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