INCLUDING SECOND EDITIONS OF 'CORAL REEFS,' THE 'DESCENT OF
MAN,' AND THE 'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS.'
1874 AND 1875.
[The year 1874 was given up to 'Insectivorous Plants,' with the
exception of the months devoted to the second edition of the 'Descent
of Man,' and with the further exception of the time given to a second
edition of his 'Coral Reefs' (1874). The Preface to the latter states
that new facts have been added, the whole book revised, and "the latter
chapters almost rewritten." In the Appendix some account is given
of Professor Semper's objections, and this was the occasion of
correspondence between that naturalist and my father. In Professor
Semper's volume, 'Animal Life' (one of the International Series), the
author calls attention to the subject in the following passage which I
give in German, the published English translation being, as it seems to
me, incorrect: "Es scheint mir als ob er in der zweiten Ausgabe seines
allgemein bekannten Werks uber Korallenriffe einem Irrthume uber meine
Beobachtungen zum Opfer gefallen ist, indem er die Angaben, die ich
allerdings bisher immer nur sehr kurz gehalten hatte, vollstandig falsch
wiedergegeben hat."
The proof-sheets containing this passage were sent by Professor Semper
to my father before 'Animal Life' was published, and this was the
occasion for the following letter, which was afterwards published in
Professor Semper's book.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER. Down, October 2, 1879.
My dear Professor Semper,
I thank you for your extremely kind letter of the 19th, and for the
proo-sheets. I believe that I understand all, excepting one or two
sentences, where my imperfect knowledge of German has interfered. This
is my sole and poor excuse for the mistake which I made in the second
edition of my 'Coral' book. Your account of the Pellew Islands is a fine
addition to our knowledge on coral reefs. I have very little to say
on the subject, even if I had formerly read your account and seen your
maps, but had known nothing of the proofs of recent elevation, and of
your belief that the islands have not since subsided. I have no doubt
that I should have considered them as formed during subsidence. But I
should have been much troubled in my mind by the sea not being so deep
as it usually is round atolls, and by the reef on one side sloping so
gradually beneath the sea; for this latter fact, as far as my memory
serves me, is a very unusual and almost unparalleled case. I always
foresaw that a bank at the proper depth beneath the surface would give
rise to a reef which could not be distinguished from an atoll, formed
during subsidence. I must still adhere to my opinion that the atolls and
barrier reefs in the middle of the Pacific and Indian Oceans indicate
subsidence; but I fully agree with you that such cases as that of the
Pellew Islands, if of at all frequent occurrence, would make my general
conclusions of very little value. Future observers must decide between
us. It will be a strange fact if there has not been subsidence of the
beds of the great oceans, and if this has not affected the forms of the
coral reefs.
In the last three pages of the last sheet sent I am extremely glad
to see that you are going to treat of the dispersion of animals. Your
preliminary remarks seem to me quite excellent. There is nothing about
M. Wagner, as I expected to find. I suppose that you have seen Moseley's
last book, which contains some good observations on dispersion.
I am glad that your book will appear in English, for then I can read it
with ease. Pray believe me,
Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The most recent criticism on the Coral-reef theory is by Mr. Murray,
one of the staff of the "Challenger", who read a paper before the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, April 5, 1880. (An abstract is published in volume
x. of the 'Proceedings,' page 505, and in 'Nature,' August 12, 1880.)
The chief point brought forward is the possibility of the building up of
submarine mountains, which may serve as foundations for coral reefs. Mr.
Murray also seeks to prove that "the chief features of coral reefs and
islands can be accounted for without calling in the aid of great and
general subsidence." The following letter refers to this subject:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A. AGASSIZ. Down, May 5, 1881.
... You will have seen Mr. Murray's views on the formation of atolls and
barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I thought long over the same
view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at
that time little was known of the multitude of minute oceanic organisms.
I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the "Beagle",
in the south temperate regions, I concluded that shells, the smaller
corals, etc., decayed, and were dissolved, when not protected by the
deposition of sediment, and sediment could not accumulate in the open
ocean. Certainly, shells, etc., were in several cases completely rotten,
and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but you will know well whether
this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at
the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be
distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can, however, hardly
believe in the former presence of as many banks (there having been no
subsidence) as there are atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable
depth, on which minute oceanic organisms could have accumulated to the
thickness of many hundred feet... Pray forgive me for troubling you at
such length, but it has occurred [to me] that you might be disposed
to give, after your wide experience, your judgment. If I am wrong, the
sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It
still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been
much, and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great oceans.
I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to
have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring
home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet...
[The second edition of the 'Descent of Man' was published in the autumn
of 1874. Some severe remarks on the "monistic hypothesis" appeared in
the July (The review necessarily deals with the first edition of the
'Descent of Man.') number of the 'Quarterly Review' (page 45). The
Reviewer expresses his astonishment at the ignorance of certain
elementary distinctions and principles (e.g. with regard to the verbum
mentale) exhibited, among others, by Mr. Darwin, who does not exhibit
the faintest indication of having grasped them, yet a clear perception
of them, and a direct and detailed examination of his facts with regard
to them, "was a sine qua non for attempting, with a chance of success,
the solution of the mystery as to the descent of man."
Some further criticisms of a later date may be here alluded to. In the
'Academy,' 1876 (pages 562, 587), appeared a review of Mr. Mivart's
'Lessons from Nature,' by Mr. Wallace. When considering the part of
Mr. Mivart's book relating to Natural and Sexual Selection, Mr. Wallace
says: "In his violent attack on Mr. Darwin's theories our author uses
unusually strong language. Not content with mere argument, he expresses
'reprobation of Mr. Darwin's views'; and asserts that though he (Mr.
Darwin) has been obliged, virtually, to give up his theory, it is still
maintained by Darwinians with 'unscrupulous audacity,' and the actual
repudiation of it concealed by the 'conspiracy of silence.'" Mr. Wallace
goes on to show that these charges are without foundation, and points
out that, "if there is one thing more than another for which Mr. Darwin
is pre-eminent among modern literary and scientific men, it is for his
perfect literary honesty, his self-abnegation in confessing himself
wrong, and the eager haste with which he proclaims and even magnifies
small errors in his works, for the most part discovered by himself."
The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th) refers to
Mr. Mivart's statement ('Lessons from Nature,' page 144) that Mr. Darwin
at first studiously disguised his views as to the "bestiality of man":--
"I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the
Academy. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me
against Mr. Mivart. In the 'Origin' I did not discuss the derivation
of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my
opinion, I went out of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to
me (and still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted
in my 'Descent of Man.' Therefore it is very unjust,... of Mr. Mivart to
accuse me of base fraudulent concealment."
The letter which here follows is of interest in connection with the
discussion, in the 'Descent of Man,' on the origin of the musical sense
in man:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO E. GURNEY. (Author of 'The Power of Sound.') Down,
July 8, 1876.
My dear Mr. Gurney,
I have read your article ("Some disputed Points in Music."--'Fortnightly
Review,' July, 1876.) with much interest, except the latter part, which
soared above my ken. I am greatly pleased that you uphold my views to
a certain extent. Your criticism of the rasping noise made by insects
being necessarily rhythmical is very good; but though not made
intentionally, it may be pleasing to the females from the nerve cells
being nearly similar in function throughout the animal kingdom. With
respect to your letter, I believe that I understand your meaning, and
agree with you. I never supposed that the different degrees and kinds of
pleasure derived from different music could be explained by the musical
powers of our semi-human progenitors. Does not the fact that different
people belonging to the same civilised nation are very differently
affected by the same music, almost show that these diversities of taste
and pleasure have been acquired during their individual lives? Your
simile of architecture seems to me particularly good; for in this case
the appreciation almost must be individual, though possibly the sense
of sublimity excited by a grand cathedral, may have some connection with
the vague feelings of terror and superstition in our savage ancestors,
when they entered a great cavern or gloomy forest. I wish some one could
analyse the feeling of sublimity. It amuses me to think how horrified
some high flying aesthetic men will be at your encouraging such low
degraded views as mine.
Believe me, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous interest. The first
extract (from a letter, January 18, 1874) refers to a spiritualistic
seance, held at Erasmus Darwin's house, 6 Queen Anne Street, under the
auspices of a well-known medium:]
"... We had grand fun, one afternoon, for George hired a medium, who
made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery points jump
about in my brother's diningroom, in a manner that astounded every one,
and took away all their breaths. It was in the dark, but George and
Hensleigh Wedgwood held the medium's hands and feet on both sides all
the time. I found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these
astounding miracles, or jugglery, took place. How the man could possibly
do what was done passes my understanding. I came downstairs, and saw all
the chairs, etc., on the table, which had been lifted over the heads of
those sitting round it.
The Lord have mercy on us all, if we have to believe in such rubbish. F.
Galton was there, and says it was a good seance..."
The Seance in question led to a smaller and more carefully organised
one being undertaken, at which Mr. Huxley was present, and on which he
reported to my father:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO PROFESSOR T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 29 [1874].
My dear Huxley,
It was very good of you to write so long an account. Though the seance
did tire you so much it was, I think, really worth the exertion, as the
same sort of things are done at all the seances, even at --'s; and now
to my mind an enormous weight of evidence would be requisite to make one
believe in anything beyond mere trickery... I am pleased to think that
I declared to all my family, the day before yesterday, that the more
I thought of all that I had heard happened at Queen Anne St., the more
convinced I was it was all imposture... my theory was that [the medium]
managed to get the two men on each side of him to hold each other's
hands, instead of his, and that he was thus free to perform his antics.
I am very glad that I issued my ukase to you to attend.
Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
[In the spring of this year (1874) he read a book which gave him great
pleasure and of which he often spoke with admiration:--'The Naturalist
in Nicaragua,' by the late Thomas Belt. Mr. Belt, whose untimely death
may well be deplored by naturalists, was by profession an Engineer, so
that all his admirable observations in Natural History in Nicaragua and
elsewhere were the fruit of his leisure. The book is direct and vivid
in style and is full of description and suggestive discussions. With
reference to it my father wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:--
"Belt I have read, and I am delighted that you like it so much, it
appears to me the best of all natural history journals which have ever
been published."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO THE MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. Down, May 30, 1874.
Dear Sir,
I have been very neglectful in not having sooner thanked you for your
kindness in having sent me your 'Etudes sur la Vegetation,' etc., and
other memoirs. I have read several of them with very great interest, and
nothing can be more important, in my opinion, than your evidence of
the extremely slow and gradual manner in which specific forms change. I
observe that M. A. De Candolle has lately quoted you on this head versus
Heer. I hope that you may be able to throw light on the question whether
such protean, or polymorphic forms, as those of Rubus, Hieracium, etc.,
at the present day, are those which generate new species; as for myself,
I have always felt some doubt on this head. I trust that you may soon
bring many of your countrymen to believe in Evolution, and my name
will then perhaps cease to be scorned. With the most sincere respect, I
remain, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 5 [1874].
My dear Gray,
I have now read your article (The article, "Charles Darwin," in the
series of "Scientific Worthies" ('Nature,' June 4, 1874). This admirable
estimate of my father's work in science is given in the form of a
comparison and contrast between Robert Brown and Charles Darwin.) in
'Nature,' and the last two paragraphs were not included in the slip sent
before. I wrote yesterday and cannot remember exactly what I said, and
now cannot be easy without again telling you how profoundly I have been
gratified. Every one, I suppose, occasionally thinks that he has worked
in vain, and when one of these fits overtakes me, I will think of your
article, and if that does not dispel the evil spirit, I shall know that
I am at the time a little bit insane, as we all are occasionally.
What you say about Teleology ("Let us recognise Darwin's great service
to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology: so that instead
of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to
Teleology.") pleases me especially, and I do not think any one else
has ever noticed the point. (See, however, Mr. Huxley's chapter on the
'Reception of the Origin of Species' in volume i.) I have always said
you were the man to hit the nail on the head.
Yours gratefully and affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
[As a contribution to the history of the reception of the 'Origin of
Species,' the meeting of the British Association in 1874, at Belfast,
should be mentioned. It is memorable for Professor Tyndall's brilliant
presidential address, in which a sketch of the history of Evolution is
given culminating in an eloquent analysis of the 'Origin of Species,'
and of the nature of its great success. With regard to Prof. Tyndall's
address, Lyell wrote ('Life,' ii. page 455) congratulating my father on
the meeting, "on which occasion you and your theory of Evolution may
be fairly said to have had an ovation." In the same letter Sir Charles
speaks of a paper (On the Ancient Volcanoes of the Highlands, 'Journal
of Geological Soc.,' 1874.) of Professor Judd's, and it is to this that
the following letter refers:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, September 23, 1874.
My dear Lyell,
I suppose that you have returned, or will soon return, to London (Sir
Charles Lyell returned from Scotland towards the end of September.);
and, I hope, reinvigorated by your outing. In your last letter you
spoke of Mr. Judd's paper on the Volcanoes of the Hebrides. I have just
finished it, and to ease my mind must express my extreme admiration.
It is years since I have read a purely geological paper which has
interested me so greatly. I was all the more interested, as in the
Cordillera I often speculated on the sources of the deluges of submarine
porphyritic lavas, of which they are built; and, as I have stated, I
saw to a certain extent the causes of the obliteration of the points
of eruption. I was also not a little pleased to see my volcanic book
quoted, for I thought it was completely dead and forgotten. What fine
work will Mr. Judd assuredly do!... Now I have eased my mind; and so
farewell, with both E.D.'s and C.D.'s very kind remembrances to Miss
Lyell.
Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.
[Sir Charles Lyell's reply to the above letter must have been one of the
latest that my father received from his old friend, and it is with this
letter that the volumes of his published correspondence closes.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO AUG. FOREL. Down, October 15, 1874.
My dear Sir,
I have now read the whole of your admirable work ('Les Fourmis de la
Suisse,' 4to, 1874.) and seldom in my life have I been more interested
by any book. There are so many interesting facts and discussions, that I
hardly know which to specify; but I think, firstly, the newest points
to me have been about the size of the brain in the three sexes, together
with your suggestion that increase of mind power may have led to the
sterility of the workers. Secondly about the battles of the ants, and
your curious account of the enraged ants being held by their comrades
until they calmed down. Thirdly, the evidence of ants of the same
community being the offspring of brothers and sisters. You admit, I
think, that new communities will often be the product of a cross between
not-related ants. Fritz Muller has made some interesting observations
on this head with respect to Termites. The case of Anergates is most
perplexing in many ways, but I have such faith in the law of occasional
crossing that I believe an explanation will hereafter be found, such
as the dimorphism of either sex and the occasional production of
winged males. I see that you are puzzled how ants of the same community
recognize each other; I once placed two (F. rufa) in a pill-box smelling
strongly of asafoetida and after a day returned them to their homes;
they were threatened, but at last recognized. I made the trial thinking
that they might know each other by their odour; but this cannot have
been the case, and I have often fancied that they must have some common
signal. Your last chapter is one great mass of wonderful facts and
suggestions, and the whole profoundly interesting. I have seldom been
more gratified than by [your] honourable mention of my work.
I should like to tell you one little observation which I made with care
many years ago; I saw ants (Formica rufa) carrying cocoons from a nest
which was the largest I ever saw and which was well-known to all the
country people near, and an old man, apparently about eighty years of
age, told me that he had known it ever since he was a boy. The ants
carrying the cocoons did not appear to be emigrating; following the
line, I saw many ascending a tall fir tree still carrying their cocoons.
But when I looked closely I found that all the cocoons were empty cases.
This astonished me, and next day I got a man to observe with me, and we
again saw ants bringing empty cocoons out of the nest; each of us fixed
on one ant and slowly followed it, and repeated the observation on many
others. We thus found that some ants soon dropped their empty cocoons;
others carried them for many yards, as much as thirty paces, and others
carried them high up the fir tree out of sight. Now here I think we
have one instinct in contest with another and mistaken one. The first
instinct being to carry the empty cocoons out of the nest, and it would
have been sufficient to have laid them on the heap of rubbish, as the
first breath of wind would have blown them away. And then came in the
contest with the other very powerful instinct of preserving and carrying
their cocoons as long as possible; and this they could not help doing
although the cocoons were empty. According as the one or other instinct
was the stronger in each individual ant, so did it carry the empty
cocoon to a greater or less distance. If this little observation should
ever prove of any use to you, you are quite at liberty to use it. Again
thanking you cordially for the great pleasure which your work has given
me, I remain with much respect,
Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--If you read English easily I should like to send you Mr. Belt's
book, as I think you would like it as much as did Fritz Muller.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J. FISKE. Down, December 8, 1874.
My dear Sir,
You must allow me to thank you for the very great interest with which
I have at last slowly read the whole of your work. ('Outlines of Cosmic
Philosophy,' 2 volumes, 8vo. 1874.) I have long wished to know something
about the views of the many great men whose doctrines you give. With
the exception of special points I did not even understand H. Spencer's
general doctrine; for his style is too hard work for me. I never in my
life read so lucid an expositor (and therefore thinker) as you are; and
I think that I understand nearly the whole--perhaps less clearly about
Cosmic Theism and Causation than other parts. It is hopeless to attempt
out of so much to specify what has interested me most, and probably you
would not care to hear. I wish some chemist would attempt to ascertain
the result of the cooling of heated gases of the proper kinds, in
relation to your hypothesis of the origin of living matter. It pleased
me to find that here and there I had arrived from my own crude thoughts
at some of the same conclusions with you; though I could seldom or never
have given my reasons for such conclusions. I find that my mind is
so fixed by the inducive method, that I cannot appreciate deductive
reasoning: I must begin with a good body of facts and not from a
principle (in which I always suspect some fallacy) and then as much
deduction as you please. This may be very narrow-minded; but the result
is that such parts of H. Spencer, as I have read with care impress my
mind with the idea of his inexhaustible wealth of suggestion, but never
convince me; and so I find it with some others. I believe the cause to
lie in the frequency with which I have found first-formed theories [to
be] erroneous. I thank you for the honourable mention which you make
of my works. Parts of the 'Descent of Man' must have appeared laughably
weak to you: nevertheless, I have sent you a new edition just published.
Thanking you for the profound interest and profit with which I have read
your work. I remain,
My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN.
1875.
[The only work, not purely botanical, which occupied my father in the
present year was the correction of the second edition of 'The Variation
of Animals and Plants,' and on this he was engaged from the beginning of
July till October 3rd. The rest of the year was taken up with his work
on insectivorous plants, and on cross-fertilisation, as will be shown in
a later chapter. The chief alterations in the second edition of 'Animals
and Plants' are in the eleventh chapter on "Bud-variation and on certain
anomalous modes of reproduction;" the chapter on Pangenesis "was also
largely altered and remodelled." He mentions briefly some of the authors
who have noticed the doctrine. Professor Delpino's 'Sulla Darwiniana
Teoria della Pangenesi' (1869), an adverse but fair criticism, seems
to have impressed him as valuable. Of another critique my father
characteristically says ('Animals and Plants,' 2nd edition volume ii.
page 350.), "Dr. Lionel Beale ('Nature,' May 11, 1871, page 26) sneers
at the whole doctrine with much acerbity and some justice." He also
points out that, in Mantegazza's 'Elementi di Igiene,' the theory of
Pangenesis was clearly foreseen.
In connection with this subject, a letter of my father's to 'Nature'
(April 27, 1871) should be mentioned. A paper by Mr. Galton had been
read before the Royal Society (March 30, 1871) in which were described
experiments, on intertransfusion of blood, designed to test the truth of
the hypothesis of pangenesis. My father, while giving all due credit to
Mr. Galton for his ingenious experiments, does not allow that pangenesis
has "as yet received its death-blow, though from presenting so many
vulnerable points its life is always in jeopardy."
He seems to have found the work of correcting very wearisome, for he
wrote:--
"I have no news about myself, as I am merely slaving over the sickening
work of preparing new editions. I wish I could get a touch of poor
Lyell's feelings, that it was delightful to improve a sentence, like a
painter improving a picture."
The feeling of effort or strain over this piece of work, is shown in a
letter to Professor Haeckel:--
"What I shall do in future if I live, Heaven only knows; I ought perhaps
to avoid general and large subjects, as too difficult for me with my
advancing years, and I suppose enfeebled brain."
At the end of March, in this year, the portrait for which he was sitting
to Mr. Ouless was finished. He felt the sittings a great fatigue, in
spite of Mr. Ouless's considerate desire to spare him as far as was
possible. In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker he wrote, "I look a very
venerable, acute, melancholy old dog; whether I really look so I do not
know." The picture is in the possession of the family, and is known
to many through M. Rajon's etching. Mr. Ouless's portrait is, in my
opinion, the finest representation of my father that has been produced.
The following letter refers to the death of Sir Charles Lyell, which
took place on February 22nd, 1875, in his seventy-eighth year.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS BUCKLEY (NOW MRS. FISHER). (Mrs. Fisher acted as
Secretary to Sir Charles Lyell.) Down, February 23, 1875.
My dear Miss Buckley,
I am grieved to hear of the death of my old and kind friend, though I
knew that it could not be long delayed, and that it was a happy thing
that his life should not have been prolonged, as I suppose that his mind
would inevitably have suffered. I am glad that Lady Lyell (Lady Lyell
died in 1873.) has been saved this terrible blow. His death makes me
think of the time when I first saw him, and how full of sympathy and
interest he was about what I could tell him of coral reefs and South
America. I think that this sympathy with the work of every other
naturalist was one of the finest features of his character. How
completely he revolutionised Geology: for I can remember something of
pre-Lyellian days.
I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I
owe to the study of his great works. Well, he has had a grand and happy
career, and no one ever worked with a truer zeal in a noble cause. It
seems strange to me that I shall never again sit with him and Lady Lyell
at their breakfast. I am very much obliged to you for having so kindly
written to me.
Pray give our kindest remembrances to Miss Lyell, and I hope that she
has not suffered much in health, from fatigue and anxiety.
Believe me, my dear Miss Buckley, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 25 [1875].
My dear Hooker,
Your letter so full of feeling has interested me greatly. I cannot say
that I felt his [Lyell's] death much, for I fully expected it, and have
looked for some little time at his career as finished.
I dreaded nothing so much as his surviving with impaired mental powers.
He was, indeed, a noble man in very many ways; perhaps in none more than
in his warm sympathy with the work of others. How vividly I can recall
my first conversation with him, and how he astonished me by his interest
in what I told him. How grand also was his candour and pure love of
truth. Well, he is gone, and I feel as if we were all soon to go... I
am deeply rejoiced about Westminster Abbey (Sir C. Lyell was buried in
Westminster Abbey.), the possibility of which had not occurred to me
when I wrote before. I did think that his works were the most enduring
of all testimonials (as you say) to him; but then I did not like the
idea of his passing away with no outward sign of what scientific men
thought of his merits. Now all this is changed, and nothing can be
better than Westminster Abbey. Mrs. Lyell has asked me to be one of the
pall-bearers, but I have written to say that I dared not, as I should so
likely fail in the midst of the ceremony, and have my head whirling off
my shoulders. All this affair must have cost you much fatigue and worry,
and how I do wish you were out of England...
[In 1881 he wrote to Mrs. Fisher in reference to her article on Sir
Charles Lyell in the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica':--
"For such a publication I suppose you do not want to say much about
his private character, otherwise his strong sense of humour and love of
society might have been added. Also his extreme interest in the progress
of the world, and in the happiness of mankind. Also his freedom from all
religious bigotry, though these perhaps would be a superfluity."
The following refers to the Zoological station at Naples, a subject on
which my father felt an enthusiastic interest:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO ANTON DOHRN. Down, [1875?].
My dear Dr. Dohrn,
Many thanks for your most kind letter, I most heartily rejoice at your
improved health and at the success of your grand undertaking, which will
have so much influence on the progress of Zoology throughout Europe.
If we look to England alone, what capital work has already been done at
the Station by Balfour and Ray Lankester... When you come to England, I
suppose that you will bring Mrs. Dohrn, and we shall be delighted to see
you both here. I have often boasted that I have had a live Uhlan in my
house! It will be very interesting to me to read your new views on the
ancestry of the Vertebrates. I shall be sorry to give up the Ascidians,
to whom I feel profound gratitude; but the great thing, as it appears to
me, is that any link whatever should be found between the main divisions
of the Animal Kingdom...
CHARLES DARWIN TO AUGUST WEISMANN. Down, December 6, 1875.
My dear Sir,
I have been profoundly interested by your essay on Amblystoma
('Umwandlung des Axolotl.'), and think that you have removed a great
stumbling block in the way of Evolution. I once thought of reversion in
this case; but in a crude and imperfect manner. I write now to call your
attention to the sterility of moths when hatched out of their proper
season; I give references in chapter 18 of my 'Variation under
Domestication' (volume ii. page 157, of English edition), and these
cases illustrate, I think, the sterility of Amblystoma. Would it not be
worth while to examine the reproductive organs of those individuals of
WINGLESS Hemiptera which occasionally have wings, as in the case of the
bed-bug. I think I have heard that the females of Mutilla sometimes have
wings. These cases must be due to reversion. I dare say many anomalous
cases will be hereafter explained on the same principle.
I hinted at this explanation in the extraordinary case of the
blac-shouldered peacock, the so-called Pavo nigripennis given in my
'Variation under Domestication;' and I might have been bolder, as the
variety is in many respects intermediate between the two known species.
With much respect, Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
THE VIVISECTION QUESTION.
[It was in November 1875 that my father gave his evidence before the
Royal Commission on Vivisection. (See volume i.) I have, therefore,
placed together here the matter relating to this subject, irrespective
of date. Something has already been said of my father's strong feeling
with regard to suffering both in man and beast. It was indeed one of the
strongest feelings in his nature, and was exemplified in matters small
and great, in his sympathy with the educational miseries of dancing
dogs, or in his horror at the sufferings of slaves. (He once made an
attempt to free a patient in a mad-house, who (as he wrongly supposed)
was sane. He had some correspondence with the gardener at the asylum,
and on one occasion he found a letter from a patient enclosed with one
from the gardener. The letter was rational in tone and declared that the
writer was sane and wrongfully confined.
My father wrote to the Lunacy Commissioners (without explaining the
source of his information) and in due time heard that the man had been
visited by the Commissioners, and that he was certainly insane. Sometime
afterwards the patient was discharged, and wrote to thank my father for
his interference, adding that he had undoubtedly been insane, when he
wrote his former letter.)
The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in Brazil, when he
was powerless to interfere with what he believed to be the torture of a
slave, haunted him for years, especially at night. In smaller matters,
where he could interfere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from
his walk pale and faint from having seen a horse ill-used, and from the
agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On another occasion
he saw a hors-breaker teaching his son to ride, the little boy was
frightened and the man was rough; my father stopped, and jumping out of
the carriage reproved the man in no measured terms.
One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that his humanity to
animals was well-known in his own neighbourhood. A visitor, driving from
Orpington to Down, told the man to go faster, "Why," said the driver,
"If I had whipped the horse THIS much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would have
got out of the carriage and abused me well."
With respect to the special point under consideration,--the sufferings
of animals subjected to experiment,--nothing could show a stronger
feeling than the following extract from a letter to Professor Ray
Lankester (March 22, 1871):--
"You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is
justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere
damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick
with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not
sleep to-night."
An extract from Sir Thomas Farrer's notes shows how strongly he
expressed himself in a similar manner in conversation:--
"The last time I had any conversation with him was at my house in
Bryanston Square, just before one of his last seizures. He was then
deeply interested in the vivisection question; and what he said made a
deep impression on me. He was a man eminently fond of animals and
tender to them; he would not knowingly have inflicted pain on a living
creature; but he entertained the strongest opinion that to prohibit
experiments on living animals, would be to put a stop to the knowledge
of and the remedies for pain and disease."
The Anti-Vivisection agitation, to which the following letters refer,
seems to have become specially active in 1874, as may be seen, e.g. by
the index to 'Nature' for that year, in which the word "Vivisection,"
suddenly comes into prominence. But before that date the subject had
received the earnest attention of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool
Meeting of the British Association in 1870, a Committee was appointed,
which reported, defining the circumstances and conditions under which,
in the opinion of the signatories, experiments on living animals were
justifiable. In the spring of 1875, Lord Hartismere introduced a Bill
into the Upper House to regulate the course of physiological research.
Shortly afterwards a Bill more just towards science in its provisions
was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair,
Walpole, and Ashley. It was, however, withdrawn on the appointment of a
Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. The Commissioners
were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W.E. Forster, Sir J.B.
Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen, and Mr. R.H. Hutton: they
commenced their inquiry in July, 1875, and the Report was published
early in the following year.
In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon's Bill, entitled, "An Act to
amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals," was introduced. It cannot
be denied that the framers of this Bill, yielding to the unreasonable
clamour of the public, went far beyond the recommendations of the Royal
Commission. As a correspondent in 'Nature' put it (1876, page 248),
"the evidence on the strength of which legislation was recommended
went beyond the facts, the Report went beyond the evidence, the
Recommendations beyond the Report; and the Bill can hardly be said to
have gone beyond the Recommendations; but rather to have contradicted
them."
The legislation which my father worked for, as described in the
following letters, was practically what was introduced as Dr. Lyon
Playfair's Bill.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. LITCHFIELD. (His daughter.) January 4, 1875.
My dear H.
Your letter has led me to think over vivisection (I wish some new
word like anaes-section could be invented (He communicated to 'Nature'
(September 30, 1880) an article by Dr. Wilder, of Cornell University, an
abstract of which was published (page 517). Dr. Wilder advocated the use
of the word 'Callisection' for painless operations on animals.) for
some hours, and I will jot down my conclusions, which will appear
very unsatisfactory to you. I have long thought physiology one of the
greatest of sciences, sure sooner, or more probably later, greatly to
benefit mankind; but, judging from all other sciences, the benefits will
accrue only indirectly in the search for abstract truth. It is certain
that physiology can progress only by experiments on living animals.
Therefore the proposal to limit research to points of which we can now
see the bearings in regard to health, etc., I look at as puerile.
I thought at first it would be good to limit vivisection to public
laboratories; but I have heard only of those in London and Cambridge,
and I think Oxford; but probably there may be a few others. Therefore
only men living in a few great towns would carry on investigation, and
this I should consider a great evil. If private men were permitted to
work in their own houses, and required a licence, I do not see who is
to determine whether any particular man should receive one. It is young
unknown men who are the most likely to do good work. I would gladly
punish severely any one who operated on an animal not rendered
insensible, if the experiment made this possible; but here again I do
not see that a magistrate or jury could possibly determine such a point.
Therefore I conclude, if (as is likely) some experiments have been tried
too often, or anaesthetics have not been used when they could have been,
the cure must be in the improvement of humanitarian feelings. Under this
point of view I have rejoiced at the present agitation. If stringent
laws are passed, and this is likely, seeing how unscientific the House
of Commons is, and that the gentlemen of England are humane, as long
as their sports are not considered, which entailed a hundred or
thousand-fold more suffering than the experiments of physiologists--if
such laws are passed, the result will assuredly be that physiology,
which has been until within the last few years at a standstill in
England, will languish or quite cease. It will then be carried on solely
on the Continent; and there will be so many the fewer workers on this
grand subject, and this I should greatly regret. By the way, F. Balfour,
who has worked for two or three years in the laboratory at Cambridge,
declares to George that he has never seen an experiment, except with
animals rendered insensible. No doubt the names of Doctors will have
great weight with the House of Commons; but very many practitioners
neither know nor care anything about the progress of knowledge. I
cannot at present see my way to sign any petition, without hearing what
physiologists thought would be its effect, and then judging for myself.
I certainly could not sign the paper sent me by Miss Cobbe, with its
monstrous (as it seems to me) attack on Virchow for experimenting on the
Trichinae. I am tired and so no more.
Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 14 [1875].
My dear Hooker,
I worked all the time in London on the vivisection question; and we now
think it advisable to go further than a mere petition. Litchfield
(Mr. R.B. Litchfield, his son-in-law.) drew up a sketch of a Bill, the
essential features of which have been approved by Sanderson, Simon and
Huxley, and from conversation, will, I believe, be approved by Paget,
and almost certainly, I think, by Michael Foster. Sanderson, Simon and
Paget wish me to see Lord Derby, and endeavour to gain his advocacy with
the Home Secretary. Now, if this is carried into effect, it will be of
great importance to me to be able to say that the Bill in its essential
features has the approval of some half-dozen eminent scientific men. I
have therefore asked Litchfield to enclose a copy to you in its first
rough form; and if it is not essentially modified may I say that it
meets with your approval as President of the Royal Society? The object
is to protect animals, and at the same time not to injure Physiology,
and Huxley and Sanderson's approval almost suffices on this head. Pray
let me have a line from you soon.
Yours affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The Physiological Society, which was founded in 1876, was in some
measure the outcome of the anti-vivisection movement, since it was this
agitation which impressed on Physiologists the need of a centre for
those engaged in this particular branch of science. With respect to the
Society, my father wrote to Mr. Romanes (May 29, 1876):--
"I was very much gratified by the wholly unexpected honour of being
elected one of the Honorary Members. This mark of sympathy has pleased
me to a very high degree."
The following letter appeared in the "Times", April 18th, 1881:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO FRITHIOF HOLMGREN. (Professor of Physiology at
Upsala.) Down, April 14, 1881.
Dear Sir,
In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, I have no objection to
express my opinion with respect to the right of experimenting on living
animals. I use this latter expression as more correct and comprehensive
than that of vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this
letter which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the whole
to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to
animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty.
Several years ago, when the agitation against physiologists commenced in
England, it was asserted that inhumanity was here practised, and useless
suffering caused to animals; and I was led to think that it might be
advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the subject. I then took an
active part in trying to get a Bill passed, such as would have
removed all just cause of complaint, and at the same time have left
physiologists free to pursue their researches,--a Bill very different
from the Act which has since been passed. It is right to add that
the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the
accusations made against our English physiologists were false. From all
that I have heard, however, I fear that in some parts of Europe little
regard is paid to the sufferings of animals, and if this be the case,
I should be glad to hear of legislation against inhumanity in any such
country. On the other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly
progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel
the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology
commits a crime against mankind. Any one who remembers, as I can, the
state of this science half a century ago, must admit that it has made
immense progress, and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate.
What improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed to
physiological research is a question which can be properly discussed
only by those physiologists and medical practitioners who have studied
the history of their subjects; but, as far as I can learn, the benefits
are already great. However this may be, no one, unless he is grossly
ignorant of what science has done for mankind, can entertain any doubt
of the incalculable benefits which will hereafter be derived from
physiology, not only by man, but by the lower animals. Look for instance
at Pasteur's results in modifying the germs of the most malignant
diseases, from which, as it so happens, animals will in the first place
receive more relief than man. Let it be remembered how many lives and
what a fearful amount of suffering have been saved by the knowledge
gained of parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and others
on living animals. In the future every one will be astonished at the
ingratitude shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind.
As for myself, permit me to assure you that I honour, and shall always
honour, every one who advances the noble science of physiology.
Dear Sir, yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.
[In the "Times" of the following day appeared a letter headed "Mr.
Darwin and Vivisection," signed by Miss Frances Power Cobbe. To this
my father replied in the "Times" of April 22, 1881. On the same day he
wrote to Mr. Romanes:--
"As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the "Times" on
Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to bear my share
of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on all physiologists.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,
I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by Miss Cobbe in the letter
which appeared in the "Times" of the 19th inst.; but as she asserts
that I have "misinformed" my correspondent in Sweden in saying that
"the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the
accusations made against our English physiologists were false," I will
merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences from the Report of the
Commission.
1. The sentence--"It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found
in persons of very high position as physiologists," which Miss Cobbe
quotes from page 17 of the report, and which, in her opinion, "can
necessarily concern English physiologists alone and not foreigners,"
is immediately followed by the words "We have seen that it was so in
Magendie." Magendie was a French physiologist who became notorious some
half century ago for his cruel experiments on living animals.
2. The Commissioners, after speaking of the "general sentiment of
humanity" prevailing in this country, say (page 10):--
"This principle is accepted generally by the very highly educated men
whose lives are devoted either to scientific investigation and
education or to the mitigation or the removal of the sufferings of
their fellow-creatures; though differences of degree in regard to its
practical application will be easily discernible by those who study the
evidence as it has been laid before us."
Again, according to the Commissioners (page 10):--
"The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, when asked whether the general tendency of the scientific world
in this country is at variance with humanity, says he believes it to be
very different, indeed, from that of foreign physiologists; and while
giving it as the opinion of the society that experiments are performed
which are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science, and
that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not justifiable to
inflict even for the scientific object in view, he readily acknowledges
that he does not know a single case of wanton cruelty, and that in
general the English physiologists have used anaesthetics where they
think they can do so with safety to the experiment."
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES DARWIN.
April 21.
[In the "Times" of Saturday, April 23, 1881, appeared a letter from Miss
Cobbe in reply:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, April 25, 1881.
My dear Romanes,
I was very glad to read your last note with much news interesting to
me. But I write now to say how I, and indeed all of us in the house
have admired your letter in the "Times". (April 25, 1881.--Mr. Romanes
defended Dr. Sanderson against the accusations made by Miss Cobbe.)
It was so simple and direct. I was particularly glad about Burton
Sanderson, of whom I have been for several years a great admirer. I was
also especially glad to read the last sentences. I have been bothered
with several letters, but none abusive. Under a SELFISH point of view
I am very glad of the publication of your letter, as I was at first
inclined to think that I had done mischief by stirring up the mud. Now
I feel sure that I have done good. Mr. Jesse has written to me very
politely, he says his Society has had nothing to do with placards and
diagrams against physiology, and I suppose, therefore, that these
all originate with Miss Cobbe... Mr. Jesse complains bitterly that
the "Times" will "burke" all his letters to this newspaper, nor am I
surprised, judging from the laughable tirades advertised in "Nature".
Ever yours, very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
[The next letter refers to a projected conjoint article on vivisection,
to which Mr. Romanes wished my father to contribute:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, September 2, 1881.
My dear Romanes,
Your letter has perplexed me beyond all measure. I fully recognise
the duty of every one whose opinion is worth anything, expressing his
opinion publicly on vivisection; and this made me send my letter to the
"Times". I have been thinking at intervals all morning what I could say,
and it is the simple truth that I have nothing worth saying. You and
men like you, whose ideas flow freely, and who can express them easily,
cannot understand the state of mental paralysis in which I find myself.
What is most wanted is a careful and accurate attempt to show what
physiology has already done for man, and even still more strongly
what there is every reason to believe it will hereafter do. Now I am
absolutely incapable of doing this, or of discussing the other points
suggested by you.
If you wish for my name (and I should be glad that it should appear with
that of others in the same cause), could you not quote some sentence
from my letter in the "Times" which I enclose, but please return it. If
you thought fit you might say you quoted it with my approval, and
that after still further reflection I still abide most strongly in my
expressed conviction.
For Heaven's sake, do think of this. I do not grudge the labour and
thought; but I could write nothing worth any one reading.
Allow me to demur to your calling your conjoint article a "symposium"
strictly a "drinking party." This seems to me very bad taste, and I do
hope every one of you will avoid any semblance of a joke on the subject.
I KNOW that words, like a joke, on this subject have quite disgusted
some persons not at all inimical to physiology. One person lamented
to me that Mr. Simon, in his truly admirable Address at the Medical
Congress (by far the best thing which I have read), spoke of the
fantastic SENSUALITY ('Transactions of the International Medical
Congress,' 1881, volume iv. page 413. The expression "lackadaisical"
(not fantastic), and "feeble sensuality," are used with regard to the
feelings of the ant-vivisectionists.) (or some such term) of the many
mistaken, but honest men and women who are half mad on the subject...
[To Dr. Lauder Brunton my father wrote in February 1882:--
"Have you read Mr. [Edmund] Gurney's articles in the 'Fortnightly' ("A
chapter in the Ethics of Pain," 'Fortnightly Review,' 1881, volume xxx.
page 778.) and 'Cornhill?' ("An Epilogue on Vivisection," 'Cornhill
Magazine,' 1882, volume xlv. page 191.) They seem to me very clever,
though obscurely written, and I agree with almost everything he says,
except with some passages which appear to imply that no experiments
should be tried unless some immediate good can be predicted, and this is
a gigantic mistake contradicted by the whole history of science."]