'Origin' in the 'North American Review.' It seems to me clever, and I do
not doubt will damage my book. I had meant to have made some remarks
on it; but Lyell wished much to keep it, and my head is quite confused
between the many reviews which I have lately read. I am sure the
reviewer is wrong about bees' cells, i.e. about the distance; any lesser
distance would do, or even greater distance, but then some of the places
would lie outside the generative spheres; but this would not add much
difficulty to the work. The reviewer takes a strange view of instinct:
he seems to regard intelligence as a developed instinct; which I believe
to be wholly false. I suspect he has never much attended to instinct and
the minds of animals, except perhaps by reading.
My chief object is to ask you if you could procure for me a copy of the
"New York Times" for Wednesday, March 28th. It contains A VERY STRIKING
review of my book, which I should much like to keep. How curious that
the two most striking reviews (i.e. yours and this) should have appeared
in America. This review is not really useful, but somehow is impressive.
There was a good review in the 'Revue des Deux Mondes,' April 1st, by M.
Laugel, said to be a very clever man.
Hooker, about a fortnight ago, stayed here a few days, and was very
pleasant; but I think he overworks himself. What a gigantic undertaking,
I imagine, his and Bentham's 'Genera Plantarum' will be! I hope he
will not get too much immersed in it, so as not to spare some time for
Geographical Distribution and other such questions.
I have begun to work steadily, but very slowly as usual, at details on
variation under domestication.
My dear Gray, Yours always truly and gratefully, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, [May 8th, 1860].
... I have sent for the 'Canadian Naturalist.' If I cannot procure a copy
I will borrow yours. I had a letter from Henslow this morning, who says
that Sedgwick was, on last Monday night, to open a battery on me at the
Cambridge Philosophical Society. Anyhow, I am much honoured by being
attacked there, and at the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
I do not think it worth while to contradict single cases nor is it
worth while arguing against those who do not attend to what I state. A
moment's reflection will show you that there must be (on our doctrine)
large genera not varying (see page 56 on the subject, in the second
edition of the 'Origin'). Though I do not there discuss the case in
detail.
It may be sheer bigotry for my own notions, but I prefer to the
Atlantis, my notion of plants and animals having migrated from the Old
to the New World, or conversely, when the climate was much hotter, by
approximately the line of Behring's Straits. It is most important, as
you say, to see living forms of plants going back so far in time. I
wonder whether we shall ever discover the flora of the dry land of the
coal period, and find it not so anomalous as the swamp or coal-making
flora. I am working away over the blessed Pigeon Manuscript; but, from
one cause or another, I get on very slowly...
This morning I got a letter from the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, announcing that I am elected a correspondent... It shows
that some Naturalists there do not think me such a scientific profligate
as many think me here.
My dear Lyell, yours gratefully, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--What a grand fact about the extinct stag's horn worked by man!
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May 13th, 1860].
My dear Hooker,
I return Henslow, which I was very glad to see. How good of him to
defend me. (Against Sedgwick's attack before the Cambridge Philosophical
Society.) I will write and thank him.
As you said you were curious to hear Thomson's (Dr. Thomas Thomson the
Indian Botanist. He was a collaborateur in Hooker and Thomson's Flora
Indica. 1855.) opinion, I send his kind letter. He is evidently a strong
opposer to us...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May 15th, 1860].
... How paltry it is in such men as X, Y and Co. not reading your essay.
It is incredibly paltry. (These remarks do not apply to Dr. Harvey, who
was, however, in a somewhat similar position. See below.) They may all
attack me to their hearts' content. I am got case-hardened. As for the
old fogies in Cambridge, it really signifies nothing. I look at their
attacks as a proof that our work is worth the doing. It makes me resolve
to buckle on my armour. I see plainly that it will be a long uphill
fight. But think of Lyell's progress with Geology. One thing I see most
plainly, that without Lyell's, yours, Huxley's and Carpenter's aid, my
book would have been a mere flash in the pan. But if we all stick to
it, we shall surely gain the day. And I now see that the battle is worth
fighting. I deeply hope that you think so. Does Bentham progress at all?
I do not know what to say about Oxford. (His health prevented him from
going to Oxford for the meeting of the British Association.) I should
like it much with you, but it must depend on health...
Yours must affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, May 18th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I send a letter from Asa Gray to show how hotly the battle rages there.
Also one from Wallace, very just in his remarks, though too laudatory
and too modest, and how admirably free from envy or jealousy. He must be
a good fellow. Perhaps I will enclose a letter from Thomson of Calcutta;
not that it is much, but Hooker thinks so highly of him...
Henslow informs me that Sedgwick (Sedgwick's address is given somewhat
abbreviated in "The Cambridge Chronicle", May 19th, 1860.) and then
Professor Clarke [sic] (The late William Clark, Professor of Anatomy,
my father seems to have misunderstood his informant. I am assured by Mr.
J.W. Clark that his father (Prof. Clark) did not support Sedgwick in the
attack.) made a regular and savage onslaught on my book lately at the
Cambridge Philosophical Society, but Henslow seems to have defended
me well, and maintained that the subject was a legitimate one for
investigation. Since then Phillips (John Phillips, M.A., F.R.S., born
1800, died 1874, from the effects of a fall. Professor of Geology at
King's College, London, and afterwards at Oxford. He gave the 'Rede'
lecture at Cambridge on May 15th, 1860, on 'The Succession of Life
on the earth.' The Rede Lecturer is appointed annually by the
Vice-Chancellor, and is paid by an endowment left in 1524 by Sir
Robert Rede, Lord Chief Justice, in the reign of Henry VIII.) has given
lectures at Cambridge on the same subject, but treated it very fairly.
How splendidly Asa Gray is fighting the battle. The effect on me of
these multiplied attacks is simply to show me that the subject is worth
fighting for, and assuredly I will do my best... I hope all the attacks
make you keep up your courage, and courage you assuredly will require...
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, May 18th, 1860.
My dear Mr. Wallace,
I received this morning your letter from Amboyna, dated February 16th,
containing some remarks and your too high approval of my book. Your
letter has pleased me very much, and I most completely agree with you on
the parts which are strongest and which are weakest. The imperfection of
the Geological Record is, as you say, the weakest of all; but yet I am
pleased to find that there are almost more geological converts than of
pursuers of other branches of natural science... I think geologists are
more easily converted than simple naturalists, because more accustomed
to reasoning. Before telling you about the progress of opinion on the
subject, you must let me say how I admire the generous manner in which
you speak of my book. Most persons would in your position have felt some
envy or jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing
of mankind. But you speak far too modestly of yourself. You would, if
you had my leisure, have done the work just as well, perhaps better,
than I have done it...
... Agassiz sends me a personal civil message, but incessantly attacks
me; but Asa Gray fights like a hero in defence. Lyell keeps as firm as a
tower, and this Autumn will publish on the 'Geological History of Man,'
and will then declare his conversion, which now is universally known. I
hope that you have received Hooker's splendid essay... Yesterday I heard
from Lyell that a German, Dr. Schaaffhausen (Hermann Schaaffhausen
'Ueber Bestandigkeit und Umwandlung der Arten.' Verhandl. d. Naturhist.
Vereins, Bonn, 1853. See 'Origin,' Historical Sketch.), has sent him
a pamphlet published some years ago, in which the same view is nearly
anticipated; but I have not yet seen this pamphlet. My brother, who is a
very sagacious man, always said, "you will find that some one will have
been before you." I am at work at my larger work, which I shall publish
in a separate volume. But from ill-health and swarms of letters, I get
on very very slowly. I hope that I shall not have wearied you with these
details. With sincere thanks for your letter, and with most deeply felt
wishes for your success in science, and in every way, believe me,
Your sincere well-wisher, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 22nd 1860.
My dear Gray,
Again I have to thank you for one of your very pleasant letters of May
7th, enclosing a very pleasant remittance of 22 pounds. I am in simple
truth astonished at all the kind trouble you have taken for me. I
return Appleton's account. For the chance of your wishing for a formal
acknowledgment I send one. If you have any further communication to the
Appletons, pray express my acknowledgment for [their] generosity; for
it is generosity in my opinion. I am not at all surprised at the sale
diminishing; my extreme surprise is at the greatness of the sale. No
doubt the public has been SHAMEFULLY imposed on! for they bought the
book thinking that it would be nice easy reading. I expect the sale to
stop soon in England, yet Lyell wrote to me the other day that calling
at Murray's he heard that fifty copies had gone in the previous
forty-eight hours. I am extremely glad that you will notice in
'Silliman' the additions in the 'Origin.' Judging from letters (and I
have just seen one from Thwaites to Hooker), and from remarks, the most
serious omission in my book was not explaining how it is, as I believe,
that all forms do not necessarily advance, how there can now be SIMPLE
organisms still existing... I hear there is a VERY severe review on me
in the 'North British,' by a Rev. Mr. Dunns (This statement as to
authorship was made on the authority of Robert Chambers.), a Free Kirk
minister, and dabbler in Natural History. I should be very glad to see
any good American reviews, as they are all more or less useful. You say
that you shall touch on other reviews. Huxley told me some time ago that
after a time he would write a review on all the reviews, whether he will
I know not. If you allude to the 'Edinburgh,' pray notice SOME of the
points which I will point out on a separate slip. In the "Saturday
Review" (one of our cleverest periodicals) of May 5th, page 573, there
is a nice article on [the 'Edinburgh'] review, defending Huxley, but not
Hooker; and the latter, I think, [the 'Edinburgh' reviewer] treats most
ungenerously. (In a letter to Mr. Huxley my father wrote: "Have you seen
the last "Saturday Review"? I am very glad of the defence of you and of
myself. I wish the reviewer had noticed Hooker. The reviewer, whoever he
is, is a jolly good fellow, as this review and the last on me showed.
He writes capitally, and understands well his subject. I wish he had
slapped [the 'Edinburgh' reviewer] a little bit harder.") But surely you
will get sick unto death of me and my reviewers.
With respect to the theological view of the question. This is
always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write
atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and
as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides
of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding
within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with
mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye
was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented
to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and
to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined
to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details,
whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.
Not that this notion AT ALL satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the
whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as
well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe
what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all
necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one
or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws.
A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more
complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may
not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these
laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who
foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the
more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this
letter.
Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest.
Yours sincerely and cordially, CHARLES DARWIN.
{Here follow my father's criticisms on the 'Edinburgh Review'}:
"What a quibble to pretend he did not understand what I meant by
INHABITANTS of South America; and any one would suppose that I had not
throughout my volume touched on Geographical Distribution. He ignores
also everything which I have said on Classification, Geological
Succession, Homologies, Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs--page 496.
He falsely applies what I said (too rudely) about "blindness of
preconceived opinions" to those who believe in creation, whereas I
exclusively apply the remark to those who give up multitudes of species
as true species, but believe in the remainder--page 500.
He slightly alters what I say,--I ASK whether creationists really
believe that elemental atoms have flashed into life. He says that I
describe them as so believing, and this, surely, is a difference--page
501.
He speaks of my "clamouring against" all who believe in creation, and
this seems to me an unjust accusation--page 501.
He makes me say that the dorsal vertebrae vary; this is simply false: I
nowhere say a word about dorsal vertebrae--page 522.
What an illiberal sentence that is about my pretension to candour, and
about my rushing through barriers which stopped Cuvier: such an argument
would stop any progress in science--page 525.
How disingenuous to quote from my remark to you about my BRIEF letter
[published in the 'Linn. Soc. Journal'], as if it applied to the whole
subject--page 530.
How disingenuous to say that we are called on to accept the theory, from
the imperfection of the geological record, when I over and over again
[say] how grave a difficulty the imperfection offers--page 530."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 30th [1860].
My dear Hooker,
I return Harvey's letter, I have been very glad to see the reason why he
has not read your Essay. I feared it was bigotry, and I am glad to see
that he goes a little way (VERY MUCH further than I supposed) with us...
I was not sorry for a natural opportunity of writing to Harvey, just to
show that I was not piqued at his turning me and my book into ridicule
(A "serio-comic squib," read before the 'Dublin University Zoological
and Botanical Association,' February 17, 1860, and privately printed. My
father's presentation copy is inscribed "With the writer's REPENTANCE,
October 1860."), not that I think it was a proceeding which I deserved,
or worthy of him. It delights me that you are interested in watching
the progress of opinion on the change of Species; I feared that you were
weary of the subject; and therefore did not send A. Gray's letters. The
battle rages furiously in the United States. Gray says he was preparing
a speech, which would take 1 1/2 hours to deliver, and which he "fondly
hoped would be a stunner." He is fighting splendidly, and there seems
to have been many discussions with Agassiz and others at the meetings.
Agassiz pities me much at being so deluded. As for the progress of
opinion, I clearly see that it will be excessively slow, almost as slow
as the change of species... I am getting wearied at the storm of hostile
reviews and hardly any useful...
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Friday night [June 1st, 1860].
... Have you seen Hopkins (William Hopkins died in 1866, "in his
sevent-third year." He began life with a farm in Suffolk, but ultimately
entered, comparatively late in life, at Peterhouse, Cambridge; he
took his degree in 1827, and afterward became an Esquire Bedell of the
University. He was chiefly known as a mathematical "coach," and
was eminently successful in the manufacture of Senior Wranglers.
Nevertheless Mr. Stephen says ('Life of Fawcett,' page 26) that he
"was conspicuous for inculcating" a "liberal view of the studies of
the place. He endeavoured to stimulate a philosophical interest in
the mathematical sciences, instead of simply rousing an ardour for
competition." He contributed many papers on geological and mathematical
subjects to the scientific journals. He had a strong influence for good
over the younger men with whom he came in contact. The letter which
he wrote to Henry Fawcett on the occasion of his blindness illustrates
this. Mr. Stephen says ('Life of Fawcett,' page 48) that by "this
timely word of good cheer," Fawcett was roused from "his temporary
prostration," and enabled to take a "more cheerful and resolute tone.")
in the new 'Fraser'? the public will, I should think, find it heavy. He
will be dead against me, as you prophesied; but he is generally civil
to me personally. ('Fraser's Magazine,' June 1860. My father, no doubt,
refers to the following passage, page 752, where the Reviewer Expresses
his "full participation in the high respect in which the author is
universally held, both as a man and a naturalist; and the more so,
because in the remarks which will follow in the second part of this
Essay we shall be found to differ widely from him as regards many of his
conclusions and the reasonings on which he has founded them, and shall
claim the full right to express such differences of opinion with all
that freedom which the interests of scientific truth demands, and which
we are sure Mr. Darwin would be one of the last to refuse to any one
prepared to exercise it with candour and courtesy." Speaking of this
review, my father wrote to Dr. Asa Gray: "I have remonstrated with him
[Hopkins] for so coolly saying that I base my views on what I reckon
as great difficulties. Any one, by taking these difficulties alone, can
make a most strong case against me. I could myself write a more damning
review than has as yet appeared!" A second notice by Hopkins appeared
in the July number of 'Fraser's Magazine.') On his standard of proof,
NATURAL science would never progress, for without the making of theories
I am convinced there would be no observation.
... I have begun reading the 'North British' (May 1860.), which so far
strikes me as clever.
Phillips's Lecture at Cambridge is to be published.
All these reiterated attacks will tell heavily; there will be no
more converts, and probably some will go back. I hope you do not grow
disheartened, I am determined to fight to the last. I hear, however,
that the great Buckle highly approves of my book.
I have had a note from poor Blyth (Edward Blyth, 1810-1873. His
indomitable love of natural history made him neglect the druggist's
business with which he started in life, and he soon got into serious
difficulties. After supporting himself for a few years as a writer on
Field Natural History, he ultimately went out to India as Curator of the
Museum of the R. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, where the greater part of his
working life was spent. His chief publications were the monthly reports
made as part of his duty to the Society. He had stored in his remarkable
memory a wonderful wealth of knowledge, especially with regard to the
mammalia and birds of India--knowledge of which he freely gave to
those who asked. His letters to my father give evidence of having been
carefully studied, and the long list of entries after his name in the
index to 'Animals and Plants,' show how much help was received from him.
His life was an unprosperous and unhappy one, full of money difficulties
and darkened by the death of his wife after a few years of marriage.),
of Calcutta, who is much disappointed at hearing that Lord Canning will
not grant any money; so I much fear that all your great pains will be
thrown away. Blyth says (and he is in many respects a very good judge)
that his ideas on species are quite revolutionised...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 5th [1860].
My dear Hooker,
It is a pleasure to me to write to you, as I have no one to talk about
such matters as we write on. But I seriously beg you not to write to
me unless so inclined; for busy as you are, and seeing many people, the
case is very different between us...
Have you seen --'s abusive article on me?... It out does even the 'North
British' and 'Edinburgh' in misapprehension and misrepresentation.
I never knew anything so unfair as in discussing cells of bees, his
ignoring the case of Melipona, which builds combs almost exactly
intermediate between hive and humble bees. What has -- done that he
feels so immeasurably superior to all us wretched naturalists, and to
all political economists, including that great philosopher Malthus? This
review, however, and Harvey's letter have convinced me that I must be
a very bad explainer. Neither really understand what I mean by Natural
Selection. I am inclined to give up the attempt as hopeless. Those who
do not understand, it seems, cannot be made to understand.
By the way, I think, we entirely agree, except perhaps that I use too
forcible language about selection. I entirely agree, indeed would almost
go further than you when you say that climate (i.e. variability from all
unknown causes) is "an active handmaid, influencing its mistress most
materially." Indeed, I have never hinted that Natural Selection is "the
efficient cause to the exclusion of the other," i.e. variability from
Climate, etc. The very term SELECTION implies something, i.e. variation
or difference, to be selected...
How does your book progress (I mean your general sort of book on
plants), I hope to God you will be more successful than I have been in
making people understand your meaning. I should begin to think myself
wholly in the wrong, and that I was an utter fool, but then I cannot yet
persuade myself, that Lyell, and you and Huxley, Carpenter, Asa Gray,
and Watson, etc., are all fools together. Well, time will show, and
nothing but time. Farewell...
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, June 6th [1860].
... It consoles me that -- sneers at Malthus, for that clearly shows,
mathematician though he may be, he cannot understand common reasoning.
By the way what a discouraging example Malthus is, to show during what
long years the plainest case may be misrepresented and misunderstood. I
have read the 'Future'; how curious it is that several of my reviewers
should advance such wild arguments, as that varieties of dogs and cats
do not mingle; and should bring up the old exploded doctrine of definite
analogies... I am beginning to despair of ever making the majority
understand my notions. Even Hopkins does not thoroughly. By the way, I
have been so much pleased by the way he personally alludes to me. I must
be a very bad explainer. I hope to Heaven that you will succeed better.
Several reviews and several letters have shown me too clearly how little
I am understood. I suppose "natural selection" was a bad term; but to
change it now, I think, would make confusion worse confounded, nor can I
think of a better; "Natural Preservation" would not imply a preservation
of particular varieties, and would seem a truism, and would not bring
man's and nature's selection under one point of view. I can only hope
by reiterated explanations finally to make the matter clearer. If my MS.
spreads out, I think I shall publish one volume exclusively on variation
of animals and plants under domestication. I want to show that I have
not been quite so rash as many suppose.
Though weary of reviews, I should like to see Lowell's (The late J.A.
Lowell in the 'Christian Examiner' (Boston, U.S., May, 1860.) some
time... I suppose Lowell's difficulty about instinct is the same as
Bowen's; but it seems to me wholly to rest on the assumption that
instincts cannot graduate as finely as structures. I have stated in my
volume that it is hardly possible to know which, i.e. whether instinct
or structure, change first by insensible steps. Probably sometimes
instinct, sometimes structure. When a British insect feeds on an exotic
plant, instinct has changed by very small steps, and their structures
might change so as to fully profit by the new food. Or structure
might change first, as the direction of tusks in one variety of Indian
elephants, which leads it to attack the tiger in a different manner from
other kinds of elephants. Thanks for your letter of the 2nd, chiefly
about Murray. (N.B. Harvey of Dublin gives me, in a letter, the argument
of tall men marrying short women, as one of great weight!)
I do not quite understand what you mean by saying, "that the more they
prove that you underrate physical conditions, the better for you, as
Geology comes in to your aid."
... I see in Murray and many others one incessant fallacy, when alluding
to slight differences of physical conditions as being very important;
namely, oblivion of the fact that all species, except very local ones,
range over a considerable area, and though exposed to what the world
calls considerable DIVERSITIES, yet keep constant. I have just alluded
to this in the 'Origin' in comparing the productions of the Old and the
New Worlds. Farewell, shall you be at Oxford? If H. gets quite well,
perhaps I shall go there.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [June 14th, 1860].
... Lowell's review (J.A. Lowell in the 'Christian Examiner,' May 1860.)
is pleasantly written, but it is clear that he is not a naturalist. He
quite overlooks the importance of the accumulation of mere individual
differences, and which, I think I can show, is the great agency of
change under domestication. I have not finished Schaaffhausen, as I read
German so badly. I have ordered a copy for myself, and should like to
keep yours till my own arrives, but will return it to you instantly if
wanted. He admits statements rather rashly, as I dare say I do. I see
only one sentence as yet at all approaching natural selection.
There is a notice of me in the penultimate number of 'All the Year
Round,' but not worth consulting; chiefly a well-done hash of my own
words. Your last note was very interesting and consolatory to me.
I have expressly stated that I believe physical conditions have a more
direct effect on plants than on animals. But the more I study, the
more I am led to think that natural selection regulates, in a state
of nature, most trifling differences. As squared stone, or bricks, or
timber, are the indispensable materials for a building, and influence
its character, so is variability not only indispensable, but
influential. Yet in the same manner as the architect is the ALL
important person in a building, so is selection with organic bodies...
[The meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is famous
for two pitched battles over the 'Origin of Species.' Both of them
originated in unimportant papers. On Thursday, June 28, Dr. Daubeny of
Oxford made a communication to Section D: "On the final causes of the
sexuality of plants, with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on
the 'Origin of Species.'" Mr. Huxley was called on by the President, but
tried (according to the "Athenaeum" report) to avoid a discussion, on
the ground "that a general audience, in which sentiment would unduly
interfere with intellect, was not the public before which such a
discussion should be carried on." However, the subject was not allowed
to drop. Sir R. Owen (I quote from the "Athenaeum", July 7, 1860), who
"wished to approach this subject in the spirit of the philosopher,"
expressed his "conviction that there were facts by which the public
could come to some conclusion with regard to the probabilities of the
truth of Mr. Darwin's theory." He went on to say that the brain of the
gorilla "presented more differences, as compared with the brain of man,
than it did when compared with the brains of the very lowest and most
problematical of the Quadrumana." Mr. Huxley replied, and gave these
assertions a "direct and unqualified contradiction," pledging himself to
"justify that unusual procedure elsewhere" ('Man's Place in Nature,' by
T.H. Huxley, 1863, page 114.), a pledge which he amply fulfilled.
(See the 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1861.) On Friday there was peace, but on
Saturday 30th, the battle arose with redoubled fury over a paper by
Dr. Draper of New York, on the 'Intellectual development of Europe
considered with reference to the views of Mr. Darwin.'
The following account is from an eye-witness of the scene.
"The excitement was tremendous. The Lecture-room, in which it had been
arranged that the discussion should be held, proved far too small for
the audience, and the meeting adjourned to the Library of the Museum,
which was crammed to suffocation long before the champions entered
the lists. The numbers were estimated at from 700 to 1000. Had it been
term-time, or had the general public been admitted, it would have been
impossible to have accommodated the rush to hear the oratory of the
bold Bishop. Professor Henslow, the President of Section D, occupied
the chair and wisely announced in limine that none who had not valid
arguments to bring forward on one side or the other, would be allowed to
address the meeting: a caution that proved necessary, for no fewer than
four combatants had their utterances burked by him, because of their
indulgence in vague declamation.
"The Bishop was up to time, and spoke for full half-an-hour with
inimitable spirit, emptiness and unfairness. It was evident from his
handling of the subject that he had been 'crammed' up to the throat, and
that he knew nothing at first hand; in fact, he used no argument not
to be found in his 'Quarterly' article. He ridiculed Darwin badly, and
Huxley savagely, but all in such dulcet tones, so persuasive a manner,
and in such well-turned periods, that I who had been inclined to blame
the President for allowing a discussion that could serve no scientific
purpose now forgave him from the bottom of my heart. Unfortunately the
Bishop, hurried along on the current of his own eloquence, so far forgot
himself as to push his attempted advantage to the verge of personality
in a telling passage in which he turned round and addressed Huxley:
I forgot the precise words, and quote from Lyell. 'The Bishop asked
whether Huxley was related by his grandfather's or grandmother's side to
an ape.' (Lyell's 'Letters,' vol. ii. page 335.) Huxley replied to the
scientific argument of his opponent with force and eloquence, and to
the personal allusion with a sel-restraint, that gave dignity to his
crushing rejoinder."
Many versions of Mr. Huxley's speech were current: the following report
of his conclusion is from a letter addressed by the late John Richard
Green, then an undergraduate, to a fellow-student, now Professor Boyd
Dawkins. "I asserted, and I repeat, that a man has no reason to be
ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor
whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of
restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an equivocal
(Prof. V. Carus, who has a distinct recollection of the scene, does not
remember the word equivocal. He believes too that Lyell's version of
the "ape" sentence is slightly incorrect.) success in his own sphere of
activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real
acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract
the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent
digressions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice."
The letter above quoted continues:
"The excitement was now at its height; a lady fainted and had to be
carried out, and it was some time before the discussion was resumed.
Some voices called for Hooker, and his name having been handed up, the
President invited him to give his view of the theory from the Botanical
side. This he did, demonstrating that the Bishop, by his own showing,
had never grasped the principles of the 'Origin' (With regard to the
Bishop's 'Quarterly Review,' my father wrote: "These very clever men
think they can write a review with a very slight knowledge of the book
reviewed or subject in question."), and that he was absolutely ignorant
of the elements of botanical science. The Bishop made no reply, and the
meeting broke up.
"There was a crowded conversazione in the evening at the rooms of the
hospitable and genial Professor of Botany, Dr. Daubeny, where the almost
sole topic was the battle of the 'Origin,' and I was much struck with
the fair and unprejudiced way in which the black coats and white cravats
of Oxford discussed the question, and the frankness with which they
offered their congratulations to the winners in the combat.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Sudbrook Park, Monday night [July 2nd,
1860].
My dear Hooker,
I have just received your letter. I have been very poorly, with almost
continuous bad headache for forty-eight hours, and I was low enough,
and thinking what a useless burthen I was to myself and all others, when
your letter came, and it has so cheered me; your kindness and affection
brought tears into my eyes. Talk of fame, honour, pleasure, wealth, all
are dirt compared with affection; and this is a doctrine with which, I
know, from your letter, that you will agree with from the bottom of your
heart... How I should have liked to have wandered about Oxford with you,
if I had been well enough; and how still more I should have liked to
have heard you triumphing over the Bishop. I am astonished at your
success and audacity. It is something unintelligible to me how any one
can argue in public like orators do. I had no idea you had this power.
I have read lately so many hostile views, that I was beginning to think
that perhaps I was wholly in the wrong, and that -- was right when he
said the whole subject would be forgotten in ten years; but now that I
hear that you and Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I never
could do), I fully believe that our cause will, in the long-run,
prevail. I am glad I was not in Oxford, for I should have been
overwhelmed, with my [health] in its present state.
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Sudbrook Park, Richmond, July 3rd [1860].
... I had a letter from Oxford, written by Hooker late on Sunday night,
giving me some account of the awful battles which have raged about
species at Oxford. He tells me you fought nobly with Owen (but I have
heard no particulars), and that you answered the B. of O. capitally. I
often think that my friends (and you far beyond others) have good cause
to hate me, for having stirred up so much mud, and led them into so much
odious trouble. If I had been a friend of myself, I should have hated
me. (How to make that sentence good English, I know not.) But remember,
if I had not stirred up the mud, some one else certainly soon would.
I honour your pluck; I would as soon have died as tried to answer the
Bishop in such an assembly...
[On July 20th, my father wrote to Mr. Huxley:
"From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did
the subject great good. It is of enormous importance, the showing the
world that a few first-rate men are not afraid of expressing their
opinion."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [July 1860].
... I have just read the 'Quarterly.' ('Quarterly Review,' July 1860.
The article in question was by Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and
was afterwards published in his "Essays Contributed to the 'Quarterly
Review,' 1874." The passage from the 'Anti-Jacobin' gives the history of
the evolution of space from the "primaeval point or punctum saliens of
the universe," which is conceived to have moved "forward in a right line
ad infinitum, till it grew tired; after which the right line, which
it had generated, would begin to put itself in motion in a lateral
direction, describing an area of infinite extent. This area, as soon
as it became conscious of its own existence, would begin to ascend or
descend according as its specific gravity would determine it, forming
an immense solid space filled with vacuum, and capable of containing the
present universe."
The following (page 263) may serve as an example of the passages in
which the reviewer refers to Sir Charles Lyell:--"That Mr. Darwin should
have wandered from this broad highway of nature's works into the jungle
of fanciful assumption is no small evil. We trust that he is mistaken
in believing that he may count Sir C. Lyell as one of his converts. We
know, indeed, that the strength of the temptations which he can bring to
bear upon his geological brother... Yet no man has been more distinct and
more logical in the denial of the transmutation of species than Sir C.
Lyell, and that not in the infancy of his scientific life, but in its
full vigour and maturity." The Bishop goes on to appeal to Lyell, in
order that with his help "this flimsy speculation may be as completely
put down as was what in spite of all denials we must venture to call its
twin though less instructed brother, the 'Vestiges of Creation.'"
With reference to this article, Mr. Brodie Innes, my father's old friend
and neighbour, writes:--"Most men would have been annoyed by an article
written with the Bishop's accustomed vigour, a mixture of argument
and ridicule. Mr. Darwin was writing on some parish matter, and put a
postscript--'If you have not seen the last 'Quarterly,' do get it; the
Bishop of Oxford has made such capital fun of me and my grandfather.' By
a curious coincidence, when I received the letter, I was staying in the
same house with the Bishop, and showed it to him. He said, 'I am very
glad he takes it in that way, he is such a capital fellow.'") It is
uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural
parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite
splendidly by quoting the 'Anti-Jacobin' versus my Grandfather. You are
not alluded to, nor, strange to say, Huxley; and I can plainly see, here
and there, --'s hand. The concluding pages will make Lyell shake in his
shoes. By Jove, if he sticks to us, he will be a real hero. Good-night.
Your wel-quizzed, but not sorrowful, and affectionate friend.
C.D.
I can see there has been some queer tampering with the Review, for a
page has been cut out and reprinted.
[Writing on July 22 to Dr. Asa Gray my father thus refers to Lyell's
position:--
"Considering his age, his former views and position in society, I think
his conduct has been heroic on this subject."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. [Hartfield, Sussex] July 22nd [1860].
My dear Gray,
Owing to absence from home at water-cure and then having to move my sick
girl to whence I am now writing, I have only lately read the discussion
in Proc. American Acad. (April 10, 1860. Dr. Gray criticised in detail
"several of the positions taken at the preceding meeting by Mr.
[J.A.] Lowell, Prof. Bowen and Prof. Agassiz." It was reprinted in the
"Athenaeum", August 4, 1860.), and now I cannot resist expressing my
sincere admiration of your most clear powers of reasoning. As Hooker
lately said in a note to me, you are more than ANY ONE else the thorough
master of the subject. I declare that you know my book as well as I do
myself; and bring to the question new lines of illustration and argument
in a manner which excites my astonishment and almost my envy! I admire
these discussions, I think, almost more than your article in Silliman's
Journal. Every single word seems weighed carefully, and tells like a
32-pound shot. It makes me much wish (but I know that you have not time)
that you could write more in detail, and give, for instance, the facts
on the variability of the American wild fruits. The "Athenaeum" has
the largest circulation, and I have sent my copy to the editor with a
request that he would republish the first discussion; I much fear he
will not, as he reviewed the subject in so hostile a spirit... I shall
be curious [to see] and will order the August number, as soon as I know
that it contains your review of Reviews. My conclusion is that you have
made a mistake in being a botanist, you ought to have been a lawyer.
... Henslow (Professor Henslow was mentioned in the December number of
'Macmillan's Magazine' as being an adherent of Evolution. In consequence
of this he published, in the February number of the following year, a
letter defining his position. This he did by means of an extract from a
letter addressed to him by the Rev. L. Jenyns (Blomefield) which "very
nearly," as he says, expressed his views. Mr. Blomefield wrote, "I was
not aware that you had become a convert to his (Darwin's) theory, and
can hardly suppose you have accepted it as a whole, though, like myself,
you may go to the length of imagining that many of the smaller groups,
both of animals and plants, may at some remote period have had a common
parentage. I do not with some say that the whole of his theory cannot
be true--but that it is very far from proved; and I doubt its ever being
possible to prove it.") and Daubeny are shaken. I hear from Hooker that
he hears from Hochstetter that my views are making very considerable
progress in Germany, and the good workers are discussing the question.
Bronn at the end of his translation has a chapter of criticism, but it
is such difficult German that I have not yet read it. Hopkins's review
in 'Fraser' is thought the best which has appeared against us. I believe
that Hopkins is so much opposed because his course of study has never
led him to reflect much on such subjects as geographical distribution,
classification, homologies, etc., so that he does not feel it a relief
to have some kind of explanation.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Hartfield [Sussex], July 30th [1860].
... I had lots of pleasant letters about the British Association, and our
side seems to have got on very well. There has been as much discussion
on the other side of the Atlantic as on this. No one I think understands
the whole case better than Asa Gray, and he has been fighting nobly. He
is a capital reasoner. I have sent one of his printed discussions to our
"Athenaeum", and the editor says he will print it. The 'Quarterly' has
been out some time. It contains no malice, which is wonderful... It makes
me say many things which I do not say. At the end it quotes all your
conclusions against Lamarck, and makes a solemn appeal to you to keep
firm in the true faith. I fancy it will make you quake a little. -- has
ingeniously primed the Bishop (with Murchison) against you as head of
the uniformitarians. The only other review worth mentioning, which I can
think of, is in the third No. of the 'London Review,' by some geologist,
and favorable for a wonder. It is very ably done, and I should like
much to know who is the author. I shall be very curious to hear on your
return whether Bronn's German translation of the 'Origin' has drawn
any attention to the subject. Huxley is eager about a 'Natural History
Review,' which he and others are going to edit, and he has got so
many first-rate assistants, that I really believe he will make it
a first-rate production. I have been doing nothing, except a little
botanical work as amusement. I shall hereafter be very anxious to hear
how your tour has answered. I expect your book on the geological history
of Man will, with a vengeance, be a bomb-shell. I hope it will not be
very long delayed. Our kindest remembrances to Lady Lyell. This is not
worth sending, but I have nothing better to say.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO F. WATKINS. (See Volume I.) Down, July 30th, [1860?].
My dear Watkins,
Your note gave me real pleasure. Leading the retired life which I do,
with bad health, I oftener think of old times than most men probably do;
and your face now rises before me, with the pleasant old expression, as
vividly as if I saw you.
My book has been well abused, praised, and splendidly quizzed by the
Bishop of Oxford; but from what I see of its influence on really good
workers in science, I feel confident that, IN THE MAIN, I am on the
right road. With respect to your question, I think the arguments
are valid, showing that all animals have descended from four or five
primordial forms; and that analogy and weak reasons go to show that all
have descended from some single prototype.
Farewell, my old friend. I look back to old Cambridge days with
unalloyed pleasure.
Believe me, yours most sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
T.H. HUXLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN. August 6th, 1860.
My dear Darwin,
I have to announce a new and great ally for you...
Von Baer writes to me thus:--Et outre cela, je trouve que vous ecrivez
encore des redactions. Vous avez ecrit sur l'ouvrage de M. Darwin une
critique dont je n'ai trouve que des debris dans un journal allemand.
J'ai oublie le nom terrible du journal anglais dans lequel se trouve
votre recension. En tout cas aussi je ne peux pas trouver le journal
ici. Comme je m'interesse beaucoup pour les idees de M. Darwin, sur
lesquelles j'ai parle publiquement et sur lesquelles je ferai peut-etre
imprimer quelque chose--vous m'obligeriez infiniment si vous pourriez me
faire parvenir ce que vous avez ecrit sur ces idees.
"J'ai enonce les memes idees sur la transformation des types ou origine
d'especes que M. Darwin. (See Vol. I.) Mais c'est seulement sur la
geographie zoologique que je m'appuie. Vous trouverez, dans le dernier
chapitre du traite 'Ueber Papuas und Alfuren,' que j'en parle tres
decidement sans savoir que M. Darwin s'occupait de cet objet."
The treatise to which Von Baer refers he gave me when over here, but I
have not been able to lay hands on it since this letter reached me two
days ago. When I find it I will let you know what there is in it.
Ever yours faithfully, T.H. HUXLEY.
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, August 8 [1860].
My dear Huxley,
Your note contained magnificent news, and thank you heartily for sending
it me. Von Baer weighs down with a vengeance all the virulence of [the
'Edinburgh' reviewer] and weak arguments of Agassiz. If you write to
Von Baer, for heaven's sake tell him that we should think one nod of
approbation on our side, of the greatest value; and if he does write
anything, beg him to send us a copy, for I would try and get it
translated and published in the "Athenaeum" and in 'Silliman' to touch
up Agassiz... Have you seen Agassiz's weak metaphysical and theological
attack on the 'Origin' in the last 'Silliman'? (The 'American Journal
of Science and Arts' (commonly called 'Silliman's Journal'), July 1860.
Printed from advanced sheets of vol. iii. of 'Contributions to the Nat.
Hist. of the U.S.' My father's copy has a pencilled "Truly" opposite the
following passage:--"Unless Darwin and his followers succeed in showing
that the struggle for life tends to something beyond favouring the
existence of certain individuals over that of other individuals, they
will soon find that they are following a shadow.") I would send it you,
but apprehend it would be less trouble for you to look at it in London
than return it to me. R. Wagner has sent me a German pamphlet ('Louis
Agassiz's Prinzipien der Classification, etc., mit Rucksicht auf Darwins
Ansichten. Separat-Abdruck aus den Gottingischen gelehrten Anzeigen,'
1860.), giving an abstract of Agassiz's 'Essay on Classification,' "mit
Rucksicht auf Darwins Ansichten," etc. etc. He won't go very "dangerous
lengths," but thinks the truth lies half-way between Agassiz and
the 'Origin.' As he goes thus far he will, nolens volens, have to go
further. He says he is going to review me in [his] yearly Report. My
good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel--i.e. the devil's
gospel.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, August 11th [1860].
... I have laughed at Woodward thinking that you were a man who could be
influenced in your judgment by the voice of the public; and yet after
mortally sneering at him, I was obliged to confess to myself, that I had
had fears, what the effect might be of so many heavy guns fired by great
men. As I have (sent by Murray) a spare 'Quarterly Review,' I send it by
this post, as it may amuse you. The Anti-Jacobin part amused me. It is
full of errors, and Hooker is thinking of answering it. There has been
a cancelled page; I should like to know what gigantic blunder it
contained. Hooker says that -- has played on the Bishop, and made him
strike whatever note he liked; he has wished to make the article as
disagreeable to you as possible. I will send the "Athenaeum" in a day or
two.
As you wish to hear what reviews have appeared, I may mention that
Agassiz has fired off a shot in the last 'Silliman,' not good at all,
denies variations and rests on the perfection of Geological evidence.
Asa Gray tells me that a very clever friend has been almost converted
to our side by this review of Agassiz's... Professor Parsons (Theophilus
Parsons, Professor of Law in Harvard University.) has published in
the same 'Silliman' a speculative paper correcting my notions, worth
nothing. In the 'Highland Agricultural Journal' there is a review by
some Entomologist, not worth much. This is all that I can remember... As
Huxley says, the platoon firing must soon cease. Hooker and Huxley, and
Asa Gray, I see, are determined to stick to the battle and not give in;
I am fully convinced that whenever you publish, it will produce a great
effect on all TRIMMERS, and on many others. By the way I forgot
to mention Daubeny's pamphlet ('Remarks on the final causes of the
sexuality of plants with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on
the "Origin of Species."'--British Association Report, 1860.), very
liberal and candid, but scientifically weak. I believe Hooker is going
nowhere this summer; he is excessively busy... He has written me many,
most nice letters. I shall be very curious to hear on your return some
account of your Geological doings. Talking of Geology, you used to
be interested about the "pipes" in the chalk. About three years ago
a perfectly circular hole suddenly appeared in a flat grass field to
everyone's astonishment, and was filled up with many waggon loads of
earth; and now two or three days ago, again it has circularly subsided
about two feet more. How clearly this shows what is still slowly going
on. This morning I recommenced work, and am at dogs; when I have written
my short discussion on them, I will have it copied, and if you like, you
can then see how the argument stands, about their multiple origin. As
you seemed to think this important, it might be worth your reading;
though I do not feel sure that you will come to the same probable
conclusion that I have done. By the way, the Bishop makes a very telling
case against me, by accumulating several instances where I speak very
doubtfully; but this is very unfair, as in such cases as this of the
dog, the evidence is and must be very doubtful...
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, August 11 [1860].
My dear Gray,
On my return home from Sussex about a week ago, I found several articles
sent by you. The first article, from the 'Atlantic Monthly,' I am very
glad to possess. By the way, the editor of the "Athenaeum" (August 4,
1860.) has inserted your answer to Agassiz, Bowen, and Co., and when I
therein read them, I admired them even more than at first. They really
seemed to be admirable in their condensation, force, clearness and
novelty.
I am surprised that Agassiz did not succeed in writing something better.
How absurd that logical quibble--"if species do not exist, how can they
vary?" As if any one doubted their temporary existence. How coolly
he assumes that there is some clearly defined distinction between
individual differences and varieties. It is no wonder that a man who
calls identical forms, when found in two countries, distinct species,
cannot find variation in nature. Again, how unreasonable to suppose that
domestic varieties selected by man for his own fancy should resemble
natural varieties or species. The whole article seems to me poor; it
seems to me hardly worth a detailed answer (even if I could do it, and
I much doubt whether I possess your skill in picking out salient points
and driving a nail into them), and indeed you have already answered
several points. Agassiz's name, no doubt, is a heavy weight against
us...
If you see Professor Parsons, will you thank him for the extremely
liberal and fair spirit in which his Essay ('Silliman's Journal,' July,
1860.) is written. Please tell him that I reflected much on the chance
of favourable monstrosities (i.e. great and sudden variation) arising.
I have, of course, no objection to this, indeed it would be a great aid,
but I do not allude to the subject, for, after much labour, I could find
nothing which satisfied me of the probability of such occurrences.
There seems to me in almost every case too much, too complex, and too
beautiful adaptation, in every structure, to believe in its sudden
production. I have alluded under the head of beautifully hooked seeds
to such possibility. Monsters are apt to be sterile, or NOT to transmit
monstrous peculiarities. Look at the fineness of gradation in the shells
of successive SUB-STAGES of the same great formation; I could give
many other considerations which made me doubt such view. It holds, to a
certain extent, with domestic productions no doubt, where man preserves
some abrupt change in structure. It amused me to see Sir R. Murchison
quoted as a judge of affinities of animals, and it gave me a cold
shudder to hear of any one speculating about a true crustacean
giving birth to a true fish! (Parson's, loc. cit. page 5, speaking of
Pterichthys and Cephalaspis, says:--"Now is it too much to infer from
these facts that either of these animals, if a crustacean, was so nearly
a fish that some of its ova may have become fish; or, if itself a fish,
was so nearly a crustacean that it may have been born from the ovum of a
crustacean?")
Yours most truly, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 1st [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I have been much interested by your letter of the 28th, received this
morning. It has DELIGHTED me, because it demonstrates that you have
thought a good deal lately on Natural Selection. Few things have
surprised me more than the entire paucity of objections and difficulties
new to me in the published reviews. Your remarks are of a different
stamp and new to me. I will run through them, and make a few pleadings
such as occur to me.
I put in the possibility of the Galapagos having been CONTINUOUSLY
joined to America, out of mere subservience to the many who believe in
Forbes's doctrine, and did not see the danger of admission, about small
mammals surviving there in such case. The case of the Galapagos, from
certain facts on littoral sea-shells (viz. Pacific Ocean and South
American littoral species), in fact convinced me more than in any other
case of other islands, that the Galapagos had never been continuously
united with the mainland; it was mere base subservience, and terror of
Hooker and Co.
With respect to atolls, I think mammals would hardly survive VERY LONG,
even if the main islands (for as I have said in the Coral Book, the
outline of groups of atolls do not look like a former CONTINENT) had
been tenanted by mammals, from the extremely small area, the very
peculiar conditions, and the probability that during subsidence all or
nearly all atolls have been breached and flooded by the sea many times
during their existence as atolls.
I cannot conceive any existing reptile being converted into a mammal.
From homologies I should look at it as certain that all mammals had
descended from some single progenitor. What its nature was, it is
impossible to speculate. More like, probably, the Ornithorhynchus
or Echidna than any known form; as these animals combine reptilian
characters (and in a less degree bird character) with mammalian. We
must imagine some form as intermediate, as is Lepidosiren now, between
reptiles and fish, between mammals and birds on the one hand (for they
retain longer the same embryological character) and reptiles on the
other hand. With respect to a mammal not being developed on any island,
besides want of time for so prodigious a development, there must have
arrived on the island the necessary and peculiar progenitor, having
a character like the embryo of a mammal; and not an ALREADY DEVELOPED
reptile, bird or fish.
We might give to a bird the habits of a mammal, but inheritance would
retain almost for eternity some of the bird-like structure, and prevent
a new creature ranking as a true mammal.
I have often speculated on antiquity of islands, but not with your
precision, or at all under the point of view of Natural Selection NOT
having done what might have been anticipated. The argument of littoral
Miocene shells at the Canary Islands is new to me. I was deeply
impressed (from the amount of the denudation) [with the] antiquity of
St. Helena, and its age agrees with the peculiarity of the flora. With
respect to bats at New Zealand (N.B. There are two or three European
bats in Madeira, and I think in the Canary Islands) not having given
rise to a group of non-volant bats, it is, now you put the case,
surprising; more especially as the genus of bats in New Zealand is very
peculiar, and therefore has probably been long introduced, and they now
speak of Cretacean fossils there. But the first necessary step has to
be shown, namely, of a bat taking to feed on the ground, or anyhow, and
anywhere, except in the air. I am bound to confess I do know one single
such fact, viz. of an Indian species killing frogs. Observe, that in my
wretched Polar Bear case, I do show the first step by which conversion
into a whale "would be easy," "would offer no difficulty"!! So with
seals, I know of no fact showing any the least incipient variation of
seals feeding on the shore. Moreover, seals wander much; I searched in
vain, and could not find ONE case of any species of seal confined to
any islands. And hence wanderers would be apt to cross with individuals
undergoing any change on an island, as in the case of land birds of
Madeira and Bermuda. The same remark applies even to bats, as they
frequently come to Bermuda from the mainland, though about 600 miles
distant. With respect to the Amblyrhynchus of the Galapagos, one may
infer as probable, from marine habits being so rare with Saurians, and
from the terrestrial species being confined to a few central islets,
that its progenitor first arrived at the Galapagos; from what country it
is impossible to say, as its affinity I believe is not very clear to
any known species. The offspring of the terrestrial species was probably
rendered marine. Now in this case I do not pretend I can show variation
in habits; but we have in the terrestrial species a vegetable feeder (in
itself a rather unusual circumstance), largely on LICHENS, and it would
not be a great change for its offspring to feed first on littoral algae
and then on submarine algae. I have said what I can in defence, but
yours is a good line of attack. We should, however, always remember
that no change will ever be effected till a variation in the habits or
structure or of both CHANCE to occur in the right direction, so as
to give the organism in question an advantage over other already
established occupants of land or water, and this may be in any
particular case indefinitely long. I am very glad you will read my dogs
MS., for it will be important to me to see what you think of the balance
of evidence. After long pondering on a subject it is often hard to
judge. With hearty thanks for your most interesting letter. Farewell.
My dear old master, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 2nd [1860].
My dear Hooker,
I am astounded at your news received this morning. I am become such an
old fogy that I am amazed at your spirit. For God's sake do not go and
get your throat cut. Bless my soul, I think you must be a little insane.
I must confess it will be a most interesting tour; and, if you get
to the top of Lebanon, I suppose extremely interesting--you ought to
collect any beetles under stones there; but the Entomologists are such
slow coaches. I dare say no result could be made out of them. [They]
have never worked the Alpines of Britain.
If you come across any Brine lakes, do attend to their minute flora and
fauna; I have often been surprised how little this has been attended to.
I have had a long letter from Lyell, who starts ingenious difficulties
opposed to Natural Selection, because it has not done more than it
has. This is very good, as it shows that he has thoroughly mastered the
subject; and shows he is in earnest. Very striking letter altogether and
it rejoices the cockles of my heart.
... How I shall miss you, my best and kindest of friends. God bless you.
Yours ever affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 10 [1860].
... You will be weary of my praise, but it (Dr. Gray in the 'Atlantic
Monthly' for July, 1860.) does strike me as quite admirably argued, and
so well and pleasantly written. Your many metaphors are inimitably good.
I said in a former letter that you were a lawyer, but I made a gross
mistake, I am sure that you are a poet. No, by Jove, I will tell you
what you are, a hybrid, a complex cross of lawyer, poet, naturalist and
theologian! Was there ever such a monster seen before?
I have just looked through the passages which I have marked as appearing
to me extra good, but I see that they are too numerous to specify, and
this is no exaggeration. My eye just alights on the happy comparison
of the colours of the prism and our artificial groups. I see one little
error of fossil CATTLE in South America.
It is curious how each one, I suppose, weighs arguments in a different
balance: embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts
in favour of change of forms, and not one, I think, of my reviewers has
alluded to this. Variation not coming on at a very early age, and being
inherited at not a very early corresponding period, explains, as it
seems to me, the grandest of all facts in natural history, or rather in
zoology, viz. the resemblance of embryos.
[Dr. Gray wrote three articles in the 'Atlantic Monthly' for July,
August, and October, which were reprinted as a pamphlet in 1861, and
now form chapter iii. in 'Darwiniana' (1876), with the heading 'Natural
Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.']
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL Down, September 12th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I never thought of showing your letter to any one. I mentioned in a
letter to Hooker that I had been much interested by a letter of yours
with original objections, founded chiefly on Natural Selection not
having done so much as might have been expected... In your letter just
received, you have improved your case versus Natural Selection; and it
would tell with the public (do not be tempted by its novelty to make
it too strong); yet is seems to me, not REALLY very killing, though I
cannot answer your case, especially, why Rodents have not become
highly developed in Australia. You must assume that they have inhabited
Australia for a very long period, and this may or may not be the case.
But I feel that our ignorance is so profound, why one form is preserved
with nearly the same structure, or advances in organisation or even
retrogrades, or becomes extinct, that I cannot put very great weight on
the difficulty. Then, as you say often in your letter, we know not how
many geological ages it may have taken to make any great advance in
organisation. Remember monkeys in the Eocene formations: but I admit
that you have made out an excellent objection and difficulty, and I
can give only unsatisfactory and quite vague answers, such as you have
yourself put; however, you hardly put weight enough on the absolute
necessity of variations first arising in the right direction, videlicet,
of seals beginning to feed on the shore.
I entirely agree with what you say about only one species of many
becoming modified. I remember this struck me much when tabulating the
varieties of plants, and I have a discussion somewhere on this point. It
is absolutely implied in my ideas of classification and divergence
that only one or two species, of even large genera, give birth to new
species; and many whole genera become WHOLLY extinct... Please see page
341 of the 'Origin.' But I cannot remember that I have stated in the
'Origin' the fact of only very few species in each genus varying. You
have put the view much better in your letter. Instead of saying, as I
often have, that very few species vary at the same time, I ought to
have said, that very few species of a genus EVER vary so as to become
modified; for this is the fundamental explanation of classification, and
is shown in my engraved diagram...
I quite agree with you on the strange and inexplicable fact of
Ornithorhynchus having been preserved, and Australian Trigonia, or the
Silurian Lingula. I always repeat to myself that we hardly know why any
one single species is rare or common in the best-known countries. I have
got a set of notes somewhere on the inhabitants of fresh water; and it
is singular how many of these are ancient, or intermediate forms; which
I think is explained by the competition having been less severe, and
the rate of change of organic forms having been slower in small confined
areas, such as all the fresh waters make compared with sea or land.
I see that you do allude in the last page, as a difficulty, to
Marsupials not having become Placentals in Australia; but this I think
you have no right at all to expect; for we ought to look at Marsupials
and Placentals as having descended from some intermediate and lower
form. The argument of Rodents not having become highly developed
in Australia (supposing that they have long existed there) is much
stronger. I grieve to see you hint at the creation "of distinct
successive types, as well as of a certain number of distinct aboriginal
types." Remember, if you admit this, you give up the embryological
argument (THE WEIGHTIEST OF ALL TO ME), and the morphological or
homological argument. You cut my throat, and your own throat; and I
believe will live to be sorry for it. So much for species.
The striking extract which E. copied was your own writing!! in a note to
me, many long years ago--which she copied and sent to Mme. Sismondi; and
lately my aunt, in sorting her letters, found E.'s and returned them
to her... I have been of late shamefully idle, i.e. observing (Drosera)
instead of writing, and how much better fun observing is than writing.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Sunday
[September 23rd, 1860].
My dear Lyell,
I got your letter of the 18th just before starting here. You speak of
saving me trouble in answering. Never think of this, for I look at every
letter of yours as an honour and pleasure, which is a pretty deal more
than I can say of some of the letters which I receive. I have now one of
13 CLOSELY WRITTEN FOLIO PAGES to answer on species!...
I have a very decided opinion that all mammals must have descended from
a SINGLE parent. Reflect on the multitude of details, very many of them
of extremely little importance to their habits (as the number of
bones of the head, etc., covering of hair, identical embryological
development, etc. etc.). Now this large amount of similarity I must look
at as certainly due to inheritance from a common stock. I am aware that
some cases occur in which a similar or nearly similar organ has been
acquired by independent acts of natural selection. But in most of such
cases of these apparently so closely similar organs, some important
homological difference may be detected. Please read page 193, beginning,
"The electric organs," and trust me that the sentence, "In all these
cases of two very distinct species," etc. etc., was not put in rashly,
for I went carefully into every case. Apply this argument to the whole
frame, internal and external, of mammifers, and you will see why I think
so strongly that all have descended from one progenitor. I have just
re-read your letter, and I am not perfectly sure that I understand your
point.
I enclose two diagrams showing the sort of manner I CONJECTURE that
mammals have been developed. I thought a little on this when writing
page 429, beginning, "Mr. Waterhouse." (Please read the paragraph.) I
have not knowledge enough to choose between these two diagrams. If the
brain of Marsupials in embryo closely resembles that of Placentals,
I should strongly prefer No.2, and this agrees with the antiquity of
Microlestes. As a general rule I should prefer No.1 diagram; whether or
not Marsupials have gone on being developed, or rising in rank, from a
very early period would depend on circumstances too complex for even
a conjecture. Lingula has not risen since the Silurian epoch, whereas
other molluscs may have risen.
Here appear two diagrams.
Diagram I.
A - Mammals, not true Marsupials nor true Placentals. - 2 branches -
Branch I, True Placental, from which branch off Rodents, Insectivora, a
branch terminating in Ruminants and Pachyderms, Canidae and terminates
in Quadrumana. - Branch II, True Marsupial, from which branches off
Kangaroo family an unnamed branch terminating in 2 unnamed branches and
terminates in Didelphys Family.
Diagram II.
A - True Marsupials, lowly developed. - True Marsupials, highly
developed. - 2 branches - Branch I, Placentals, from which branch off
Rodents, Insectivora, a branch terminating in Ruminants and Pachyderms,
Canidae and terminates in Quadrumana. - Branch II, Present Marsupials,
splitting into two branches terminating in Kangaroo family (with 2
unnamed branches) and Didelphys family.
A, in the two diagrams, represents an unknown form, probably
intermediate between Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds, as intermediate as
Lepidosiren now is between Fish and Batrachians. This unknown form is
probably more closely related to Ornithorhynchus than to any other known
form.
I do not think that the multiple origin of dogs goes against the single
origin of man... All the races of man are so infinitely closer together
than to any ape, that (as in the case of descent of all mammals from
one progenitor), I should look at all races of men as having certainly
descended from one parent. I should look at it as probable that the
races of men were less numerous and less divergent formerly than
now, unless, indeed, some lower and more aberrant race even than the
Hottentot has become extinct. Supposing, as I do for one believe, that
our dogs have descended from two or three wolves, jackals, etc.,
yet these have, on OUR VIEW, descended from a single remote unknown
progenitor. With domestic dogs the question is simply whether the whole
amount of difference has been produced since man domesticated a single
species; or whether part of the difference arises in the state of
nature. Agassiz and Co. think the negro and Caucasian are now distinct
species, and it is a mere vain discussion whether, when they were rather
less distinct, they would, on this standard of specific value, deserve
to be called species.
I agree with your answer which you give to yourself on this point; and
the simile of man now keeping down any new man which might be developed,
strikes me as good and new. The white man is "improving off the face
of the earth" even races nearly his equals. With respect to islands, I
think I would trust to want of time alone, and not to bats and Rodents.
N.B.--I know of no rodents on oceanic islands (except my Galapagos
mouse, which MAY have been introduced by man) keeping down the
development of other classes. Still MUCH more weight I should attribute
to there being now, neither in islands nor elsewhere, [any] known
animals of a grade of organisation intermediate between mammals,
fish, reptiles, etc., whence a new mammal could be developed. If
every vertebrate were destroyed throughout the world, except our NOW
WELL-ESTABLISHED reptiles, millions of ages might elapse before reptiles
could become highly developed on a scale equal to mammals; and, on the
principle of inheritance, they would make some quite NEW CLASS, and not
mammals; though POSSIBLY more intellectual! I have not an idea that you
will care for this letter, so speculative.
Most truly yours, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 26 [1860].
... I have had a letter of fourteen folio pages from Harvey against my
book, with some ingenious and new remarks; but it is an extraordinary
fact that he does not understand at all what I mean by Natural
Selection. I have begged him to read the Dialogue in next 'Silliman,' as
you never touch the subject without making it clearer. I look at it
as even more extraordinary that you never say a word or use an epithet
which does not express fully my meaning. Now Lyell, Hooker, and others,
who perfectly understand my book, yet sometimes use expressions to which
I demur. Well, your extraordinary labour is over; if there is any fair
amount of truth in my view, I am well assured that your great labour has
not been thrown away...
I yet hope and almost believe, that the time will come when you will go
further, in believing a very large amount of modification of species,
than you did at first or do now. Can you tell me whether you believe
further or more firmly than you did at first? I should really like to
know this. I can perceive in my immense correspondence with Lyell, who
objected to much at first, that he has, perhaps unconsciousnessly to
himself, converted himself very much during the last six months, and
I think this is the case even with Hooker. This fact gives me far more
confidence than any other fact.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Friday evening
[September 28th, 1860].
... I am very glad to hear about the Germans reading my book. No one will
be converted who has not independently begun to doubt about species. Is
not Krohn (There are two papers by Aug. Krohn, one on the Cement Glands,
and the other on the development of Cirripedes, 'Wiegmann's Archiv,'
xxv. and xxvi. My father has remarked that he "blundered dreadfully
about the cement glands," 'Autobiography.') a good fellow? I have
long meant to write to him. He has been working at Cirripedes, and has
detected two or three gigantic blunders,... about which, I thank Heaven,
I spoke rather doubtfully. Such difficult dissection that even Huxley
failed. It is chiefly the interpretation which I put on parts that is
so wrong, and not the parts which I describe. But they were gigantic
blunders, and why I say all this is because Krohn, instead of crowing at
all, pointed out my errors with the utmost gentleness and pleasantness.
I have always meant to write to him and thank him. I suppose Dr. Krohn,
Bonn, would reach him.
I cannot see yet how the multiple origin of dog can be properly brought
as argument for the multiple origin of man. Is not your feeling a
remnant of the deeply impressed one on all our minds, that a species is
an entity, something quite distinct from a variety? Is it not that the
dog case injures the argument from fertility, so that one main argument
that the races of man are varieties and not species--i.e., because they
are fertile inter se, is much weakened?
I quite agree with what Hooker says, that whatever variation is possible
under culture, is POSSIBLE under nature; not that the same form would
ever be accumulated and arrived at by selection for man's pleasure, and
by natural selection for the organism's own good.
Talking of "natural selection;" if I had to commence de novo, I would
have used "natural preservation." For I find men like Harvey of Dublin
cannot understand me, though he has read the book twice. Dr. Gray of the
British Museum remarked to me that, "SELECTION was obviously impossible
with plants! No one could tell him how it could be possible!" And he may
now add that the author did not attempt it to him!
Yours ever affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 8th
[1860].
My dear Lyell,
I send the [English] translation of Bronn (A MS. translation of Bronn's
chapter of objections at the end of his German translation of the
'Origin of Species.'), the first part of the chapter with generalities
and praise is not translated. There are some good hits. He makes an
apparently, and in part truly, telling case against me, says that I
cannot explain why one rat has a longer tail and another longer ears,
etc. But he seems to muddle in assuming that these parts did not all
vary together, or one part so insensibly before the other, as to be
in fact contemporaneous. I might ask the creationist whether he thinks
these differences in the two rats of any use, or as standing in some
relation from laws of growth; and if he admits this, selection might
come into play. He who thinks that God created animals unlike for mere
sport or variety, as man fashions his clothes, will not admit any force
in my argumentum ad hominem.
Bronn blunders about my supposing several Glacial periods, whether or no
such ever did occur.
He blunders about my supposing that development goes on at the same rate
in all parts of the world. I presume that he has misunderstood this from
the supposed migration into all regions of the more dominant forms.
I have ordered Dr. Bree ('Species not Transmutable,' by C.R. Bree,
1860.), and will lend it to you, if you like, and if it turns out good.
... I am very glad that I misunderstood you about species not having the
capacity to vary, though in fact few do give birth to new species. It
seems that I am very apt to misunderstand you; I suppose I am always
fancying objections. Your case of the Red Indian shows me that we agree
entirely...
I had a letter yesterday from Thwaites of Ceylon, who was much opposed
to me. He now says, "I find that the more familiar I become with your
views in connection with the various phenomena of nature, the more they
commend themselves to my mind."
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. RODWELL. (Rev. J.M. Rodwell, who was at Cambridge
with my father, remembers him saying:--"It strikes me that all our
knowledge about the structure of our earth is very much like what an
old hen would know of a hundred acre field, in a corner of which she is
scratching.") 15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne. November 5th [1860].
My dear Sir,
I am extremely much obliged for your letter, which I can compare only to
a plum-pudding, so full it is of good things. I have been rash about the
cats ("Cats with blue eyes are invariably deaf," 'Origin of Species,'
edition i. page 12.): yet I spoke on what seemed to me, good authority.
The Rev. W.D. Fox gave me a list of cases of various foreign breeds
in which he had observed the correlation, and for years he had vainly
sought an exception. A French paper also gives numerous cases, and one
very curious case of a kitten which GRADUALLY lost the blue colour in
its eyes and as gradually acquired its power of hearing. I had not
heard of your uncle, Mr. Kirby's case (William Kirby, joint author with
Spence, of the well-known 'Introduction to Entomology,' 1818.) (whom I,
for as long as I can remember, have venerated) of care in breeding cats.
I do not know whether Mr. Kirby was your uncle by marriage, but your
letters show me that you ought to have Kirby blood in your veins, and
that if you had not taken to languages you would have been a first-rate
naturalist.
I sincerely hope that you will be able to carry out your intention of
writing on the "Birth, Life, and Death of Words." Anyhow, you have a
capital title, and some think this the most difficult part of a book. I
remember years ago at the Cape of Good Hope, Sir J. Herschel saying to
me, I wish some one would treat language as Lyell has treated geology.
What a linguist you must be to translate the Koran! Having a vilely bad
head for languages, I feel an awful respect for linguists.
I do not know whether my brother-in-law, Hensleigh Wedgwood's
'Etymological Dictionary' would be at all in your line; but he
treats briefly on the genesis of words; and, as it seems to me, very
ingeniously. You kindly say that you would communicate any facts which
might occur to you, and I am sure that I should be most grateful. Of
the multitude of letters which I receive, not one in a thousand is like
yours in value.
With my cordial thanks, and apologies for this untidy letter written in
haste, pray believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours sincerely obliged, CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. November 20th [1860].
... I have not had heart to read Phillips ('Life on the Earth.') yet, or
a tremendous long hostile review by Professor Bowen in the 4to Mem. of
the American Academy of Sciences. ("Remarks on the latest form of the
Development Theory." By Francis Bowen, Professor of Natural Religion and
Moral Philosophy, at Harvard University. 'American Academy of Arts and
Sciences,' vol. viii.) (By the way, I hear Agassiz is going to thunder
against me in the next part of the 'Contributions.') Thank you for
telling me of the sale of the 'Origin,' of which I had not heard. There
will be some time, I presume, a new edition, and I especially want your
advice on one point, and you know I think you the wisest of men, and I
shall be ABSOLUTELY GUIDED BY YOUR ADVICE. It has occurred to me, that
it would PERHAPS be a good plan to put a set of notes (some twenty to
forty or fifty) to the 'Origin,' which now has none, exclusively devoted
to errors of my reviewers. It has occurred to me that where a reviewer
has erred, a common reader might err. Secondly, it will show the reader
that he must not trust implicitly to reviewers. Thirdly, when any
special fact has been attacked, I should like to defend it. I would show
no sort of anger. I enclose a mere rough specimen, done without any care
or accuracy--done from memory alone--to be torn up, just to show the
sort of thing that has occurred to me. WILL YOU DO ME THE GREAT KINDNESS
TO CONSIDER THIS WELL?
It seems to me it would have a good effect, and give some confidence to
the reader. It would [be] a horrid bore going through all the reviews.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
[Here follow samples of foot-notes, the references to volume and page
being left blank. It will be seen that in some cases he seems to have
forgotten that he was writing foot-notes, and to have continued as if
writing to Lyell:--
*Dr. Bree asserts that I explain the structure of the cells of the Hive
Bee by "the exploded doctrine of pressure." But I do not say one word
which directly or indirectly can be interpreted into any reference to
pressure.
*The 'Edinburgh' Reviewer quotes my work as saying that the "dorsal
vertebrae of pigeons vary in number, and disputes the fact." I nowhere
even allude to the dorsal vertebrae, only to the sacral and caudal
vertebrae.
*The 'Edinburgh' Reviewer throws a doubt on these organs being the
Branchiae of Cirripedes. But Professor Owen in 1854 admits, without
hesitation, that they are Branchiae, as did John Hunter long ago.
*The confounded Wealden Calculation to be struck out, and a note to
be inserted to the effect that I am convinced of its inaccuracy from
a review in the "Saturday Review", and from Phillips, as I see in his
Table of Contents that he alludes to it.
*Mr. Hopkins ('Fraser') states--I am quoting only from vague
memory--that, "I argue in favour of my views from the extreme
imperfection of the Geological Record," and says this is the first time
in the history of Science he has ever heard of ignorance being adduced
as an argument. But I repeatedly admit, in the most emphatic language
which I can use, that the imperfect evidence which Geology offers in
regard to transitorial forms is most strongly opposed to my views.
Surely there is a wide difference in fully admitting an objection, and
then in endeavouring to show that it is not so strong as it at first
appears, and in Mr. Hopkins's assertion that I found my argument on the
Objection.
*I would also put a note to "Natural Selection," and show how variously
it has been misunderstood.
*A writer in the 'Edinburgh Philosophical Journal' denies my statement
that the Woodpecker of La Plata never frequents trees. I observed its
habits during two years, but, what is more to the purpose, Azara, whose
accuracy all admit, is more emphatic than I am in regard to its never
frequenting trees. Mr. A. Murray denies that it ought to be called
a woodpecker; it has two toes in front and two behind, pointed tail
feathers, a long pointed tongue, and the same general form of body,
the same manner of flight, colouring and voice. It was classed, until
recently, in the same genus--Picus--with all other woodpeckers, but now
has been ranked as a distinct genus amongst the Picidae. It differs from
the typical Picus only in the beak, not being quite so strong, and in
the upper mandible being slightly arched. I think these facts fully
justify my statement that it is "in all essential parts of its
organisation" a Woodpecker.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 22 [1860].
My dear Huxley,
For heaven's sake don't write an anti-Darwinian article; you would do it
so confoundedly well. I have sometimes amused myself with thinking how
I could best pitch into myself, and I believe I could give two or three
good digs; but I will see you -- first before I will try. I shall be
very impatient to see the Review. (The first number of the new series of
the 'Nat. Hist. Review' appeared in 1861.) If it succeeds it may really
do much, very much good...
I heard to-day from Murray that I must set to work at once on a new
edition (The 3rd edition.) of the 'Origin.' [Murray] says the Reviews
have not improved the sale. I shall always think those early reviews,
almost entirely yours, did the subject an ENORMOUS service. If you
have any important suggestions or criticisms to make on any part of the
'Origin,' I should, of course, be very grateful for [them]. For I mean
to correct as far as I can, but not enlarge. How you must be wearied
with and hate the subject, and it is God's blessing if you do not get to
hate me. Adios.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, November 24th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
I thank you much for your letter. I had got to take pleasure in thinking
how I could best snub my reviewers; but I was determined, in any case,
to follow your advice, and, before I had got to the end of your letter,
I was convinced of the wisdom of your advice. ("I get on slowly with
my new edition. I find that your advice was EXCELLENT. I can answer all
reviews, without any direct notice of them, by a little enlargement
here and there, with here and there a new paragraph. Bronn alone I shall
treat with the respect of giving his objections with his name. I think
I shall improve my book a good deal, and add only some twenty
pages."--From a letter to Lyell, December 4th, 1860.) What an advantage
it is to me to have such friends as you. I shall follow every hint in
your letter exactly.
I have just heard from Murray; he says he sold 700 copies at his sale,
and that he has not half the number to supply; so that I must begin
at once (On the third edition of the 'Origin of Species,' published in
April 1861.)...
P.S.--I must tell you one little fact which has pleased me. You may
remember that I adduce electrical organs of fish as one of the greatest
difficulties which have occurred to me, and -- notices the passage in a
singularly disingenuous spirit. Well, McDonnell, of Dublin (a first-rate
man), writes to me that he felt the difficulty of the whole case as
overwhelming against me. Not only are the fishes which have electric
organs very remote in scale, but the organ is near the head in some,
and near the tail in others, and supplied by wholly different nerves. It
seems impossible that there could be any transition. Some friend, who
is much opposed to me, seems to have crowed over McDonnell, who
reports that he said to himself, that if Darwin is right, there must
be homologous organs both near the head and tail in other non-electric
fish. He set to work, and, by Jove, he has found them! ('On an organ in
the Skate, which appears to be the homologue of the electrical organ of
the Torpedo,' by R. McDonnell, 'Nat. Hist. Review,' 1861, page 57.) so
that some of the difficulty is removed; and is it not satisfactory that
my hypothetical notions should have led to pretty discoveries? McDonnell
seems very cautious; he says, years must pass before he will venture to
call himself a believer in my doctrine, but that on the subjects which
he knows well, viz., Morphology and Embryology, my views accord well,
and throw light on the whole subject.
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 26th, 1860.
My dear Gray,
I have to thank you for two letters. The latter with corrections,
written before you received my letter asking for an American reprint,
and saying that it was hopeless to print your reviews as a pamphlet,
owing to the impossibility of getting pamphlets known. I am very glad to
say that the August or second 'Atlantic' article has been reprinted in
the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History'; but I have not seen it
there. Yesterday I read over with care the third article; and it seems
to me, as before, ADMIRABLE. But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly
go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly
hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the
result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the
result of Design. To take a crucial example, you lead me to infer
(page 414) that you believe "that variation has been led along certain
beneficial lines." I cannot believe this; and I think you would have to
believe, that the tail of the Fantail was led to vary in the number and
direction of its feathers in order to gratify the caprice of a few men.
Yet if the Fantail had been a wild bird, and had used its abnormal tail
for some special end, as to sail before the wind, unlike other birds,
every one would have said, "What a beautiful and designed adaptation."
Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle.
Thank you much for Bowen's 4to. review. ('Memoirs of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences,' vol. viii.) The coolness with which he
makes all animals to be destitute of reason is simply absurd. It is
monstrous at page 103, that he should argue against the possibility of
accumulative variation, and actually leave out, entirely, selection! The
chance that an improved Short-horn, or improved Pouter-pigeon, should be
produced by accumulative variation without man's selection is as almost
infinity to nothing; so with natural species without natural selection.
How capitally in the 'Atlantic' you show that Geology and Astronomy
are, according to Bowen, Metaphysics; but he leaves out this in the 4to.
Memoir.
I have not much to tell you about my Book. I have just heard that Du
Boi-Reymond agrees with me. The sale of my book goes on well, and the
multitude of reviews has not stopped the sale...; so I must begin at
once on a new corrected edition. I will send you a copy for the chance
of your ever re-reading; but, good Heavens, how sick you must be of it!
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 2nd [1860].
... I have got fairly sick of hostile reviews. Nevertheless, they have
been of use in showing me when to expatiate a little and to introduce
a few new discussions. OF COURSE I will send you a copy of the new
edition.
I entirely agree with you, that the difficulties on my notions are
terrific, yet having seen what all the Reviews have said against me,
I have far more confidence in the GENERAL truth of the doctrine than I
formerly had. Another thing gives me confidence, viz. that some who went
half an inch with me now go further, and some who were bitterly
opposed are now less bitterly opposed. And this makes me feel a little
disappointed that you are not inclined to think the general view in
some slight degree more probable than you did at first. This I consider
rather ominous. Otherwise I should be more contented with your degree
of belief. I can pretty plainly see that, if my view is ever to be
generally adopted, it will be by young men growing up and replacing the
old workers, and then young ones finding that they can group facts and
search out new lines of investigation better on the notion of
descent, than on that of creation. But forgive me for running on so
egotistically. Living so solitary as I do, one gets to think in a silly
manner of one's own work.
Ever yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 11th [1860].
... I heard from A. Gray this morning; at my suggestion he is going to
reprint the three 'Atlantic' articles as a pamphlet, and send 250
copies to England, for which I intend to pay half the cost of the
whole edition, and shall give away, and try to sell by getting a few
advertisements put in, and if possible notices in Periodicals.
... David Forbes has been carefully working the Geology of Chile, and as
I value praise for accurate observation far higher than for any other
quality, forgive (if you can) the INSUFFERABLE vanity of my copying the
last sentence in his note: "I regard your Monograph on Chile as, without
exception, one of the finest specimens of Geological enquiry." I feel
inclined to strut like a Turkey-cock!