CHAPTER 2.VII. -- PUBLICATION OF THE 'DESCENT OF MAN.'

WORK ON 'EXPRESSION.'

1871-1873.

[The last revise of the 'Descent of Man' was corrected on January 15th,

1871, so that the book occupied him for about three years. He wrote to

Sir J. Hooker: "I finished the last proofs of my book a few days ago,

the work half-killed me, and I have not the most remote idea whether the

book is worth publishing."

He also wrote to Dr. Gray:--

"I have finished my book on the 'Descent of Man,' etc., and its

publication is delayed only by the Index: when published, I will send

you a copy, but I do not know that you will care about it. Parts, as

on the moral sense, will, I dare say, aggravate you, and if I hear from

you, I shall probably receive a few stabs from your polished stiletto of

a pen."

The book was published on February 24, 1871. 2500 copies were printed at

first, and 5000 more before the end of the year. My father notes that he

received for this edition 1470 pounds. The letters given in the present

chapter deal with its reception, and also with the progress of the work

on Expression. The letters are given, approximately, in chronological

order, an arrangement which necessarily separates letters of kindred

subjec-matter, but gives perhaps a truer picture of the mingled

interests and labours of my father's life.

Nothing can give a better idea (in small compass) of the growth of

Evolutionism and its position at this time, than a quotation from Mr.

Huxley ('Contemporary Review,' 1871.):--

"The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more than a decade

from the date of the publication of the 'Origin of Species;' and

whatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the

manner in which he has propounded them, this much is certain, that in a

dozen years the 'Origin of Species' has worked as complete a revolution

in Biological Science as the 'Principia' did in Astronomy;" and it

has done so, "because, in the words of Helmholtz, it contains 'an

essentially new creative thought.' And, as time has slipped by, a happy

change has come over Mr. Darwin's critics. The mixture of ignorance and

insolence which at first characterised a large proportion of the

attacks with which he was assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of

anti-Darwinian criticism."

A passage in the Introduction to the 'Descent of Man' shows that the

author recognised clearly this improvement in the position of Evolution.

"When a naturalist like Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address, as

President of the National Institution of Geneva (1869), 'personne en

Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation independante et de

toutes pieces, des especes,' it is manifest that at least a large number

of naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants

of other species; and this especially holds good with the younger

and rising naturalists... Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural

science, many, unfortunately, are still opposed to Evolution in every

form."

In Mr. James Hague's pleasantly written article, "A Reminiscence of Mr.

Darwin" ('Harper's Magazine,' October 1884), he describes a visit to my

father "early in 1871" (it must have been at the end of February,

within a week after the publication of the book.), shortly after the

publication of the 'Descent of Man.' Mr. Hague represents my father

as "much impressed by the general assent with which his views had been

received," and as remarking that "everybody is talking about it without

being shocked."

Later in the year the reception of the book is described in different

language in the 'Edinburgh Review' (July 1871. An adverse criticism.

The reviewer sums up by saying that: "Never perhaps in the history of

philosophy have such wide generalisations been derived from such a small

basis of fact."): "On every side it is raising a storm of mingled wrath,

wonder, and admiration."

With regard to the subsequent reception of the 'Descent of Man,' my

father wrote to Dr. Dohrn, February 3, 1872:--

"I did not know until reading your article (In 'Das Ausland.'), that my

'Descent of Man' had excited so much furore in Germany. It has had an

immense circulation in this country and in America, but has met the

approval of hardly any naturalists as far as I know. Therefore I suppose

it was a mistake on my part to publish it; but, anyhow, it will pave the

way for some better work."

The book on the 'Expression of the Emotions' was begun on January 17th,

1871, the last proof of the 'Descent of Man' having been finished on

January 15th. The rough copy was finished by April 27th, and shortly

after this (in June) the work was interrupted by the preparation of a

sixth edition of the 'Origin.' In November and December the proofs of

the 'Expression' book were taken in hand, and occupied him until the

following year, when the book was published.

Some references to the work on Expression have occurred in letters

already given, showing that the foundation of the book was, to some

extent, laid down for some years before he began to write it. Thus he

wrote to Dr. Asa Gray, April 15, 1867:--

"I have been lately getting up and looking over my old notes on

Expression, and fear that I shall not make so much of my hobby-horse as

I thought I could; nevertheless, it seems to me a curious subject which

has been strangely neglected."

It should, however, be remembered that the subject had been before his

mind, more or less, from 1837 or 1838, as I judge from entries in

his early note-books. It was in December, 1839, that he began to make

observations on children.

The work required much correspondence, not only with missionaries and

others living among savages, to whom he sent his printed queries, but

among physiologists and physicians. He obtained much information from

Professor Donders, Sir W. Bowman, Sir James Paget, Dr. W. Ogle, Dr.

Crichton Browne, as well as from other observers.

The first letter refers to the 'Descent of Man.']

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 30 [1871].

My dear Wallace,

(In the note referred to, dated January 27, Mr. Wallace wrote:--

"Many thanks for your first volume which I have just finished reading

through with the greatest pleasure and interest; and I have also to

thank you for the great tenderness with which you have treated me and my

heresies."

The heresy is the limitation of natural selection as applied to man.

My father wrote ('Descent of Man,' i. page 137):--"I cannot therefore

understand how it is that Mr. Wallace maintains that 'natural selection

could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to

that of an ape.'" In the above quoted letter Mr. Wallace wrote:--"Your

chapters on 'Man' are of intense interest, but as touching my special

heresy not as yet altogether convincing, though of course I fully agree

with every word and every argument which goes to prove the evolution or

development of man out of a lower form.")

Your note has given me very great pleasure, chiefly because I was

so anxious not to treat you with the least disrespect, and it is so

difficult to speak fairly when differing from any one. If I had offended

you, it would have grieved me more than you will readily believe.

Secondly, I am greatly pleased to hear that Volume I. interests you; I

have got so sick of the whole subject that I felt in utter doubt about

the value of any part. I intended, when speaking of females not having

been specially modified for protection, to include the prevention of

characters acquired by the male being transmitted to the female; but I

now see it would have been better to have said "specially acted on," or

some such term. Possibly my intention may be clearer in Volume II. Let

me say that my conclusions are chiefly founded on the consideration of

all animals taken in a body, bearing in mind how common the rules of

sexual differences appear to be in all classes. The first copy of the

chapter on Lepidoptera agreed pretty closely with you. I then worked

on, came back to Lepidoptera, and thought myself compelled to

alter it--finished Sexual Selection and for the last time went over

Lepidoptera, and again I felt forced to alter it. I hope to God there

will be nothing disagreeable to you in Volume II., and that I have

spoken fairly of your views; I am fearful on this head, because I have

just read (but not with sufficient care) Mivart's book ('The Genesis of

Species,' by St. G. Mivart, 1871.), and I feel ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that

he meant to be fair (but he was stimulated by theological fervour); yet

I do not think he has been quite fair... The part which, I think, will

have most influence is where he gives the whole series of cases like

that of the whalebone, in which we cannot explain the gradational steps;

but such cases have no weight on my mind--if a few fish were extinct,

who on earth would have ventured even to conjecture that lungs had

originated in a swi-bladder? In such a case as the Thylacine, I think he

was bound to say that the resemblance of the jaw to that of the dog

is superficial; the number and correspondence and development of teeth

being widely different. I think again when speaking of the necessity of

altering a number of characters together, he ought to have thought

of man having power by selection to modify simultaneously or almost

simultaneously many points, as in making a greyhound or racehorse--as

enlarged upon in my 'Domestic Animals.' Mivart is savage or contemptuous

about my "moral sense," and so probably will you be. I am extremely

pleased that he agrees with my position, AS FAR AS ANIMAL NATURE IS

CONCERNED, of man in the series; or if anything, thinks I have erred in

making him too distinct.

Forgive me for scribbling at such length. You have put me quite in good

spirits; I did so dread having been unintentionally unfair towards your

views. I hope earnestly the second volume will escape as well. I care

now very little what others say. As for our not quite agreeing, really

in such complex subjects, it is almost impossible for two men who arrive

independently at their conclusions to agree fully, it would be unnatural

for them to do so.

Yours ever, very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

[Professor Haeckel seems to have been one of the first to write to my

father about the 'Descent of Man.' I quote from his reply:--

"I must send you a few words to thank you for your interesting, and I

may truly say, charming letter. I am delighted that you approve of my

book, as far as you have read it. I felt very great difficulty and

doubt how often I ought to allude to what you have published; strictly

speaking every idea, although occurring independently to me, if

published by you previously ought to have appeared as if taken from your

works, but this would have made my book very dull reading; and I hoped

that a full acknowledgment at the beginning would suffice. (In the

introduction to the 'Descent of Man' the author wrote:--

"This last naturalist [Haeckel]... has recently... published his

'Naturliche Schopfungs-geschichte,' in which he fully discusses the

genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been

written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all

the conclusions at which I have arrived, I find confirmed by this

naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.")

I cannot tell you how glad I am to find that I have expressed my high

admiration of your labours with sufficient clearness; I am sure that I

have not expressed it too strongly."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, March 16, 1871.

My dear Wallace,

I have just read your grand review. ("Academy", March 15, 1871.) It is

in every way as kindly expressed towards myself as it is excellent in

matter. The Lyells have been here, and Sir C. remarked that no one wrote

such good scientific reviews as you, and as Miss Buckley added, you

delight in picking out all that is good, though very far from blind to

the bad. In all this I most entirely agree. I shall always consider

your review as a great honour; and however much my book may hereafter

be abused, as no doubt it will be, your review will console me,

notwithstanding that we differ so greatly. I will keep your objections

to my views in my mind, but I fear that the latter are almost

stereotyped in my mind. I thought for long weeks about the inheritance

and selection difficulty, and covered quires of paper with notes in

trying to get out of it, but could not, though clearly seeing that it

would be a great relief if I could. I will confine myself to two or

three remarks. I have been much impressed with what you urge against

colour (Mr. Wallace says that the pairing of butterflies is probably

determined by the fact that one male is stronger-winged, or more

pertinacious than the rest, rather than by the choice of the females.

He quotes the case of caterpillars which are brightly coloured and yet

sexless. Mr. Wallace also makes the good criticism that the 'Descent

of Man' consists of two books mixed together.) in the case of insects,

having been acquired through sexual selection. I always saw that the

evidence was very weak; but I still think, if it be admitted that

the musical instruments of insects have been gained through sexual

selection, that there is not the least improbability in colour having

been thus gained. Your argument with respect to the denudation of

mankind and also to insects, that taste on the part of one sex would

have to remain nearly the same during many generations, in order that

sexual selection should produce any effect, I agree to; and I think this

argument would be sound if used by one who denied that, for instance,

the plumes of birds of Paradise had been so gained. I believe you admit

this, and if so I do not see how your argument applies in other cases. I

have recognized for some short time that I have made a great omission in

not having discussed, as far as I could, the acquisition of taste, its

inherited nature, and its permanence within pretty close limits for long

periods.

[With regard to the success of the 'Descent of Man,' I quote from a

letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871):--

"I think you will be glad to hear, as a proof of the increasing

liberality of England, that my book has sold wonderfully... and as yet

no abuse (though some, no doubt, will come, strong enough), and only

contempt even in the poor old 'Athenaeum'."

As to reviews that struck him he wrote to Mr. Wallace (March 24,

1871):--

"There is a very striking second article on my book in the 'Pall Mall'.

The articles in the "Spectator" ("Spectator", March 11 and 18, 1871.

With regard to the evolution of conscience the reviewer thinks that my

father comes much nearer to the "kernel of the psychological problem"

than many of his predecessors. The second article contains a good

discussion of the bearing of the book on the question of design, and

concludes by finding in it a vindication of Theism more wonderful than

that in Paley's 'Natural Theology.') have also interested me much."

On March 20 he wrote to Mr. Murray:--

"Many thanks for the "Nonconformist" [March 8, 1871]. I like to see all

that is written, and it is of some real use. If you hear of reviewers

in out-of-the-way papers, especially the religious, as "Record",

"Guardian", "Tablet", kindly inform me. It is wonderful that there has

been no abuse ("I feel a full conviction that my chapter on man will

excite attention and plenty of abuse, and I suppose abuse is as good as

praise for selling a book."--(from a letter to Mr. Murray, January

31, 1867.) as yet, but I suppose I shall not escape. On the whole, the

reviews have been highly favourable."

The following extract from a letter to Mr. Murray (April 13, 1871)

refers to a review in the "Times". ("Times", April 7 and 8, 1871. The

review is not only unfavourable as regards the book under discussion,

but also as regards Evolution in general, as the following citation will

show: "Even had it been rendered highly probable, which we doubt, that

the animal creation has been developed into its numerous and widely

different varieties by mere evolution, it would still require an

independent investigation of overwhelming force and completeness to

justify the presumption that man is but a term in this self-evolving

series.")

"I have no idea who wrote the "Times" review. He has no knowledge of

science, and seems to me a wind-bag full of metaphysics and classics, so

that I do not much regard his adverse judgment, though I suppose it will

injure the sale."

A review of the 'Descent of Man,' which my father spoke of as "capital,"

appeared in the "Saturday Review" (March 4 and 11, 1871). A passage from

the first notice (March 4) may be quoted in illustration of the broad

basis as regards general acceptance, on which the doctrine of Evolution

now stood: "He claims to have brought man himself, his origin and

constitution, within that unity which he had previously sought to trace

through all lower animal forms. The growth of opinion in the interval,

due in chief measure to his own intermediate works, has placed the

discussion of this problem in a position very much in advance of that

held by it fifteen years ago. The problem of Evolution is hardly any

longer to be treated as one of first principles; nor has Mr. Darwin to

do battle for a first hearing of his central hypothesis, upborne as

it is by a phalanx of names full of distinction and promise, in either

hemisphere."

The infolded point of the human ear, discovered by Mr. Woolner, and

described in the 'Descent of Man,' seems especially to have struck the

popular imagination; my father wrote to Mr. Woolner:--

"The tips to the ears have become quite celebrated. One reviewer

('Nature') says they ought to be called, as I suggested in joke, Angulus

Woolnerianus. ('Nature' April 6, 1871. The term suggested is Angulus

Woolnerii.) A German is very proud to find that he has the tips well

developed, and I believe will send me a photograph of his ears."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN BRODIE INNES. (Rev. J. Brodie Innes, of Milton

Brodie, formerly Vicar of Down.) Down, May 29 [1871].

My dear Innes,

I have been very glad to receive your pleasant letter, for to tell you

the truth, I have sometimes wondered whether you would not think me

an outcast and a reprobate after the publication of my last book

['Descent']. (In a former letter of my father's to Mr. Innes:--"We often

differed, but you are one of those rare mortals from whom one can differ

and yet feel no shade of animosity, and that is a thing which I should

feel very proud of, if any one could say it of me.") I do not wonder at

all at your not agreeing with me, for a good many professed naturalists

do not. Yet when I see in how extraordinary a manner the judgment of

naturalists has changed since I published the 'Origin,' I feel convinced

that there will be in ten years quite as much unanimity about man, as

far as his corporeal frame is concerned...

[The following letters addressed to Dr. Ogle deal with the progress of

the work on expression.]

Down, March 12 [1871].

My dear Dr. Ogle,

I have received both your letters, and they tell me all that I wanted

to know in the clearest possible way, as, indeed, all your letters have

ever done. I thank you cordially. I will give the case of the murderer

('Expression of the Emotions,' page 294. The arrest of a murderer,

as witnessed by Dr. Ogle in a hospital.) in my hobby-horse essay on

expression. I fear that the Eustachian tube question must have cost

you a deal of labour; it is quite a complete little essay. It is pretty

clear that the mouth is not opened under surprise merely to improve the

hearing. Yet why do deaf men generally keep their mouths open? The other

day a man here was mimicking a deaf friend, leaning his head forward

and sideways to the speaker, with his mouth well open; it was a lifelike

representation of a deaf man. Shakespeare somewhere says: "Hold your

breath, listen" or "hark," I forget which. Surprise hurries the breath,

and it seems to me one can breathe, at least hurriedly, much quieter

through the open mouth than through the nose. I saw the other day

you doubted this. As objection is your province at present, I think

breathing through the nose ought to come within it likewise, so do pray

consider this point, and let me hear your judgment. Consider the nose to

be a flower to be fertilised, and then you will make out all about it.

(Dr. Ogle had corresponded with my father on his own observations on the

fertilisation of flowers.) I have had to allude to your paper on 'Sense

of Smell' (Medico-chirurg. Trans. liii.); is the paging right, namely,

1, 2, 3? If not, I protest by all the gods against the plan followed

by some, of having presentation copies falsely paged; and so does

Rolleston, as he wrote to me the other day. In haste.

Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W. OGLE. Down, March 25 [1871].

My dear Dr. Ogle,

You will think me a horrid bore, but I beg you, IN RELATION TO A NEW

POINT FOR OBSERVATION, to imagine as well as you can that you suddenly

come across some dreadful object, and act with a sudden little start, a

SHUDDER OF HORROR; please do this once or twice, and observe yourself as

well as you can, and AFTERWARDS read the rest of this note, which I have

consequently pinned down. I find, to my surprise, whenever I act thus

my platysma contracts. Does yours? (N.B.--See what a man will do for

science; I began this note with a horrid fib, namely, that I want you to

attend to a new point. (The point was doubtless described as a new one,

to avoid the possibility of Dr. Ogle's attention being directed to the

platysma, a muscle which had been the subject of discussion in other

letters.)) I will try and get some persons thus to act who are so lucky

as not to know that they even possess this muscle, so troublesome for

any one making out about expression. Is a shudder akin to the rigor or

shivering before fever? If so, perhaps the platysma could be observed

in such cases. Paget told me that he had attended much to shivering, and

had written in MS. on the subject, and been much perplexed about it. He

mentioned that passing a catheter often causes shivering. Perhaps I will

write to him about the platysma. He is always most kind in aiding me in

all ways, but he is so overworked that it hurts my conscience to trouble

him, for I have a conscience, little as you have reason to think so.

Help me if you can, and forgive me. Your murderer case has come in

splendidly as the acme of prostration from fear.

Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO DR. OGLE. Down, April 29 [1871].

My dear Dr. Ogle,

I am truly obliged for all the great trouble which you have so kindly

taken. I am sure you have no cause to say that you are sorry you can

give me no definite information, for you have given me far more than I

ever expected to get. The action of the platysma is not very important

for me, but I believe that you will fully understand (for I have always

fancied that our minds were very similar) the intolerable desire I had

not to be utterly baffled. Now I know that it sometimes contracts from

fear and from shuddering, but not apparently from a prolonged state of

fear such as the insane suffer...

[Mr. Mivart's 'Genesis of Species,'--a contribution to the literature of

Evolution, which excited much attention--was published in 1871, before

the appearance of the 'Descent of Man.' To this book the following

letter (June 21, 1871) from the late Chauncey Wright to my father

refers. (Chauncey Wright was born at Northampton, Massachusetts,

September 20, 1830, and came of a family settled in that town since

1654. He became in 1852 a computer in the Nautical Almanac office at

Cambridge, Mass., and lived a quiet uneventful life, supported by the

small stipend of his office, and by what he earned from his occasional

articles, as well as by a little teaching. He thought and read much on

metaphysical subjects, but on the whole with an outcome (as far as the

world was concerned) not commensurate to the power of his mind. He seems

to have been a man of strong individuality, and to have made a lasting

impression on his friends. He died in September, 1875.)]:

"I send... revised proofs of an article which will be published in the

July number of the 'North American Review,' sending it in the hope that

it will interest or even be of greater value to you. Mr. Mivart's book

['Genesis of Species'] of which this article is substantially a

review, seems to me a very good background from which to present the

considerations which I have endeavoured to set forth in the article, in

defence and illustration of the theory of Natural Selection. My special

purpose has been to contribute to the theory by placing it in its proper

relations to philosophical enquiries in general." ('Letters of Chauncey

Wright,' by J.B. Thayer. Privately printed, 1878, page 230.)

With regard to the proofs received from Mr. Wright, my father wrote to

Mr. Wallace:]

Down, July 9 [1871].

My dear Wallace,

I send by this post a review by Chauncey Wright, as I much want your

opinion of it as soon as you can send it. I consider you an incomparably

better critic than I am. The article, though not very clearly written,

and poor in parts from want of knowledge, seems to me admirable.

Mivart's book is producing a great effect against Natural Selection,

and more especially against me. Therefore if you think the article

even somewhat good I will write and get permission to publish it as a

shilling pamphlet, together with the MS. additions (enclosed), for which

there was not room at the end of the review...

I am now at work at a new and cheap edition of the 'Origin,' and shall

answer several points in Mivart's book, and introduce a new chapter for

this purpose; but I treat the subject so much more concretely, and I

dare say less philosophically, than Wright, that we shall not interfere

with each other. You will think me a bigot when I say, after studying

Mivart, I was never before in my life so convinced of the GENERAL (i.e.

not in detail) truth of the views in the 'Origin.' I grieve to see the

omission of the words by Mivart, detected by Wright. ('North American

Review,' volume 113, pages 83, 84. Chauncey Wright points out that the

words omitted are "essential to the point on which he [Mr. Mivart] cites

Mr. Darwin's authority." It should be mentioned that the passage from

which words are omitted is not given within inverted commas by Mr.

Mivart.) I complained to Mivart that in two cases he quotes only the

commencement of sentences by me, and thus modifies my meaning; but I

never supposed he would have omitted words. There are other cases of

what I consider unfair treatment. I conclude with sorrow that though he

means to be honourable he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly...

CHARLES DARWIN TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, July 14, 1871.

My dear Sir,

I have hardly ever in my life read an article which has given me so much

satisfaction as the review which you have been so kind as to send me.

I agree to almost everything which you say. Your memory must be

wonderfully accurate, for you know my works as well as I do myself,

and your power of grasping other men's thoughts is something quite

surprising; and this, as far as my experience goes, is a very rare

quality. As I read on I perceived how you have acquired this power, viz.

by thoroughly analyzing each word.

... Now I am going to beg a favour. Will you provisionally give me

permission to reprint your article as a shilling pamphlet? I ask only

provisionally, as I have not yet had time to reflect on the subject. It

would cost me, I fancy, with advertisements, some 20 or 30 pounds; but

the worst is that, as I hear, pamphlets never will sell. And this makes

me doubtful. Should you think it too much trouble to send me a title FOR

THE CHANCE? The title ought, I think, to have Mr. Mivart's name on it.

... If you grant permission and send a title, you will kindly understand

that I will first make further enquiries whether there is any chance of

a pamphlet being read.

Pray believe me yours very sincerely obliged, CH. DARWIN.

[The pamphlet was published in the autumn, and on October 23 my father

wrote to Mr. Wright:--

"It pleases me much that you are satisfied with the appearance of your

pamphlet. I am sure it will do our cause good service; and this same

opinion Huxley has expressed to me. ('Letters of Chauncey Wright,' page

235."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, July 12 [1871].

... I feel very doubtful how far I shall succeed in answering Mivart, it

is so difficult to answer objections to doubtful points, and make the

discussion readable. I shall make only a selection. The worst of it

is, that I cannot possibly hunt through all my references for isolated

points, it would take me three weeks of intolerably hard work. I wish I

had your power of arguing clearly. At present I feel sick of everything,

and if I could occupy my time and forget my daily discomforts, or rather

miseries, I would never publish another word. But I shall cheer up, I

dare say, soon, having only just got over a bad attack. Farewell;

God knows why I bother you about myself. I can say nothing more about

missing-links than what I have said. I should rely much on pre-silurian

times; but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre. Farewell.

... There is a most cutting review of me in the 'Quarterly' (July 1871.);

I have only read a few pages. The skill and style make me think of

Mivart. I shall soon be viewed as the most despicable of men. This

'Quarterly Review' tempts me to republish Ch. Wright, even if not read

by any one, just to show some one will say a word against Mivart, and

that his (i.e. Mivart's) remarks ought not to be swallowed without some

reflection... God knows whether my strength and spirit will last out to

write a chapter versus Mivart and others; I do so hate controversy and

feel I shall do it so badly.

[The above-mentioned 'Quarterly' review was the subject of an article

by Mr. Huxley in the November number of the 'Contemporary Review.' Here,

also, are discussed Mr. Wallace's 'Contribution to the Theory of Natural

Selection,' and the second edition of Mr. Mivart's 'Genesis of Species.'

What follows is taken from Mr. Huxley's article. The 'Quarterly'

reviewer, though being to some extent an evolutionist, believes that Man

"differs more from an elephant or a gorilla, than do these from the dust

of the earth on which they tread." The reviewer also declares that my

father has "with needless opposition, set at naught the first principles

of both philosophy and religion." Mr. Huxley passes from the 'Quarterly'

reviewer's further statement, that there is no necessary opposition

between evolution and religion, to the more definite position taken by

Mr. Mivart, that the orthodox authorities of the Roman Catholic Church

agree in distinctly asserting derivative creation, so that "their

teachings harmonise with all that modern science can possibly require."

Here Mr. Huxley felt the want of that "study of Christian philosophy"

(at any rate, in its Jesuitic garb), which Mr. Mivart speaks of, and it

was a want he at once set to work to fill up. He was then staying at St.

Andrews, whence he wrote to my father:--

"By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with a good copy

of Suarez (The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies.), in a

dozen big folios. Among these I dived, to the great astonishment of the

librarian, and looking into them 'as the careful robin eyes the delver's

toil' (vide 'Idylls'), I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes

which were most promising." Even those who know Mr. Huxley's unrivalled

power of tearing the heart out of a book must marvel at the skill with

which he has made Suarez speak on his side. "So I have come out," he

wrote, "in the new character of a defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and

upset Mivart out of the mouth of his own prophet."

The remainder of Mr. Huxley's critique is largely occupied with a

dissection of the 'Quarterly' reviewer's psychology, and his ethical

views. He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace's objections to the doctrine of

Evolution by natural causes when applied to the mental faculties of Man.

Finally, he devotes a couple of pages to justifying his description of

the 'Quarterly' reviewer's "treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike unjust and

unbecoming."

It will be seen that the two following letters were written before the

publication of Mr. Huxley's article.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 21 [1871].

My dear Huxley,

Your letter has pleased me in many ways, to a wonderful degree... What

a wonderful man you are to grapple with those old metaphysico-divinity

books. It quite delights me that you are going to some extent to answer

and attack Mivart. His book, as you say, has produced a great effect;

yesterday I perceived the reverberations from it, even from Italy. It

was this that made me ask Chauncey Wright to publish at my expense his

article, which seems to me very clever, though ill-written. He has not

knowledge enough to grapple with Mivart in detail. I think there can

be no shadow of doubt that he is the author of the article in the

'Quarterly Review'... I am preparing a new edition of the 'Origin,' and

shall introduce a new chapter in answer to miscellaneous objections, and

shall give up the greater part to answer Mivart's cases of difficulty of

incipient structures being of no use: and I find it can be done easily.

He never states his case fairly, and makes wonderful blunders... The

pendulum is now swinging against our side, but I feel positive it will

soon swing the other way; and no mortal man will do half as much as you

in giving it a start in the right direction, as you did at the first

commencement. God forgive me for writing so long and egotistical a

letter; but it is your fault, for you have so delighted me; I never

dreamed that you would have time to say a word in defence of the cause

which you have so often defended. It will be a long battle, after we are

dead and gone... Great is the power of misrepresentation...

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 30 [1871].

My dear Huxley,

It was very good of you to send the proof-sheets, for I was VERY anxious

to read your article. I have been delighted with it. How you do smash

Mivart's theology: it is almost equal to your article versus Comte

('Fortnightly Review,' 1869. With regard to the relations of Positivism

to Science my father wrote to Mr. Spencer in 1875: "How curious and

amusing it is to see to what an extent the Positivists hate all men of

science; I fancy they are dimly conscious what laughable and

gigantic blunders their prophet made in predicting the course

of science."),--that never can be transcended... But I have been

preeminently glad to read your discussion on [the 'Quarterly'

reviewer's] metaphysics, especially about reason and his definition of

it. I felt sure he was wrong, but having only common observation and

sense to trust to, I did not know what to say in my second edition of

my 'Descent.' Now a footnote and reference to you will do the work... For

me, this is one of the most IMPORTANT parts of the review. But for

PLEASURE, I have been particularly glad that my few words ('Descent of

Man,' volume i. page 87. A discussion on the question whether an

act done impulsively or instinctively can be called moral.) on the

distinction, if it can be so called, between Mivart's two forms of

morality, caught your attention. I am so pleased that you take the same

view, and give authorities for it; but I searched Mill in vain on this

head. How well you argue the whole case. I am mounting climax on climax;

for after all there is nothing, I think, better in your whole review

than your arguments v. Wallace on the intellect of savages. I must tell

you what Hooker said to me a few years ago. "When I read Huxley, I feel

quite infantile in intellect." By Jove I have felt the truth of this

throughout your review. What a man you are. There are scores of splendid

passages, and vivid flashes of wit. I have been a good deal more than

merely pleased by the concluding part of your review; and all the more,

as I own I felt mortified by the accusation of bigotry, arrogance, etc.,

in the 'Quarterly Review.' But I assure you, he may write his worst, and

he will never mortify me again.

My dear Huxley, yours gratefully, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Haredene, Albury, August 2 [1871].

My dear Sir,

Your last letter has interested me greatly; it is wonderfully rich in

facts and original thoughts. First, let me say that I have been much

pleased by what you say about my book. It has had a VERY LARGE sale; but

I have been much abused for it, especially for the chapter on the moral

sense; and most of my reviewers consider the book as a poor affair. God

knows what its merits may really be; all that I know is that I did my

best. With familiarity I think naturalists will accept sexual selection

to a greater extent than they now seem inclined to do. I should very

much like to publish your letter, but I do not see how it could be

made intelligible, without numerous coloured illustrations, but I will

consult Mr. Wallace on this head. I earnestly hope that you keep notes

of all your letters, and that some day you will publish a book: 'Notes

of a Naturalist in S. Brazil,' or some such title. Wallace will hardly

admit the possibility of sexual selection with Lepidoptera, and no doubt

it is very improbable. Therefore, I am very glad to hear of your cases

(which I will quote in the next edition) of the two sets of Hesperiadae,

which display their wings differently, according to which surface

is coloured. I cannot believe that such display is accidental and

purposeless...

No fact of your letter has interested me more than that about mimicry.

It is a capital fact about the males pursuing the wrong females. You put

the difficulty of the first steps in imitation in a most striking and

CONVINCING manner. Your idea of sexual selection having aided protective

imitation interests me greatly, for the same idea had occurred to me in

quite different cases, viz. the dulness of all animals in the Galapagos

Islands, Patagonia, etc., and in some other cases; but I was afraid

even to hint at such an idea. Would you object to my giving some such

sentence as follows: "F. Muller suspects that sexual selection may

have come into play, in aid of protective imitation, in a very peculiar

manner, which will appear extremely improbable to those who do not fully

believe in sexual selection. It is that the appreciation of certain

colour is developed in those species which frequently behold other

species thus ornamented." Again let me thank you cordially for your most

interesting letter...

CHARLES DARWIN TO E.B. TYLOR. Down, [September 24, 1871].

My dear Sir,

I hope that you will allow me to have the pleasure of telling you how

greatly I have been interested by your 'Primitive Culture,' now that

I have finished it. It seems to me a most profound work, which will

be certain to have permanent value, and to be referred to for years to

come. It is wonderful how you trace animism from the lower races up

to the religious belief of the highest races. It will make me for the

future look at religion--a belief in the soul, etc.--from a new point

of view. How curious, also, are the survivals or rudiments of old

customs... You will perhaps be surprised at my writing at so late

a period, but I have had the book read aloud to me, and from much

ill-health of late could only stand occasional short reads. The

undertaking must have cost you gigantic labour. Nevertheless, I

earnestly hope that you may be induced to treat morals in the same

enlarged yet careful manner, as you have animism. I fancy from the last

chapter that you have thought of this. No man could do the work so well

as you, and the subject assuredly is a most important and interesting

one. You must now possess references which would guide you to a sound

estimation of the morals of savages; and how writers like Wallace,

Lubbock, etc., etc., do differ on this head. Forgive me for troubling

you, and believe me, with much respect,

Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

1872.

[At the beginning of the year the sixth edition of the 'Origin,' which

had been begun in June, 1871, was nearly completed. The last sheet was

revised on January 10, 1872, and the book was published in the course of

the month. This volume differs from the previous ones in appearance and

size--it consists of 458 pages instead of 596 pages and is a few ounces

lighter; it is printed on bad paper, in small type, and with the

lines unpleasantly close together. It had, however, one advantage over

previous editions, namely that it was issued at a lower price. It is

to be regretted that this the final edition of the 'Origin' should have

appeared in so unattractive a form; a form which has doubtless kept off

many readers from the book.

The discussion suggested by the 'Genesis of Species' was perhaps the

most important addition to the book. The objection that incipient

structures cannot be of use was dealt with in some detail, because it

seemed to the author that this was the point in Mr. Mivart's book which

has struck most readers in England.

It is a striking proof of how wide and general had become the acceptance

of his views that my father found it necessary to insert (sixth edition,

page 424), the sentence: "As a record of a former state of things, I

have retained in the foregoing paragraphs and also elsewhere, several

sentences which imply that naturalists believe in the separate creation

of each species; and I have been much censured for having thus expressed

myself. But undoubtedly this was the general belief when the first

edition of the present work appeared... Now things are wholly changed,

and almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution."

A small correction introduced into this sixth edition is connected with

one of his minor papers: "Note on the habits of the Pampas Woodpecker."

(Zoolog. Soc. Proc. 1870.) In the fifth edition of the 'Origin,' page

220, he wrote:--

"Yet as I can assert not only from my own observation, but from that of

the accurate Azara, it [the ground woodpecker] never climbs a tree." The

paper in question was a reply to Mr. Hudson's remarks on the woodpecker

in a previous number of the same journal. The last sentence of my

father's paper is worth quoting for its temperate tone: "Finally, I

trust that Mr. Hudson is mistaken when he says that any one acquainted

with the habits of this bird might be induced to believe that I 'had

purposely wrested the truth' in order to prove my theory. He exonerates

me from this charge; but I should be loath to think that there are many

naturalists who, without any evidence, would accuse a fellow-worker

of telling a deliberate falsehood to prove his theory." In the sixth

edition, page 142, the passage runs "in certain large districts it does

not climb trees." And he goes on to give Mr. Hudson's statement that in

other regions it does frequent trees.

One of the additions in the sixth edition (page 149), was a reference

to Mr. A. Hyatt's and Professor Cope's theory of "acceleration." With

regard to this he wrote (October 10, 1872) in characteristic words to

Mr. Hyatt:--

"Permit me to take this opportunity to express my sincere regret at

having committed two grave errors in the last edition of my 'Origin

of Species,' in my allusion to yours and Professor Cope's views

on acceleration and retardation of development. I had thought that

Professor Cope had preceded you; but I now well remember having formerly

read with lively interest, and marked, a paper by you somewhere in my

library, on fossil Cephalapods with remarks on the subject. It seems

also that I have quite misrepresented your joint view. This has vexed me

much. I confess that I have never been able to grasp fully what you wish

to show, and I presume that this must be owing to some dulness on my

part."

Lastly, it may be mentioned that this cheap edition being to some extent

intended as a popular one, was made to include a glossary of technical

terms, "given because several readers have complained... that some of the

terms used were unintelligible to them." The glossary was compiled by

Mr. Dallas, and being an excellent collection of clear and sufficient

definitions, must have proved useful to many readers.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, January 15, 1872.

My dear Sir,

I am much obliged for your very kind letter and exertions in my favour.

I had thought that the publication of my last book ['Descent of Man']

would have destroyed all your sympathy with me, but though I estimated

very highly your great liberality of mind, it seems that I underrated

it.

I am gratified to hear that M. Lacaze-Duthiers will vote (He was not

elected as a corresponding member of the French Academy until 1878.) for

me, for I have long honoured his name. I cannot help regretting that you

should expend your valuable time in trying to obtain for me the honour

of election, for I fear, judging from the last time, that all your

labour will be in vain. Whatever the result may be, I shall always

retain the most lively recollection of your sympathy and kindness, and

this will quite console me for my rejection.

With much respect and esteem, I remain, dear Sir,

Yours truly obliged, CHARLES DARWIN.

P.S.--With respect to the great stress which you lay on man walking on

two legs, whilst the quadrumana go on all fours, permit me to remind you

that no one much values the great difference in the mode of locomotion,

and consequently in structure, between seals and the terrestrial

carnivora, or between the almost biped kangaroos and other marsupials.

CHARLES DARWIN TO AUGUST WEISMANN. (Professor of Zoology in Freiburg.)

Down, April 5, 1872.

My dear Sir,

I have now read your essay ('Ueber den Einfluss der Isolirung auf die

Artbildung.' Leipzig, 1872.) with very great interest. Your view of the

'Origin' of local races through "Amixie," is altogether new to me,

and seems to throw an important light on an obscure problem. There

is, however, something strange about the periods or endurance of

variability. I formerly endeavoured to investigate the subject, not

by looking to past time, but to species of the same genus widely

distributed; and I found in many cases that all the species, with

perhaps one or two exceptions, were variable. It would be a very

interesting subject for a conchologist to investigate, viz., whether

the species of the same genus were variable during many successive

geological formations. I began to make enquiries on this head, but

failed in this, as in so many other things, from the want of time and

strength. In your remarks on crossing, you do not, as it seems to

me, lay nearly stress enough on the increased vigour of the offspring

derived from parents which have been exposed to different conditions. I

have during the last five years been making experiments on this subject

with plants, and have been astonished at the results, which have not yet

been published.

In the first part of your essay, I thought that you wasted (to use an

English expression) too much powder and shot on M. Wagner (Prof. Wagner

has written two essays on the same subject. 'Die Darwin'sche Theorie

und das Migrationsgesetz, in 1868, and 'Ueber den Einfluss der

Geographischen Isolirung, etc.,' an address to the Bavarian Academy

of Sciences at Munich, 1870.); but I changed my opinion when I saw how

admirably you treated the whole case, and how well you used the

facts about the Planorbis. I wish I had studied this latter case more

carefully. The manner in which, as you show, the different varieties

blend together and make a constant whole, agrees perfectly with my

hypothetical illustrations.

Many years ago the late E. Forbes described three closely consecutive

beds in a secondary formation, each with representative forms of the

same fres-water shells: the case is evidently analogous with that

of Hilgendorf ("Ueber Planorbis multiformis im Steinheimer

Susswasser-kalk." Monatsbericht of the Berlin Academy, 1866.), but the

interesting connecting varieties or links were here absent. I rejoice

to think that I formerly said as emphatically as I could, that neither

isolation nor time by themselves do anything for the modification

of species. Hardly anything in your essay has pleased me so much

personally, as to find that you believe to a certain extent in sexual

selection. As far as I can judge, very few naturalists believe in this.

I may have erred on many points, and extended the doctrine too far,

but I feel a strong conviction that sexual selection will hereafter be

admitted to be a powerful agency. I cannot agree with what you say about

the taste for beauty in animals not easily varying. It may be suspected

that even the habit of viewing differently coloured surrounding objects

would influence their taste, and Fritz Muller even goes so far as to

believe that the sight of gaudy butterflies might influence the taste

of distinct species. There are many remarks and statements in your essay

which have interested me greatly, and I thank you for the pleasure which

I have received from reading it.

With sincere respect, I remain, My dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

CHARLES DARWIN.

P.S.--If you should ever be induced to consider the whole doctrine of

sexual selection, I think that you will be led to the conclusion, that

characters thus gained by one sex are very commonly transferred in a

greater or less degree to the other sex.

[With regard to Moritz Wagner's first Essay, my father wrote to that

naturalist, apparently in 1868:]

Dear and respected Sir,

I thank you sincerely for sending me your 'Migrationsgesetz, etc.,' and

for the very kind and most honourable notice which you have taken of my

works. That a naturalist who has travelled into so many and such distant

regions, and who has studied animals of so many classes, should, to a

considerable extent, agree with me, is, I can assure you, the highest

gratification of which I am capable... Although I saw the effects of

isolation in the case of islands and mountain-ranges, and knew of a few

instances of rivers, yet the greater number of your facts were quite

unknown to me. I now see that from the want of knowledge I did not make

nearly sufficient use of the views which you advocate; and I almost wish

I could believe in its importance to the same extent with you; for you

well show, in a manner which never occurred to me, that it removes many

difficulties and objections. But I must still believe that in many large

areas all the individuals of the same species have been slowly modified,

in the same manner, for instance, as the English race-horse has

been improved, that is by the continued selection of the fleetest

individuals, without any separation. But I admit that by this process

two or more new species could hardly be found within the same limited

area; some degree of separation, if not indispensable, would be highly

advantageous; and here your facts and views will be of great value...

[The following letter bears on the same subject. It refers to Professor

M. Wagner's Essay, published in "Das Ausland", May 31, 1875:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO MORITZ WAGNER. Down, October 13, 1876.

Dear Sir,

I have now finished reading your essays, which have interested me in a

very high degree, notwithstanding that I differ much from you on various

points. For instance, several considerations make me doubt whether

species are much more variable at one period than at another, except

through the agency of changed conditions. I wish, however, that I

could believe in this doctrine, as it removes many difficulties. But

my strongest objection to your theory is that it does not explain the

manifold adaptations in structure in every organic being--for instance

in a Picus for climbing trees and catching insects--or in a Strix for

catching animals at night, and so on ad infinitum. No theory is in the

least satisfactory to me unless it clearly explains such adaptations. I

think that you misunderstand my views on isolation. I believe that all

the individuals of a species can be slowly modified within the same

district, in nearly the same manner as man effects by what I have called

the process of unconscious selection... I do not believe that one species

will give birth to two or more new species as long as they are mingled

together within the same district. Nevertheless I cannot doubt that many

new species have been simultaneously developed within the same large

continental area; and in my 'Origin of Species' I endeavoured to

explain how two new species might be developed, although they met and

intermingled on the BORDERS of their range. It would have been a strange

fact if I had overlooked the importance of isolation, seeing that it was

such cases as that of the Galapagos Archipelago, which chiefly led me

to study the origin of species. In my opinion the greatest error which

I have committed, has been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct

action of the environment, i.e. food, climate, etc., independently

of natural selection. Modifications thus caused, which are neither of

advantage nor disadvantage to the modified organism, would be especially

favoured, as I can now see chiefly through your observations, by

isolation in a small area, where only a few individuals lived under

nearly uniform conditions.

When I wrote the 'Origin,' and for some years afterwards, I could find

little good evidence of the direct action of the environment; now there

is a large body of evidence, and your case of the Saturnia is one of the

most remarkable of which I have heard. Although we differ so greatly,

I hope that you will permit me to express my respect for your

long-continued and successful labours in the good cause of natural

science.

I remain, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

[The two following letters are also of interest as bearing on my

father's views on the action of isolation as regards the origin of new

species:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER. Down, November 26, 1878.

My dear Professor Semper,

When I published the sixth edition of the 'Origin,' I thought a

good deal on the subject to which you refer, and the opinion therein

expressed was my deliberate conviction. I went as far as I could,

perhaps too far in agreement with Wagner; since that time I have seen no

reason to change my mind, but then I must add that my attention has been

absorbed on other subjects. There are two different classes of cases, as

it appears to me, viz. those in which a species becomes slowly modified

in the same country (of which I cannot doubt there are innumerable

instances) and those cases in which a species splits into two or three

or more new species, and in the latter case, I should think nearly

perfect separation would greatly aid in their "specification," to coin a

new word.

I am very glad that you are taking up this subject, for you will be sure

to throw much light on it. I remember well, long ago, oscillating much;

when I thought of the Fauna and Flora of the Galapagos Islands I was all

for isolation, when I thought of S. America I doubted much. Pray believe

me,

Yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

P.S.--I hope that this letter will not be quite illegible, but I have no

amanuensis at present.

CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER. Down, November 30, 1878.

Dear Professor Semper,

Since writing I have recalled some of the thoughts and conclusions which

have passed through my mind of late years. In North America, in going

from north to south or from east to west, it is clear that the changed

conditions of life have modified the organisms in the different regions,

so that they now form distinct races or even species. It is further

clear that in isolated districts, however small, the inhabitants almost

always get slightly modified, and how far this is due to the nature of

the slightly different conditions to which they are exposed, and how far

to mere interbreeding, in the manner explained by Weismann, I can

form no opinion. The same difficulty occurred to me (as shown in my

'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication') with respect to

the aboriginal breeds of cattle, sheep, etc., in the separated districts

of Great Britain, and indeed throughout Europe. As our knowledge

advances, very slight differences, considered by systematists as of

no importance in structure, are continually found to be functionally

important; and I have been especially struck with this fact in the case

of plants to which my observations have of late years been confined.

Therefore it seems to me rather rash to consider the slight differences

between representative species, for instance those inhabiting the

different islands of the same archipelago, as of no functional

importance, and as not in any way due to natural selection. With respect

to all adapted structures, and these are innumerable, I cannot see

how M. Wagner's view throws any light, nor indeed do I see at all more

clearly than I did before, from the numerous cases which he has brought

forward, how and why it is that a long isolated form should almost

always become slightly modified. I do not know whether you will care

about hearing my further opinion on the point in question, for as before

remarked I have not attended much of late years to such questions,

thinking it prudent, now that I am growing old, to work at easier

subjects.

Believe me, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

I hope and trust that you will throw light on these points.

P.S.--I will add another remark which I remember occurred to me when I

first read M. Wagner. When a species first arrives on a small island,

it will probably increase rapidly, and unless all the individuals change

instantaneously (which is improbable in the highest degree), the slowly,

more or less, modifying offspring must intercross one with another, and

with their unmodified parents, and any offspring not as yet modified.

The case will then be like that of domesticated animals which have

slowly become modified, either by the action of the external conditions

or by the process which I have called the UNCONSCIOUS SELECTION by

man--i.e., in contrast with methodical selection.

[The letters continue the history of the year 1872, which has been

interrupted by a digression on Isolation.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO THE MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. Down, April 8, 1872.

Dear Sir,

I thank you very sincerely and feel much honoured by the trouble which

you have taken in giving me your reflections on the origin of Man. It

gratifies me extremely that some parts of my work have interested you,

and that we agree on the main conclusion of the derivation of man from

some lower form.

I will reflect on what you have said, but I cannot at present give up my

belief in the close relationship of Man to the higher Simiae. I do not

put much trust in any single character, even that of dentition; but

I put the greatest faith in resemblances in many parts of the whole

organisation, for I cannot believe that such resemblances can be due to

any cause except close blood relationship. That man is closely allied to

the higher Simiae is shown by the classification of Linnaeus, who was

so good a judge of affinity. The man who in England knows most about the

structure of the Simiae, namely, Mr. Mivart, and who is bitterly opposed

to my doctrines about the derivation of the mental powers, yet has

publicly admitted that I have not put man too close to the higher

Simiae, as far as bodily structure is concerned. I do not think the

absence of reversions of structure in man is of much weight; C. Vogt,

indeed, argues that [the existence of] Micr-cephalous idiots is a case

of reversion. No one who believes in Evolution will doubt that the

Phocae are descended from some terrestrial Carnivore. Yet no one would

expect to meet with any such reversion in them. The lesser divergence of

character in the races of man in comparison with the species of Simiadae

may perhaps be accounted for by man having spread over the world at a

much later period than did the Simiadae. I am fully prepared to

admit the high antiquity of man; but then we have evidence, in the

Dryopithecus, of the high antiquity of the Anthropomorphous Simiae.

I am glad to hear that you are at work on your fossil plants, which of

late years have afforded so rich a field for discovery. With my best

thanks for your great kindness, and with much respect, I remain,

Dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

[In April, 1872, he was elected to the Royal Society of Holland, and

wrote to Professor Donders:--

"Very many thanks for your letter. The honour of being elected a foreign

member of your Royal Society has pleased me much. The sympathy of his

fellow workers has always appeared to me by far the highest reward

to which any scientific man can look. My gratification has been not a

little increased by first hearing of the honour from you."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, June 3, 1872.

My dear Sir,

Many thanks for your article (The proof-sheets of an article which

appeared in the July number of the 'North American Review.' It was a

rejoinder to Mr. Mivart's reply ('North American Review,' April 1872) to

Mr. Chauncey Wright's pamphlet. Chauncey Wright says of it ('Letters,'

page 238):--"It is not properly a rejoinder but a new article, repeating

and expounding some of the points of my pamphlet, and answering some

of Mr. Mivart's replies incidentally.") in the 'North American Review,'

which I have read with great interest. Nothing can be clearer than the

way in which you discuss the permanence or fixity of species. It never

occurred to me to suppose that any one looked at the case as it seems

Mr. Mivart does. Had I read his answer to you, perhaps I should have

perceived this; but I have resolved to waste no more time in reading

reviews of my works or on Evolution, excepting when I hear that they

are good and contain new matter... It is pretty clear that Mr. Mivart has

come to the end of his tether on this subject.

As your mind is so clear, and as you consider so carefully the meaning

of words, I wish you would take some incidental occasion to consider

when a thing may properly be said to be effected by the will of man.

I have been led to the wish by reading an article by your Professor

Whitney versus Schleicher. He argues, because each step of change in

language is made by the will of man, the whole language so changes;

but I do not think that this is so, as man has no intention or wish

to change the language. It is a parallel case with what I have called

"unconscious selection," which depends on men consciously preserving the

best individuals, and thus unconsciously altering the breed.

My dear Sir, yours sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.

[Not long afterwards (September) Mr. Chauncey Wright paid a visit to

Down (Mr. and Mrs. C.L. Brace, who had given much of their lives to

philanthropic work in New York, also paid a visit at Down in this

summer. Some of their work is recorded in Mr. Brace's 'The Dangerous

Classes of New York,' and of this book my father wrote to the author:--

"Since you were here my wife has read aloud to me more than half of your

work, and it has interested us both in the highest degree, and we shall

read every word of the remainder. The facts seem to me very well told,

and the inferences very striking. But after all this is but a weak part

of the impression left on our minds by what we have read; for we are

both filled with earnest admiration at the heroic labours of yourself

and others."), which he described in a letter ('Letters, page 246-248.)

to Miss S. Sedgwick (now Mrs. William Darwin): "If you can imagine

me enthusiastic--absolutely and unqualifiedly so, without a BUT or

criticism, then think of my last evening's and this morning's talks with

Mr. Darwin... I was never so worked up in my life, and did not sleep many

hours under the hospitable roof... It would be quite impossible to give

by way of report any idea of these talks before and at and after dinner,

at breakfast, and at leav-taking; and yet I dislike the egotism of

'testifying' like other religious enthusiasts, without any verification,

or hint of similar experience."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO HERBERT SPENCER. Bassett, Southampton, June 10,

[1872].

Dear Spencer,

I dare say you will think me a foolish fellow, but I cannot resist the

wish to express my unbounded admiration of your article ('Mr. Martineau

on Evolution,' by Herbert Spencer, 'Contemporary Review,' July 1872.)

in answer to Mr. Martineau. It is, indeed, admirable, and hardly less

so your second article on Sociology (which, however, I have not yet

finished): I never believed in the reigning influence of great men on

the world's progress; but if asked why I did not believe, I should have

been sorely perplexed to have given a good answer. Every one with eyes

to see and ears to hear (the number, I fear, are not many) ought to bow

their knee to you, and I for one do.

Believe me, yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 12 [1872].

My dear Hooker,

I must exhale and express my joy at the way in which the newspapers have

taken up your case. I have seen the "Times", the "Daily News", and the

"Pall Mall", and hear that others have taken up the case.

The Memorial has done great good this way, whatever may be the result in

the action of our wretched Government. On my soul, it is enough to make

one turn into an old honest Tory...

If you answer this, I shall be sorry that I have relieved my feelings by

writing.

Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

[The memorial here referred to was addressed to Mr. Gladstone, and was

signed by a number of distinguished men, including Sir Charles Lyell,

Mr. Bentham, Mr. Huxley, and Sir James Paget. It gives a complete

account of the arbitrary and unjust treatment received by Sir J.D.

Hooker at the hands of his official chief, the First Commissioner of

Works. The document is published in full in 'Nature' (July 11, 1872),

and is well worth studying as an example of the treatment which it is

possible for science to receive from officialism. As 'Nature' observes,

it is a paper which must be read with the greatest indignation by

scientific men in every part of the world, and with shame by all

Englishmen. The signatories of the memorial conclude by protesting

against the expected consequences of Sir Joseph Hooker's

persecution--namely his resignation, and the loss of "a man honoured for

his integrity, beloved for his courtesy and kindliness of heart; and who

has spent in the public service not only a stainless but an illustrious

life."

Happily this misfortune was averted, and Sir Joseph was freed from

further molestation.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, August 3 [1872].

My dear Wallace,

I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps because I do it badly; but as

Dr. Bree accuses you (Mr. Wallace had reviewed Dr. Bree's book, 'An

Exposition of Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin,' in 'Nature,'

July 25, 1872.) of "blundering," I have thought myself bound to send

the enclosed letter (The letter is as follows:--"Bree on Darwinism."

'Nature,' August 8, 1872. Permit me to state--though the statement is

almost superfluous--that Mr. Wallace, in his review of Dr. Bree's work,

gives with perfect correctness what I intended to express, and what I

believe was expressed clearly, with respect to the probable position

of man in the early part of his pedigree. As I have not seen Dr. Bree's

recent work, and as his letter is unintelligible to me, I cannot even

conjecture how he has so completely mistaken my meaning: but, perhaps,

no one who has read Mr. Wallace's article, or who has read a work

formerly published by Dr. Bree on the same subject as his recent

one, will be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding on his

part.--Charles Darwin. August 3.) to 'Nature,' that is if you in the

least desire it. In this case please post it. If you do not AT ALL wish

it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in this case please to

tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you intend answering Dr.

Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably better than I should. Also

please tear it up if you don't like the letter.

My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, August 28, 1872.

My dear Wallace,

I have at last finished the gigantic job of reading Dr. Bastian's book

('The Beginnings of Life.' H.C. Bastian, 1872.) and have been deeply

interested by it. You wished to hear my impression, but it is not worth

sending.

He seems to me an extremely able man, as, indeed, I thought when I read

his first essay. His general argument in favour of Archebiosis (That is

to say, Spontaneous Generation. For the distinction between Archebiosis

and Heterogenesis, see Bastian, chapter vi.) is wonderfully strong,

though I cannot think much of some few of his arguments. The result

is that I am bewildered and astonished by his statements, but am

not convinced, though, on the whole, it seems to me probable that

Archebiosis is true. I am not convinced, partly I think owing to the

deductive cast of much of his reasoning; and I know not why, but I never

feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H. Spencer's writings.

If Dr. Bastian's book had been turned upside down, and he had begun with

the various cases of Heterogenesis, and then gone on to organic,

and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given his general

arguments, I should have been, I believe, much more influenced.

I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty is the effect of old

convictions being stereotyped on my brain. I must have more evidence

that germs, or the minutest fragments of the lowest forms, are always

killed by 212 degrees of Fahr. Perhaps the mere reiteration of the

statements given by Dr. Bastian [by] other men, whose judgment I

respect, and who have worked long on the lower organisms, would suffice

to convince me. Here is a fine confession of intellectual weakness; but

what an inexplicable frame of mind is that of belief!

As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously generated, my mind

can no more digest such statements, whether true or false, than my

stomach can digest a lump of lead. Dr. Bastian is always comparing

Archebiosis, as well as growth, to crystallisation; but, on this view,

a Rotifer or Tardigrade is adapted to its humble conditions of life by

a happy accident, and this I cannot believe... He must have worked with

very impure materials in some cases, as plenty of organisms appeared in

a saline solution not containing an atom of nitrogen.

I wholly disagree with Dr. Bastian about many points in his latter

chapters. Thus the frequency of generalised forms in the older strata

seems to me clearly to indicate the common descent with divergence of

more recent forms. Notwithstanding all his sneers, I do not strike

my colours as yet about Pangenesis. I should like to live to see

Archebiosis proved true, for it would be a discovery of transcendent

importance; or, if false, I should like to see it disproved, and the

facts otherwise explained; but I shall not live to see all this. If ever

proved, Dr. Bastian will have taken a prominent part in the work. How

grand is the onward rush of science; it is enough to console us for the

many errors which we have committed, and for our efforts being overlaid

and forgotten in the mass of new facts and new views which are daily

turning up.

This is all I have to say about Dr. Bastian's book, and it certainly has

not been worth saying...

CHARLES DARWIN TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, December 11, 1872.

My dear Sir,

I began reading your new book ('Histoire des Sciences et des Savants.'

1873.) sooner than I intended, and when I once began, I could not stop;

and now you must allow me to thank you for the very great pleasure which

it has given me. I have hardly ever read anything more original

and interesting than your treatment of the causes which favour the

development of scientific men. The whole was quite new to me, and most

curious. When I began your essay I was afraid that you were going to

attack the principle of inheritance in relation to mind, but I soon

found myself fully content to follow you and accept your limitations. I

have felt, of course, special interest in the latter part of your work,

but there was here less novelty to me. In many parts you do me much

honour, and everywhere more than justice. Authors generally like to hear

what points most strike different readers, so I will mention that of

your shorter essays, that on the future prevalence of languages, and on

vaccination interested me the most, as, indeed, did that on statistics,

and free will. Great liability to certain diseases, being probably

liable to atavism, is quite a new idea to me. At page 322 you suggest

that a young swallow ought to be separated, and then let loose in

order to test the power of instinct; but nature annually performs this

experiment, as old cuckoos migrate in England some weeks before the

young birds of the same year. By the way, I have just used the forbidden

word "nature," which, after reading your essay, I almost determined

never to use again. There are very few remarks in your book to which I

demur, but when you back up Asa Gray in saying that all instincts are

congenital habits, I must protest.

Finally, will you permit me to ask you a question: have you yourself,

or some one who can be quite trusted, observed (page 322) that the

butterflies on the Alps are tamer than those on the lowlands? Do they

belong to the same species? Has this fact been observed with more than

one species? Are they brightly coloured kinds? I am especially curious

about their alighting on the brightly coloured parts of ladies'

dresses, more especially because I have been more than once assured

that butterflies like bright colours, for instance, in India the scarlet

leaves of Poinsettia.

Once again allow me to thank you for having sent me your work, and for

the very unusual amount of pleasure which I have received in reading it.

With much respect, I remain, my dear Sir,

Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.

[The last revise of the 'Expression of the Emotions' was finished on

August 22nd, 1872, and he wrote in his Diary:--"Has taken me about

twelve months." As usual he had no belief in the possibility of the book

being generally successful. The following passage in a letter to Haeckel

gives the impression that he had felt the writing of this book as a

somewhat severe strain:--

"I have finished my little book on 'Expression,' and when it is

published in November I will of course send you a copy, in case you

would like to read it for amusement. I have resumed some old botanical

work, and perhaps I shall never again attempt to discuss theoretical

views.

"I am growing old and weak, and no man can tell when his intellectual

powers begin to fail. Long life and happiness to you for your own sake

and for that of science."

It was published in the autumn. The edition consisted of 7000, and

of these 5267 copies were sold at Mr. Murray's sale in November.

Two thousand were printed at the end of the year, and this proved a

misfortune, as they did not afterwards sell so rapidly, and thus a mass

of notes collected by the author was never employed for a second edition

during his lifetime.

Among the reviews of the 'Expression of the Emotions' may be mentioned

the unfavourable notices in the "Athenaeum", November 9, 1872, and the

"Times", December 13, 1872. A good review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the

'Quarterly Journal of Science,' January 1873. Mr. Wallace truly remarks

that the book exhibits certain "characteristics of the author's mind

in an eminent degree," namely, "the insatiable longing to discover the

causes of the varied and complex phenomena presented by living things."

He adds that in the case of the author "the restless curiosity of the

child to know the 'what for?' the 'why?' and the 'how?' of everything"

seems "never to have abated its force."

A writer in one of the theological reviews describes the book as the

most "powerful and insidious" of all the author's works.

Professor Alexander Bain criticised the book in a postscript to the

'Senses and the Intellect;' to this essay the following letter refers:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ALEXANDER BAIN. Down, October 9, 1873.

My dear Sir,

I am particularly obliged to you for having send me your essay. Your

criticisms are all written in a quite fair spirit, and indeed no one who

knows you or your works would expect anything else. What you say about

the vagueness of what I have called the direct action of the nervous

system, is perfectly just. I felt it so at the time, and even more

of late. I confess that I have never been able fully to grasp your

principle of spontaneity, as well as some other of your points, so as to

apply them to special cases. But as we look at everything from

different points of view, it is not likely that we should agree closely.

(Professor Bain expounded his theory of Spontaneity in the essay here

alluded to. It would be impossible to do justice to it within the limits

of a foot-note. The following quotations may give some notion of it:--

"By Spontaneity I understand the readiness to pass into movement in the

absence of all stimulation whatever; the essential requisite being

that the nerve-centres and muscles shall be fresh and vigorous... The

gesticulations and the carols of young and active animals are mere

overflow of nervous energy; and although they are very apt to concur

with pleasing emotion, they have an independent source... They are not

properly movements of expression; they express nothing at all except an

abundant stock of physical power.")

I have been greatly pleased by what you say about the crying expression

and about blushing. Did you read a review in a late 'Edinburgh?' (The

review on the 'Expression of the Emotions' appeared in the April number

of the 'Edinburgh Review,' 1873. The opening sentence is a fair sample

of the general tone of the article: "Mr. Darwin has added another volume

of amusing stories and grotesque illustrations to the remarkable

series of works already devoted to the exposition and defence of the

evolutionary hypothesis." A few other quotations may be worth giving.

"His one-sided devotion to an a priori scheme of interpretation seems

thus steadily tending to impair the author's hitherto unrivalled powers

as an observer. However this may be, most impartial critics will, we

think, admit that there is a marked falling off both in philosophical

tone and scientific interest in the works produced since Mr. Darwin

committed himself to the crude metaphysical conception so largely

associated with his name." The article is directed against Evolution

as a whole, almost as much as against the doctrines of the book under

discussion. We find throughout plenty of that effective style of

criticism which consists in the use of such expressions as "dogmatism,"

"intolerance," "presumptuous," "arrogant." Together with accusations of

such various faults a "virtual abandonment of the inductive method," and

the use of slang and vulgarisms.

The part of the article which seems to have interested my father is

the discussion on the use which he ought to have made of painting and

sculpture.) It was magnificently contemptuous towards myself and many

others.

I retain a very pleasant recollection of our sojourn together at that

delightful place, Moor Park.

With my renewed thanks, I remain, my dear Sir,

Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. HALIBURTON. (Mrs. Haliburton was a daughter of

my father's old friend, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse. Her husband, Judge

Haliburton, was the well-known author of 'Sam Slick.') Down, November 1

[1872].

My dear Mrs. Haliburton,

I dare say you will be surprised to hear from me. My object in writing

now is to say that I have just published a book on the 'Expression of

the Emotions in Man and Animals;' and it has occurred to me that you

might possibly like to read some parts of it; and I can hardly think

that this would have been the case with any of the books which I have

already published. So I send by this post my present book. Although I

have had no communication with you or the other members of your family

for so long a time, no scenes in my whole life pass so frequently or so

vividly before my mind as those which relate to happy old days spent at

Woodhouse. I should very much like to hear a little news about yourself

and the other members of your family, if you will take the trouble

to write to me. Formerly I used to glean some news about you from my

sisters.

I have had many years of bad health and have not been able to visit

anywhere; and now I feel very old. As long as I pass a perfectly uniform

life, I am able to do some daily work in Natural History, which is still

my passion, as it was in old days, when you used to laugh at me for

collecting beetles with such zeal at Woodhouse. Excepting from my

continued il-health, which has excluded me from society, my life has

been a very happy one; the greatest drawback being that several of my

children have inherited from me feeble health. I hope with all my

heart that you retain, at least to a large extent, the famous "Owen

constitution." With sincere feelings of gratitude and affection for all

bearing the name of Owen, I venture to sign myself,

Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. HALIBURTON. Down, November 6 [1872].

My dear Sarah,

I have been very much pleased by your letter, which I must call

charming. I hardly ventured to think that you would have retained a

friendly recollection of me for so many years. Yet I ought to have felt

assured that you would remain as warm-hearted and as true-hearted as

you have ever been from my earliest recollection. I know well how many

grievous sorrows you have gone through; but I am very sorry to hear that

your health is not good. In the spring or summer, when the weather is

better, if you can summon up courage to pay us a visit here, both my

wife, as she desires me to say, and myself, would be truly glad to see

you, and I know that you would not care about being rather dull here. It

would be a real pleasure to me to see you.--Thank you much for telling

about your family,--much of which was new to me. How kind you all were

to me as a boy, and you especially, and how much happiness I owe to you.

Believe me your affectionate and obliged friend,

CHARLES DARWIN.

P.S.--Perhaps you would like to see a photograph of me now that I am

old.

1873.

[The only work (other than botanical) of this year was the preparation

of a second edition of the 'Descent of Man,' the publication of which

is referred to in the following chapter. This work was undertaken

much against the grain, as he was at the time deeply immersed in the

manuscript of 'Insectivorous Plants.' Thus he wrote to Mr. Wallace

(November 19), "I never in my lifetime regretted an interruption so much

as this new edition of the 'Descent.'" And later (in December) he wrote

to Mr. Huxley: "The new edition of the 'Descent' has turned out an awful

job. It took me ten days merely to glance over letters and reviews with

criticisms and new facts. It is a devil of a job."

The work was continued until April 1, 1874, when he was able to return

to his much loved Drosera. He wrote to Mr. Murray:--

"I have at last finished, after above three months as hard work as I

have ever had in my life, a corrected edition of the 'Descent,' and I

much wish to have it printed off as soon as possible. As it is to be

stereotyped I shall never touch it again."

The first of the miscellaneous letters of 1873 refers to a pleasant

visit received from Colonel Higginson of Newport, U.S.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO THOS. WENTWORTH HIGGINSON. Down, February 27th [1873].

My dear Sir,

My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black

Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very

great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well

of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I

have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their

character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you were here I did

not know of the noble position which you had filled. I had formerly read

about the black regiments, but failed to connect your name with your

admirable undertaking. Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down,

my wife and myself have over and over again regretted that we did not

know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly liked to have

heard a little about the South from your own lips.

Your descriptions have vividly recalled walks taken forty years ago in

Brazil. We have your collected Essays, which were kindly sent us by Mr.

[Moncure] Conway, but have not yet had time to read them. I occasionally

glean a little news of you in the 'Index'; and within the last hour have

read an interesting article of yours on the progress of Free Thought.

Believe me, my dear sir, with sincere admiration, Yours very faithfully,

CH. DARWIN.

[On May 28th he sent the following answers to the questions that Mr.

Galton was at that time addressing to various scientific men, in the

course of the inquiry which is given in his 'English Men of Science,

their Nature and Nurture,' 1874. With regard to the questions my father

wrote, "I have filled up the answers as well as I could, but it is

simply impossible for me to estimate the degrees." For the sake of

convenience, the questions and answers relating to "Nurture" are made to

precede those on "Nature":

NURTURE.

EDUCATION?

How taught? I consider that all I have learnt of any value has been

sel-taught.

Conducive to or restrictive of habits of observation? Restrictive of

observation, being almost entirely classical.

Conducive to health or otherwise? Yes.

Peculiar merits? None whatever.

Chief omissions? No mathematics or modern languages, nor any habits of

observation or reasoning.

RELIGION.

Has the religious creed taught in your youth had any deterrent effect on

the freedom of your researches? No.

SCIENTIFIC TASTES.

Do your scientific tastes appear to have been innate? Certainly innate.

Were they determined by any and what events? My innate taste for natural

history strongly confirmed and directed by the voyage in the "Beagle".

NATURE.

Specify any interests that have been very actively pursued. Science, and

field sports to a passionate degree during youth.

(C.D. = CHARLES DARWIN, R.D. = ROBERT DARWIN, his father.)

RELIGION?

C.D.--Nominally to Church of England. R.D.--Nominally to Church of

England.

POLITICS?

C.D.--Liberal or Radical. R.D.--Liberal.

HEALTH?

C.D.--Good when young--bad for last 33 years. R.D.--Good throughout

life, except from gout.

HEIGHT, ETC?

C.D.--6ft. Figure, etc.?--Spare, whilst young rather stout.

Measurement round inside of hat?--22 1/4 in. Colour of Hair?--Brown.

Complexion?--Rather sallow. R.D.--6ft. 2 in. Figure, etc?--Very broad

and corpulent. Colour of hair? --Brown. Complexion?--Ruddy.

TEMPERAMENT?

C.D.--Somewhat nervous. R.D.--Sanguine.

ENERGY OF BODY, ETC.?

C.D.--Energy shown by much activity, and whilst I had health, power of

resisting fatigue. I and one other man were alone able to fetch water

for a large party of officers and sailors utterly prostrated. Some of

my expeditions in S. America were adventurous. An early riser in the

morning. R.D.--Great power of endurance although feeling much

fatigue, as after consultations after long journeys; very active--not

restless--very early riser, no travels. My father said his father

suffered much from sense of fatigue, that he worked very hard.

ENERGY OF MIND, ETC.?

C.D.--Shown by rigorous and long-continued work on same subject, as

20 years on the 'Origin of Species,' and 9 years on 'Cirripedia.'

R.D.--Habitually very active mind--shown in conversation with a

succession of people during the whole day.

MEMORY?

C.D.--Memory very bad for dates, and for learning by rote; but good in

retaining a general or vague recollection of many facts. R.D.--Wonderful

memory for dates. In old age he told a person, reading aloud to him

a book only read in youth, the passages which were coming--knew the

birthdays and death, etc., of all friends and acquaintances.

STUDIOUSNESS?

C.D.--Very studious, but not large acquirements. R.D.--Not very studious

or mentally receptive, except for facts in conversation--great collector

of anecdotes.

INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT?

C.D.--I think fairly independent; but I can give no instances. I gave

up common religious belief almost independently from my own reflections.

R.D.--Free thinker in religious matters. Liberal, with rather a tendency

to Toryism.

ORIGINALITY OR ECCENTRICITY?

C.D.-- -- Thinks this applies to me; I do not think so--i.e., as far as

eccentricity. I suppose that I have shown originality in science, as

I have made discoveries with regard to common objects. R.D.--Original

character, had great personal influence and power of producing fear of

himself in others. He kept his accounts with great care in a peculiar

way, in a number of separate little books, without any general ledger.

SPECIAL TALENTS?

C.D.--None, except for business as evinced by keeping accounts, replies

to correspondence, and investing money very well. Very methodical in all

my habits. R.D.--Practical business--made a large fortune and incurred

no losses.

STRONGLY MARKED MENTAL PECULIARITIES, BEARING ON SCIENTIFIC SUCCESS, AND

NOT SPECIFIED ABOVE?

C.D.--Steadiness--great curiosity about facts and their meaning. Some

love of the new and marvellous. R.D.--Strong social affection and great

sympathy in the pleasures of others. Sceptical as to new things. Curious

as to facts. Great foresight. Not much public spirit--great generosity

in giving money and assistance.

N.B.--I find it quite impossible to estimate my character by your

degrees.

The following letter refers inter alia to a letter which appeared in

'Nature' (September 25, 1873), "On the Males and Complemental Males of

certain Cirripedes, and on Rudimentary Organs:"]

CHARLES DARWIN TO E. HAECKEL. Down, September 25, 1873.

My dear Haeckel,

I thank you for the present of your book ('Schopfungs-geschichte,' 4th

edition. The translation ('The History of Creation') was not published

until 1876.), and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You will

do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine of Evolution,

supporting it as you do by so many original observations. I have read

the new preface with very great interest. The delay in the appearance

of the English translation vexes and surprises me, for I have never been

able to read it thoroughly in German, and I shall assuredly do so when

it appears in English. Has the problem of the later stages of reduction

of useless structures ever perplexed you? This problem has of late

caused me much perplexity. I have just written a letter to 'Nature' with

a hypothetical explanation of this difficulty, and I will send you the

paper with the passage marked. I will at the same time send a paper

which has interested me; it need not be returned. It contains a singular

statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish that

this latter question could be settled, but I see no prospect of it. If

it could be proved true this would be most important to us...

Wishing you every success in your admirable labours,

I remain, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.