Dear Bates,--Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I have
myself suffered much in the same way as you describe, and I think more
severely. The kind of _tædium vitæ_ you mention I also occasionally
experience here. I impute it to a too monotonous existence.
I know not how or to whom to express fully my admiration of Darwin's
book. To him it would seem flattery, to others self-praise; but I do
honestly believe that with however much patience I had worked up and
experimented on the subject, I could never have _approached_ the
completeness of his book--its vast accumulation of evidence, its
overwhelming argument, and its admirable tone and spirit. I really feel
thankful that it has not been left to me to give the theory to the
public. Mr. Darwin has created a new science and a new philosophy, and I
believe that never has such a complete illustration of a new branch of
human knowledge been due to the labours and researches of a single man.
Never have such vast masses of widely scattered and hitherto utterly
disconnected facts been combined into a system, and brought to bear upon
the establishment of such a grand and new and simple philosophy!...--In
haste, yours faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW, THOMAS SIMS
_Delli, Timor. March 15, 1861_[15]
My dear Thomas,--I will now try and write you a few lines in reply to
your last three letters, which I have not before had time and
inclination to do. First, about your _one-eyed_ and _two-eyed_ theory of
art, etc. etc. I do not altogether agree with you. We do not see _all
objects_ wider with two eyes than with one. A spherical or curved object
we do see so, because our right and left eye each see a portion of the
surface not seen by the other, but for that very reason the portion seen
perfectly with both eyes is _less_ than with one. Thus [_see_ diagram on
next page] we only see from A to A with both our eyes, the two side
portions Ab Ab being seen with but one eye, and therefore (when we are
using both eyes) being seen obscurely. But if we look at a flat object,
whether square or oblique to the line of vision, we see it of exactly
the same size with two eyes as with one because the one eye can see no
part of it that the other does not see also. But in painting I believe
that this difference of proportion, where it does exist, is far too
small to be _given_ by any artist and also too small to affect the
picture if given.
[Illustration]
Again, I entirely deny that by _any means_ the exact effect of a
landscape with objects at various distances from the eye can be given on
a fiat surface; and moreover that the monocular clear outlined view is
quite as true and good on the whole as the binocular hazy outlined view,
and for this reason: we cannot and do not see clearly or look at two
objects at once, if at different distances from us. In a real view our
eyes are directed successively at every object, which we then see
clearly and with distinct outlines, everything else--nearer and
farther--being indistinct; but being able to change the focal angle of
our two eyes and their angle of direction with great rapidity, we are
enabled to glance rapidly at each object in succession and thus obtain a
general and detailed view of the whole. A house, a tree, a spire, the
leaves of a shrub in the foreground, are each seen (while we direct our
eyes to them) with perfect definition and sharpness of outline. Now a
monocular photo gives the clearness of outline and accuracy of
definition, and thus represents every individual part of a landscape
just as we see it when looking at that part. Now I maintain that this is
_right_, because no painting can represent an object both distinct and
indistinct. The only question is, Shall a painting show us objects as we
see them when looking at them, or as we see them when looking at
_something else_ near them? The only approach painters can make to this
varying effect of binocular vision, and what they often do, is to give
the most important and main feature of their painting _distinct_ as we
should see it when looking at it in nature, while all around has a
subdued tone and haziness of outline like that produced by seeing the
real objects when our vision is not absolutely directed to them. But
then if, as in nature, when you turn your gaze to one of these objects
in order to see it clearly, you cannot do so, this is a defect. Again, I
believe that we actually see in a good photograph better than in nature,
because the best camera lenses are more perfectly adjusted than our
eyes, and give objects at varying distances with better definition. Thus
in a picture we see at the same time near and distinct objects easily
and clearly, which in reality we cannot do. If we could do so, everyone
must acknowledge that our vision would be so much the more perfect and
our appreciation of the beauties of nature more intense and complete;
and in so far as a good landscape painting gives us this power it is
better than nature itself; and I think this may account for that
excessive and entrancing beauty of a good landscape or of a good
panorama. You will think these ideas horribly heterodox, but if we all
thought alike there would be nothing to write about and nothing to
learn. I quite agree with you, however, as to artists using both eyes to
paint and to see their paintings, but I think you quite mistake the
theory of looking through the "catalogue"; it is not because the picture
can be seen better with one eye, but because its effect can be better
seen when all lateral objects are hidden--the catalogue does this. A
double tube would be better, but that cannot be extemporised so easily.
Have you ever tried a stereograph taken with the camera only the
distance apart of the eyes? That must give _nature_. When the angle is
greater the views in the stereoscope show us, not nature, but a perfect
reduced model of nature seen nearer the eye.
It is curious that you should put Turner and the Pre-Raphaelites as
_opposed_ and representing _binocular_ and _monocular_ painting when
Turner himself praises up the Pre-Raphaelites and calls Holman Hunt the
greatest living painter!!...
Now for Mr. Darwin's book. You quite misunderstand Mr. D.'s statement in
the preface and his sentiments. I have, of course, been in
correspondence with him since I first sent him my little essay. His
conduct has been most liberal and disinterested. I think anyone who
reads the Linnean Society papers and his book will see it. I _do_ back
him up in his whole round of conclusions and look upon him as the
_Newton of Natural History_.
You begin by criticising the _title_. Now, though I consider the title
admirable, I believe it is not Mr. Darwin's but the Publisher's, as you
are no doubt aware that publishers _will_ have a taking title, and
authors must and do give way to them. Mr. D. gave me a different title
before the book came out. Again, you misquote and misunderstand Huxley,
who is a complete convert. Prof. Asa Gray and Dr. Hooker, the two first
botanists of Europe and America, are converts. And Lyell, the first
geologist living, who has all his life written against such conclusions
as Darwin arrives at, is a convert and is about to declare or already
has declared his conversion--a noble and almost unique example of a man
yielding to conviction on a subject which he has taught as a master all
his life, and confessing that he has all his life been wrong.
It is clear that you have not yet sufficiently read the book to enable
you to criticise it. It is a book in which every page and almost every
line has a bearing on the main argument, and it is very difficult to
bear in mind such a variety of facts, arguments and indications as are
brought forward. It was only on the _fifth_ perusal that I fully
appreciated the whole strength of the work, and as I had been long
before familiar with the same subjects I cannot but think that persons
less familiar with them cannot have any clear idea of the accumulated
argument by a single perusal.
Your objections, so far as I can see anything definite in them, are so
fully and clearly anticipated and answered in the book itself that it is
perfectly useless my saying anything about them. It seems to me,
however, as clear as daylight that the principle of Natural Selection
_must_ act in nature. It is almost as necessary a truth as any of
mathematics. Next, the effects produced by this action _cannot be
limited._ It cannot be shown that there _is_ any limit to them in
nature. Again, the millions of facts in the numerical relations of
organic beings, their geographical distribution, their relations of
affinity, the modification of their parts and organs, the phenomena of
intercrossing, embryology and morphology--all are in accordance with his
theory, and almost all are necessary results from it; while on the other
theory they are all isolated facts having no connection with each other
and as utterly inexplicable and confusing as fossils are on the theory
that they are special creations and are not the remains of animals that
have once lived. It is the vast _chaos_ of facts, which are explicable
and fall into beautiful order on the one theory, which are inexplicable
and remain a chaos on the other, which I think must ultimately force
Darwin's views on any and every reflecting mind. Isolated difficulties
and objections are nothing against this vast cumulative argument. The
human mind cannot go on for ever accumulating facts which remain
unconnected and without any mutual bearing and bound together by no law.
The evidence for the production of the organic world by the simple laws
of inheritance is exactly of the same nature as that for the production
of the present surface of the earth--hills and valleys, plains, rocks,
strata, volcanoes, and all their fossil remains--by the slow and natural
action of natural causes now in operation. The mind that will ultimately
reject Darwin must (to be consistent) reject Lyell also. The same
arguments of apparent stability which are thought to disprove that
organic species can change will also disprove any change in the
inorganic world, and you must believe with your forefathers that each
hill and each river, each inland lake and continent, were created as
they stand, with their various strata and their various fossils--all
appearances and arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. I can only
recommend you to read again Darwin's account of the horse family and its
comparison with pigeons; and if that does not convince and stagger you,
then you are unconvertible. I do not expect Mr. Darwin's larger work
will add anything to the general strength of his argument. It will
consist chiefly of the details (often numerical) and experiments and
calculations of which he has already given the summaries and results. It
will therefore be more confusing and less interesting to the general
reader. It will prove to scientific men the accuracy of his details, and
point out the sources of his information, but as not one in a thousand
readers will ever test these details and references the smaller work
will remain for general purposes the best....
I see that the Great Exhibition for 1862 seems determined on. If so it
will be a great inducement to me to cut short the period of my
banishment and get home in time to see it. I assure you I now feel at
times very great longings for the peace and quiet of home--very much
weariness of this troublesome, wearisome, wandering life. I have lost
some of that elasticity and freshness which made the overcoming of
difficulties a pleasure, and the country and people are now too familiar
to me to retain any of the charms of novelty which gild over so much
that is really monotonous and disagreeable. My health, too, gives way,
and I cannot now put up so well with fatigue and privations as at first.
All these causes will induce me to come home as soon as possible, and I
think I may promise, if no accident happens, to come back to dear and
beautiful England in the summer of next year. C. Allen will stay a year
longer and complete the work which I shall not be able to do.
I have been pretty comfortable here, having for two months had the
society of Mr. Geach, a Cornish mining engineer who has been looking for
copper here. He is a very intelligent and pleasant fellow, but has now
left. Another Englishman, Capt. Hart, is a resident here. He has a
little house on the foot of the hills two miles out of town; I have a
cottage (which was Mr. Geach's) a quarter of a mile farther. He is what
you may call a _speculative_ man: he reads a good deal, knows a little
and wants to know more, and is fond of speculating on the most abstruse
and unattainable points of science and philosophy. You would be
astonished at the number of men among the captains and traders of these
parts who have more than an average amount of literary and scientific
taste; whereas among the naval and military officers and various
Government officials very few have any such taste, but find their only
amusements in card-playing and dissipation. Some of the most
intelligent and best informed Dutchmen I have met with are trading
captains and merchants.
This country much resembles Australia in its physical features, and is
very barren compared with most of the other islands.... It is very
rugged and mountainous, having no true forests, but a scanty vegetation
of gum trees with a few thickets in moist places. It is consequently
very poor in insects, and in fact will hardly pay my expenses; but
having once come here I may as well give it a fair trial. Birds are
tolerably abundant, but with few exceptions very dull coloured. I really
believe the whole series of birds of the tropical island of Timor are
less beautiful and bright-coloured than those of Great Britain. In the
mountains potatoes, cabbages and wheat are grown in abundance, and so we
get excellent pure bread made by Chinamen in Delli. Fowls, sheep, pigs
and onions are also always to be had, so that it is the easiest country
to live in I have yet met with, as in most other places one is always
doubtful whether a dinner can be obtained. I have been a trip to the
hills and stayed ten days in the clouds, but it was very wet, being the
wrong season....
Having now paid you off my literary debts, I trust you will give me
credit again for some long letters on things in general. Address now to
care of Hamilton, Gray and Co., Singapore, and with love and
remembrances to all friends, I remain, my dear Thomas, yours very
faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.-- ... Will you, next time you visit my mother, make me a little
plan of her cottage, showing the rooms and their dimensions, so that I
may see if there will be room enough for me on my return? I shall want a
good-sized room for my collections, and when I can decide exactly on my
return it would be as well to get a little larger house beforehand if
necessary. Please do not forget this.--Yours, A.R.W.
P.S.--Write by next mail, as circumstances have occurred which make it
possible I may return home this year.--A.R.W.
P.S.--You allude in your last letter to a subject I never touch upon
because I know we cannot agree upon it. However, I will now say a few
words, that you may know my opinions, and if you wish to convert me to
your way of thinking, take more vigorous measures to effect it. You
intimate that the happiness to be enjoyed in a future state will depend
upon, and be a reward for, our belief in certain doctrines which you
believe to constitute the essence of true religion. You must think,
therefore, that belief is _voluntary_ and also that it is _meritorious_.
But I think that a little consideration will show you that belief is
quite independent of our will, and our common expressions show it. We
say, "I wish I could believe him innocent, but the evidence is too clear
"; or, "Whatever people may say, I can never believe he can do such a
mean action." Now, suppose in any similar case the evidence on both
sides leads you to a certain belief or disbelief, and then a reward is
offered you for changing your opinion. Can you really change your
opinion and belief, for the hope of reward or the fear of punishment?
Will you not say, "As the matter stands I can't change my belief. You
must give me proofs that I am wrong or show that the evidence I have
heard is false, and then I may change my belief "? It may be that you do
get more and do change your belief. But this change is not voluntary on
your part. It depends upon the force of evidence upon your individual
mind, and the evidence remaining the same and your mental faculties
remaining unimpaired--you cannot believe otherwise any more than you can
fly.
Belief, then, is not voluntary. How, then, can it be meritorious? When
a jury try a case, all hear the same evidence, but nine say "Guilty" and
three "Not guilty," according to the honest belief of each. Are either
of these more worthy of reward on that account than the others?
Certainly you will say No! But suppose beforehand they all know or
suspect that those who say "Not guilty" will be punished and the rest
rewarded: what is likely to be the result? Why, perhaps six will say
"Guilty" honestly believing it, and glad they can with a clear
conscience escape punishment; three will say "Not guilty" boldly, and
rather bear the punishment than be false or dishonest; the other three,
fearful of being convinced against their will, will carefully stop their
ears while the witnesses for the defence are being examined, and delude
themselves with the idea they give an honest verdict because they have
heard only one side of the evidence. If any out of the dozen deserve
punishment, you will surely agree with me it is these. Belief or
disbelief is therefore not meritorious, and when founded on an unfair
balance of evidence is blameable.
Now to apply the principles to my own case. In my early youth I heard,
as ninety-nine-hundredths of the world do, only the evidence on one
side, and became impressed with a veneration for religion which has left
some traces even to this day. I have since heard and read much on both
sides, and pondered much upon the matter in all its bearings. I spent,
as you know, a year and a half in a clergyman's family and heard almost
every Tuesday the very best, most earnest and most impressive preacher
it has ever been my fortune to meet with, but it produced no effect
whatever on my mind. I have since wandered among men of many races and
many religions. I have studied man, and nature in all its aspects, and I
have sought after truth. In my solitude I have pondered much on the
incomprehensible subjects of space, eternity, life and death. I think I
have fairly heard and fairly weighed the evidence on both sides, and I
remain an _utter disbeliever_ in almost all that you consider the most
sacred truths. I will pass over as utterly contemptible the oft-repeated
accusation that sceptics shut out evidence because they will not be
governed by the morality of Christianity. You I know will not believe
that in my case, and _I_ know its falsehood as a general rule. I only
ask, Do you think I can change the self-formed convictions of
twenty-five years, and could you think such a change would have anything
in it to merit _reward_ from _justice_? I am thankful I can see much to
admire in all religions. To the mass of mankind religion of some kind is
a necessity. But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature;
whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our state
after death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study of
nature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be better
off in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines
inculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter of
blind faith than intelligent conviction.--A.R.W.
This for yourself; show the _letter only_ to my mother.
* * * * *
TO HIS MOTHER
_Sourabaya, Java. July 20, 1861._
My dear Mother,--I am, as you will see, now commencing my retreat
westwards, and have left the wild and savage Moluccas and New Guinea for
Java, the Garden of the East, and probably without any exception the
finest island in the world. My plans are to visit the interior and
collect till November, and then work my way to Singapore so as to return
home and arrive in the spring. Travelling here will be a much pleasanter
business than in any other country I have visited, as there are good
roads, regular posting stages, and regular inns or lodging-houses all
over the interior, and I shall no more be obliged to carry about with me
that miscellaneous lot of household furniture--bed, blankets, pots,
kettles and frying pan, plates, dishes and wash-basin, coffee-pots and
coffee, tea, sugar and butter, salt, pickles, rice, bread and wine,
pepper and curry powder, and half a hundred more odds and ends, the
constant looking after which, packing and repacking, calculating and
contriving, have been the standing plague of my life for the last seven
years. You will better understand this when I tell you that I have made
in that time about eighty movements, averaging one a month, at every one
of which all of these articles have had to be rearranged and repacked by
myself according to the length of the trip, besides a constant personal
supervision to prevent waste or destruction of stores in places where it
is impossible to supply them.
Fanny wrote me last month to know about how I should like to live on my
return. Of course, my dear mother, I should not think of living anywhere
but with you, after such a long absence, if you feel yourself equal to
housekeeping for us both; and I have always understood that your cottage
would be large enough. The accommodation I should require is, besides a
small bedroom, one large room, or a small one if there is, besides, a
kind of lumber room where I could keep my cases and do rough and dirty
work. I expect soon from Thomas a sketch-plan of your cottage, by which
I can at once tell if it will do. If not, I must leave you and Fanny to
arrange as you like about a new residence. I should prefer being a
little way out of town in a quiet neighbourhood and with a garden, but
near an omnibus route, and if necessary I could lodge at any time for a
week in London. This, I think, will be better and much cheaper than
living close to town, and rents anywhere in the West End are sure now to
rise owing to the approaching Great Exhibition. I must of course study
economy, as the little money I have made will not be all got in for a
year or two after my return....
You must remember to write to me by the middle of November mail, as that
is probably the last letter I can receive from you.
I send the letter to Fanny, who will most likely call on you and talk
over matters. I am a little confused arriving in a new place with a
great deal to do and living in a noisy hotel, so different to my usual
solitary life, so that I cannot well collect my ideas to write any more,
but must remain, my dear mother, your ever affectionate son,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS
_In the Mountains of Java. October 10, 1861._
My dear Fanny,--I have just received your second letter in praise of
your new house. As I have said my say about it in my last, I shall now
send you a few lines on other subjects.
I have been staying here a fortnight 4,000 feet above the sea in a fine
cool climate, but it is unfortunately dreadfully wet and cloudy. I have
just returned from a three days' excursion to one of the great Java
volcanoes 10,000 feet high. I slept two nights in a house 7,500 feet
above the sea. It was bitterly cold at night, as the hut was merely of
plaited bamboo, like a sieve, so that the wind came in on all sides. I
had flannel jackets and blankets and still was cold, and my poor men,
with nothing but their usual thin cotton clothes, passed miserable
nights lying on a mat on the ground round the fire which could only warm
one side at a time. The highest peak is an extinct volcano with the
crater nearly filled up, forming merely a saucer on the top, in which
is a good house built by the Government for the old Dutch naturalists
who surveyed and explored the mountain. There are a lot of strawberries
planted there, which do very well, but there were not many ripe. The
common weeds and plants of the top were very like English ones, such as
buttercups, sow-thistle, plantain, wormwood, chickweed, charlock, St.
John's wort, violets and many others, all closely allied to our common
plants of those names, but of distinct species. There was also a
honey-suckle, and a tall and very pretty kind of cowslip. None of these
are found in the low tropical lands, and most of them only on the tops
of these high mountains. Mr. Darwin supposed them to have come there
during a glacial or very cold period, when they could have spread over
the tropics and, as the heat increased, gradually rose up the mountains.
They were, as you may imagine, most interesting to me, and I am very
glad that I have ascended _one_ lofty mountain in the tropics, though I
had miserable wet weather and had no view, owing to constant clouds and
mist.
I also visited a semi-active volcano close by continually sending out
steam with a noise like a blast-furnace--quite enough to give me a
conception of all other descriptions of volcanoes.
The lower parts of the mountains of Java, from 3,000 to 6,000 feet, have
the most beautiful tropical vegetation I have ever seen. Abundance of
splendid tree ferns, some 50 ft. high, and some hundreds of varieties of
other ferns, beautiful-leaved plants as begonias, melastomas, and many
others, and more flowers than are generally seen in the tropics. In
fact, this region exhibits all the beauty the tropics can produce, but
still I consider and will always maintain that our own meadows and woods
and mountains are more beautiful. Our own weeds and wayside flowers are
far prettier and more varied than those of the tropics. It is only the
great leaves and the curious-looking plants, and the deep gloom of the
forests and the mass of tangled vegetation that astonish and delight
Europeans, and it is certainly grand and interesting and in a certain
sense beautiful, but not the calm, sweet, warm beauty of our own fields,
and there is none of the brightness of our own flowers; a field of
buttercups, a hill of gorse or of heather, a bank of foxgloves and a
hedge of wild roses and purple vetches surpass in _beauty_ anything I
have ever seen in the tropics. This is a favourite subject with me, but
I cannot go into it now.
Send the accompanying note to Mr. Stevens immediately. You will see what
I say to him about my collections here. Java is the richest of all the
islands in birds, but they are as well known as those of Europe, and it
is almost impossible to get a new one. However, I am adding fine
specimens to my collection, which will be altogether the finest known of
the birds of the Archipelago, except perhaps that of the Leyden Museum,
who have had naturalists collecting for them in all the chief islands
for many years with unlimited means.
Give my kind love to mother, to whom I will write next time.--Your
affectionate brother,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO G. SILK[16]
_Singapore. January 20, 1862._
My dear George,-- ... On the question of marriage we probably differ
much. I believe a good wife to be the greatest blessing a man can enjoy,
and the only road to happiness, but the qualifications I should look for
are probably not such as would satisfy you. My opinions have changed
much on this point: I now look at intellectual companionship as quite a
secondary matter, and should my good stars ever send me an affectionate,
good-tempered and domestic wife, I shall care not one iota for
accomplishments or even for education.
I cannot write more now. I do not yet know how long I shall be here,
perhaps a month. Then ho! for England!--In haste, yours most
affectionately,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
PART II
I.--The Discovery of Natural Selection
"There are not many joys in human life equal to the joy of the
sudden birth of a generalisation, illuminating the mind after a
long period of patient research. What has seemed for years so
chaotic, so contradictory, and so problematic takes at once its
proper position within an harmonious whole. Out of the wild
confusion of facts and from behind the fog of
guesses--contradicted almost as soon as they are born--a stately
picture makes its appearance, like an Alpine chain suddenly
emerging in all its grandeur from the mists which concealed it the
moment before, glittering under the rays of the sun in all its
simplicity and variety, in all its mightiness and beauty. And when
the generalisation is put to a test, by applying it to hundreds of
separate facts which seemed to be hopelessly contradictory the
moment before, each of them assumes its due position, increasing
the impressiveness of the picture, accentuating some
characteristic outline, or adding an unsuspected detail full of
meaning. The generalisation gains in strength and extent; its
foundations grow in width and solidity; while in the distance,
through the far-off mist on the horizon, the eye detects the
outlines of new and still wider generalisations. He who has once
in his life experienced this joy of scientific creation will never
forget it; he will be longing to renew it; and he cannot but feel
with pain that this sort of happiness is the lot of so few of us,
while so many could also live through it--on a small or on a grand
scale--if scientific methods and leisure were not limited to a
handful of men."--PRINCE KROPOTKIN, "Memoirs of a Revolutionist."
The social and scientific atmosphere in which Wallace found himself on
his return from his eight years' exile in the Malay Archipelago was
considerably more genial than that which he had enjoyed during his
previous stay in London following his exploration of the Amazon. His
position as one of the leading scientists of the day was already
recognised, dating from the memorable 1st of July, 1858, when the two
Papers, his own and Darwin's, on the theory of Natural Selection had
been read before the Linnean Society.
During the four years which had elapsed since that date the storm of
criticism had waxed and waned; subsiding for a time only to burst out
afresh from some new quarter where the theory bade fair to jeopardise
some ancient belief in which scientist or theologian had rested with
comparative satisfaction until so rudely disturbed.
During this period Wallace had been quietly pursuing his researches in
the Malay Archipelago, though not without a keen interest in all that
was taking place at home in so far as this reached him by means of
correspondence and newspaper reports--his only means of keeping in touch
with the world beyond the boundaries of the semi-civilised countries in
which he was then living.
In order to follow the story of how the conception of the theory of
Natural Selection grew and eventually took definite form in Wallace's
mind, independently of the same development in the mind of Darwin, we
must go back to a much earlier period in his life, and as nearly as
possible link up, the scattered remarks which here and there act as
signposts pointing towards the supreme solution which has made his name
famous for all time.
In Part I., Section I., many passages occur which clearly reveal his
awakening to the study of nature. A chance remark overheard in
conversation in the quiet street of Hertford touched the hidden spring
of interest in a subject which was to become the one great purpose of
his life. Then his enthusiastic yielding to the simple and natural
attraction which flowers and trees have always exerted upon the
sympathetic observer led step by step to the study of groups and
families, until, on his second sojourn at Neath, and about a year before
his journey to South America with H.W. Bates, we find him deliberately
pondering over the problem which many years later he described by saying
that he "had in fact been bitten by the passion for species and their
description."
In a letter to Bates dated November 9th, 1847, he concludes by asking,
"Have you read 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation,' or is it
out of your line?" and in the next (dated December 28th), in reply to
one from his friend, he continues, "I have a rather more favourable
opinion of the 'Vestiges' than you appear to have, I do not consider it
a hasty generalisation, but rather an ingenious hypothesis strongly
supported by some striking facts and analogies, but which remains to be
proved by more facts and the additional light which more research may
throw upon the problem.... It furnishes a subject for every observer of
nature to attend to; every fact," he observes, "will make either for or
against it, and it thus serves both as an incitement to the collection
of facts, and an object to which they can be applied when collected.
Many eminent writers support the theory of the progressive development
of animals and plants. There is a very philosophical work bearing
directly on the question--Lawrence's 'Lectures on Man'.... The great
object of these 'Lectures' is to illustrate the different races of
mankind, and the manner in which they probably originated, and he
arrives at the conclusion (as also does Prichard in his work on the
'Physical History of Man') that the varieties of the human race have not
been produced by any external causes, but are due to the development of
certain distinctive peculiarities in some individuals which have
thereafter become propagated through an entire race. Now, I should say
that a permanent peculiarity not produced by external causes is a
characteristic of 'species' and not of mere 'variety,' and thus, if the
theory of the 'Vestiges' is accepted, the Negro, the Red Indian, and the
European are distinct species of the genus Homo.
"An animal which differs from another by some decided and permanent
character, however slight, which difference is undiminished by
propagation and unchanged by climate and external circumstances, is
universally held to be a distinct _species_; while one which is not
regularly transmitted so as to form a distinct race, but is occasionally
reproduced from the parent stock (like albinoes), is generally, if the
difference is not very considerable, classed as a _variety_. But I would
class both these as distinct _species_, and I would only consider those
to be _varieties_ whose differences are produced by external causes, and
which, therefore, are not propagated as distinct races."
Again, writing about the same period, he adds: "I begin to feel rather
dissatisfied with a mere local collection; little is to be learnt by it.
I should like to take some one family to study thoroughly, principally
with a view to the theory of the origin of species. By that means I am
strongly of opinion that some definite results might be arrived at." And
he further alludes to "my favourite subject--the variations,
arrangements, distribution, etc., of species."[17]
It is evident that in Bates Wallace found his first real friend and
companion in matters scientific; for in another letter he says: "I quite
envy you, who have friends near you attracted to the same pursuits. I
know not a single person in this little town who studies any one branch
of natural history, so that I am quite alone in this respect." In fact,
except for a little friendly help now and then, as in the case of Mr.
Hayward lending him a copy of Loudon's Encyclopedia of Plants, he had
always pondered over his nature studies without any assistance up to the
time of his meeting Bates at Leicester.
From the date of the above letter (1847) on to the early part of
1855--nearly eight years later--no reference is found either in his Life
or correspondence to the one absorbing idea towards which all his
reflective powers were being directed. Then, during a quiet time at
Sarawak, the accumulation of thought and observation found expression in
an essay entitled "The Law which has regulated the Introduction of
Species," which appeared in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_
in the following September (1855).
From November, 1854, the year of his arrival in the East, until January
or February, 1856, Sarawak was the centre from which Wallace made his
explorations inland, including some adventurous excursions on the Sadong
River. During the wet season--or spring--of 1855, while living in a
small house at the foot of the Santubong Mountains (with one Malay boy
who acted as cook and general companion), he tells us how he occupied
his time in looking over his books and pondering "over the problem which
was rarely absent from [his] thoughts." In addition to the knowledge he
had acquired from reading such books as those by Swainson and Humboldt,
also Lucien Bonaparte's "Conspectus," and several catalogues of insects
and reptiles in the British Museum "giving a mass of facts" as to the
distribution of animals over the whole world, and having by his own
efforts accumulated a vast store of information and facts direct from
nature while in South America and since coming out East, he arrived at
the conclusion that this "mass of facts" had never been properly
utilised as an indication of the way in which species had come into
existence. Having no fellow-traveller to whom he could confide these
conclusions, he was almost driven to put his thoughts and ideas on
paper--weighing each argument with studious care and open-eyed
consideration as to its bearing on the whole theory. As the "result
seemed to be of some importance," it was sent, as already mentioned, to
the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_ as one of the leading
scientific journals in England.
In the light of future events it is not surprising that Huxley (many
years later), in referring to this "powerful essay," adds: "On reading
it afresh I have been astonished to recollect how small was the
impression it made."
As this earliest contribution by Wallace to the doctrine of Evolution[18]
is of peculiar historical value, and has not been so fully recognised as
it undoubtedly deserves, and is now almost inaccessible, it will be
useful to indicate in his own words the clear line of argument put forth
by him two years before his second essay with which many readers are
more familiar. He begins:
Every naturalist who has directed his attention to the subject of
the geographical distribution of animals and plants must have been
interested in the singular facts which it presents. Many of these
facts are quite different from what would have been anticipated,
and have hitherto been considered as highly curious but quite
inexplicable. None of the explanations attempted from the time of
Linnæus are now considered at all satisfactory; none of them have
given a cause sufficient to account for the facts known at the
time, or comprehensive enough to include all the new facts which
have since been and are daily being added. Of late years, however,
a great light has been thrown upon the subject by geological
investigations, which have shown that the present state of the
earth, and the organisms now inhabiting it, are but the last stage
of a long and uninterrupted series of changes which it has
undergone, and consequently, that to endeavour to explain and
account for its present condition without any reference to those
changes (as has frequently been done) must lead to very imperfect
and erroneous conclusions.... The following propositions in
Organic Geography and Geology give the main facts on which the
hypothesis [_see_ p. 96] is founded.
GEOGRAPHY
(1) Large groups, such as classes and orders, are generally spread
over the whole earth, while smaller ones, such as families and
genera, are frequently confined to one portion, often to a very
limited district.
(2) In widely distributed families the genera are often limited in
range; in widely distributed genera, well-marked groups of species
are peculiar to each geographical district.
(3) When a group is confined to one district and is rich in
species, it is almost invariably the case that the most closely
allied species are found in the same locality or in closely
adjoining localities, and that therefore the natural sequence of
the species by affinity is also geographical.
(4) In countries of a similar climate, but separated by a wide sea
or lofty mountains, the families, genera and species of the one
are often represented by closely allied families, genera and
species peculiar to the other.
GEOLOGY
(5) The distribution of the organic world in time is very similar
to its present distribution in space.
(6) Most of the larger and some of the smaller groups extend
through several geological periods.
(7) In each period, however, there are peculiar groups, found
nowhere else, and extending through one or several formations.
(8) Species of one genus, or genera of one family, occurring in
the same geological time are more closely allied than those
separated in time.
(9) As generally in geography no species or genus occurs in two
very distant localities without being also found in intermediate
places, so in geology the life of a species or genus has not been
interrupted. In other words, no group or species has come into
existence twice.
(10) The following law may be deduced from these facts: _Every
species has come into existence coincident both in time and space
with a pre-existing closely allied species_.
This law agrees with, explains and illustrates all the facts
connected with the following branches of the subject: 1st, the
system of natural affinities; 2nd, the distribution of animals and
plants in space; 3rd, the same in time, including all the
phenomena of representative groups, and those which Prof. Forbes
supposed to manifest polarity; 4th, the phenomena of rudimentary
organs. We will briefly endeavour to show its bearing upon each of
these.
If [this] law be true, it follows that the natural series of
affinities will also represent the order in which the several
species came into existence, each one having had for its immediate
antetype a clearly allied species existing at the time of its
origin.... If two or more species have been independently formed
on the plan of a common antetype, then the series of affinities
will be compound, and can only be represented by a forked or
many-branched line.... Sometimes the series of affinities can be
well represented for a space by a direct progression from species
to species or from group to group, but it is generally found
impossible so to continue. There constantly occur two or more
modifications of an organ or modifications of two distinct organs,
leading us on to two distinct series of species, which at length
differ so much from each other as to form distinct genera or
families. These are the parallel series or representative groups
of naturalists, and they often occur in different countries, or
are found fossil in different formations.... We thus see how
difficult it is to determine in every case whether a given
relation is an analogy or an affinity, for it is evident that as
we go back along the parallel or divergent series, towards the
common antetype, the analogy which existed between the two groups
becomes an affinity.... Again, if we consider that we have only
the fragments of this vast system, the stems and main branches
being represented by extinct species of which we have no
knowledge, while a vast mass of limbs and boughs and minute twigs
and scattered leaves is what we have to place in order, and
determine the true position each originally occupied with regard
to the others, the whole difficulty of the true Natural System of
classification becomes apparent to us.
We shall thus find ourselves obliged to reject all those systems
of classification which arrange species or groups in circles, as
well as those which fix a definite number for the division of each
group.... We have ... never been able to find a case in which the
circle has been closed by a direct affinity. In most cases a
palpable analogy has been substituted, in others the affinity is
very obscure or altogether doubtful....
If we now consider the geographical distribution of animals and
plants upon the earth, we shall find all the facts beautifully in
accordance with, and readily explained by, the present hypothesis.
A country having species, genera, and whole families peculiar to
it will be the necessary result of its having been isolated for a
long period, sufficient for many series of species to have been
created on the type of pre-existing ones, which, as well as many
of the earlier-formed species, have become extinct, and made the
groups appear isolated....
Such phenomena as are exhibited by the Galapagos Islands, which
contain little groups of plants and animals peculiar to
themselves, but most nearly allied to those of South America, have
not hitherto received any, even a conjectural explanation. The
Galapagos are a volcanic group of high antiquity and have probably
never been more closely connected with the continent than they are
at present.
He then proceeds at some length to explain how the Galapagos must have
been at first "peopled ... by the action of winds and currents," and
that the modified prototypes remaining are the "new species" which have
been "created in each on the plan of the pre-existing ones." This is
followed by a graphic sketch of the general effect of volcanic and
other action as affecting the distribution of species, and the exact
form in which they are found, even fishes giving "evidence of a similar
kind: each great river [having] its peculiar genera, and in more
extensive genera its groups of closely allied species."
After stating a number of practical examples he continues:
The question forces itself upon every thinking mind--Why are these
things so? They could not be as they are, had no law regulated
their creation and dispersion. The law here enunciated not merely
explains, but necessitates the facts we see to exist, while the
vast and long-continued geological changes of the earth readily
account for the exceptions and apparent discrepancies that here
and there occur. The writer's object in putting forward his views
in the present imperfect manner is to submit them to the tests of
other minds, and to be made aware of all the facts supposed to be
inconsistent with them. As his hypothesis is one which claims
acceptance solely as explaining and connecting facts which exist
in nature, he expects facts alone to be brought forward to
disprove it, not _a priori_ arguments against its probability.
He then refers to some of the geological "principles" expounded by Sir
Charles Lyell on the "extinction of species," and follows this up by
saying:
To discover how the extinct species have from time to time been
replaced by new ones down to the very latest geological period, is
the most difficult, and at the same time the most interesting,
problem in the natural history of the earth. The present inquiry,
which seeks to eliminate from known facts a law which has
determined, to a certain degree, what species could and did appear
at a given epoch, may, it is hoped, be considered as one step in
the right direction towards a complete solution of it.... Admitted
facts seem to show ... a general, but not a detailed
progression.... It is, however, by no means difficult to show
that a real progression in the scale of organisation is perfectly
consistent with all the appearances, and even with apparent
retrogression should such occur.
Using once more the analogy of a branching tree to illustrate the
natural arrangement of species and their successive creation, he clearly
shows how "apparent retrogression may be in reality a progress, though
an interrupted one"; as "when some monarch of the forest loses a limb,
it may be replaced by a feeble and sickly substitute." As an instance he
mentions the Mollusca, which at an early period had reached a high state
of development of forms and species, while in each succeeding age
modified species and genera replaced the former ones which had become
extinct, and "as we approach the present era but few and small
representatives of the group remain, while the Gasteropods and Bivalves
have acquired an immense preponderance." In the long series of changes
the earth had undergone, the process of peopling it with organic beings
had been continually going on, and whenever any of the higher groups had
become nearly or quite extinct, the lower forms which better resisted
the modified physical conditions served as the antetype on which to
found new races. In this manner alone, it was believed, could the
representative groups of successive periods, and the risings and
fallings in the scale of organisations, be in every case explained.
Again, attending to a recent article by Prof. Forbes, he points out
certain inaccuracies and how they may be proved to be so; and continues:
We have no reason for believing that the number of species on the
earth at any former period was much less than at present; at all
events the aquatic portion, with which the geologists have most
acquaintance, was probably often as great or greater. Now we know
that there have been many complete changes of species, new sets of
organisms have many times been introduced in place of old ones
which have become extinct, so that the total amount which have
existed on the earth from the earliest geological period must have
borne about the same proportion to those now living as the whole
human race who have lived and died upon the earth to the
population at the present time.... Records of vast geological
periods are entirely buried beneath the ocean ... beyond our
reach. Most of the gaps in the geological series may thus be
filled up, and vast numbers of unknown and unimaginable animals
which might help to elucidate the affinities of the numerous
isolated groups which are a perpetual puzzle to the zoologist may
be buried there, till future revolutions may raise them in turn
above the water, to afford materials for the study of whatever
race of intelligent beings may then have succeeded us. These
considerations must lead us to the conclusion that our knowledge
of the whole series of the former inhabitants of the earth is
necessarily most imperfect and fragmentary--as much as our
knowledge of the present organic world would be, were we forced to
make our collections and observations only in spots equally
limited in area and in number with those actually laid open for
the collection of fossils.... The hypothesis of Prof. Forbes is
essentially one that assumes to a great extent the _completeness_
of our knowledge of the _whole series_ of organic beings which
have existed on earth.... The hypothesis put forward in this paper
depends in no degree upon the completeness of our knowledge of the
former condition of the organic world, but takes what facts we
have as fragments of a vast whole, and deduces from them something
of the nature and proportion of that whole which we can never know
in detail....
Another important series of facts, quite in accordance with, and
even necessary deductions from, the law now developed, are those
of _rudimentary organs_. That these really do exist, and in most
cases have no special function in the animal economy, is admitted
by the first authorities in comparative anatomy. The minute limbs
hidden beneath the skin in many of the snake-like lizards, the
anal hooks of the boa constrictor, the complete series of jointed
finger-bones in the paddle of the manatee and the whale, are a few
of the most familiar instances. In botany a similar class of facts
has been long recognised. Abortive stamens, rudimentary floral
envelope and undeveloped carpels are of the most frequent
occurrence. To every thoughtful naturalist the question must
arise, What are these for? What have they to do with the great
laws of creation? Do they not teach us something of the system of
nature? If each species has been created independently, and
without any necessary relation with pre-existing species, what do
these rudiments, these apparent imperfections, mean? There must be
a cause for them; they must be the necessary result of some great
natural law. Now, if ... the great law which has regulated the
peopling of the earth with animal and vegetable life is, that
every change shall be gradual; that no new creature shall be
formed widely different from anything before existing; that in
this, as in everything else in nature, there shall be gradation
and harmony--then these rudimentary organs are necessary and are
an essential part of the system of nature. Ere the higher
vertebrates were formed, for instance, many steps were required,
and many organs had to undergo modifications from the rudimental
condition in which only they had as yet existed.... Many more of
these modifications should we behold, and more complete series of
them, had we a view of all the forms which have ceased to live.
The great gaps that exist ... would be softened down by
intermediate groups, and the whole organic world would be seen to
be an unbroken and harmonious system.
The article, in which we can see a great generalisation struggling to be
born, ends thus:
It has now been shown, though most briefly and imperfectly, how
the law that "every species has come into existence coincident
both in time and space with a pre-existing closely allied
species," connects together and renders intelligible a vast number
of independent and hitherto unexplained facts. The natural system
of arrangement of organic beings, their geographical distribution,
their geological sequence, the phenomena of representative and
substituted groups in all their modifications, and the most
singular peculiarities of anatomical structure, are all explained
and illustrated by it, in perfect accordance with the vast mass of
facts which the researches of modern naturalists have brought
together, and, it is believed, not materially opposed to any of
them. It also claims a superiority over previous hypotheses, on
the ground that it not merely explains but necessitates what
exists. Granted the law, and many of the most important facts in
nature could not have been otherwise, but are almost as necessary
deductions from it as are the elliptic orbits of the planets from
the law of gravitation.
Some time after the appearance of this article, Wallace was informed by
his friend and agent, Mr. Stevens, that several naturalists had
expressed regret that he was "theorising," when what "was wanted was to
collect more facts." Apart from this the only recognition which reached
him in his remote solitude was a remark in an approving letter from
Darwin (_see_ p. 129).
As Wallace wrote nothing further of importance until the second essay
which more fully disclosed his view of the origin of species, we will
now briefly trace the growth of the theory of Natural Selection up to
1858, as it came to Darwin.
It is well known that during Darwin's voyage in the _Beagle_ he was
deeply impressed by discovering extinct armadillo-like fossil forms in
South America, the home of armadilloes, and by observing the
relationship of the plants and animals of each island in the Galapagos
group to those of the other islands and of South America, the nearest
continent. These facts suggested evolution, and without evolution
appeared to be meaningless.
Evolution and its motive cause were the problems which "haunted" him for
the next twenty years. The first step towards a possible solution was
the "opening of a notebook for facts in relation to the origin of
species" in 1837, two years before the publication of his Journal. From
the very commencement of his literary and scientific work, a rule
rigidly adhered to was that of interspersing his main line of thought
and research by reading books touching on widely diverging subjects; and
it was thus, no doubt, that during October, 1838, he read "for
amusement" Malthus's "Essay on Population"; not, as he himself affirms,
with any definite idea as to its intimate bearing on the subject so near
his heart. But the immediate result was that the idea of Natural
Selection at once arose in his mind, and, in his own words, he "had a
theory by which to work."
In May and June, 1842, during a visit to Maer and Shrewsbury, he wrote
his first "pencil sketch of Species theory," but not until two years
later (1844) did he venture to enlarge this to one of 230 folio pages,
"a wonderfully complete presentation of the arguments familiar to us in
the 'Origin.'"[19]
Already, in addition to the mass of facts collected, Darwin was busy
with some of the experiments which he described in a letter to Sir
Joseph Hooker (in 1855) as affording the latter a "good right to sneer,
for they are so _absurd_, even in _my_ opinion, that I dare not tell
you." While a sentence in another letter (dated 1849) throws a sidelight
on all this preparatory work: "In your letter you wonder what
'ornamental poultry' has to do with barnacles; but do not flatter
yourself that I shall not yet live to finish the barnacles, and then
make a fool of myself on the subject of species, under which head
ornamental poultry are very interesting."
Somewhere about this time (1842-44), Darwin, referring to the idea of
Natural Selection which arose in his mind after reading Malthus on
"Population" four years earlier, continues: "But at that time I
overlooked one problem of great importance ... the tendency in organic
beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they
become modified ... and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst
in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me.... The
solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant
and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly
diversified places in the economy of nature."[20]
So convinced was he of the truth of his ideas as expressed in the 1844
MS., that immediately after its completion he wrote the memorable letter
to Mrs. Darwin telling her what he would wish done regarding its
publication in the event of his death.
It was probably about two years later (1846) that he first confided his
completed work--up to that date--to Sir Joseph Hooker, and later to Sir
Charles Lyell; refraining, however, except in general conversation with
other scientists, from informing anyone of the progress he was making
towards a positive solution of the problem. His attitude of mind and
manner at this period is happily illustrated by Huxley, who, speaking of
his early acquaintance with Darwin, says: "I remember in the course of
my first interview with Darwin expressing my belief in the sharpness of
the line of demarcation between natural groups and in the absence of
transitional forms, with all the confidence of youth and imperfect
knowledge. I was not aware, at that time, that he had then been many
years brooding over the Species question; and the humorous smile which
accompanied his gentle answer, that such was not altogether his view,
long haunted and puzzled me."
Little did Charles Darwin dream that, only three years after this first
MS. was written (in 1844), a youthful naturalist--known only as a
surveyor at Neath--was deliberately pondering over the same issue, and
writing to his only scientific friend on the subject. As, however, the
different methods of thought by which they arrived at the same
conclusion is so aptly related by Wallace himself, we will leave it for
him to tell the story in its appointed place.[21]
In 1856, the year following the appearance of Wallace's essay in the
_Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, both Hooker and Lyell urged
Darwin to publish the result of his long and patient research. But he
was still reluctant to do so, not having as yet satisfied himself with
regard to certain conclusions which, he felt, must be stoutly maintained
in face of the enormous amount of criticism which would arise
immediately his theory was launched on the scientific world. And thus
the event was postponed until the memorable year 1858.
Up to the year 1856 no correspondence had passed between Wallace and
Darwin, so far, at least, as the former could remember, for he says, in
a letter dated Frith Hill, Godalming, December 3, 1887 (written to Mr.
A. Newton): "I had hardly heard of Darwin before going to the East,
except as connected with the voyage of the _Beagle_.... I saw him _once_
for a few minutes in the British Museum before I sailed. Through
Stevens, my agent, I heard that he wanted curious _varieties_ which he
was studying. I _think_ I wrote about some varieties of ducks I had
sent, and he must have written once to me.... But at that time I had
not the remotest notion that he had already arrived at a definite
theory--still less that it was the same as occurred to me, suddenly, in
Ternate in 1858." It is clear, therefore, that the essay written at
Sarawak formed the first real link with Darwin, although not fully
recognised at the time. In May, 1857, Darwin wrote to Wallace: "I am
much obliged for your letter ... and even still more by your paper in
the _Annals_, a year or more ago. I can plainly see that we have thought
much alike and to a certain extent have come to similar conclusions....
I agree to almost every word of your paper; and I dare say that you will
agree with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty
closely with any theoretical paper." He concludes: "You have my very
sincere and cordial good wishes for success of all kinds, and may all
your theories succeed, except that on Oceanic Islands, on which subject
I will do battle to the death."
The three years from 1855 to 1858 were for Wallace crowded with hard
work, and perilous voyages by sea and hardships by land. January, 1858,
found him at Amboyna, where, in all probability, he found a pile of
long-delayed correspondence awaiting him, and among this a letter from
Bates referring to the article which had appeared in print September,
1855. In reply he says: "To persons who have not thought much on the
subject I fear my paper on the 'Succession of Species' will not appear
so clear as it does to you. That paper is, of course, merely the
announcement of the theory, not its development. I have prepared the
plan and written portions of a work embracing the whole subject, and
have endeavoured to prove in detail what I have as yet only
indicated.... I have been much gratified by a letter from Darwin, in
which he says that he agrees with 'almost every word' of my paper. He
is now preparing his great work on 'Species and Varieties,' for which he
has been preparing materials for twenty years. He may save me the
trouble of writing more on my hypothesis, by proving that there is no
difference in nature between the origin of species and of varieties; or
he may give me trouble by arriving at another conclusion; but, at all
events, his facts will be given for me to work upon. Your collections
and my own will furnish most valuable material to illustrate and prove
the universal application of the hypothesis. The connection between the
succession of affinities and the geographical distribution of a group,
worked out species by species, has never yet been shown as we shall be
able to show it."
"This letter proves," writes Wallace,[22] "that at this time I had not
the least idea of the nature of Darwin's proposed work nor of the
definite conclusions he had arrived at, nor had I myself any
expectations of a complete solution of the great problem to which my
paper was merely the prelude. Yet less than two months later that
solution flashed upon me, and to a large extent marked out a different
line of work from that which I had up to this time anticipated.... In
other parts of this letter I refer to the work I hoped to do myself in
describing, cataloguing, and working out the distribution of my insects.
I had in fact been bitten by the passion for species and their
description, and if neither Darwin nor myself had hit upon 'Natural
Selection,' I might have spent the best years of my life in this
comparatively profitless work. But the new ideas swept all this away."
This letter was finished after his arrival at Ternate, and a few weeks
later he was prostrated by a sharp attack of intermittent fever which
obliged him to take a prolonged rest each day, owing to the exhausting
hot and cold fits which rapidly succeeded one another.
The little bungalow at Ternate had now come to be regarded as "home" for
it was here that he stored all his treasured collections, besides making
it the goal of all his wanderings in the Archipelago. One can
understand, therefore, that, in spite of the fever, there was a sense of
satisfaction in the feeling that he was surrounded with the trophies of
his arduous labours as a naturalist, and this passion for species and
their descriptions being an ever-present speculation in his mind, his
very surroundings would unconsciously conduce towards the line of
thought which brought to memory the argument of "positive checks" set
forth by Malthus in his "Principles of Population" (read twelve years
earlier) as applied to savage and civilised races. "It then," he says,
"occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually
acting in the case of animals also; and as animals usually breed much
more rapidly than does mankind, the destruction every year from these
causes must be enormous in order to keep down the numbers of each
species, since they evidently do not increase regularly from year to
year, as otherwise the world would have been densely crowded with those
that breed most quickly.... Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this
self-acting process would necessarily _improve the race_, because in
every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the _fittest would survive_. Then at
once I seemed to see the whole effect of this, that when changes of land
and sea, or of climate, or of food-supply, or of enemies occurred--and
we know that such changes have always been taking place--and considering
the amount of individual variation that my experience as a collector had
shown me to exist, then it followed that all the changes necessary for
the adaptation of the species to the changing conditions would be
brought about; and as great changes in the environment are always slow,
there would be ample time for the change to be effected by the survival
of the best fitted in every generation. In this way every part of an
animal's organism could be modified as required, and in the very process
of this modification the unmodified would die out, and thus the
_definite_ characters and the clear _isolation_ of each new species
would be explained. The more I thought over it the more I became
convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature
that solved the problem of the origin of species. For the next hour I
thought over the deficiencies in the theories of Lamarck and of the
author of the 'Vestiges,' and I saw that my new theory supplemented
these views and obviated every important difficulty. I waited anxiously
for the termination of my fit (of fever) so that I might at once make
notes for a paper on the subject. The same evening I did this pretty
fully, and on the two succeeding evenings wrote it out carefully in
order to send it to Darwin by the next post, which would leave in a day
or two."[23]
The story of the arrival of this letter at Down, and of the swift
passage of events between the date on which Darwin received it and the
reading of the "joint communications" before the Linnean Society, has
been often told. But few, perhaps, have enjoyed the privilege of reading
the account of this memorable proceeding as related by Sir Joseph Hooker
at the celebration of the event held by the Linnean Society in 1908.
As, therefore, the correspondence (pp. 127-320) between Wallace and
Darwin during a long series of years conveys many expressions of their
mutual appreciation of each other's work in connection with the origin
of species, it will avoid a possible repetition of these if we take a
long leap forward and give the notable speeches made by Wallace, Sir
Joseph Hooker, Sir E. Ray Lankester, and others at this historical
ceremony, which have not been published except in the _Proceedings_ of
the Society, now out of print.
The gathering was held on July 1, 1908, at the Institute of Civil
Engineers, Great George Street, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of
the joint communication made by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace
to the Linnean Society, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties;
and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of
Selection." The large gathering included the President, Dr. Dukinfield
H. Scott, distinguished representatives of many scientific Societies and
Universities, the Danish and Swedish Ministers, and a representative
from the German Embassy. Most of the members of Dr. Wallace's and Mr.
Darwin's family were also present.[24] The President opened with some
explanatory observations, and then invited Wallace to come forward in
order to receive the first Darwin-Wallace Medal. In presenting it he
said:
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace,--We rejoice that we are so happy as to
have with us to-day the survivor of the two great naturalists
whose crowning work we are here to commemorate.
Your brilliant work in natural history and geography, and as one
of the founders of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection,
is universally honoured and has often received public recognition,
as in the awards of the Darwin and Royal Medals of the Royal
Society, and of our Medal in 1892.
To-day, in asking you to accept the first Darwin-Wallace Medal, we
are offering you of your own, for it is you, equally with your
great colleague, who created the occasion we celebrate.
There is nothing in the history of science more delightful or more
noble than the story of the relations between yourself and Mr.
Darwin, as told in the correspondence now so fully published--the
story of a generous rivalry in which each discoverer strives to
exalt the claims of the other. We know that Mr. Darwin wrote
(April 6th, 1859): "You cannot tell how much I admire your spirit
in the manner in which you have taken all that was done about
publishing our papers. I had actually written a letter to you
stating that I would not publish anything before you had
published." Then came the letters of Hooker and Lyell, leading to
the publication of the joint papers which they communicated.
You, on your side, always gave the credit to him, and
underestimated your own position as the co-discoverer. I need only
refer to your calling your great exposition of the joint theory
"Darwinism," as the typical example of your generous emphasising
of the claims of your illustrious fellow-worker.
It was a remarkable and momentous coincidence that both you and he
should have independently arrived at the idea of Natural Selection
after reading Malthus's book, and a most happy inspiration that
you should have selected Mr. Darwin as the naturalist to whom to
communicate your discovery. That theory, in spite of changes in
the scientific fashion of the moment, you have always
unflinchingly maintained, and still uphold as unshaken by all
attacks.
Like Mr. Darwin, you, if I may say so, are above all a naturalist,
a student and lover of living animals and plants, as shown in
later years by your enthusiasm and success in gardening. It is to
such men, those who have learnt the ways of Nature, as Nature
really is in the open, to whom your doctrine of Natural Selection
specially appeals, and therein lies its great and lasting
strength.
Finally, you must allow me to allude to the generous interest you
have always shown, and continue to show, in the careers of
younger men who are endeavouring to follow in your steps.
I ask you, Dr. Wallace, to accept this Medal, struck in your
honour and in that of the great work inaugurated fifty years ago
by Mr. Darwin and yourself.
Wallace began his reply by thanking the Council of the Society for the
Honour they had done him, and then proceeded:
Since the death of Darwin, in 1882, I have found myself in the
somewhat unusual position of receiving credit and praise from
popular writers under a complete misapprehension of what my share
in Darwin's work really amounted to. It has been stated (not
unfrequently) in the daily and weekly press, that Darwin and
myself discovered "Natural Selection" simultaneously, while a more
daring few have declared that I was _the first_ to discover it,
and I gave way to Darwin!
In order to avoid further errors of this kind (which this
Celebration may possibly encourage), I think it will be well to
give the actual facts as simply and clearly as possible.
The _one fact_ that connects me with Darwin, and which, I am happy
to say, has never been doubted, is that the idea of what is now
termed "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest," together
with its far-reaching consequences, occurred to us
_independently_, and was first jointly announced before this
Society fifty years ago.
But, what is often forgotten by the Press and the public is, that
the idea occurred to Darwin in 1838, nearly twenty years earlier
than to myself (in February, 1858); and that during the whole of
that twenty years he had been laboriously collecting evidence from
the vast mass of literature of biology, of horticulture, and of
agriculture; as well as himself carrying out ingenious experiments
and original observations, the extent of which is indicated by the
range of subjects discussed in his "Origin of Species," and
especially in that wonderful storehouse of knowledge, his "Animals
and Plants under Domestication," almost the whole materials for
which work had been collected, and to a large extent systematised,
during that twenty years.
So far back as 1844, at a time when I had hardly thought of any
serious study of nature, Darwin had written an outline of his
views, which he communicated to his friends Sir Charles Lyell and
Dr. (now Sir Joseph) Hooker. The former strongly urged him to
publish an abstract of his theory as soon as possible, lest some
other person might precede him; but he always refused till he had
got together the whole of the materials for his intended great
work. Then, at last, Lyell's prediction was fulfilled, and,
without any apparent warning, my letter, with the enclosed essay,
came upon him, like a thunderbolt from a cloudless sky! This
forced him to what he considered a premature publicity, and his
two friends undertook to have our two papers read before this
Society.
How different from this long study and preparation--this
philosophical caution--this determination not to make known his
fruitful conception till he could back it up by overwhelming
proofs--was my own conduct.
The idea came to me as it had come to Darwin, in a sudden flash of
insight; it was thought out in a few hours--was written down with
such a sketch of its various applications and developments as
occurred to me at the moment--then copied on thin letter paper and
sent off to Darwin--all within one week. _I_ was then (as often
since) the "young man in a hurry": _he_, the painstaking and
patient student seeking ever the full demonstration of the truth
that he had discovered, rather than to achieve immediate personal
fame.
Such being the actual facts of the case, I should have had no
cause for complaint if the respective shares of Darwin and myself
in regard to the elucidation of Nature's method of organic
development had been henceforth estimated as being, roughly,
proportional to the time we had each bestowed upon it when it was
thus first given to the world--that is to say, as twenty years is
to one week. For, he had already made it his own. If the
persuasion of his friends had prevailed with him, and he had
published his theory after ten years'--fifteen years'--or even
eighteen years' elaboration of it--_I_ should have had no part in
it whatever, and _he_ would have been at once recognised as the
sole and undisputed discoverer and patient investigator of this
great law of "Natural Selection" in all its far-reaching
consequences.
It was really a singular piece of good luck that gave to me any
share whatever in the discovery. During the first half of the
nineteenth century (and even earlier) many great biological
thinkers and workers had been pondering over the problem and had
even suggested ingenious but inadequate solutions. Some of these
men were among the greatest intellects of our time, yet, till
Darwin, all had failed; and it was only Darwin's extreme desire to
perfect his work that allowed me to come in, as a very bad second,
in the truly Olympian race in which all philosophical biologists,
from Buffon and Erasmus Darwin to Richard Owen and Robert
Chambers, were more or less actively engaged.
And this brings me to the very interesting question: Why did so
many of the greatest intellects fail, while Darwin and myself hit
upon the solution of this problem--a solution which this
Celebration proves to have been (and still to be) a satisfying one
to a large number of those best able to form a judgment on its
merits? As I have found what seems to me a good and precise answer
to this question, and one which is of some psychological interest,
I will, with your permission, briefly state what it is.
On a careful consideration, we find a curious series of
correspondences, both in mind and in environment, which led Darwin
and myself, alone among our contemporaries, to reach identically
the same theory.
First (and most important, as I believe), in early life both
Darwin and myself became ardent beetle-hunters. Now there is
certainly no group of organisms that so impresses the collector by
the almost infinite number of its specific forms, the endless
modifications of structure, shape, colour, and surface-markings
that distinguish them from each other, and their innumerable
adaptations to diverse environments. These interesting features
are exhibited almost as strikingly in temperate as in tropical
regions, our own comparatively limited island-fauna possessing
more than 3,000 species of this one order of insects.
Again, both Darwin and myself had what he terms "the mere passion
for collecting," not that of studying the minutiæ of structure,
either internal or external. I should describe it rather as an
intense interest in the variety of living things--the variety that
catches the eye of the observer even among those which are very
much alike, but which are soon found to differ in several distinct
characters.
Now it is this superficial and almost child-like interest in the
outward forms of living things which, though often despised as
unscientific, happened to be _the only one_ which would lead us
towards a solution of the problem of species. For Nature herself
distinguishes her species by just such characters--often
exclusively so, always in some degree--very small changes in
outline, or in the proportions of appendages--as give a quite
distinct and recognisable facies to each, often aided by slight
peculiarities in motion or habit; while in a larger number of
cases differences of surface-texture, of colour, or in the details
of the same general scheme of colour-pattern or of shading, give
an unmistakable individuality to closely allied species.
It is the constant search for and detection of these often
unexpected differences between very similar creatures that gives
such an intellectual charm and fascination to the mere collection
of these insects; and when, as in the case of Darwin and myself,
the collectors were of a speculative turn of mind, they were
constantly led to think upon the "why" and the "how" of all this
wonderful variety in nature--this overwhelming and, at first
sight, purposeless wealth of specific forms among the very
humblest forms of life.
Then, a little later (and with both of us almost accidentally) we
became travellers, collectors, and observers, in some of the
richest and most interesting portions of the earth; and we thus
had forced upon our attention all the strange phenomena of local
and geographical distribution, with the numerous problems to
which they give rise. Thenceforward our interest in the great
mystery of _how_ species came into existence was intensified,
and--again to use Darwin's expression--"haunted" us.
Finally, both Darwin and myself, at the critical period when our
minds were freshly stored with a considerable body of personal
observation and reflection bearing upon the problem to be solved,
had our attention directed to the system of _positive checks_ as
expounded by Malthus in his "Principles of Population." The effect
of that was analogous to that of friction upon the specially
prepared match, producing that flash of insight which led us
immediately to the simple but universal law of the "survival of
the fittest," as the long-sought _effective_ cause of the
continuous modification and adaptations of living things.
It is an unimportant detail that Darwin read this book two years
_after_ his return from his voyage, while I read it _before_ I
went abroad, and it was a sudden recollection of its teachings
that caused the solution to flash upon me. I attach much
importance, however, to the large amount of solitude we both
enjoyed during our travels, which, at the most impressionable
period of our lives, gave us ample time for reflection on the
phenomena we were daily observing.
This view, of the combination of certain mental faculties and
external conditions that led Darwin and myself to an identical
conception, also serves to explain why none of our precursors or
contemporaries hit upon what is really so very simple a solution
of the great problem. Such evolutionists as Robert Chambers,
Herbert Spencer, and Huxley, though of great intellect, wide
knowledge, and immense power of work, had none of them the special
turn of mind that makes the collector and the species-man; while
they all--as well as the equally great thinker on similar lines,
Sir Charles Lyell--became in early life immersed in different
lines of research which engaged their chief attention.
Neither did the actual precursors of Darwin in the statement of
the principle--Wells, Matthews and Prichard--possess any adequate
knowledge of the class of facts above referred to, or sufficient
antecedent interest in the problem itself, which were both needed
in order to perceive the application of the principle to the mode
of development of the varied forms of life.
And now, to recur to my own position, I may be allowed to make a
final remark. I have long since come to see that no one deserves
either praise or blame for the _ideas_ that come to him, but only
for the actions resulting therefrom. Ideas and beliefs are
certainly not voluntary acts. They come to us--we hardly know
_how_ or _whence_, and once they have got possession of us we
cannot reject or change them at will. It is for the common good
that the promulgation of ideas should be free--uninfluenced either
by praise or blame, reward or punishment.
But the _actions_ which result from our ideas may properly be so
treated, because it is only by patient thought and work that new
ideas, if good and true, become adapted and utilised; while if
untrue, or if not adequately presented to the world, they are
rejected or forgotten.
I therefore accept the crowning honour you have conferred on me
to-day, not for the happy chance through which I became an
independent originator of the doctrine of "survival of the
fittest," but as a too liberal recognition by you of the moderate
amount of time and work I have given to explain and elucidate the
theory, to point out some novel applications of it, and (I hope I
may add) for my attempts to extend those applications, even in
directions which somewhat diverged from those accepted by my
honoured friend and teacher Charles Darwin.
Sir Joseph Hooker was now called upon by the President to receive the
Darwin-Wallace Medal. In acknowledging the honour that had been paid
him, he said:
No thesis or subject was vouchsafed to me by the Council, but,
having gratefully accepted the honour, I was bound to find one for
myself. It soon dawned upon me that the object sought by my
selection might have been that, considering the intimate terms
upon which Mr. Darwin extended to me his friendship, I could from
my memory contribute to the knowledge of some important events in
his career. It having been intimated to me that this was in a
measure true, I have selected as such an event one germane to this
Celebration and also engraven on my memory, namely, the
considerations which determined Mr. Darwin to assent to the course
which Sir Charles Lyell and myself had suggested to him, that of
presenting to the Society, in one communication, his own and Mr.
Wallace's theories on the effect of variation and the struggle for
existence on the evolution of species.
You have all read Francis Darwin's fascinating work as editor of
his father's "Life and Letters," where you will find (Vol. II., p.
116) a letter addressed, on the 18th of June, 1858, to Sir Charles
Lyell by Mr. Darwin, who states that he had on that day received a
communication from Mr. Wallace written from the Celebes Islands
requesting that it might be sent to him (Sir Charles).
In a covering letter Mr. Darwin pointed out that the enclosure
contained a sketch of a theory of Natural Selection as depending
on the struggle for existence so identical with one he himself
entertained and fully described in MS. in 1842 that he never saw a
more striking coincidence: had Mr. Wallace seen his sketch he
could not have made a better short abstract, even his terms
standing "as heads of chapters." He goes on to say that he would
at once write to Mr. Wallace offering to send his MS. to any
journal; and concludes: "So my originality is smashed, though my
book [the forthcoming 'Origin of Species'], if it will have any
value will not be deteriorated, as all know the labour consists in
the application of the theory."
After writing to Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Darwin informed me of Mr.
Wallace's letter and its enclosure, in a similar strain, only more
explicitly announcing his resolve to abandon all claim to priority
for his own sketch. I could not but protest against such a course,
no doubt reminding him that I had read it and that Sir Charles
knew its contents some years before the arrival of Mr. Wallace's
letter; and that our withholding our knowledge of its priority
would be unjustifiable. I further suggested the simultaneous
publication of the two, and offered--should he agree to such a
compromise--to write to Mr. Wallace fully informing him of the
motives of the course adopted.
In answer Mr. Darwin thanked me warmly for my offer to explain all
to Mr. Wallace, and in a later letter he informed me that he was
disposed to look favourably on my suggested compromise, but that
before making up his mind he desired a second opinion as to
whether he could honourably claim priority, and that he proposed
applying to Sir Charles Lyell for this. I need not say that this
was a relief to me, knowing as I did what Sir Charles's answer
must be.
In Vol. II., pp. 117-18, of the "Life and Letters," Mr. Darwin's
application to Sir Charles Lyell is given, dated June 26th, with a
postscript dated June 27th. In it he requests that the answer
shall be sent to me to be forwarded to himself. I have no
recollection of reading the answer, which is not to be found
either in Darwin's or my own correspondence; it was no doubt
satisfactory.
Further action was now left in the hands of Sir Charles and
myself, we all agreeing that, whatever action was taken, the
result should be offered for publication to the Linnean Society.
On June 29th Mr. Darwin wrote to me in acute distress, being
himself very ill, and scarlet fever raging in the family, to which
one infant son had succumbed on the previous day, and a daughter
was ill with diphtheria. He acknowledged the receipt of the letter
from me, adding, "I cannot think now of the subject, but soon
will: you shall hear as soon as I can think"; and on the night of
the same day he writes again, telling me that he is quite
prostrated and can do nothing but send certain papers for which I
had asked as essential for completing the prefatory statement to
the communication to the Linnean Society of Mr. Wallace's
essay....
The communications were read, as was the custom in those days, by
the Secretary to the Society. Mr. Darwin himself, owing to his
illness and distress, could not be present. Sir Charles Lyell and
myself said a few words to emphasise the importance of the
subject, but, as recorded in the "Life and Letters" (Vol. II., p.
126), although intense interest was excited, no discussion took
place: "the subject was too novel, too ominous, for the old school
to enter the lists before armouring." ...
It must also be noticed that for the detailed history given above
there is no documentary evidence beyond what Francis Darwin has
produced in the "Life and Letters." There are no letters from
Lyell relating to it, not even answers to Mr. Darwin's of the
18th, 25th, and 26th of June; and Sir Leonard Lyell has at my
request very kindly but vainly searched his uncle's correspondence
for any relating to this subject beyond the two above mentioned.
There are none of my letters to either Lyell or Darwin, nor other
evidence of their having existed beyond the latter's
acknowledgment of the receipt of some of them; and, most
surprising of all, Mr. Wallace's letter and its enclosure have
disappeared. Such is my recollection of this day, the fiftieth
anniversary of which we are now celebrating, and of the fortnight
that immediately preceded it.
It remains for me to ask your forgiveness for intruding upon your
time and attention with the half-century-old real or fancied
memories of a nonagenarian as contributions to the history of the
most notable event in the annals of Biology that had followed the
appearance in 1735 of the "Systema Naturæ" of Linnæus.
Following Sir J. Hooker, the President, referring to Prof. Haeckel, who
was unable to be present, said that he was "the great apostle of the
Darwin-Wallace theory in Germany ... his enthusiastic and gallant
advocacy [having] chiefly contributed to its success in that country....
A man of world-wide reputation, the leader on the Continent of the 'Old
Guard' of evolutionary biologists, Prof. Haeckel was one whom the
Linnean Society delighted to honour." Two more German scientists were
honoured with the Medal, namely Prof. August Weismann (who was also
absent), and Prof. Eduard Strasburger, the latter paying a special
tribute to Wallace in saying: "When I was young the investigations and
the thought of Alfred Russel Wallace brought me a great stimulus.
Through his 'Malay Archipelago' a new world of scientific knowledge was
unfolded before me. On this occasion I feel it my duty to proclaim it
with gratitude." The Medal was then presented to Sir Francis Galton, who
delivered a notable speech in responding. The last on this occasion to
receive the Medal was Sir E. Ray Lankester, who, in replying to the
President's graceful speech, referred to the happy relationships which
had existed between the contemporary men of science of his own time, but
with special reference to Darwin and Wallace he said:
Never was there a more beautiful example of modesty, of unselfish
admiration for another's work, of loyal determination that the
other should receive the full merit of his independent labours and
thoughts, than was shown by Charles Darwin on that occasion....
Subsequently, throughout all their arduous work and varied
publications upon the great doctrine which they on that day
unfolded to humanity ... the same complete absence of rivalry
characterised these high-minded Englishmen, even when in some
outcomes of their doctrine they were not in perfect agreement....
I think I am able to say that great as was the interest excited by
the new doctrine in the scientific world, and wild and angry as
was the opposition to it in some quarters, few, if any, who took
part in the scenes attending the birth and earlier reception of
Darwin's "Origin of Species" had a prevision of the enormous and
all-important influence which that doctrine was destined to
exercise upon every line of human thought.... It is in its
application to the problems of human society that there still
remains an enormous field of work and discovery for the
Darwin-Wallace doctrine.
In the special branch of study which Wallace himself set
going--the inquiry into the local variations, races, and species
of insects as evidence of descent with modification, and of the
mechanism by which that modification is brought about--there is
still great work in progress, still an abundant field to be
reaped.... Several able observers and experimenters have set
themselves the task of improving, if possible, the theoretical
structure raised by Darwin and Wallace.... But I venture to
express the opinion that they have none of them resulted in any
serious modification of the great doctrine submitted to the
Linnean Society on July 1st, 1858, by Charles Darwin and Alfred
Russel Wallace. Not only do the main lines of the theory of Darwin
and Wallace remain unchanged, but the more it is challenged by new
suggestions and new hypotheses the more brilliantly do the
novelty, the importance, and the permanent value of the work by
those great men, to-day commemorated by us, shine forth as the one
great epoch-making effort of human thought on this subject.
Sir Francis Darwin and Sir William Thiselton-Dyer spoke on behalf of
Schools which had sent representatives to the meeting; Prof. Lönnberg
and Sir Archibald Geikie on behalf of the Academies and Societies; while
Lord Avebury delivered the concluding address.
Any summary of this period in the lives of Darwin and Wallace would be
incomplete without some distinct reference to one other name, namely,
that of Herbert Spencer, whom I have linked with them in the
Introduction.
While we owe to Darwin and Wallace a definite theory of organic
development, it must be remembered that Spencer included this in the
general scheme of Evolution which grew as slowly but surely in his
mind--and as independently as did that of the origin of species in the
minds of Darwin and Wallace. Huxley recalls: "Within the ranks of
biologists, at that time, I met with nobody except Dr. Grant, of
University College, who had a word to say for Evolution--and his
advocacy was not calculated to advance the cause. Outside these ranks,
the only person known to me whose knowledge and capacity compelled
respect, and who was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist,
was Mr. Herbert Spencer.... Many and prolonged were the battles we
fought on this topic.... I took my stand upon two grounds: first, that
up to that time the evidence in favour of transmutation was wholly
insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestions respecting the causes
of the transmutations assumed ... were in any war adequate to explain
the phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, I
really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable."[25]
And Prof. Raphael Meldola, in a lecture on Evolution wherein he compares
the impression left by each of these great founders of that school upon
the current of modern thought, says: "Through all ... his [Spencer's]
writings the underlying idea of development can be traced with
increasing depth and breadth, expanding in 1850 in his 'Social Statics'
to a foreshadowing of the general doctrine of Evolution. In 1852 his
views on organic evolution had become so definite that he gave public
expression to them in that well-known and powerful essay on 'The
Development Hypothesis.' ... In the 'Principles of Psychology,' the
first edition of which was published in 1855, the evolutionary principle
was dominant. By 1858--the year of the announcement of Natural Selection
by Darwin and Wallace--he had conceived the great general scheme and had
sketched out the first draft of the prospectus of the Synthetic
Philosophy, the final and amended syllabus [being] issued in 1860. The
work of Darwin and Spencer from that period, although moving along
independent lines, was directed towards the same end, notwithstanding
the diversity of materials which they made use of and the differences in
their methods of attack; that end was the establishment of Evolution as
a great natural principle or law."[26]
In this connection it is especially interesting to note how near Spencer
had come to the conception of Natural Selection without grasping its
full significance. In an article on a "Theory of Population" (published
in the _Westminster Review_ for April, 1852) he wrote: "And here,
indeed, without further illustration, it will be seen that premature
death, under all its forms and from all its causes, cannot fail to work
in the same direction. For as those prematurely carried off must, in the
average of cases, be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the
least, it unavoidably follows that those left behind to continue the
race must be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the
greatest--must be the select of their generation. So that whether the
dangers of existence be of the kind produced by excess of fertility, or
of any other kind, it is clear that by the ceaseless exercise of the
faculties needed to contend with them, and by the death of all men who
fail to contend with them successfully, there is ensured a constant
progress towards a higher degree of skill, intelligence,
self-regulation--a better co-ordinance of actions--a more complete
life."
Up to the period of the publication of the "Origin of Species" and the
first conception of the scheme of the Synthetic Philosophy there had
been no communication between Darwin and Spencer beyond the presentation
by Spencer of a copy of his Essays to Darwin in 1858, which was duly
acknowledged. But by the time the "Origin of Species" had been before
the public for eight years, the Darwinian principle of selection had
become an integral part of the Spencerian mechanism of organic
evolution. Indeed the term "survival of the fittest," approved by both
Darwin and Wallace as an alternative for "natural selection," was, as is
well known, introduced by Spencer.
Wallace's relations with Spencer, though somewhat controversial at
times, were nevertheless cordial and sympathetic. In "My Life" he tells
of his first visit, and the impression left upon his mind by their
conversation. It occurred somewhere about 1862-3, shortly after he and
Bates had read, and been greatly impressed by, Spencer's "First
Principles." "Our thoughts," he says, "were full of the great unsolved
problem of the origin of life--a problem which Darwin's 'Origin of
Species' left in as much obscurity as ever--and we looked to Spencer as
the one man living who could give us some clue to it. His wonderful
exposition of the fundamental laws and conditions, actions and
interactions of the material universe seemed to penetrate so deeply into
that 'nature of things' after which the early philosophers searched in
vain ... that we hoped he would throw some light on that great problem
of problems.... He was very pleasant, spoke appreciatively of what we
had both done for the practical exposition of evolution, and hoped we
would continue to work at the subject. But when we touched upon the
great problem, and whether he had arrived at even one of the first steps
towards its solution, our hopes were dashed at once. That, he said, was
too fundamental a problem to even think of solving at present. We did
not yet know enough of matter in its essential constitution nor of the
various forces of nature; and all he could say was that everything
pointed to its having been a development out of matter--a phase of that
continuous process of evolution by which the whole universe had been
brought to its present condition. And so we had to wait and work
contentedly at minor problems. And now, after forty years, though
Spencer and Darwin and Weismann have thrown floods of light on the
phenomena of life, its essential nature and its origin remain as great a
mystery as ever. Whatever light we do possess is from a source which
Spencer and Darwin neglected or ignored."[27]
In his presidential address to the Entomological Society in 1872 Wallace
made some special allusion to Spencer's theory of the origin of
instincts, and on receiving a copy of the address Spencer wrote: "It is
gratifying to me to find that your extended knowledge does not lead you
to scepticism respecting the speculation of mine which you quote, but
rather enables you to cite further facts in justification of it.
Possibly your exposition will lead some of those, in whose lines of
investigation the question lies, to give deliberate attention to it." A
further proof of his confidence was shown by asking Wallace (in 1874) to
look over the proofs of the first six chapters of his "Principles of
Sociology" in order that he might have the benefit of his criticisms
alike as naturalist, anthropologist, and traveller.
This brief reference to the illustrious group of men to whom we owe the
foundations of this new epoch of evolutionary thought--and not the
foundations only, but also the patient building up of the structure upon
which each one continued to perform his allotted task--and the prefatory
notes and the footnotes attached to the letters will serve to elucidate
the historical correspondence between Darwin and Wallace which follows.
PART II (_Continued_)
II.--The Complete Extant Correspondence between Wallace and Darwin
[1857--81]
"I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect--and very few
things in my life have been more satisfactory to me--that we have
never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in some senses
rivals. I believe I can say this of myself with truth, and I am
absolutely sure that it is true of you."--DARWIN to Wallace.
"To have thus inspired and retained this friendly feeling,
notwithstanding our many differences of opinion, I feel to be one
of the greatest honours of my life."--WALLACE to Darwin.
"I think the way he [Wallace] carries on controversy is perfectly
beautiful, and in future histories of science the Wallace-Darwin
episode will form one of the few bright points among rival
claimants."--ERASMUS DARWIN to his niece, Henrietta Darwin, 1871.
The first eight letters from Darwin to Wallace were found amongst the
latter's papers, carefully preserved in an envelope on the outside of
which he had written the words reproduced on the next page. Neither
Wallace's part of this correspondence, nor the original MS. of his essay
"On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original
Type," which he sent to Darwin from Ternate, has been discovered. But
these eight letters from Darwin explain themselves and reveal the inner
story of the independent discovery of the theory of Natural Selection.
With respect to the letters which follow the first eight, both sides of
the correspondence, with few exceptions, have been brought together.
Some of the letters have already appeared in "The Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin" and "More Letters," others in "My Life," by A.R.
Wallace, whilst many have not before been published.
Some of these letters, in themselves, have little more than ephemeral
interest, and parts of other letters could have been eliminated, from
the point of view of lightening this volume and of economising the
reader's attention. But I decided, with the fullest approval of the
Wallace and Darwin families, that the letters of these illustrious
correspondents should be here presented as a whole, without mutilation.
[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF INSCRIPTION BY WALLACE ON THE ENVELOPE IN
WHICH HE KEPT THE FIRST EIGHT LETTERS HE RECEIVED FROM DARWIN.]
Many of the notes of explanation to the Wallace letters have been
gathered from his own writings, and are mainly in his own words, and in
such cases the reader has the advantage of perusing letters annotated by
their author, while most of the notes to the Darwin letters are by Sir
F. Darwin.
* * * * *
LETTER I
C. DARWIN to A.R. WALLACE
_Down, Bromley, Kent, May 1, 1857._
My dear Sir,--I am much obliged for your letter of Oct. 10th from
Celebes, received a few days ago: in a laborious undertaking, sympathy
is a valuable and real encouragement. By your letter, and even still
more by your paper in the _Annals_,[28] a year or more ago, I can plainly
see that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent have come to
similar conclusions. In regard to the paper in the _Annals_, I agree to
the truth of almost every word of your paper; and I daresay that you
will agree with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty
closely with any theoretical paper; for it is lamentable how each man
draws his own different conclusions from the very same fact. This summer
will make the twentieth year (!) since I opened my first note-book on
the question how and in what way do species and varieties differ from
each other. I am now preparing my work for publication, but I find the
subject so very large, that though I have written many chapters, I do
not suppose I shall go to press for two years.
I have never heard how long you intend staying in the Malay Archipelago;
I wish I might profit by the publication of your Travels there before my
work appears, for no doubt you will reap a large harvest of facts.
I have acted already in accordance with your advice of keeping domestic
varieties, and those appearing in a state of nature, distinct; but I
have sometimes doubted of the wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad to
be backed by your opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt the
truth of the now very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic animals
having descended from several wild stocks; though I do not doubt that it
is so in some cases. I think there is rather better evidence on the
sterility of hybrid animals than you seem to admit: and in regard to
plants, the collection of carefully recorded facts by Kölreuter and
Gaertner (and Herbert) is _enormous_. I most entirely agree with you on
the little effect of "climatic conditions" which one sees referred to
_ad nauseam_ in all books: I suppose some very little effect must be
attributed to such influences, but I fully believe that they are very
slight. It is really _impossible_ to explain my views in the compass of
a letter as to causes and means of variation in a state of nature; but I
have slowly adopted a distinct and tangible idea--whether true or false
others must judge; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a doctrine
by its author seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee of truth.
I have been rather disappointed at my results in the poultry line; but
if you should, after receiving this, stumble on any curious domestic
breed, I should be very glad to have it; but I can plainly see that the
result will not be at all worth the trouble which I have taken. The case
is different with the domestic pigeons; from its study I have learned
much. The Rajah has sent me some of his pigeons and fowls and _cats'_
skins from the interior of Borneo and from Singapore. Can you tell me
positively that black jaguars or leopards are believed generally or
always to pair with black? I do not think colour of offspring good
evidence. Is the case of parrots fed on fat of fish turning colour
mentioned in your Travels? I remember a case of parrots with (I think)
poison from some toad put into hollow whence primaries had been removed.
One of the subjects on which I have been experimenting, and which cost
me much trouble, is the means of distribution of all organic beings
found on oceanic islands; and any facts on this subject would be most
gratefully received.
Land-molluscs are a great perplexity to me. This is a very dull letter,
but I am a good deal out of health, and am writing this, not from my
home, as dated, but from a water-cure establishment.
With most sincere good wishes for your success in every way, I remain,
my dear Sir, yours sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
LETTER II
C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE
_Down, Bromley, Kent. December 22, 1867._
My dear Sir,--I thank you for your letter of Sept. 27th. I am extremely
glad to hear that you are attending to distribution in accordance with
theoretical ideas. I am a firm believer that without speculation there
is no good and original observation. Few travellers have attended to
such points as you are now at work on; and indeed the whole subject of
distribution of animals is dreadfully behind that of plants. You say
that you have been somewhat surprised at no notice having been taken of
your paper in the _Annals_. I cannot say that I am; for so very few
naturalists care for anything beyond the mere description of species.
But you must not suppose that your paper has not been attended to: two
very good men, Sir C. Lyell, and Mr. E. Blyth at Calcutta, specially
called my attention to it. Though agreeing with you on your conclusions
in the paper, I believe I go much further than you; but it is too long a
subject to enter on my speculative notions. I have not yet seen your
paper on distribution of animals in the Aru Islands: I shall read it
with the _utmost_ interest; for I think that the most interesting
quarter of the whole globe in respect to distribution; and I have long
been very imperfectly trying to collect data from the Malay Archipelago.
I shall be quite prepared to subscribe to your doctrine of subsidence:
indeed from the quite independent evidence of the coral reefs I coloured
my original map in my Coral volumes colours [_sic_] of the Aru Islands
as one of subsidence, but got frightened and left it uncoloured. But I
can see that you are inclined to go _much_ further than I am in regard
to the former connection of oceanic islands with continents. Ever since
poor E. Forbes propounded this doctrine, it has been eagerly followed;
and Hooker elaborately discusses the former connection of all the
Antarctic islands and New Zealand and South America. About a year ago I
discussed the subject much with Lyell and Hooker (for I shall have to
treat of it) and wrote out my arguments in opposition; but you will be
glad to hear that neither Lyell nor Hooker thought much of my arguments;
nevertheless, for once in my life I dare withstand the almost
preternatural sagacity of Lyell. You ask about land-shells on islands
far distant from continents: Madeira has a few identical with those of
Europe, and here the evidence is really good, as some of them are
sub-fossil. In the Pacific islands there are cases of identity, which I
cannot at present persuade myself to account for by introduction through
man's agency; although Dr. Aug. Gould has conclusively shown that many
land-shells have thus been distributed over the Pacific by man's agency.
These cases of introduction are most plaguing. Have you not found it so
in the Malay Archipelago? It has seemed to me, in the lists of mammals
of Timor and other islands, that _several_ in all probability have been
naturalised.
Since writing before, I have experimented a little on some
land-molluscs, and have found sea-water not quite so deadly as I
anticipated. You ask whether I shall discuss Man: I think I shall avoid
the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices, though I fully
admit that it is the highest and most interesting problem for the
naturalist. My work, on which I have now been at work more or less for
twenty years, will _not_ fix or settle anything; but I hope it will aid
by giving a large collection of facts with one definite end. I get on
very slowly, partly from ill-health, partly from being a very slow
worker. I have got about half written; but I do not suppose I shall
publish under a couple of years. I have now been three whole months on
one chapter on hybridism!
I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three or four years
more: what a wonderful deal you will have seen; and what an interesting
area, the grand Malay Archipelago and the richest parts of South
America! I infinitely admire and honour your zeal and courage in the
good cause of natural science; and you have my very sincere and cordial
good wishes for success of all kinds; and may all your theories succeed,
except that on oceanic islands, on which subject I will do battle to the
death.--Pray believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
LETTER III
C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE
_Down, Bromley, Kent. January 25, 1859._
My dear Sir,--I was extremely much pleased at receiving three days ago
your letter to me and that to Dr. Hooker. Permit me to say how heartily
I admire the spirit in which they are written. Though I had absolutely
nothing whatever to do in leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought
a fair course of action, yet I naturally could not but feel anxious to
hear what your impression would be. I owe indirectly much to you and
them; for I almost think that Lyell would have proved right and I should
never have completed my larger work, for I have found my abstract[29]
hard enough with my poor health; but now, thank God, I am in my last
chapter but one. My abstract will make a small volume of 400 or 500
pages. Whenever published, I will of course send you a copy, and then
you will see what I mean about the part which I believe selection has
played with domestic productions. It is a very different part, as you
suppose, from that played by "natural selection."
I sent off, by same address as this note, a copy of the _Journal of the
Linnean Society_, and subsequently I have sent some half-dozen copies of
the Paper. I have many other copies at your disposal; and I sent two to
your friend Dr. Davies (?), author of works on men's skulls.
I am glad to hear that you have been attending to birds' nests; I have
done so, though almost exclusively under one point of view, viz. to show
that instincts vary, so that selection could work on and improve them.
Few other instincts, so to speak, can be preserved in a museum.
Many thanks for your offer to look after horses' stripes; if there are
any donkeys', pray add them.
I am delighted to hear that you have collected bees' combs; when next in
London I will inquire of F. Smith and Mr. Saunders. This is an especial
hobby of mine, and I think I can throw light on the subject. If you can
collect duplicates at no very great expense, I should be glad of
specimens for myself, with some bees of each kind. Young growing and
irregular combs, and those which have not had pupæ, are most valuable
for measurements and examination; their edges should be well protected
against abrasion.
Everyone whom I have seen has thought your paper very well written and
interesting. It puts my extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty years
ago!), which I must say in apology were never for an instant intended
for publication, in the shade.
You ask about Lyell's frame of mind. I think he is somewhat staggered,
but does not give in, and speaks with horror often to me of what a thing
it would be and what a job it would be for the next edition of the
Principles if he were "perverted." But he is most candid and honest, and
I think will end by being perverted. Dr. Hooker has become almost as
heterodox as you or I--and I look at Hooker as _by far_ the most capable
judge in Europe.
Most cordially do I wish you health and entire success in all your
pursuits; and God knows, if admirable zeal and energy deserve success,
most amply do you deserve it. I look at my own career as nearly run out;
if I can publish my abstract, and perhaps my greater work on the same
subject, I shall look at my course as done.--Believe me, my dear Sir,
yours very sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
LETTER IV
C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE
_Down, Bromley, Kent. April 6, 1859._
My dear Mr. Wallace,--I this morning received your pleasant and friendly
note of Nov. 30th. The first part of my MS.[30] is in Murray's hands, to
see if he likes to publish it. There is no Preface, but a short
Introduction, which must be read by everyone who reads my book. The
second paragraph in the Introduction[31] I have had copied _verbatim_
from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think that I have fairly
noticed your papers in the _Linnean Transactions_.[32] You must remember
that I am now publishing only an Abstract, and I give no references. I
shall of course allude to your paper on Distribution;[33] and I have
added that I know from correspondence that your explanation of your law
is the same as that which I offer. You are right, that I came to the
conclusion that Selection was the principle of change from study of
domesticated productions; and then reading Malthus I saw at once how to
apply this principle. Geographical distribution and geographical
relations of extinct to recent inhabitants of South America first led me
to the subject. Especially the case of the Galapagos Islands.
I hope to go to press in early part of next month. It will be a small
volume of about 500 pages or so. I will, of course, send you a copy.
I forget whether I told you that Hooker, who is our best British
botanist, and perhaps the best in the world, is a _full_ convert, and is
now going immediately to publish his confession of faith; and I expect
daily to see the proof-sheets. Huxley is changed and believes in
mutation of species: whether a _convert_ to us, I do not quite know. We
shall live to see all the _younger_ men converts. My neighbour and
excellent naturalist, J. Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert. I see by
Natural History notices that you are doing great work in the
Archipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise with you. For God's sake
take care of your health. There have been few such noble labourers in
the cause of natural science as you are. Farewell, with every good
wish.--Yours sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
P.S.--You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the manner in which
you have taken all that was done about publishing our papers. I had
actually written a letter to you, stating that I would _not_ publish
anything before you had published. I had not sent that letter to the
post when I received one from Lyell and Hooker, _urging_ me to send some
MS. to them, and allow them to act as they thought fair and honourably
to both of us. I did so.
* * * * *
LETTER V
C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE
_Down, Bromley, Kent. August 9, 1859._
My dear Mr. Wallace,--I received your letter and memoir[34] on the 7th,
and will forward it to-morrow to the Linnean Society. But you will be
aware that there is no meeting till beginning of November. Your paper
seems to me _admirable_ in matter, style and reasoning; and I thank you
for allowing me to read it. Had I read it some months ago I should have
profited by it for my forthcoming volume. But my two chapters on this
subject are in type; and though not yet corrected, I am so wearied out
and weak in health that I am fully resolved not to add one word, and
merely improve style. So you will see that my views are nearly the same
with yours, and you may rely on it that not one word shall be altered
owing to my having read your ideas. Are you aware that Mr. W. Earl
published several years ago the view of distribution of animals in the
Malay Archipelago in relation to the depth of the sea between the
islands? I was much struck with this, and have been in habit of noting
all facts on distribution in the Archipelago and elsewhere in this
relation. I have been led to conclude that there has been a good deal of
naturalisation in the different Malay islands, and which I have thought
to certain extent would account for anomalies. Timor has been my
greatest puzzle. What do you say to the peculiar _Felis_ there? I wish
that you had visited Timor: it has been asserted that a fossil mastodon
or elephant's tooth (I forget which) had been found there, which would
be a grand fact. I was aware that Celebes was very peculiar; but the
relation to Africa is quite new to me and marvellous, and almost passes
belief. It is as anomalous as the relation of plants in South-West
Australia to the Cape of Good Hope.
I differ _wholly_ from you on colonisation of _oceanic_ islands, but you
will have _everyone_ else on your side. I quite agree with respect to
all islands not situated far in ocean. I quite agree on little
occasional internavigation between lands when once pretty well stocked
with inhabitants, but think this does not apply to rising and
ill-stocked islands.
Are you aware that _annually_ birds are blown to Madeira, to Azores (and
to Bermuda from America). I wish I had given fuller abstract of my
reasons for not believing in Forbes's great continental extensions; but
it is too late, for I will alter nothing. I am worn out, and must have
rest.
Owen, I do not doubt, will bitterly oppose us; but I regard that very
little, as he is a poor reasoner and deeply considers the good opinion
of the world, especially the aristocratic world.
Hooker is publishing a grand Introduction to the Flora of Australia, and
goes the whole length. I have seen proofs of about half.--With every
good wish, believe me yours very sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
Excuse this brief note, but I am far from well.
* * * * *
LETTER VI
C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE
_Ilkley. November 13, 1859._
My dear Sir,--I have told Murray to send you by post (if possible) a
copy of my book, and I hope that you will receive it at nearly the same
time with this note. (N.B.--I have got a bad finger, which makes me
write extra badly.) If you are so inclined, I should very much like to
hear your general impression of the book, as you have thought so
profoundly on the subject and in so nearly the same channel with myself.
I hope there will be some little new to you, but I fear not much.
Remember, it is only an abstract, and very much condensed. God knows
what the public will think. No one has read it, except Lyell, with whom
I have had much correspondence. Hooker thinks him a complete convert,
but he does not seem so in his letters to me. But he is evidently deeply
interested in the subject. I do not think your share in the theory will
be overlooked by the real judges, as Hooker, Lyell, Asa Gray, etc.
I have heard from Mr. Sclater that your paper on the Malay Archipelago
has been read at the Linnean Society, and that he was _extremely_ much
interested by it.
I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months owing to the state
of my health, and therefore I really have no news to tell you. I am
writing this at Ilkley Wells, where I have been with my family for the
last six weeks, and shall stay for some few weeks longer. As yet I have
profited very little. God knows when I shall have strength for my bigger
book.
I sincerely hope that you keep your health: I suppose that you will be
thinking of returning soon with your magnificent collection and still
grander mental materials. You will be puzzled how to publish. The Royal
Society Fund will be worth your consideration.--With every good wish,
pray believe me yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
I think that I told you before that Hooker is a complete convert. If I
can convert Huxley I shall be content.
* * * * *
LETTER VII
C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 7, 1860._
My dear Wallace,--The addresses which you have sent me are capital,
especially that to the Rajah; and I have dispatched two sets of queries.
I now enclose a copy to you, and should be very glad of any answers; you
must not suppose the P.S. about memory has lately been inserted; please
return these queries, as it is my standard copy. The subject is a
curious one; I fancy I shall make a rather interesting appendix to my
Essay on Man.