CHAPTER 2.V.
THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS UNDER
DOMESTICATION.'
JANUARY 1867, TO JUNE 1868.
[At the beginning of the year 1867 he was at work on the final chapter--
"Concluding Remarks" of the 'Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication,' which was begun after the rest of the MS. had been sent to
the printers in the preceding December. With regard to the publication of
the book he wrote to Mr. Murray, on January 3:--
"I cannot tell you how sorry I am to hear of the enormous size of my book.
(On January 9 he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "I have been these last few
days vexed and annoyed to a foolish degree by hearing that my MS. on Dom.
An. and Cult. Plants will make 2 volumes, both bigger than the 'Origin.'
The volumes will have to be full-sized octavo, so I have written to Murray
to suggest details to be printed in small type. But I feel that the size
is quite ludicrous in relation to the subject. I am ready to swear at
myself and at every fool who writes a book.") I fear it can never pay.
But I cannot shorten it now; nor, indeed, if I had foreseen its length, do
I see which parts ought to have been omitted.
"If you are afraid to publish it, say so at once, I beg you, and I will
consider your note as cancelled. If you think fit, get any one whose
judgment you rely on, to look over some of the more legible chapters,
namely, the Introduction, and on dogs and plants, the latter chapters being
in my opinion, the dullest in the book...The list of chapters, and the
inspection of a few here and there, would give a good judge a fair idea of
the whole book. Pray do not publish blindly, as it would vex me all my
life if I led you to heavy loss."
Mr. Murray referred the MS. to a literary friend, and, in spite of a
somewhat adverse opinion, willingly agreed to publish the book. My father
wrote:--
"Your note has been a great relief to me. I am rather alarmed about the
verdict of your friend, as he is not a man of science. I think if you had
sent the 'Origin' to an unscientific man, he would have utterly condemned
it. I am, however, VERY GLAD that you have consulted any one on whom you
can rely.
"I must add, that my 'Journal of Researches' was seen in MS. by an eminent
semi-scientific man, and was pronounced unfit for publication."
The proofs were begun in March, and the last revise was finished on
November 15th, and during this period the only intervals of rest were two
visits of a week each at his brother Erasmus's house in Queen Anne Street.
He notes in his Diary:--
"I began this book [in the] beginning of 1860 (and then had some MS.), but
owing to interruptions from my illness, and illness of children; from
various editions of the 'Origin,' and Papers, especially Orchis book and
Tendrils, I have spent four years and two months over it."
The edition of 'Animals and Plants' was of 1500 copies, and of these 1260
were sold at Mr. Murray's autumnal sale, but it was not published until
January 30, 1868. A new edition of 1250 copies was printed in February of
the same year.
In 1867 he received the distinction of being made a knight of the Prussian
Order "Pour le Merite." (The Order "Pour le Merite" was founded in 1740 by
Frederick II. by the re-christening of an "Order of Generosity," founded in
1665. It was at one time strictly military, having been previously both
civil and military, and in 1840 the Order was again opened to civilians.
The order consists of thirty members of German extraction, but
distinguished foreigners are admitted to a kind of extraordinary
membership. Faraday, Herschel, and Thomas Moore, have belonged to it in
this way. From the thirty members a chancellor is elected by the king (the
first officer of this kind was Alexander v. Humboldt); and it is the duty
of the chancellor to notify a vacancy in the Order to the remainder of the
thirty, who then elect by vote the new member--but the king has technically
the appointment in his own hands.) He seems not to have known how great
the distinction was, for in June 1868 he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:--
"What a man you are for sympathy. I was made "Eques" some months ago, but
did not think much about it. Now, by Jove, we all do; but you, in fact,
have knighted me."
The letters may now take up the story.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, February 8 [1867].
My dear Hooker,
I am heartily glad that you have been offered the Presidentship of the
British Association, for it is a great honour, and as you have so much work
to do, I am equally glad that you have declined it. I feel, however,
convinced that you would have succeeded very well; but if I fancy myself in
such a position, it actually makes my blood run cold. I look back with
amazement at the skill and taste with which the Duke of Argyll made a
multitude of little speeches at Glasgow. By the way, I have not seen the
Duke's book ('The Reign of Law,' 1867.), but I formerly thought that some
of the articles which appeared in periodicals were very clever, but not
very profound. One of these was reviewed in the "Saturday Review"
("Saturday Review", November 15, 1862, 'The "Edinburgh Review" on the
Supernatural.' Written by my cousin, Mr. Henry Parker.) some years ago,
and the fallacy of some main argument was admirably exposed, and I sent the
article to you, and you agreed strongly with it...There was the other day a
rather good review of the Duke's book in the "Spectator", and with a new
explanation, either by the Duke or the reviewer (I could not make out
which), of rudimentary organs, namely, that economy of labour and material
was a great guiding principle with God (ignoring waste of seed and of young
monsters, etc.), and that making a new plan for the structure of animals
was thought, and thought was labour, and therefore God kept to a uniform
plan, and left rudiments. This is no exaggeration. In short, God is a
man, rather cleverer than us...I am very much obliged for the "Nation"
(returned by this post); it is ADMIRABLY good. You say I always guess
wrong, but I do not believe any one, except Asa Gray, could have done the
thing so well. I would bet even, or three to two, that it is Asa Gray,
though one or two passages staggered me.
I finish my book on 'Domestic Animals,' etc., by a single paragraph,
answering, or rather throwing doubt, in so far as so little space permits,
on Asa Gray's doctrine that each variation has been specially ordered or
led along a beneficial line. It is foolish to touch such subjects, but
there have been so many allusions to what I think about the part which God
has played in the formation of organic beings (Prof. Judd allows me to
quote from some notes which he has kindly given me:--"Lyell once told me
that he had frequently been asked if Darwin was not one of the most unhappy
of men, it being suggested that his outrage upon public opinion should have
filled him with remorse." Sir Charles Lyell must have been able, I think,
to give a satisfactory answer on this point. Professor Judd continues:--
"I made a note of this and other conversations of Lyell's at the time. At
the present time such statements must appear strange to any one who does
not recollect the revolution in opinion which has taken place during the
last 23 years [1882]."), that I thought it shabby to evade the question...I
have even received several letters on the subject...I overlooked your
sentence about Providence, and suppose I treated it as Buckland did his own
theology, when his Bridgewater Treatise was read aloud to him for
correction...
[The following letter, from Mrs. Boole, is one of those referred to in the
last letter to Sir J.D. Hooker:]
Dear Sir,
Will you excuse my venturing to ask you a question, to which no one's
answer but your own would be quite satisfactory?
Do you consider the holding of your theory of Natural Selection, in its
fullest and most unreserved sense, to be inconsistent--I do not say with
any particular scheme of theological doctrine--but with the following
belief, namely:--
That knowledge is given to man by the direct inspiration of the Spirit of
God.
That God is a personal and Infinitely good Being.
That the effect of the action of the Spirit of God on the brain of man is
especially a moral effect.
And that each individual man has within certain limits a power of choice as
to how far he will yield to his hereditary animal impulses, and how far he
will rather follow the guidance of the Spirit, who is educating him into a
power of resisting those impulses in obedience to moral motives?
The reason why I ask you is this: my own impression has always been, not
only that your theory was perfectly COMPATIBLE with the faith to which I
have just tried to give expression, but that your books afforded me a clue
which would guide me in applying that faith to the solution of certain
complicated psychological problems which it was of practical importance to
me as a mother to solve. I felt that you had supplied one of the missing
links--not to say THE missing link--between the facts of science and the
promises of religion. Every year's experience tends to deepen in me that
impression.
But I have lately read remarks on the probable bearing of your theory on
religious and moral questions which have perplexed and pained me sorely. I
know that the persons who make such remarks must be cleverer and wiser than
myself. I cannot feel sure that they are mistaken, unless you will tell me
so. And I think--I cannot know for certain--but I THINK--that if I were an
author, I would rather that the humblest student of my works should apply
to me directly in a difficulty, than that she should puzzle too long over
adverse and probably mistaken or thoughtless criticisms.
At the same time I feel that you have a perfect right to refuse to answer
such questions as I have asked you. Science must take her path, and
Theology hers, and they will meet when and where and how God pleases, and
you are in no sense responsible for it if the meeting-point should still be
very far off. If I receive no answer to this letter I shall infer nothing
from your silence, except that you felt I had no right to make such
enquiries of a stranger.
[My father replied as follows:]
Down, December 14, [1866].
Dear Madam,
It would have gratified me much if I could have sent satisfactory answers
to your questions, or, indeed, answers of any kind. But I cannot see how
the belief that all organic beings, including man, have been genetically
derived from some simple being, instead of having been separately created,
bears on your difficulties. These, as it seems to me, can be answered only
by widely different evidence from science, or by the so-called "inner
consciousness." My opinion is not worth more than that of any other man
who has thought on such subjects, and it would be folly in me to give it.
I may, however, remark that it has always appeared to me more satisfactory
to look at the immense amount of pain and suffering in this world as the
inevitable result of the natural sequence of events, i.e. general laws,
rather than from the direct intervention of God, though I am aware this is
not logical with reference to an omniscient Deity. Your last question
seems to resolve itself into the problem of free will and necessity, which
has been found by most persons insoluble. I sincerely wish that this note
had not been as utterly valueless as it is. I would have sent full
answers, though I have little time or strength to spare, had it been in my
power. I have the honour to remain, dear Madam,
Yours very faithfully,
CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.--I am grieved that my views should incidentally have caused trouble to
your mind, but I thank you for your judgment, and honour you for it, that
theology and science should each run its own course, and that in the
present case I am not responsible if their meeting-point should still be
far off.
[The next letter discusses the 'Reign of Law,' referred to a few pages
back:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, June 1 [1867].
...I am at present reading the Duke, and am VERY MUCH interested by him;
yet I cannot but think, clever as the whole is, that parts are weak, as
when he doubts whether each curvature of the beak of humming-birds is of
service to each species. He admits, perhaps too fully, that I have shown
the use of each little ridge and shape of each petal in orchids, and how
strange he does not extend the view to humming-birds. Still odder, it
seems to me, all that he says on beauty, which I should have thought a
nonentity, except in the mind of some sentient being. He might have as
well said that love existed during the secondary or Palaeozoic periods. I
hope you are getting on with your book better than I am with mine, which
kills me with the labour of correcting, and is intolerably dull, though I
did not think so when I was writing it. A naturalist's life would be a
happy one if he had only to observe, and never to write.
We shall be in London for a week in about a fortnight's time, and I shall
enjoy having a breakfast talk with you.
Yours affectionately,
C. DARWIN.
[The following letter refers to the new and improved translation of the
'Origin,' undertaken by Professor Carus:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J. VICTOR CARUS.
Down, February 17 [1867].
My dear Sir,
I have read your preface with care. It seems to me that you have treated
Bronn with complete respect and great delicacy, and that you have alluded
to your own labour with much modesty. I do not think that any of Bronn's
friends can complain of what you say and what you have done. For my own
sake, I grieve that you have not added notes, as I am sure that I should
have profited much by them; but as you have omitted Bronn's objections, I
believe that you have acted with excellent judgment and fairness in leaving
the text without comment to the independent verdict of the reader. I
heartily congratulate you that the main part of your labour is over; it
would have been to most men a very troublesome task, but you seem to have
indomitable powers of work, judging from those two wonderful and most
useful volumes on zoological literature ('Bibliotheca Zoologica,' 1861.)
edited by you, and which I never open without surprise at their accuracy,
and gratitude for their usefulness. I cannot sufficiently tell you how
much I rejoice that you were persuaded to superintend the translation of
the present edition of my book, for I have now the great satisfaction of
knowing that the German public can judge fairly of its merits and
demerits...
With my cordial and sincere thanks, believe me,
My dear Sir, yours very faithfully,
CH. DARWIN.
[The earliest letter which I have seen from my father to Professor Haeckel,
was written in 1865, and from that time forward they corresponded (though
not, I think, with any regularity) up to the end of my father's life. His
friendship with Haeckel was not nearly growth of correspondence, as was the
case with some others, for instance, Fritz Muller. Haeckel paid more than
one visit to Down, and these were thoroughly enjoyed by my father. The
following letter will serve to show the strong feeling of regard which he
entertained for his correspondent--a feeling which I have often heard him
emphatically express, and which was warmly returned. The book referred to
is Haeckel's 'Generelle Morphologie,' published in 1866, a copy of which my
father received from the author in January 1867.
Dr. E. Krause ('Charles Darwin und sein Verhaltniss zu Deutschland,' 1885.)
has given a good account of Professor Haeckel's services to the cause of
Evolution. After speaking of the lukewarm reception which the 'Origin' met
with in Germany on its first publication, he goes on to describe the first
adherents of the new faith as more or less popular writers, not especially
likely to advance its acceptance with the professorial or purely scientific
world. And he claims for Haeckel that it was his advocacy of Evolution in
his 'Radiolaria' (1862), and at the "Versammlung" of Naturalists at Stettin
in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the first time publicly
before the forum of German science, and his enthusiastic propagandism that
chiefly contributed to its success.
Mr. Huxley, writing in 1869, paid a high tribute to Professor Haeckel as
the Coryphaeus of the Darwinian movement in Germany. Of his 'Generelle
Morphologie,' "an attempt to work out the practical application" of the
doctrine of Evolution to their final results, he says that it has the
"force and suggestiveness, and...systematising power of Oken without his
extravagance." Professor Huxley also testifies to the value of Haeckel's
'Schopfungs-Geschichte' as an exposition of the 'Generelle Morphologie'
"for an educated public."
Again, in his 'Evolution in Biology' (An article in the 'Encyclopaedia
Britannica,' 9th edition, reprinted in 'Science and Culture,' 1881, page
298.), Mr. Huxley wrote: "Whatever hesitation may, not unfrequently, be
felt by less daring minds, in following Haeckel in many of his
speculations, his attempt to systematise the doctrine of Evolution, and to
exhibit its influence as the central thought of modern biology, cannot fail
to have a far-reaching influence on the progress of science."
In the following letter my father alludes to the somewhat fierce manner in
which Professor Haeckel fought the battle of 'Darwinismus,' and on this
subject Dr. Krause has some good remarks (page 162). He asks whether much
that happened in the heat of the conflict might not well have been
otherwise, and adds that Haeckel himself is the last man to deny this.
Nevertheless he thinks that even these things may have worked well for the
cause of Evolution, inasmuch as Haeckel "concentrated on himself by his
'Ursprung des Menschen-Geschlechts,' his 'Generelle Morphologie,' and
'Schopfungs-Geschichte,' all the hatred and bitterness which Evolution
excited in certain quarters," so that, "in a surprisingly short time it
became the fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone should be abused, while
Darwin was held up as the ideal of forethought and moderation."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO E. HAECKEL.
Down, May 21, 1867.
Dear Haeckel,
Your letter of the 18th has given me great pleasure, for you have received
what I said in the most kind and cordial manner. You have in part taken
what I said much stronger than I had intended. It never occurred to me for
a moment to doubt that your work, with the whole subject so admirably and
clearly arranged, as well as fortified by so many new facts and arguments,
would not advance our common object in the highest degree. All that I
think is that you will excite anger, and that anger so completely blinds
every one, that your arguments would have no chance of influencing those
who are already opposed to our views. Moreover, I do not at all like that
you, towards whom I feel so much friendship, should unnecessarily make
enemies, and there is pain and vexation enough in the world without more
being caused. But I repeat that I can feel no doubt that your work will
greatly advance our subject, and I heartily wish it could be translated
into English, for my own sake and that of others. With respect to what you
say about my advancing too strongly objections against my own views, some
of my English friends think that I have erred on this side; but truth
compelled me to write what I did, and I am inclined to think it was good
policy. The belief in the descent theory is slowly spreading in England
(In October 1867 he wrote to Mr. Wallace:--"Mr. Warrington has lately read
an excellent and spirited abstract of the 'Origin' before the Victoria
Institute, and as this is a most orthodox body, he has gained the name of
the Devil's Advocate. The discussion which followed during three
consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked. If you would
care to see the number I could send it you."), even amongst those who can
give no reason for their belief. No body of men were at first so much
opposed to my views as the members of the London Entomological Society, but
now I am assured that, with the exception of two or three old men, all the
members concur with me to a certain extent. It has been a great
disappointment to me that I have never received your long letter written to
me from the Canary Islands. I am rejoiced to hear that your tour, which
seems to have been a most interesting one, has done your health much good.
I am working away at my new book, but make very slow progress, and the work
tries my health, which is much the same as when you were here.
Victor Carus is going to translate it, but whether it is worth translation,
I am rather doubtful. I am very glad to hear that there is some chance of
your visiting England this autumn, and all in this house will be delighted
to see you here.
Believe me, my dear Haeckel,
Yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER.
Down, July 31 [1867].
My dear Sir,
I received a week ago your letter of June 2, full as usual of valuable
matter and specimens. It arrived at exactly the right time, for I was
enabled to give a pretty full abstract of your observations on the plant's
own pollen being poisonous. I have inserted this abstract in the proof-
sheets in my chapter on sterility, and it forms the most striking part of
my whole chapter. (In 'The Variation of Animals and Plants.') I thank you
very sincerely for the most interesting observations, which, however, I
regret that you did not publish independently. I have been forced to
abbreviate one or two parts more than I wished...Your letters always
surprise me, from the number of points to which you attend. I wish I could
make my letters of any interest to you, for I hardly ever see a naturalist,
and live as retired a life as you in Brazil. With respect to mimetic
plants, I remember Hooker many years ago saying he believed that there were
many, but I agree with you that it would be most difficult to distinguish
between mimetic resemblance and the effects of peculiar conditions. Who
can say to which of these causes to attribute the several plants with
heath-like foliage at the Cape of Good Hope? Is it not also a difficulty
that quadrupeds appear to recognise plants more by their [scent] than their
appearance? What I have just said reminds me to ask you a question. Sir
J. Lubbock brought me the other day what appears to be a terrestrial
Planaria (the first ever found in the northern hemisphere) and which was
coloured exactly like our dark-coloured slugs. Now slugs are not devoured
by birds, like the shell-bearing species, and this made me remember that I
found the Brazilian Planariae actually together with striped Vaginuli which
I believe were similarly coloured. Can you throw any light on this? I
wish to know, because I was puzzled some months ago how it would be
possible to account for the bright colours of the Planariae in reference to
sexual selection. By the way, I suppose they are hermaphrodites.
Do not forget to aid me, if in your power, with answers to ANY of my
questions on expression, for the subject interests me greatly. With
cordial thanks for your never-failing kindness, believe me,
Yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, July 18 [1867].
My dear Lyell,
Many thanks for your long letter. I am sorry to hear that you are in
despair about your book (The 2nd volume of the 10th Edition of the
'Principles.'); I well know that feeling, but am now getting out of the
lower depths. I shall be very much pleased, if you can make the least use
of my present book, and do not care at all whether it is published before
yours. Mine will appear towards the end of November of this year; you
speak of yours as not coming out till November, 1868, which I hope may be
an error. There is nothing about Man in my book which can interfere with
you, so I will order all the completed clean sheets to be sent (and others
as soon as ready) to you, but please observe you will not care for the
first volume, which is a mere record of the amount of variation; but I hope
the second will be somewhat more interesting. Though I fear the whole must
be dull.
I rejoice from my heart that you are going to speak out plainly about
species. My book about Man, if published, will be short, and a large
portion will be devoted to sexual selection, to which subject I alluded in
the 'Origin' as bearing on Man...
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, August 22 [1867].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you cordially for your last two letters. The former one did me
REAL good, for I had got so wearied with the subject that I could hardly
bear to correct the proofs (The proofs of 'Animals and Plants,' which Lyell
was then reading.), and you gave me fresh heart. I remember thinking that
when you came to the Pigeon chapter you would pass it over as quite
unreadable. Your last letter has interested me in very many ways, and I
have been glad to hear about those horrid unbelieving Frenchmen. I have
been particularly pleased that you have noticed Pangenesis. I do not know
whether you ever had the feeling of having thought so much over a subject
that you had lost all power of judging it. This is my case with Pangenesis
(which is 26 or 27 years old), but I am inclined to think that if it be
admitted as a probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in
Biology.
I cannot help still regretting that you have ever looked at the slips, for
I hope to improve the whole a good deal. It is surprising to me, and
delightful, that you should care in the least about the plants. Altogether
you have given me one of the best cordials I ever had in my life, and I
heartily thank you. I despatched this morning the French edition. (Of the
'Origin.' It appears that my father was sending a copy of the French
edition to Sir Charles. The introduction was by Mdlle. Royer, who
translated the book.) The introduction was a complete surprise to me, and
I dare say has injured the book in France; nevertheless...it shows, I
think, that the woman is uncommonly clever. Once again many thanks for the
renewed courage with which I shall attack the horrid proof-sheets.
Yours affectionately,
CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.--A Russian who is translating my new book into Russian has been here,
and says you are immensely read in Russia, and many editions--how many I
forget. Six editions of Buckle and four editions of the 'Origin.'
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, October 16 [1867].
My dear Gray,
I send by this post clean sheets of Volume I. up to page 336, and there are
only 411 pages in this volume. I am VERY glad to hear that you are going
to review my book; but if the "Nation" (The book was reviewed by Dr. Gray
in the "Nation", March 19, 1868.) is a newspaper I wish it were at the
bottom of the sea, for I fear that you will thus be stopped reviewing me in
a scientific journal. The first volume is all details, and you will not be
able to read it; and you must remember that the chapters on plants are
written for naturalists who are not botanists. The last chapter in Volume
I. is, however, I think, a curious compilation of facts; it is on bud-
variation. In Volume II. some of the chapters are more interesting; and I
shall be very curious to hear your verdict on the chapter on close inter-
breeding. The chapter on what I call Pangenesis will be called a mad
dream, and I shall be pretty well satisfied if you think it a dream worth
publishing; but at the bottom of my own mind I think it contains a great
truth. I finish my book with a semi-theological paragraph, in which I
quote and differ from you; what you will think of it, I know not...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, November 17 [1867].
My dear Hooker,
Congratulate me, for I have finished the last revise of the last sheet of
my book. It has been an awful job: seven and a half months correcting the
press: the book, from much small type, does not look big, but is really
very big. I have had hard work to keep up to the mark, but during the last
week only few revises came, so that I have rested and feel more myself.
Hence, after our long mutual silence, I enjoy myself by writing a note to
you, for the sake of exhaling, and hearing from you. On account of the
index (The index was made by Mr. W.S. Dallas; I have often heard my father
express his admiration of this excellent piece of work.), I do not suppose
that you will receive your copy till the middle of next month. I shall be
intensely anxious to hear what you think about Pangenesis; though I can see
how fearfully imperfect, even in mere conjectural conclusions, it is; yet
it has been an infinite satisfaction to me somehow to connect the various
large groups of facts, which I have long considered, by an intelligible
thread. I shall not be at all surprised if you attack it and me with
unparalleled ferocity. It will be my endeavour to do as little as possible
for some time, but [I] shall soon prepare a paper or two for the Linnean
Society. In a short time we shall go to London for ten days, but the time
is not yet fixed. Now I have told you a deal about myself, and do let me
hear a good deal about your own past and future doings. Can you pay us a
visit, early in December?...I have seen no one for an age, and heard no
news.
...About my book I will give you a bit of advice. Skip the WHOLE of Volume
I., except the last chapter (and that need only be skimmed) and skip
largely in the 2nd volume; and then you will say it is a very good book.
1868.
['The Variation of Animals and Plants' was, as already mentioned, published
on January 30, 1868, and on that day he sent a copy to Fritz Muller, and
wrote to him:--
"I send by this post, by French packet, my new book, the publication of
which has been much delayed. The greater part, as you will see, is not
meant to be read; but I should very much like to hear what you think of
'Pangenesis,' though I fear it will appear to EVERY ONE far too
speculative."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
February 3 [1868].
...I am very much pleased at what you say about my Introduction; after it
was in type I was as near as possible cancelling the whole. I have been
for some time in despair about my book, and if I try to read a few pages I
feel fairly nauseated, but do not let this make you praise it; for I have
made up my mind that it is not worth a fifth part of the enormous labour it
has cost me. I assure you that all that is worth your doing (if you have
time for so much) is glancing at Chapter VI., and reading parts of the
later chapters. The facts on self-impotent plants seem to me curious, and
I have worked out to my own satisfaction the good from crossing and evil
from interbreeding. I did read Pangenesis the other evening, but even
this, my beloved child, as I had fancied, quite disgusted me. The devil
take the whole book; and yet now I am at work again as hard as I am able.
It is really a great evil that from habit I have pleasure in hardly
anything except Natural History, for nothing else makes me forget my ever-
recurrent uncomfortable sensations. But I must not howl any more, and the
critics may say what they like; I did my best, and man can do no more.
What a splendid pursuit Natural History would be if it was all observing
and no writing!...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, February 10 [1868].
My dear Hooker,
What is the good of having a friend, if one may not boast to him? I heard
yesterday that Murray has sold in a week the whole edition of 1500 copies
of my book, and the sale so pressing that he has agreed with Clowes to get
another edition in fourteen days! This has done me a world of good, for I
had got into a sort of dogged hatred of my book. And now there has
appeared a review in the "Pall Mall" which has pleased me excessively, more
perhaps than is reasonable. I am quite content, and do not care how much I
may be pitched into. If by any chance you should hear who wrote the
article in the "Pall Mall", do please tell me; it is some one who writes
capitally, and who knows the subject. I went to luncheon on Sunday, to
Lubbock's, partly in hopes of seeing you, and, be hanged to you, you were
not there.
Your cock-a-hoop friend,
C.D.
[Independently of the favourable tone of the able series of notices in the
"Pall Mall Gazette" (February 10, 15, 17, 1868), my father may well have
been gratified by the following passages:--
"We must call attention to the rare and noble calmness with which he
expounds his own views, undisturbed by the heats of polemical agitation
which those views have excited, and persistently refusing to retort on his
antagonists by ridicule, by indignation, or by contempt. Considering the
amount of vituperation and insinuation which has come from the other side,
this forbearance is supremely dignified."
And again in the third notice, February 17:--
"Nowhere has the author a word that could wound the most sensitive self-
love of an antagonist; nowhere does he, in text or note, expose the
fallacies and mistakes of brother investigators...but while abstaining from
impertinent censure, he is lavish in acknowledging the smallest debts he
may owe; and his book will make many men happy."
I am indebted to Messrs. Smith & Elder for the information that these
articles were written by Mr. G.H. Lewes.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, February 23 [1868].
My dear Hooker,
I have had almost as many letters to write of late as you can have, viz.
from 8 to 10 per diem, chiefly getting up facts on sexual selection,
therefore I have felt no inclination to write to you, and now I mean to
write solely about my book for my own satisfaction, and not at all for
yours. The first edition was 1500 copies, and now the second is printed
off; sharp work. Did you look at the review in the "Athenaeum"
("Athenaeum", February 15, 1868. My father quoted Pouchet's assertion that
"variation under domestication throws no light on the natural modification
of species." The reviewer quotes the end of a passage in which my father
declares that he can see no force in Pouchet's arguments, or rather
assertions, and then goes on: "We are sadly mistaken if there are not
clear proofs in the pages of the book before us that, on the contrary, Mr.
Darwin has perceived, felt, and yielded to the force of the arguments or
assertions of his French antagonist." The following may serve as samples
of the rest of the review:--
"Henceforth the rhetoricians will have a better illustration of anti-climax
than the mountain which brought forth a mouse,...in the discoverer of the
origin of species, who tried to explain the variation of pigeons!
"A few summary words. On the 'Origin of Species' Mr. Darwin has nothing,
and is never likely to have anything, to say; but on the vastly important
subject of inheritance, the transmission of peculiarities once acquired
through successive generations, this work is a valuable store-house of
facts for curious students and practical breeders."), showing profound
contempt of me?...It is a shame that he should have said that I have taken
much from Pouchet, without acknowledgment; for I took literally nothing,
there being nothing to take. There is a capital review in the "Gardeners'
Chronicle" which will sell the book if anything will. I don't quite see
whether I or the writer is in a muddle about man CAUSING variability. If a
man drops a bit of iron into sulphuric acid he does not cause the
affinities to come into play, yet he may be said to make sulphate of iron.
I do not know how to avoid ambiguity.
After what the "Pall Mall Gazette" and the "Chronicle" have said I do not
care a d--.
I fear Pangenesis is stillborn; Bates says he has read it twice, and is not
sure that he understands it. H. Spencer says the view is quite different
from his (and this is a great relief to me, as I feared to be accused of
plagiarism, but utterly failed to be sure what he meant, so thought it
safest to give my view as almost the same as his), and he says he is not
sure he understands it...Am I not a poor devil? yet I took such pains, I
must think that I expressed myself clearly. Old Sir H. Holland says he has
read it twice, and thinks it very tough; but believes that sooner or later
"some view akin to it" will be accepted.
You will think me very self-sufficient, when I declare that I feel SURE if
Pangenesis is now stillborn it will, thank God, at some future time
reappear, begotten by some other father, and christened by some other name.
Have you ever met with any tangible and clear view of what takes place in
generation, whether by seeds or buds, or how a long-lost character can
possibly reappear; or how the male element can possibly affect the mother
plant, or the mother animal, so that her future progeny are affected? Now
all these points and many others are connected together, whether truly or
falsely is another question, by Pangenesis. You see I die hard, and stick
up for my poor child.
This letter is written for my own satisfaction, and not for yours. So bear
it.
Yours affectionately,
CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO A. NEWTON. (Prof. of Zoology at Cambridge.)
Down, February 9 [1870].
Dear Newton,
I suppose it would be universally held extremely wrong for a defendant to
write to a Judge to express his satisfaction at a judgment in his favour;
and yet I am going thus to act. I have just read what you have said in the
'Record' ('Zoological Record.' The volume for 1868, published December
1869.) about my pigeon chapters, and it has gratified me beyond measure. I
have sometimes felt a little disappointed that the labour of so many years
seemed to be almost thrown away, for you are the first man capable of
forming a judgment (excepting partly Quatrefages), who seems to have
thought anything of this part of my work. The amount of labour,
correspondence, and care, which the subject cost me, is more than you could
well suppose. I thought the article in the "Athenaeum" was very unjust;
but now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for your sympathy
and too warm praise. What labour you have bestowed on your part of the
'Record'! I ought to be ashamed to speak of my amount of work. I
thoroughly enjoyed the Sunday, which you and the others spent here, and
I remain, dear Newton, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE.
Down, February 27 [1868].
My dear Wallace,
You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased by what you say about
'Pangenesis.' None of my friends will speak out...Hooker, as far as I
understand him, which I hardly do at present, seems to think that the
hypothesis is little more than saying that organisms have such and such
potentialities. What you say exactly and fully expresses my feeling, viz.
that it is a relief to have some feasible explanation of the various facts,
which can be given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It has
certainly been an immense relief to my mind; for I have been stumbling over
the subject for years, dimly seeing that some relation existed between the
various classes of facts. I now hear from H. Spencer that his views quoted
in my foot-note refer to something quite distinct, as you seem to have
perceived.
I shall be very glad to hear at some future day your criticisms on the
"causes of variability." Indeed I feel sure that I am right about
sterility and natural selection...I do not quite understand your case, and
we think that a word or two is misplaced. I wish sometime you would
consider the case under the following point of view:--If sterility is
caused or accumulated through natural selection, than as every degree
exists up to absolute barrenness, natural selection must have the power of
increasing it. Now take two species, A and B, and assume that they are (by
any means) half-sterile, i.e. produce half the full number of offspring.
Now try and make (by natural selection) A and B absolutely sterile when
crossed, and you will find how difficult it is. I grant indeed, it is
certain, that the degree of sterility of the individuals A and B will vary,
but any such extra-sterile individuals of, we will say A, if they should
hereafter breed with other individuals of A, will bequeath no advantage to
their progeny, by which these families will tend to increase in number over
other families of A, which are not more sterile when crossed with B. But I
do not know that I have made this any clearer than in the chapter in my
book. It is a most difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and
over again on paper with diagrams.
...Hearty thanks for your letter. You have indeed pleased me, for I had
given up the great god Pan as a stillborn deity. I wish you could be
induced to make it clear with your admirable powers of elucidation in one
of the scientific journals...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, February 28 [1868].
My dear Hooker,
I have been deeply interested by your letter, and we had a good laugh over
Huxley's remark, which was so deuced clever that you could not recollect
it. I cannot quite follow your train of thought, for in the last page you
admit all that I wish, having apparently denied all, or thought all mere
words in the previous pages of your note; but it may be my muddle. I see
clearly that any satisfaction which Pan may give will depend on the
constitution of each man's mind. If you have arrived already at any
similar conclusion, the whole will of course appear stale to you. I heard
yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid vanity), "I can hardly tell
you how much I admire the chapter on 'Pangenesis.' It is a POSITIVE
COMFORT to me to have any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has
always been haunting me, and I shall never be able to give it up till a
better one supplies its place, and that I think hardly possible, etc." Now
his foregoing [italicised] words express my sentiments exactly and fully:
though perhaps I feel the relief extra strongly from having during many
years vainly attempted to form some hypothesis. When you or Huxley say
that a single cell of a plant, or the stump of an amputated limb, have the
"potentiality" of reproducing the whole--or "diffuse an influence," these
words give me no positive idea;--but when it is said that the cells of a
plant, or stump, include atoms derived from every other cell of the whole
organism and capable of development, I gain a distinct idea. But this idea
would not be worth a rush, if it applied to one case alone; but it seems to
me to apply to all the forms of reproduction--inheritance--metamorphosis--
to the abnormal transposition of organs--to the direct action of the male
element on the mother plant, etc. Therefore I fully believe that each cell
does ACTUALLY throw off an atom or gemmule of its contents;--but whether or
not, this hypothesis serves as a useful connecting link for various grand
classes of physiological facts, which at present stand absolutely isolated.
I have touched on the doubtful point (alluded to by Huxley) how far atoms
derived from the same cell may become developed into different structure
accordingly as they are differently nourished; I advanced as illustrations
galls and polypoid excrescences...
It is a real pleasure to me to write to you on this subject, and I should
be delighted if we can understand each other; but you must not let your
good nature lead you on. Remember, we always fight tooth and nail. We go
to London on Tuesday, first for a week to Queen Anne Street, and afterwards
to Miss Wedgwood's, in Regent's Park, and stay the whole month, which, as
my gardener truly says, is a "terrible thing" for my experiments.
CHARLES DARWIN TO W. OGLE. (Dr. William Ogle, now the Superintendent of
Statistics to the Registrar-General.)
Down, March 6 [1868].
Dear Sir,
I thank you most sincerely for your letter, which is very interesting to
me. I wish I had known of these views of Hippocrates before I had
published, for they seem almost identical with mine--merely a change of
terms--and an application of them to classes of facts necessarily unknown
to the old philosopher. The whole case is a good illustration of how
rarely anything is new.
Hippocrates has taken the wind out of my sails, but I care very little
about being forestalled. I advance the views merely as a provisional
hypothesis, but with the secret expectation that sooner or later some such
view will have to be admitted.
...I do not expect the reviewers will be so learned as you: otherwise, no
doubt, I shall be accused of wilfully stealing Pangenesis from
Hippocrates,--for this is the spirit some reviewers delight to show.
CHARLES DARWIN TO VICTOR CARUS.
Down, March 21 [1868].
...I am very much obliged to you for sending me so frankly your opinion on
Pangenesis, and I am sorry it is unfavourable, but I cannot quite
understand your remark on pangenesis, selection, and the struggle for life
not being more methodical. I am not at all surprised at your unfavourable
verdict; I know many, probably most, will come to the same conclusion. One
English Review says it is much too complicated...Some of my friends are
enthusiastic on the hypothesis...Sir C. Lyell says to every one, "you may
not believe in 'Pangenesis,' but if you once understand it, you will never
get it out of your mind." And with this criticism I am perfectly content.
All cases of inheritance and reversion and development now appear to me
under a new light...
[An extract from a letter to Fritz Muller, though of later date (June), may
be given here:--
"Your letter of April 22 has much interested me. I am delighted that you
approve of my book, for I value your opinion more than that of almost any
one. I have yet hopes that you will think well of Pangenesis. I feel sure
that our minds are somewhat alike, and I find it a great relief to have
some definite, though hypothetical view, when I reflect on the wonderful
transformations of animals,--the re-growth of parts,--and especially the
direct action of pollen on the mother-form, etc. It often appears to me
almost certain that the characters of the parents are "photographed" on the
child, only by means of material atoms derived from each cell in both
parents, and developed in the child."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, May 8 [1868].
My dear Gray,
I have been a most ungrateful and ungracious man not to have written to you
an immense time ago to thank you heartily for the "Nation", and for all
your most kind aid in regard to the American edition [of 'Animals and
Plants']. But I have been of late overwhelmed with letters, which I was
forced to answer, and so put off writing to you. This morning I received
the American edition (which looks capital), with your nice preface, for
which hearty thanks. I hope to heaven that the book will succeed well
enough to prevent you repenting of your aid. This arrival has put the
finishing stroke to my conscience, which will endure its wrongs no longer.
...Your article in the "Nation" [March 19] seems to me very good, and you
give an excellent idea of Pangenesis--an infant cherished by few as yet,
except his tender parent, but which will live a long life. There is
parental presumption for you! You give a good slap at my concluding
metaphor (A short abstract of the precipice metaphor is given in Volume I.
Dr. Gray's criticism on this point is as follows: "But in Mr. Darwin's
parallel, to meet the case of nature according to his own view of it, not
only the fragments of rock (answering to variation) should fall, but the
edifice (answering to natural selection) should rise, irrespective of will
or choice!" But my father's parallel demands that natural selection shall
be the architect, not the edifice--the question of design only comes in
with regard to the form of the building materials.): undoubtedly I ought
to have brought in and contrasted natural and artificial selection; but it
seems so obvious to me that natural selection depended on contingencies
even more complex than those which must have determined the shape of each
fragment at the base of my precipice. What I wanted to show was that in
reference to pre-ordainment whatever holds good in the formation of a
pouter pigeon holds good in the formation of a natural species of pigeon.
I cannot see that this is false. If the right variations occurred, and no
others, natural selection would be superfluous. A reviewer in an Edinburgh
paper, who treats me with profound contempt, says on this subject that
Professor Asa Gray could with the greatest ease smash me into little
pieces. (The "Daily Review", April 27, 1868. My father has given rather a
highly coloured version of the reviewer's remarks: "We doubt not that
Professor Asa Gray...could show that natural selection...is simply an
instrument in the hands of an omnipotent and omniscient creator." The
reviewer goes on to say that the passage in question is a "very melancholy
one," and that the theory is the "apotheosis of materialism.")
Believe me, my dear Gray,
Your ungrateful but sincere friend,
CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO G. BENTHAM.
Down, June 23, 1868.
My dear Mr. Bentham,
As your address (Presidential Address to the Linnean Society.) is somewhat
of the nature of a verdict from a judge, I do not know whether it is proper
for me to do so, but I must and will thank you for the pleasure which you
have given me. I am delighted at what you say about my book. I got so
tired of it, that for months together I thought myself a perfect fool for
having given up so much time in collecting and observing little facts, but
now I do not care if a score of common critics speak as contemptuously of
the book as did the "Athenaeum". I feel justified in this, for I have so
complete a reliance on your judgment that I feel certain that I should have
bowed to your judgment had it been as unfavourable as it is the contrary.
What you say about Pangenesis quite satisfies me, and is as much perhaps as
any one is justified in saying. I have read your whole Address with the
greatest interest. It must have cost you a vast amount of trouble. With
cordial thanks, pray believe me,
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--I fear that it is not likely that you have a superfluous copy of your
Address; if you have, I should much like to send one to Fritz Muller in the
interior of Brazil. By the way let me add that I discussed bud-variation
chiefly from a belief which is common to several persons, that all
variability is related to sexual generation; I wished to show clearly that
this was an error.
[The above series of letters may serve to show to some extent the reception
which the new book received. Before passing on (in the next chapter) to
the 'Descent of Man,' I give a letter referring to the translation of Fritz
Muller's book, 'Fur Darwin,' it was originally published in 1864, but the
English translation, by Mr. Dallas, which bore the title suggested by Sir
C. Lyell, of 'Facts and Arguments for Darwin,' did not appear until 1869:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER.
Down, March 16 [1868].
My dear Sir,
Your brother, as you will have heard from him, felt so convinced that you
would not object to a translation of 'Fur Darwin' (In a letter to Fritz
Muller, my father wrote:--"I am vexed to see that on the title my name is
more conspicuous than yours, which I especially objected to, and I
cautioned the printers after seeing one proof."), that I have ventured to
arrange for a translation. Engelmann has very liberally offered me cliches
of the woodcuts for 22 thalers; Mr. Murray has agreed to bring out a
translation (and he is our best publisher) on commission, for he would not
undertake the work on his own risk; and I have agreed with Mr. W.S. Dallas
(who has translated Von Siebold on Parthenogenesis, and many German works,
and who writes very good English) to translate the book. He thinks (and he
is a good judge) that it is important to have some few corrections or
additions, in order to account for a translation appearing so lately [i.e.
at such a long interval of time] after the original; so that I hope you
will be able to send some...
[Two letters may be placed here as bearing on the spread of Evolutionary
ideas in France and Germany:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A. GAUDRY.
Down, January 21 [1868].
Dear Sir,
I thank you for your interesting essay on the influence of the Geological
features of the country on the mind and habits of the Ancient Athenians
(This appears to refer to M. Gaudry's paper translated in the 'Geol. Mag.,'
1868, page 372.), and for your very obliging letter. I am delighted to
hear that you intend to consider the relations of fossil animals in
connection with their genealogy; it will afford you a fine field for the
exercise of your extensive knowledge and powers of reasoning. Your belief
will I suppose, at present, lower you in the estimation of your countrymen;
but judging from the rapid spread in all parts of Europe, excepting France,
of the belief in the common descent of allied species, I must think that
this belief will before long become universal. How strange it is that the
country which gave birth to Buffon, the elder Geoffroy, and especially to
Lamarck, should now cling so pertinaciously to the belief that species are
immutable creations.
My work on Variation, etc., under domestication, will appear in a French
translation in a few months' time, and I will do myself the pleasure and
honour of directing the publisher to send a copy to you to the same address
as this letter.
With sincere respect, I remain, dear sir,
Yours very faithfully,
CHARLES DARWIN.
[The next letter is of especial interest, as showing how high a value my
father placed on the support of the younger German naturalists:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO W. PREYER. (Now Professor of Physiology at Jena.)
March 31, 1868.
...I am delighted to hear that you uphold the doctrine of the Modification
of Species, and defend my views. The support which I receive from Germany
is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail. To
the present day I am continually abused or treated with contempt by writers
of my own country; but the younger naturalists are almost all on my side,
and sooner or later the public must follow those who make the subject their
special study. The abuse and contempt of ignorant writers hurts me very
little...
