your amended sentence, with your
parenthesis ("as I fully believe") (My father here quotes Lyell
incorrectly; see the previous foot-note.); I do not think you can be
annoyed at my doing this, and you see, that I am determined as far as I
can, that the public shall see how far you go. This is the first time I
have ever said a word for myself in any journal, and it shall, I think, be
the last. My letter is short, and no great things. I was extremely
concerned to see Falconer's disrespectful and virulent letter. I like
extremely your answer just read; you take a lofty and dignified position,
to which you are so well entitled. (In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker he
wrote: "I much like Lyell's letter. But all this squabbling will greatly
sink scientific men. I have seen sneers already in the 'Times'.")
I suspect that if you had inserted a few more superlatives in speaking of
the several authors there would have been none of this horrid noise. No
one, I am sure, who knows you could doubt about your hearty sympathy with
every one who makes any little advance in science. I still well remember
my surprise at the manner in which you listened to me in Hart Street on my
return from the "Beagle's" voyage. You did me a world of good. It is
horridly vexatious that so frank and apparently amiable a man as Falconer
should have behaved so. (It is to this affair that the extract from a
letter to Falconer, given in volume i., refers.) Well it will all soon be
forgotten...
[In reply to the above-mentioned letter of my father's to the "Athenaeum",
an article appeared in that Journal (May 2nd, 1863, page 586), accusing my
father of claiming for his views the exclusive merit of "connecting by an
intelligible thread of reasoning" a number of facts in morphology, etc.
The writer remarks that, "The different generalizations cited by Mr. Darwin
as being connected by an intelligible thread of reasoning exclusively
through his attempt to explain specific transmutation are in fact related
to it in this wise, that they have prepared the minds of naturalists for a
better reception of such attempts to explain the way of the origin of
species from species."
To this my father replied in the "Athenaeum" of May 9th, 1863:]
Down, May 5 [1863].
I hope that you will grant me space to own that your reviewer is quite
correct when he states that any theory of descent will connect, "by an
intelligible thread of reasoning," the several generalizations before
specified. I ought to have made this admission expressly; with the
reservation, however, that, as far as I can judge, no theory so well
explains or connects these several generalizations (more especially the
formation of domestic races in comparison with natural species, the
principles of classification, embryonic resemblance, etc.) as the theory,
or hypothesis, or guess, if the reviewer so likes to call it, of Natural
Selection. Nor has any other satisfactory explanation been ever offered of
the almost perfect adaptation of all organic beings to each other, and to
their physical conditions of life. Whether the naturalist believes in the
views given by Lamarck, by Geoffrey St. Hilaire, by the author of the
'Vestiges,' by Mr. Wallace and myself, or in any other such view, signifies
extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have
descended from other species, and have not been created immutable; for he
who admits this as a great truth has a wide field opened to him for further
inquiry. I believe, however, from what I see of the progress of opinion on
the Continent, and in this country, that the theory of Natural Selection
will ultimately be adopted, with, no doubt, many subordinate modifications
and improvements.
CHARLES DARWIN.
[In the following, he refers to the above letter to the "Athenaeum:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Leith Hill Place,
Saturday [May 11, 1863].
My dear Hooker,
You give good advice about not writing in newspapers; I have been gnashing
my teeth at my own folly; and this not caused by --'s sneers, which were so
good that I almost enjoyed them. I have written once again to own to a
certain extent of truth in what he says, and then if I am ever such a fool
again, have no mercy on me. I have read the squib in "Public Opinion"
("Public Opinion", April 23, 1863. A lively account of a police case, in
which the quarrels of scientific men are satirised. Mr. John Bull gives
evidence that--
"The whole neighbourhood was unsettled by their disputes; Huxley quarrelled
with Owen, Owen with Darwin, Lyell with Owen, Falconer and Prestwich with
Lyell, and Gray the menagerie man with everybody. He had pleasure,
however, in stating that Darwin was the quietest of the set. They were
always picking bones with each other and fighting over their gains. If
either of the gravel sifters or stone breakers found anything, he was
obliged to conceal it immediately, or one of the old bone collectors would
be sure to appropriate it first and deny the theft afterwards, and the
consequent wrangling and disputes were as endless as they were wearisome.
"Lord Mayor.--Probably the clergyman of the parish might exert some
influence over them?
"The gentleman smiled, shook his head, and stated that he regretted to say
that no class of men paid so little attention to the opinions of the clergy
as that to which these unhappy men belonged."); it is capital; if there is
more, and you have a copy, do lend it. It shows well that a scientific man
had better be trampled in dirt than squabble. I have been drawing
diagrams, dissecting shoots, and muddling my brains to a hopeless degree
about the divergence of leaves, and have of course utterly failed. But I
can see that the subject is most curious, and indeed astonishing...
[The next letter refers to Mr. Bentham's presidential address to the
Linnean Society (May 25, 1863). Mr. Bentham does not yield to the new
theory of Evolution, "cannot surrender at discretion as long as many
important outworks remain contestable." But he shows that the great body
of scientific opinion is flowing in the direction of belief.
The mention of Pasteur by Mr. Bentham is in reference to the promulgation
"as it were ex cathedra," of a theory of spontaneous generation by the
reviewer of Dr. Carpenter in the "Athenaeum" (March 28, 1863). Mr. Bentham
points out that in ignoring Pasteur's refutation of the supposed facts of
spontaneous generation, the writer fails to act with "that impartiality
which every reviewer is supposed to possess."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM.
Down, May 22 [1863].
My dear Bentham,
I am much obliged for your kind and interesting letter. I have no fear of
anything that a man like you will say annoying me in the very least degree.
On the other hand, any approval from one whose judgment and knowledge I
have for many years so sincerely respected, will gratify me much. The
objection which you well put, of certain forms remaining unaltered through
long time and space, is no doubt formidable in appearance, and to a certain
extent in reality according to my judgment. But does not the difficulty
rest much on our silently assuming that we know more than we do? I have
literally found nothing so difficult as to try and always remember our
ignorance. I am never weary, when walking in any new adjoining district or
country, of reflecting how absolutely ignorant we are why certain old
plants are not there present, and other new ones are, and others in
different proportions. If we once fully feel this, then in judging the
theory of Natural Selection, which implies that a form will remain
unaltered unless some alteration be to its benefit, is it so very wonderful
that some forms should change much slower and much less, and some few
should have changed not at all under conditions which to us (who really
know nothing what are the important conditions) seem very different.
Certainly a priori we might have anticipated that all the plants anciently
introduced into Australia would have undergone some modification; but the
fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of
weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments. I have
expressed myself miserably, but I am far from well to-day.
I am very glad that you are going to allude to Pasteur; I was struck with
infinite admiration at his work. With cordial thanks, believe me, dear
Bentham,
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded
entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from
the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do
somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by
man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an
intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we
can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a
single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are
beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why
some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me
hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school
and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and
one plant more pointed leaves than another plant.
CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM.
Down, June 19 [1863].
My dear Bentham,
I have been extremely much pleased and interested by your address, which
you kindly sent me. It seems to be excellently done, with as much judicial
calmness and impartiality as the Lord Chancellor could have shown. But
whether the "immutable" gentlemen would agree with the impartiality may be
doubted, there is too much kindness shown towards me, Hooker, and others,
they might say. Moreover I verily believe that your address, written as it
is, will do more to shake the unshaken and bring on those leaning to our
side, than anything written directly in favour of transmutation. I can
hardly tell why it is, but your address has pleased me as much as Lyell's
book disappointed me, that is, the part on species, though so cleverly
written. I agree with all your remarks on the reviewers. By the way,
Lecoq (Author of 'Geographie Botanique.' 9 vols. 1854-58.) is a believer in
the change of species. I, for one, can conscientiously declare that I
never feel surprised at any one sticking to the belief of immutability;
though I am often not a little surprised at the arguments advanced on this
side. I remember too well my endless oscillations of doubt and difficulty.
It is to me really laughable when I think of the years which elapsed before
I saw what I believe to be the explanation of some parts of the case; I
believe it was fifteen years after I began before I saw the meaning and
cause of the divergence of the descendants of any one pair. You pay me
some most elegant and pleasing compliments. There is much in your address
which has pleased me much, especially your remarks on various naturalists.
I am so glad that you have alluded so honourably to Pasteur. I have just
read over this note; it does not express strongly enough the interest which
I have felt in reading your address. You have done, I believe, a real good
turn to the RIGHT SIDE. Believe me, dear Bentham,
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
1864.
[In my father's diary for 1864 is the entry, "Ill all January, February,
March." About the middle of April (seven months after the beginning of the
illness in the previous autumn) his health took a turn for the better. As
soon as he was able to do any work, he began to write his papers on
Lythrum, and on Climbing Plants, so that the work which now concerns us did
not begin until September, when he again set to work on 'Animals and
Plants.' A letter to Sir J.D. Hooker gives some account of the re-
commencement of the work: "I have begun looking over my old MS., and it is
as fresh as if I had never written it; parts are astonishingly dull, but
yet worth printing, I think; and other parts strike me as very good. I am
a complete millionaire in odd and curious little facts, and I have been
really astounded at my own industry whilst reading my chapters on
Inheritance and Selection. God knows when the book will ever be completed,
for I find that I am very weak and on my best days cannot do more than one
or one and a half hours' work. It is a good deal harder than writing about
my dear climbing plants."
In this year he received the greatest honour which a scientific man can
receive in this country--the Copley Medal of the Royal Society. It is
presented at the Anniversary Meeting on St. Andrew's Day (November 30), the
medalist being usually present to receive it, but this the state of my
father's health prevented. He wrote to Mr. Fox on this subject:--
"I was glad to see your hand-writing. The Copley, being open to all
sciences and all the world, is reckoned a great honour; but excepting from
several kind letters, such things make little difference to me. It shows,
however, that Natural Selection is making some progress in this country,
and that pleases me. The subject, however, is safe in foreign lands."
To Sir J.D. Hooker, also, he wrote:--
"How kind you have been about this medal; indeed, I am blessed with many
good friends, and I have received four or five notes which have warmed my
heart. I often wonder that so old a worn-out dog as I am is not quite
forgotten. Talking of medals, has Falconer had the Royal? he surely ought
to have it, as ought John Lubbock. By the way, the latter tells me that
some old members of the Royal are quite shocked at my having the Copley.
Do you know who?"
He wrote to Mr. Huxley:--
"I must and will answer you, for it is a real pleasure for me to thank you
cordially for your note. Such notes as this of yours, and a few others,
are the real medal to me, and not the round bit of gold. These have given
me a pleasure which will long endure; so believe in my cordial thanks for
your note."
Sir Charles Lyell, writing to my father in November 1864 ('Life,' vol. ii.
page 384), speaks of the supposed malcontents as being afraid to crown
anything so unorthodox as the 'Origin.' But he adds that if such were
their feelings "they had the good sense to draw in their horns." It
appears, however, from the same letter, that the proposal to give the
Copley Medal to my father in the previous year failed owing to a similar
want of courage--to Lyell's great indignation.
In the "Reader", December 3, 1864, General Sabine's presidential address at
the Anniversary Meeting is reported at some length. Special weight was
laid on my father's work in Geology, Zoology, and Botany, but the 'Origin
of Species' is praised chiefly as containing "a mass of observations," etc.
It is curious that as in the case of his election to the French
Institution, so in this case, he was honoured not for the great work of his
life, but for his less important work in special lines. The paragraph in
General Sabine's address which refers to the 'Origin of Species,' is as
follows:--
"In his most recent work 'On the Origin of Species,' although opinions may
be divided or undecided with respect to its merits in some respects, all
will allow that it contains a mass of observations bearing upon the habits,
structure, affinities, and distribution of animals, perhaps unrivalled for
interest, minuteness, and patience of observation. Some amongst us may
perhaps incline to accept the theory indicated by the title of this work,
while others may perhaps incline to refuse, or at least to remit it to a
future time, when increased knowledge shall afford stronger grounds for its
ultimate acceptance or rejection. Speaking generally and collectively, we
have expressly omitted it from the grounds of our award."
I believe I am right in saying that no little dissatisfaction at the
President's manner of allusion to the 'Origin' was felt by some Fellows of
the Society.
The presentation of the Copley Medal is of interest in another way,
inasmuch as it led to Sir C. Lyell making, in his after-dinner speech, a
"confession of faith as to the 'Origin.'" He wrote to my father ('Life,'
vol. ii. page 384), "I said I had been forced to give up my old faith
without thoroughly seeing my way to a new one. But I think you would have
been satisfied with the length I went."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, October 3 [1864].
My dear Huxley,
If I do not pour out my admiration of your article ("Criticisms on the
Origin of Species," 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1864. Republished in 'Lay
Sermons,' 1870, page 328. The work of Professor Kolliker referred to is
'Ueber die Darwin'sche Schopfungstheorie' (Leipzig, 1864). Toward
Professor Kolliker my father felt not only the respect due to so
distinguished a naturalist (a sentiment well expressed in Professor
Huxley's review), but he had also a personal regard for him, and often
alluded with satisfaction to the visit which Professor Kolliker paid at
Down.) on Kolliker, I shall explode. I never read anything better done. I
had much wished his article answered, and indeed thought of doing so
myself, so that I considered several points. You have hit on all, and on
some in addition, and oh! by Jove, how well you have done it. As I read on
and came to point after point on which I had thought, I could not help
jeering and scoffing at myself, to see how infinitely better you had done
it than I could have done. Well, if any one, who does not understand
Natural Selection, will read this, he will be a blockhead if it is not as
clear as daylight. Old Flourens ('Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur
l'origine des especes.' Par P. Flourens. 8vo. Paris, 1864.) was hardly
worth the powder and shot; but how capitally you bring in about the
Academician, and your metaphor of the sea-sand is INIMITABLE.
It is a marvel to me how you can resist becoming a regular reviewer. Well,
I have exploded now, and it has done me a deal of good...
[In the same article in the 'Natural History Review,' Mr. Huxley speaks of
the book above alluded to by Flourens, the Secretaire Perpetuel of the
Academie des Sciences, as one of the two "most elaborate criticisms" of the
'Origin of Species' of the year. He quotes the following passage:--
"M. Darwin continue: 'Aucune distinction absolue n'a ete et ne peut etre
entre les especes et les varietes!' Je vous ai deja dit que vous vous
trompiez; une distinction absolue separe les varietes d'avec les especes."
Mr. Huxley remarks on this, "Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in
England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated in this way even
by a Perpetual Secretary." After demonstrating M. Flourens'
misapprehension of Natural Selection, Mr. Huxley says, "How one knows it
all by heart, and with what relief one reads at page 65 'Je laisse M.
Darwin.'"
On the same subject my father wrote to Mr. Wallace:--
"A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book against me which
pleases me much, for it is plain that our good work is spreading in France.
He speaks of the "engouement" about this book [the 'Origin'] "so full of
empty and presumptuous thoughts." The passage here alluded to is as
follows:--
"Enfin l'ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut qu'etre frappe du talent
de l'auteur. Mais que d'idees obscures, que d'idees fausses! Quel jargon
metaphysique jete mal a propos dans l'histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le
galimatias des qu'elle sort des idees claires, des idees justes. Quel
langage pretentieux et vide! Quelles personifications pueriles et
surannees! O lucidite! O solidite de l'esprit francais, que devenez-
vous?"]
1865.
[This was again a time of much ill-health, but towards the close of the
year he began to recover under the care of the late Dr. Bence-Jones, who
dieted him severely, and as he expressed it, "half-starved him to death."
He was able to work at 'Animals and Plants' until nearly the end of April,
and from that time until December he did practically no work, with the
exception of looking over the 'Origin of Species' for a second French
edition. He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:--"I am, as it were, reading the
'Origin' for the first time, for I am correcting for a second French
edition: and upon my life, my dear fellow, it is a very good book, but oh!
my gracious, it is tough reading, and I wish it were done." (Towards the
end of the year my father received the news of a new convert to his views,
in the person of the distinguished American naturalist Lesquereux. He
wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "I have had an enormous letter from Leo
Lesquereux (after doubts, I did not think it worth sending you) on Coal
Flora. He wrote some excellent articles in 'Silliman' against 'Origin'
views; but he says now, after repeated reading of the book, he is a
convert!")
The following letter refers to the Duke of Argyll's address to the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, December 5th, 1864, in which he criticises the
'Origin of Species.' My father seems to have read the Duke's address as
reported in the "Scotsman" of December 6th, 1865. In a letter to my father
(January 16, 1865, 'Life,' vol. ii. page 385), Lyell wrote, "The address is
a great step towards your views--far greater, I believe, than it seems when
read merely with reference to criticisms and objections."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, January 22, [1865].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you for your very interesting letter. I have the true English
instinctive reverence for rank, and therefore liked to hear about the
Princess Royal. ("I had...an animated conversation on Darwinism with the
Princess Royal, who is a worthy daughter of her father, in the reading of
good books, and thinking of what she reads. She was very much au fait at
the 'Origin,' and Huxley's book, the 'Antiquity,' etc."--(Lyell's 'Life,'
vol. ii. page 385.) You ask what I think of the Duke's address, and I
shall be glad to tell you. It seems to me EXTREMELY clever, like
everything I have read of his; but I am not shaken--perhaps you will say
that neither gods nor men could shake me. I demur to the Duke reiterating
his objection that the brilliant plumage of the male humming-bird could not
have been acquired through selection, at the same time entirely ignoring my
discussion (page 93, 3rd edition) on beautiful plumage being acquired
through SEXUAL selection. The duke may think this insufficient, but that
is another question. All analogy makes me quite disagree with the Duke
that the difference in the beak, wing and tail, are not of importance to
the several species. In the only two species which I have watched, the
difference in flight and in the use of the tail was conspicuously great.
The Duke, who knows my Orchid book so well, might have learnt a lesson of
caution from it, with respect to his doctrine of differences for mere
variety or beauty. It may be confidently said that no tribe of plants
presents such grotesque and beautiful differences, which no one until
lately, conjectured were of any use; but now in almost every case I have
been able to show their important service. It should be remembered that
with humming birds or orchids, a modification in one part will cause
correlated changes in other parts. I agree with what you say about beauty.
I formerly thought a good deal on the subject, and was led quite to
repudiate the doctrine of beauty being created for beauty's sake. I demur
also to the Duke's expression of "new births." That may be a very good
theory, but it is not mine, unless indeed he calls a bird born with a beak
1/100th of an inch longer than usual "a new birth;" but this is not the
sense in which the term would usually be understood. The more I work the
more I feel convinced that it is by the accumulation of such extremely
slight variations that new species arise. I do not plead guilty to the
Duke's charge that I forget that natural selection means only the
preservation of variations which independently arise. ("Strictly speaking,
therefore, Mr. Darwin's theory is not a theory on the Origin of Species at
all, but only a theory on the causes which lead to the relative success and
failure of such new forms as may be born into the world."--"Scotsman",
December 6, 1864.) I have expressed this in as strong language as I could
use, but it would have been infinitely tedious had I on every occasion thus
guarded myself. I will cry "peccavi" when I hear of the Duke or you
attacking breeders for saying that man has made his improved shorthorns, or
pouter pigeons, or bantams. And I could quote still stronger expressions
used by agriculturists. Man does make his artificial breeds, for his
selective power is of such importance relatively to that of the slight
spontaneous variations. But no one will attack breeders for using such
expressions, and the rising generation will not blame me.
Many thanks for your offer of sending me the 'Elements.' (Sixth edition in
one volume.) I hope to read it all, but unfortunately reading makes my
head whiz more than anything else. I am able most days to work for two or
three hours, and this makes all the difference in my happiness. I have
resolved not to be tempted astray, and to publish nothing till my volume on
Variation is completed. You gave me excellent advice about the footnotes
in my Dog chapter, but their alteration gave me infinite trouble, and I
often wished all the dogs, and I fear sometimes you yourself, in the nether
regions.
We (dictator and writer) send our best love to Lady Lyell.
Yours affectionately,
CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.--If ever you should speak with the Duke on the subject, please say how
much interested I was with his address.
[In his autobiographical sketch my father has remarked that owing to
certain early memories he felt the honour of being elected to the Royal and
Royal Medical Societies of Edinburgh "more than any similar honour." The
following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker refers to his election
to the former of these societies. The latter part of the extract refers to
the Berlin Academy, to which he was elected in 1878:--
"Here is a really curious thing, considering that Brewster is President and
Balfour Secretary. I have been elected Honorary Member of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh. And this leads me to a third question. Does the
Berlin Academy of Sciences send their Proceedings to Honorary Members? I
want to know, to ascertain whether I am a member; I suppose not, for I
think it would have made some impression on me; yet I distinctly remember
receiving some diploma signed by Ehrenberg. I have been so careless; I
have lost several diplomas, and now I want to know what Societies I belong
to, as I observe every [one] tacks their titles to their names in the
catalogue of the Royal Soc."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, February 21 [1865].
My dear Lyell,
I have taken a long time to thank you very much for your present of the
'Elements.'
I am going through it all, reading what is new, and what I have forgotten,
and this is a good deal.
I am simply astonished at the amount of labour, knowledge, and clear
thought condensed in this work. The whole strikes me as something quite
grand. I have been particularly interested by your account of Heer's work
and your discussion on the Atlantic Continent. I am particularly delighted
at the view which you take on this subject; for I have long thought Forbes
did an ill service in so freely making continents.
I have also been very glad to read your argument on the denudation of the
Weald, and your excellent resume on the Purbeck Beds; and this is the point
at which I have at present arrived in your book. I cannot say that I am
quite convinced that there is no connection beyond that pointed out by you,
between glacial action and the formation of lake basins; but you will not
much value my opinion on this head, as I have already changed my mind some
half-dozen times.
I want to make a suggestion to you. I found the weight of your volume
intolerable, especially when lying down, so with great boldness cut it into
two pieces, and took it out of its cover; now could not Murray without any
other change add to his advertisement a line saying, "if bound in two
volumes, one shilling or one shilling and sixpence extra." You thus might
originate a change which would be a blessing to all weak-handed readers.
Believe me, my dear Lyell,
Yours most sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
Originate a second REAL BLESSING and have the edges of the sheets cut like
a bound book. (This was a favourite reform of my father's. He wrote to
the "Athenaeum" on the subject, February 5, 1867, pointing out how that a
book cut, even carefully, with a paper knife collects dust on its edges far
more than a machine-cut book. He goes on to quote the case of a lady of
his acquaintance who was in the habit of cutting books with her thumb, and
finally appeals to the "Athenaeum" to earn the gratitude of children "who
have to cut through dry and pictureless books for the benefit of their
elders." He tried to introduce the reform in the case of his own books,
but found the conservatism of booksellers too strong for him. The
presentation copies, however, of all his later books were sent out with the
edges cut.)
CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK.
Down, June 11 [1865].
My dear Lubbock,
The latter half of your book ('Prehistoric Times,' 1865.) has been read
aloud to me, and the style is so clear and easy (we both think it
perfection) that I am now beginning at the beginning. I cannot resist
telling you how excellently well, in my opinion, you have done the very
interesting chapter on savage life. Though you have necessarily only
compiled the materials the general result is most original. But I ought to
keep the term original for your last chapter, which has struck me as an
admirable and profound discussion. It has quite delighted me, for now the
public will see what kind of man you are, which I am proud to think I
discovered a dozen years ago.
I do sincerely wish you all success in your election and in politics; but
after reading this last chapter, you must let me say: oh, dear! oh, dear!
oh dear!
Yours affectionately,
CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--You pay me a superb compliment ('Prehistoric Times,' page 487, where
the words, "the discoveries of a Newton or a Darwin," occur.), but I fear
you will be quizzed for it by some of your friends as too exaggerated.
[The following letter refers to Fritz Muller's book, 'Fur Darwin,' which
was afterwards translated, at my father's suggestion, by Mr. Dallas. It is
of interest as being the first of the long series of letters which my
father wrote to this distinguished naturalist. They never met, but the
correspondence with Muller, which continued to the close of my father's
life, was a source of very great pleasure to him. My impression is that of
all his unseen friends Fritz Muller was the one for whom he had the
strongest regard. Fritz Muller is the brother of another distinguished
man, the late Hermann Muller, the author of 'Die Befruchtung der Blumen,'
and of much other valuable work:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER.
Down, August 10 [1865].
My dear Sir,
I have been for a long time so ill that I have only just finished hearing
read aloud your work on species. And now you must permit me to thank you
cordially for the great interest with which I have read it. You have done
admirable service in the cause in which we both believe. Many of your
arguments seem to me excellent, and many of your facts wonderful. Of the
latter, nothing has surprised me so much as the two forms of males. I have
lately investigated the cases of dimorphic plants, and I should much like
to send you one or two of my papers if I knew how. I did send lately by
post a paper on climbing plants, as an experiment to see whether it would
reach you. One of the points which has struck me most in your paper is
that on the differences in the air-breathing apparatus of the several
forms. This subject appeared to me very important when I formerly
considered the electric apparatus of fishes. Your observations on
Classification and Embryology seem to me very good and original. They show
what a wonderful field there is for enquiry on the development of
crustacea, and nothing has convinced me so plainly what admirable results
we shall arrive at in Natural History in the course of a few years. What a
marvellous range of structure the crustacea present, and how well adapted
they are for your enquiry! Until reading your book I knew nothing of the
Rhizocephala; pray look at my account and figures of Anelasma, for it seems
to me that this latter cirripede is a beautiful connecting link with the
Rhizocephala.
If ever you have any opportunity, as you are so skilful a dissector, I much
wish that you would look to the orifice at the base of the first pair of
cirrhi in cirripedes, and at the curious organ in it, and discover what its
nature is; I suppose I was quite in error, yet I cannot feel fully
satisfied at Krohn's (See vol. ii., pages 138, 187.) observations. Also if
you ever find any species of Scalpellum, pray look for complemental males;
a German author has recently doubted my observations for no reason except
that the facts appeared to him so strange.
Permit me again to thank you cordially for the pleasure which I have
derived from your work and to express my sincere admiration for your
valuable researches.
Believe me, dear Sir, with sincere respect,
Yours very faithfully,
CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--I do not know whether you care at all about plants, but if so, I
should much like to send you my little work on the 'Fertilization of
Orchids,' and I think I have a German copy.
Could you spare me a photograph of yourself? I should much like to possess
one.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, Thursday, 27th [September, 1865].
My dear Hooker,
I had intended writing this morning to thank Mrs. Hooker most sincerely for
her last and several notes about you, and now your own note in your hand
has rejoiced me. To walk between five and six miles is splendid, with a
little patience you must soon be well. I knew you had been very ill, but I
hardly knew how ill, until yesterday, when Bentham (from the Cranworths
(Robert Rolfe, Lord Cranworth, and Lord Chancellor of England, lived at
Holwood, near Down.)) called here, and I was able to see him for ten
minutes. He told me also a little about the last days of your father (Sir
William Hooker; 1785-1865. He took charge of the Royal Gardens at Kew, in
1840, when they ceased to be the private gardens of the Royal Family. In
doing so, he gave up his professorship at Glasgow--and with it half of his
income. He founded the herbarium and library, and within ten years he
succeeded in making the gardens the first in the world. It is, thus, not
too much to say that the creation of the establishment at Kew is due to the
abilities and self-devotion of Sir William Hooker. While, for the
subsequent development of the gardens up to their present magnificent
condition, the nation must thank Sir Joseph Hooker, in whom the same
qualities are so conspicuous.); I wish I had known your father better, my
impression is confined to his remarkably cordial, courteous, and frank
bearing. I fully concur and understand what you say about the difference
of feeling in the loss of a father and child. I do not think any one could
love a father much more than I did mine, and I do not believe three or four
days ever pass without my still thinking of him, but his death at eighty-
four caused me nothing of that insufferable grief (I may quote here a
passage from a letter of November, 1863. It was written to a friend who
had lost his child: "How well I remember your feeling, when we lost Annie.
It was my greatest comfort that I had never spoken a harsh word to her.
Your grief has made me shed a few tears over our poor darling; but believe
me that these tears have lost that unutterable bitterness of former days.")
which the loss of our poor dear Annie caused. And this seems to me
perfectly natural, for one knows for years previously that one's father's
death is drawing slowly nearer and nearer, while the death of one's child
is a sudden and dreadful wrench. What a wonderful deal you read; it is a
horrid evil for me that I can read hardly anything, for it makes my head
almost immediately begin to sing violently. My good womenkind read to me a
great deal, but I dare not ask for much science, and am not sure that I
could stand it. I enjoyed Tylor ('Researches into the Early History of
Mankind,' by E.B. Tylor. 1865.) EXTREMELY, and the first part of Lecky
'The Rise of Rationalism in Europe,' by W.E.H. Lecky. 1865.); but I think
the latter is often vague, and gives a false appearance of throwing light
on his subject by such phrases as "spirit of the age," "spread of
civilization," etc. I confine my reading to a quarter or half hour per day
in skimming through the back volumes of the Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, and find much that interests me. I miss my climbing plants very
much, as I could observe them when very poorly.
I did not enjoy the 'Mill on the Floss' so much as you, but from what you
say we will read it again. Do you know 'Silas Marner'? it is a charming
little story; if you run short, and like to have it, we could send it by
post...We have almost finished the first volume of Palgrave (William
Gifford Palgrave's 'Travels in Arabia,' published in 1865.), and I like it
much; but did you ever see a book so badly arranged? The frequency of the
allusions to what will be told in the future are quite laughable...By the
way, I was very much pleased with the foot-note (The passage which seems to
be referred to occurs in the text (page 479) of 'Prehistoric Times.' It
expresses admiration of Mr. Wallace's paper in the 'Anthropological Review'
(May, 1864), and speaks of the author's "characteristic unselfishness" in
ascribing the theory of Natural Selection "unreservedly to Mr. Darwin."
about Wallace in Lubbock's last chapter. I had not heard that Huxley had
backed up Lubbock about Parliament...Did you see a sneer some time ago in
the "Times" about how incomparably more interesting politics were compared
with science even to scientific men? Remember what Trollope says, in 'Can
you Forgive her,' about getting into Parliament, as the highest earthly
ambition. Jeffrey, in one of his letters, I remember, says that making an
effective speech in Parliament is a far grander thing than writing the
grandest history. All this seems to me a poor short-sighted view. I
cannot tell you how it has rejoiced me once again seeing your handwriting--
my best of old friends.
Yours affectionately,
CH. DARWIN.
[In October he wrote Sir J.D. Hooker:--
"Talking of the 'Origin,' a Yankee has called my attention to a paper
attached to Dr. Wells's famous 'Essay on Dew,' which was read in 1813 to
the Royal Society, but not [then] printed, in which he applies most
distinctly the principle of Natural Selection to the Races of Man. So poor
old Patrick Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any
longer to put on his title-pages, 'Discoverer of the principle of Natural
Selection'!"]
CHARLES DARWIN TO F.W. FARRAR. (Canon of Westminster.)
Down, November 2 [1865?].
Dear Sir,
As I have never studied the science of language, it may perhaps seem
presumptuous, but I cannot resist the pleasure of telling you what interest
and pleasure I have derived from hearing read aloud your volume ('Chapters
on Language,' 1865.)
I formerly read Max Muller, and thought his theory (if it deserves to be
called so) both obscure and weak; and now, after hearing what you say, I
feel sure that this is the case, and that your cause will ultimately
triumph. My indirect interest in your book has been increased from Mr.
Hensleigh Wedgwood, whom you often quote, being my brother-in-law.
No one could dissent from my views on the modification of species with more
courtesy than you do. But from the tenor of your mind I feel an entire and
comfortable conviction (and which cannot possibly be disturbed) that if
your studies led you to attend much to general questions in natural history
you would come to the same conclusion that I have done.
Have you ever read Huxley's little book of Lectures? I would gladly send a
copy if you think you would read it.
Considering what Geology teaches us, the argument from the supposed
immutability of specific types seems to me much the same as if, in a nation
which had no old writings, some wise old savage was to say that his
language had never changed; but my metaphor is too long to fill up.
Pray believe me, dear Sir, yours very sincerely obliged,
C. DARWIN.
1866.
[The year 1866 is given in my father's Diary in the following words:--
"Continued correcting chapters of 'Domestic Animals.'
March 1st.--Began on 4th edition of 'Origin' of 1250 copies (received for
it 238 pounds), making 7500 copies altogether.
May 10th.--Finished 'Origin,' except revises, and began going over Chapter
XIII. of 'Domestic Animals.'
November 21st.--Finished 'Pangenesis.'
December 21st.--Finished re-going over all chapters, and sent them to
printers.
December 22nd.--Began concluding chapter of book."
He was in London on two occasions for a week at a time, staying with his
brother, and for a few days (May 29th-June 2nd) in Surrey; for the rest of
the year he was at Down.
There seems to have been a gradual mending in his health; thus he wrote to
Mr. Wallace (January 1866):--"My health is so far improved that I am able
to work one or two hours a day."
With respect to the 4th edition he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:--
"The new edition of the 'Origin' has caused me two great vexations. I
forgot Bates's paper on variation (This appears to refer to "Notes on South
American Butterflies," Trans. Entomolog. Soc., vol. v. (N.S.).), but I
remembered in time his mimetic work, and now, strange to say, I find I have
forgotten your Arctic paper! I know how it arose; I indexed for my bigger
work, and never expected that a new edition of the 'Origin' would be
wanted.
"I cannot say how all this has vexed me. Everything which I have read
during the last four years I find is quite washy in my mind." As far as I
know, Mr. Bates's paper was not mentioned in the later editions of the
'Origin,' for what reason I cannot say.
In connection with his work on 'The Variation of Animals and Plants,' I
give here extracts from three letters addressed to Mr. Huxley, which are of
interest as giving some idea of the development of the theory of
'Pangenesis,' ultimately published in 1868 in the book in question:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, May 27, [1865?].
...I write now to ask a favour of you, a very great favour from one so hard
worked as you are. It is to read thirty pages of MS., excellently copied
out and give me, not lengthened criticism, but your opinion whether I may
venture to publish it. You may keep the MS. for a month or two. I would
not ask this favour, but I REALLY know no one else whose judgment on the
subject would be final with me.
The case stands thus: in my next book I shall publish long chapters on
bud- and seminal-variation, on inheritance, reversion, effects of use and
disuse, etc. I have also for many years speculated on the different forms
of reproduction. Hence it has come to be a passion with me to try to
connect all such facts by some sort of hypothesis. The MS. which I wish to
send you gives such a hypothesis; it is a very rash and crude hypothesis,
yet it has been a considerable relief to my mind, and I can hang on it a
good many groups of facts. I well know that a mere hypothesis, and this is
nothing more, is of little value; but it is very useful to me as serving as
a kind of summary for certain chapters. Now I earnestly wish for your
verdict given briefly as, "Burn it"--or, which is the most favourable
verdict I can hope for, "It does rudely connect together certain facts, and
I do not think it will immediately pass out of my mind." If you can say
this much, and you do not think it absolutely ridiculous, I shall publish
it in my concluding chapter. Now will you grant me this favour? You must
refuse if you are too much overworked.
I must say for myself that I am a hero to expose my hypothesis to the fiery
ordeal of your criticism.
July 12, [1865?].
My dear Huxley,
I thank you most sincerely for having so carefully considered my MS. It
has been a real act of kindness. It would have annoyed me extremely to
have re-published Buffon's views, which I did not know of, but I will get
the book; and if I have strength I will also read Bonnet. I do not doubt
your judgment is perfectly just, and I will try to persuade myself not to
publish. The whole affair is much too speculative; yet I think some such
view will have to be adopted, when I call to mind such facts as the
inherited effects of use and disuse, etc. But I will try to be cautious...
[1865?].
My dear Huxley,
Forgive my writing in pencil, as I can do so lying down. I have read
Buffon: whole pages are laughably like mine. It is surprising how candid
it makes one to see one's views in another man's words. I am rather
ashamed of the whole affair, but not converted to a no-belief. What a
kindness you have done me with your "vulpine sharpness." Nevertheless,
there is a fundamental distinction between Buffon's views and mine. He
does not suppose that each cell or atom of tissue throws off a little bud;
but he supposes that the sap or blood includes his "organic molecules,"
WHICH ARE READY FORMED, fit to nourish each organ, and when this is fully
formed, they collect to form buds and the sexual elements. It is all
rubbish to speculate as I have done; yet, if I ever have strength to
publish my next book, I fear I shall not resist "Pangenesis," but I assure
you I will put it humbly enough. The ordinary course of development of
beings, such as the Echinodermata, in which new organs are formed at quite
remote spots from the analogous previous parts, seem to me extremely
difficult to reconcile on any view except the free diffusion in the parent
of the germs or gemmules of each separate new organ; and so in cases of
alternate generation. But I will not scribble any more. Hearty thanks to
you, you best of critics and most learned man...
[The letters now take up the history of the year 1866.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE.
Down, July 5 [1866].
My dear Wallace,
I have been much interested by your letter, which is as clear as daylight.
I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's
excellent expression of "the survival of the fittest." (Extract from a
letter of Mr. Wallace's, July 2, 1866: "The term 'survival of the fittest'
is the plain expression of the fact; 'natural selection' is a metaphorical
expression of it, and to a certain degree indirect and incorrect,
since...Nature...does not so much select special varieties as exterminate
the most unfavourable ones.") This, however, had not occurred to me till
reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that
it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb; and that this is a
real objection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words, natural
selection. I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree, that it
was a great advantage to bring into connection natural and artificial
selection; this indeed led me to use a term in common, and I still think it
some advantage. I wish I had received your letter two months ago, for I
would have worked in "the survival, etc.," often in the new edition of the
'Origin,' which is now almost printed off, and of which I will of course
send you a copy. I will use the term in my next book on Domestic Animals,
etc., from which, by the way, I plainly see that you expect MUCH, too much.
The term Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad and at home,
that I doubt whether it could be given up, and with all its faults I should
be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must now
depend "on the survival of the fittest." As in time the term must grow
intelligible the objections to its use will grow weaker and weaker. I
doubt whether the use of any term would have made the subject intelligible
to some minds, clear as it is to others; for do we not see even to the
present day Malthus on Population absurdly misunderstood? This reflection
about Malthus has often comforted me when I have been vexed at the
misstatement of my views. As for M. Janet (This no doubt refers to Janet's
'Materialisme Contemporain.'), he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen
are so acute that I think they often misunderstand common folk. Your
criticism on the double sense ("I find you use 'Natural Selection' in two
senses. 1st, for the simple preservation of favourable and rejection of
unfavourable variations, in which case it is equivalent to the 'survival of
the fittest,'--and 2ndly, for the effect or CHANGE produced by this
preservation." Extract from Mr. Wallace's letter above quoted.) in which I
have used Natural Selection is new to me and unanswerable; but my blunder
has done no harm, for I do not believe that any one, excepting you, has
ever observed it. Again, I agree that I have said too much about
"favourable variations;" but I am inclined to think that you put the
opposite side too strongly; if every part of every being varied, I do not
think we should see the same end, or object, gained by such wonderfully
diversified means.
I hope you are enjoying the country, and are in good health, and are
working hard at your Malay Archipelago book, for I will always put this
wish in every note I write to you, like some good people always put in a
text. My health keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am able to
work some hours daily. With many thanks for your interesting letter.
Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, August 30 [1866].
My dear Hooker,
I was very glad to get your note and the Notts. Newspaper. I have seldom
been more pleased in my life than at hearing how successfully your lecture
(At the Nottingham meeting of the British Association, August 27, 1866.
The subject of the lecture was 'Insular Floras.' See "Gardeners'
Chronicle", 1866.) went off. Mrs. H. Wedgwood sent us an account, saying
that you read capitally, and were listened to with profound attention and
great applause. She says, when your final allegory (Sir Joseph Hooker
allegorized the Oxford meeting of the British Association as the gathering
of a tribe of savages who believed that the new moon was created afresh
each month. The anger of the priests and medicine man at a certain heresy,
according to which the new moon is but the offspring of the old one, is
excellently given.) began, "for a minute or two we were all mystified, and
then came such bursts of applause from the audience. It was thoroughly
enjoyed amid roars of laughter and noise, making a most brilliant
conclusion."
I am rejoiced that you will publish your lecture, and felt sure that sooner
or later it would come to this, indeed it would have been a sin if you had
not done so. I am especially rejoiced as you give the arguments for
occasional transport, with such perfect fairness; these will now receive a
fair share of attention, as coming from you a professed botanist. Thanks
also for Grove's address; as a whole it strikes me as very good and
original, but I was disappointed in the part about Species; it dealt in
such generalities that it would apply to any view or no view in
particular...
And now farewell. I do most heartily rejoice at your success, and for
Grove's sake at the brilliant success of the whole meeting.
Yours affectionately,
CHARLES DARWIN.
[The next letter is of interest, as giving the beginning of the connection
which arose between my father and Professor Victor Carus. The translation
referred to is the third German edition made from the fourth English one.
From this time forward Professor Carus continued to translate my father's
books into German. The conscientious care with which this work was done
was of material service, and I well remember the admiration (mingled with a
tinge of vexation at his own short-comings) with which my father used to
receive the lists of oversights, etc., which Professor Carus discovered in
the course of translation. The connection was not a mere business one, but
was cemented by warm feelings of regard on both sides.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO VICTOR CARUS.
Down, November 10, 1866.
My dear Sir,
I thank you for your extremely kind letter. I cannot express too strongly
my satisfaction that you have undertaken the revision of the new edition,
and I feel the honour which you have conferred on me. I fear that you will
find the labour considerable, not only on account of the additions, but I
suspect that Bronn's translation is very defective, at least I have heard
complaints on this head from quite a large number of persons. It would be
a great gratification to me to know that the translation was a really good
one, such as I have no doubt you will produce. According to our English
practice, you will be fully justified in entirely omitting Bronn's
Appendix, and I shall be very glad of its omission. A new edition may be
looked at as a new work...You could add anything of your own that you
liked, and I should be much pleased. Should you make any additions or
append notes, it appears to me that Nageli "Entstehung und Begriff," etc.
('Entstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art.' An address given at a
public meeting of the 'R. Academy of Sciences' at Munich, March 28, 1865.),
would be worth noticing, as one of the most able pamphlets on the subject.
I am, however, far from agreeing with him that the acquisition of certain
characters which appear to be of no service to plants, offers any great
difficulty, or affords a proof of some innate tendency in plants towards
perfection. If you intend to notice this pamphlet, I should like to write
hereafter a little more in detail on the subject.
...I wish I had known when writing my Historical Sketch that you had in
1853 published your views on the genealogical connection of past and
present forms.
I suppose you have the sheets of the last English edition on which I marked
with pencil all the chief additions, but many little corrections of style
were not marked.
Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful for the great service and
honour which you do me by the present translation.
I remain, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.--I should be VERY MUCH pleased to possess your photograph, and I send
mine in case you should like to have a copy.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. NAGELI. (Professor of Botany at Munich.)
Down, June 12 [1866].
Dear Sir,
I hope you will excuse the liberty which I take in writing to you. I have
just read, though imperfectly, your 'Entstehung und Begriff,' and have been
so greatly interested by it, that I have sent it to be translated, as I am
a poor German scholar. I have just finished a new [4th] edition of my
'Origin,' which will be translated into German, and my object in writing to
you is to say that if you should see this edition you would think that I
had borrowed from you, without acknowledgment, two discussions on the
beauty of flowers and fruit; but I assure you every word was printed off
before I had opened your pamphlet. Should you like to possess a copy of
either the German or English new edition, I should be proud to send one. I
may add, with respect to the beauty of flowers, that I have already hinted
the same views as you hold in my paper on Lythrum.
Many of your criticisms on my views are the best which I have met with, but
I could answer some, at least to my own satisfaction; and I regret
extremely that I had not read your pamphlet before printing my new edition.
On one or two points, I think, you have a little misunderstood me, though I
dare say I have not been cautious in expressing myself. The remark which
has struck me most, is that on the position of the leaves not having been
acquired through natural selection, from not being of any special
importance to the plant. I well remember being formerly troubled by an
analogous difficulty, namely, the position of the ovules, their anatropous
condition, etc. It was owing to forgetfulness that I did not notice this
difficulty in the 'Origin.' (Nageli's Essay is noticed in the 5th
edition.) Although I can offer no explanation of such facts, and only hope
to see that they may be explained, yet I hardly see how they support the
doctrine of some law of necessary development, for it is not clear to me
that a plant, with its leaves placed at some particular angle, or with its
ovules in some particular position, thus stands higher than another plant.
But I must apologise for troubling you with these remarks.
As I much wish to possess your photograph, I take the liberty of enclosing
my own, and with sincere respect I remain, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
CH. DARWIN.
[I give a few extracts from letters of various dates showing my father's
interest, alluded to in the last letter, in the problem of the arrangement
of the leaves on the stems of plants. It may be added that Professor
Schwendener of Berlin has successfully attacked the question in his
'Mechanische Theorie der Blattstellungen,' 1878.
TO DR. FALCONER.
August 26 [1863].
"Do you remember telling me that I ought to study Phyllotaxy? Well I have
often wished you at the bottom of the sea; for I could not resist, and I
muddled my brains with diagrams, etc., and specimens, and made out, as
might have been expected, nothing. Those angles are a most wonderful
problem and I wish I could see some one give a rational explanation of
them."
TO DR. ASA GRAY.
May 11 [1861].
"If you wish to save me from a miserable death, do tell me why the angles
1/2, 1/3, 2/5, 3/8, etc, series occur, and no other angles. It is enough
to drive the quietest man mad. Did you and some mathematician (Probably my
father was thinking of Chauncey Wright's work on Phyllotaxy, in Gould's
'Astronomical Journal,' No.99, 1856, and in the 'Mathematical Monthly,'
1859. These papers are mentioned in the "Letters of Chauncey Wright.' Mr.
Wright corresponded with my father on the subject.) publish some paper on
the subject? Hooker says you did; where is it?
TO DR. ASA GRAY.
[May 31, 1863?].
"I have been looking at Nageli's work on this subject, and am astonished to
see that the angle is not always the same in young shoots when the leaf-
buds are first distinguishable, as in full-grown branches. This shows, I
think, that there must be some potent cause for those angles which do
occur: I dare say there is some explanation as simple as that for the
angles of the Bees-cells."
My father also corresponded with Dr. Hubert Airy and was interested in his
views on the subject, published in the Royal Soc. Proceedings, 1873, page
176.
We now return to the year 1866.
In November, when the prosecution of Governor Eyre was dividing England
into two bitterly opposed parties, he wrote to Sir J. Hooker:--
"You will shriek at me when you hear that I have just subscribed to the
Jamaica Committee." (He subscribed 10 pounds.)
On this subject I quote from a letter of my brother's:--
"With respect to Governor Eyre's conduct in Jamaica, he felt strongly that
J.S. Mill was right in prosecuting him. I remember one evening, at my
Uncle's, we were talking on the subject, and as I happened to think it was
too strong a measure to prosecute Governor Eyre for murder, I made some
foolish remark about the prosecutors spending the surplus of the fund in a
dinner. My father turned on me almost with fury, and told me, if those
were my feelings, I had better go back to Southampton; the inhabitants
having given a dinner to Governor Eyre on his landing, but with which I had
had nothing to do." The end of the incident, as told by my brother, is so
characteristic of my father that I cannot resist giving it, though it has
no bearing on the point at issue. "Next morning at 7 o'clock, or so, he
came into my bedroom and sat on my bed, and said that he had not been able
to sleep from the thought that he had been so angry with me, and after a
few more kind words he left me."
The same restless desire to correct a disagreeable or incorrect impression
is well illustrated in an extract which I quote from some notes by Rev. J.
Brodie Innes:--
"Allied to the extreme carefulness of observation was his most remarkable
truthfulness in all matters. On one occasion, when a parish meeting had
been held on some disputed point of no great importance, I was surprised by
a visit from Mr. Darwin at night. He came to say that, thinking over the
debate, though what he had said was quite accurate, he thought I might have
drawn an erroneous conclusion, and he would not sleep till he had explained
it. I believe that if on any day some certain fact had come to his
knowledge which contradicted his most cherished theories, he would have
placed the fact on record for publication before he slept."
This tallies with my father's habits, as described by himself. When a
difficulty or an objection occurred to him, he thought it of paramount
importance to make a note of it instantly because he found hostile facts to
be especially evanescent.
The same point is illustrated by the following incident, for which I am
indebted to Mr. Romanes:--
"I have always remembered the following little incident as a good example
of Mr. Darwin's extreme solicitude on the score of accuracy. One evening
at Down there was a general conversation upon the difficulty of explaining
the evolution of some of the distinctively human emotions, especially those
appertaining to the recognition of beauty in natural scenery. I suggested
a view of my own upon the subject, which, depending upon the principle of
association, required the supposition that a long line of ancestors should
have inhabited regions, the scenery of which is now regarded as beautiful.
Just as I was about to observe that the chief difficulty attaching to my
hypothesis arose from feelings of the sublime (seeing that these are
associated with awe, and might therefore be expected not to be agreeable),
Mr. Darwin anticipated the remark, by asking how the hypothesis was to meet
the case of these feelings. In the conversation which followed, he said
the occasion in his own life, when he was most affected by the emotions of
the sublime was when he stood upon one of the summits of the Cordillera,
and surveyed the magnificent prospect all around. It seemed, as he
quaintly observed, as if his nerves had become fiddle strings, and had all
taken to rapidly vibrating. This remark was only made incidentally, and
the conversation passed into some other branch. About an hour afterwards
Mr. Darwin retired to rest, while I sat up in the smoking-room with one of
his sons. We continued smoking and talking for several hours, when at
about one o'clock in the morning the door gently opened and Mr. Darwin
appeared, in his slippers and dressing-gown. As nearly as I can remember,
the following are the words he used:--
"'Since I went to bed I have been thinking over our conversation in the
drawing-room, and it has just occurred to me that I was wrong in telling
you I felt most of the sublime when on the top of the Cordillera; I am
quite sure that I felt it even more when in the forests of Brazil. I
thought it best to come and tell you this at once in case I should be
putting you wrong. I am sure now that I felt most sublime in the forests.'
"This was all he had come to say, and it was evident that he had come to do
so, because he thought that the fact of his feeling 'most sublime in
forests' was more in accordance with the hypothesis which we had been
discussing, than the fact which he had previously stated. Now, as no one
knew better than Mr. Darwin the difference between a speculation and a
fact, I thought this little exhibition of scientific conscientiousness very
noteworthy, where the only question concerned was of so highly speculative
a character. I should not have been so much impressed if he had thought
that by his temporary failure of memory he had put me on a wrong scent in
any matter of fact, although even in such a case he is the only man I ever
knew who would care to get out of bed at such a time at night in order to
make the correction immediately, instead of waiting till next morning. But
as the correction only had reference to a flimsy hypothesis, I certainly
was very much impressed by this display of character."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, December 10 [1866].
...I have now read the last No. of H. Spencer. ('Principles of Biology.')
I do not know whether to think it better than the previous number, but it
is wonderfully clever, and I dare say mostly true. I feel rather mean when
I read him: I could bear, and rather enjoy feeling that he was twice as
ingenious and clever as myself, but when I feel that he is about a dozen
times my superior, even in the master art of wriggling, I feel aggrieved.
If he had trained himself to observe more, even if at the expense, by the
law of balancement, of some loss of thinking power, he would have been a
wonderful man.
...I am HEARTILY glad you are taking up the Distribution of Plants in New
Zealand, and suppose it will make part of your new book. Your view, as I
understand it, that New Zealand subsided and formed two or more small
islands, and then rose again, seems to me extremely probable...When I
puzzled my brains about New Zealand, I remember I came to the conclusion,
as indeed I state in the 'Origin,' that its flora, as well as that of other
southern lands, had been tinctured by an Antarctic flora, which must have
existed before the Glacial period. I concluded that New Zealand never
could have been closely connected with Australia, though I supposed it had
received some few Australian forms by occasional means of transport. Is
there any reason to suppose that New Zealand could have been more closely
connected with South Australia during the glacial period, when the
Eucalypti, etc., might have been driven further North? Apparently there
remains only the line, which I think you suggested, of sunken islands from
New Caledonia. Please remember that the Edwardsia was certainly drifted
there by the sea.
I remember in old days speculating on the amount of life, i.e. of organic
chemical change, at different periods. There seems to me one very
difficult element in the problem, namely, the state of development of the
organic beings at each period, for I presume that a Flora and Fauna of
cellular cryptogamic plants, of Protozoa and Radiata would lead to much
less chemical change than is now going on. But I have scribbled enough.
Yours affectionately,
CH. DARWIN.
[The following letter is in acknowledgment of Mr. Rivers' reply to an
earlier letter in which my father had asked for information on bud-
variation:
It may find a place here in illustration of the manner of my father's
intercourse with those "whose avocations in life had to do with the rearing
or use of living things" ("Mr. Dyer in 'Charles Darwin,'" "Nature Series",
1882, page 39.)--an intercourse which bore such good fruit in the
'Variation of Animals and Plants.' Mr. Dyer has some excellent remarks on
the unexpected value thus placed on apparently trivial facts disinterred
from weekly journals, or amassed by correspondence. He adds:
"Horticulturists who had...moulded plants almost at their will at the
impulse of taste or profit were at once amazed and charmed to find that
they had been doing scientific work and helping to establish a great
theory."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T. RIVERS. (The late Mr. Rivers was an eminent
horticulturist and writer on horticulture.)
Down, December 28 [1866?].
My dear Sir,
Permit me to thank you cordially for your most kind letter. For years I
have read with interest every scrap which you have written in periodicals,
and abstracted in MS. your book on Roses, and several times I thought I
would write to you, but did not know whether you would think me too
intrusive. I shall, indeed, be truly obliged for any information you can
supply me on bud-variation or sports. When any extra difficult points
occur to me in my present subject (which is a mass of difficulties), I will
apply to you, but I will not be unreasonable. It is most true what you say
that any one to study well the physiology of the life of plants, ought to
have under his eye a multitude of plants. I have endeavoured to do what I
can by comparing statements by many writers and observing what I could
myself. Unfortunately few have observed like you have done. As you are so
kind, I will mention one other point on which I am collecting facts;
namely, the effect produced on the stock by the graft; thus, it is SAID,
that the purple-leaved filbert affects the leaves of the common hazel on
which it is grafted (I have just procured a plant to try), so variegated
jessamine is SAID to affect its stock. I want these facts partly to throw
light on the marvellous laburnum Adami, trifacial oranges, etc. That
laburnum case seems one of the strangest in physiology. I have now growing
splendid, FERTILE, yellow laburnums (with a long raceme like the so-called
Waterer's laburnum) from seed of yellow flowers on the C. Adami. To a man
like myself, who is compelled to live a solitary life, and sees few
persons, it is no slight satisfaction to hear that I have been able at all
[to] interest by my books observers like yourself.
As I shall publish on my present subject, I presume, within a year, it will
be of no use your sending me the shoots of peaches and nectarines which you
so kindly offer; I have recorded your facts.
Permit me again to thank you cordially; I have not often in my life
received a kinder letter.
My dear Sir, yours sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
