THE GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'
1843-1858.
The history of the years 1843-1858 is here related in an extremely
abbreviated fashion. It was a period of minute labour on a variety of
subjects, and the letters accordingly abound in detail. They are in many
ways extremely interesting, more especially so to professed naturalists,
and the picture of patient research which they convey is of great value
from a biographical point of view. But such a picture must either be
given in a complete series of unabridged letters, or omitted altogether.
The limits of space compel me to the latter choice. The reader must
imagine my father corresponding on problems in geology, geographical
distribution, and classification; at the same time collecting facts on
such varied points as the stripes on horses' legs, the floating of
seeds, the breeding of pigeons, the form of bees' cells and the
innumerable other questions to which his gigantic task demanded answers.
The concluding letter of the last chapter has shown how strong was his
conviction of the value of his work. It is impressive evidence of the
condition of the scientific atmosphere, to discover, as in the following
letters to Sir Joseph Hooker, how small was the amount of encouragement
that he dared to hope for from his brother-naturalists.
[January 11th, 1844.]
... I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous
work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one.
I was so struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, &c.
&c., and with the character of the American fossil mammifers, &c. &c.,
that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which could
bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and
horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last
gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to
the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing
a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a
"tendency to progression," "adaptations from the slow willing of
animals," &c.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different
from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found
out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become
exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to
yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I
should, five years ago, have thought so....
And again (1844):--
"In my most sanguine moments, all I expect, is that I shall be able to
show even to sound Naturalists, that there are two sides to the question
of the immutability of species--that facts can be viewed and grouped
under the notion of allied species having descended from common stocks.
With respect to books on this subject, I do not know of any systematical
ones, except Lamarck's which is veritable rubbish: but there are plenty,
as Lyell, Pritchard, &c., on the view of the immutability. Agassiz
lately has brought the strongest argument in favour of immutability.
Isidore G. St. Hilaire has written some good Essays, tending towards the
mutability-side, in the _Suites a Buffon_, entitled _Zoolog. Generale_.
Is it not strange that the author of such a book as the _Animaux sans
Vertebres_ should have written that insects, which never see their eggs,
should will (and plants, their seeds) to be of particular forms, so as
to become attached to particular objects. The other common (specially
Germanic) notion is hardly less absurd, viz. that climate, food, &c.,
should make a Pediculus formed to climb hair, or a wood-pecker to climb
trees. I believe all these absurd views arise from no one having, as far
as I know, approached the subject on the side of variation under
domestication, and having studied all that is known about
domestication."
"I hate arguments from results, but on my views of descent, really
Natural History becomes a sublimely grand result-giving subject (now you
may quiz me for so foolish an escape of mouth)...."
_C. D. to L. Jenyns_[136] Down Oct. 12th [1845].
MY DEAR JENYNS--Thanks for your note. I am sorry to say I have not even
the tail-end of a fact in English Zoology to communicate. I have found
that even trifling observations require, in my case, some leisure and
energy, [of] both of which ingredients I have had none to spare, as
writing my Geology thoroughly expends both. I had always thought that I
would keep a journal and record everything, but in the way I now live I
find I observe nothing to record. Looking after my garden and trees, and
occasionally a very little walk in an idle frame of my mind, fill up
every afternoon in the same manner. I am surprised that with all your
parish affairs, you have had time to do all that which you have done. I
shall be very glad to see your little work[137] (and proud should I have
been if I could have added a single fact to it). My work on the species
question has impressed me very forcibly with the importance of all such
works as your intended one, containing what people are pleased generally
to call trifling facts. These are the facts which make one understand
the working or economy of nature. There is one subject, on which I am
very curious, and which perhaps you may throw some light on, if you have
ever thought on it; namely, what are the checks and what the periods of
life--by which the increase of any given species is limited. Just
calculate the increase of any bird, if you assume that only half the
young are reared, and these breed: within the _natural_ (i.e. if free
from accidents) life of the parents the number of individuals will
become enormous, and I have been much surprised to think how great
destruction _must_ annually or occasionally be falling on every species,
yet the means and period of such destruction are scarcely perceived by
us.
I have continued steadily reading and collecting facts on variation of
domestic animals and plants, and on the question of what are species. I
have a grand body of facts, and I think I can draw some sound
conclusions. The general conclusions at which I have slowly been driven
from a directly opposite conviction, is that species are mutable, and
that allied species are co-descendants from common stocks. I know how
much I open myself to reproach for such a conclusion, but I have at
least honestly and deliberately come to it. I shall not publish on this
subject for several years.
_C. Darwin to L. Jenyns._[138] Down [1845?].
With respect to my far distant work on species, I must have expressed
myself with singular inaccuracy if I led you to suppose that I meant to
say that my conclusions were inevitable. They have become so, after
years of weighing puzzles, to myself _alone_; but in my wildest
day-dream, I never expect more than to be able to show that there are
two sides to the question of the immutability of species, i.e. whether
species are _directly_ created or by intermediate laws (as with the life
and death of individuals). I did not approach the subject on the side of
the difficulty in determining what are species and what are varieties,
but (though why I should give you such a history of my doings it would
be hard to say) from such facts as the relationship between the living
and extinct mammifers in South America, and between those living on the
Continent and on adjoining islands, such as the Galapagos. It occurred
to me that a collection of all such analogous facts would throw light
either for or against the view of related species being co-descendants
from a common stock. A long searching amongst agricultural and
horticultural books and people makes me believe (I well know how
absurdly presumptuous this must appear) that I see the way in which new
varieties become exquisitely adapted to the external conditions of life
and to other surrounding beings. I am a bold man to lay myself open to
being thought a complete fool, and a most deliberate one. From the
nature of the grounds which make me believe that species are mutable in
form, these grounds cannot be restricted to the closest-allied species;
but how far they extend I cannot tell, as my reasons fall away by
degrees, when applied to species more and more remote from each other.
Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that there are
numerous immense difficulties in my notions, but they appear to me less
than on the common view. I have drawn up a sketch and had it copied (in
200 pages) of my conclusions; and if I thought at some future time that
you would think it worth reading, I should, of course, be most thankful
to have the criticism of so competent a critic. Excuse this very long
and egotistical and ill-written letter, which by your remarks you have
led me into.
_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down [1849-50?].
... How painfully (to me) true is your remark, that no one has hardly a
right to examine the question of species who has not minutely described
many. I was, however, pleased to hear from Owen (who is vehemently
opposed to any mutability in species), that he thought it was a very
fair subject, and that there was a mass of facts to be brought to bear
on the question, not hitherto collected. My only comfort is (as I mean
to attempt the subject), that I have dabbled in several branches of
Natural History, and seen good specific men work out my species, and
know something of geology (an indispensable union); and though I shall
get more kicks than half-pennies, I will, life serving, attempt my work.
Lamarck is the only exception, that I can think of, of an accurate
describer of species at least in the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has
disbelieved in permanent species, but he in his absurd though clever
work has done the subject harm, as has Mr. Vestiges, and, as (some
future loose naturalist attempting the same speculations will perhaps
say) has Mr. D....
_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ September 25th [1853].
In my own Cirripedial work (by the way, thank you for the dose of soft
solder; it does one--or at least me--a great deal of good)--in my own
work I have not felt conscious that disbelieving in the mere
_permanence_ of species has made much difference one way or the other;
in some few cases (if publishing avowedly on the doctrine of
non-permanence), I should _not_ have affixed names, and in some few
cases should have affixed names to remarkable varieties. Certainly I
have felt it humiliating, discussing and doubting, and examining over
and over again, when in my own mind the only doubt has been whether the
form varied _to-day or yesterday_ (not to put too fine a point on it, as
Snagsby[139] would say). After describing a set of forms as distinct
species, tearing up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that up
and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has
happened to me), I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what
sin I had committed to be so punished. But I must confess that perhaps
nearly the same thing would have happened to me on any scheme of work.
_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, March 26th [1854].
MY DEAR HOOKER--I had hoped that you would have had a little
breathing-time after your Journal,[140] but this seems to be very far
from the case; and I am the more obliged (and somewhat contrite) for the
long letter received this morning, _most_ juicy with news and _most_
interesting to me in many ways. I am very glad indeed to hear of the
reforms, &c., in the Royal Society. With respect to the Club,[141] I am
deeply interested; only two or three days ago, I was regretting to my
wife, how I was letting drop and being dropped by nearly all my
acquaintances, and that I would endeavour to go oftener to London; I was
not then thinking of the Club, which, as far as one thing goes, would
answer my exact object in keeping up old and making some new
acquaintances. I will therefore come up to London for every (with rare
exceptions) Club-day, and then my head, I think, will allow me on an
average to go to every other meeting. But it is grievous how often any
change knocks me up. I will further pledge myself, as I told Lyell, to
resign after a year, if I did not attend pretty often, so that I should
_at worst_ encumber the Club temporarily. If you can get me elected, I
certainly shall be very much pleased.... I am particularly obliged to
you for sending me Asa Gray's letter; how very pleasantly he writes. To
see his and your caution on the species-question ought to overwhelm me
in confusion and shame; it does make me feel deuced uncomfortable.... I
was pleased and surprised to see A. Gray's remarks on crossing
obliterating varieties, on which, as you know, I have been collecting
facts for these dozen years. How awfully flat I shall feel, if, when I
got my notes together on species, &c. &c., the whole thing explodes like
an empty puff-ball. Do not work yourself to death.
Ever yours most truly.
To work out the problem of the Geographical Distribution of animals and
plants on evolutionary principles, Darwin had to study the means by
which seeds, eggs, &c., can be transported across wide spaces of ocean.
It was this need which gave an interest to the class of experiment to
which the following letters refer.
_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ April 13th [1855].
... I have had one experiment some little time in progress which will, I
think, be interesting, namely, seeds in salt water, immersed in water of
32-33 deg., which I have and shall long have, as I filled a great tank
with snow. When I wrote last I was going to triumph over you, for my
experiment had in a slight degree succeeded; but this, with infinite
baseness, I did not tell, in hopes that you would say that you would eat
all the plants which I could raise after immersion. It is very
aggravating that I cannot in the least remember what you did formerly
say that made me think you scoffed at the experiments vastly; for you
now seem to view the experiment like a good Christian. I have in small
bottles out of doors, exposed to variation of temperature, cress,
radish, cabbages, lettuces, carrots, and celery, and onion seed. These,
after immersion for exactly one week, have all germinated, which I did
not in the least expect (and thought how you would sneer at me); for the
water of nearly all, and of the cress especially, smelt very badly, and
the cress seed emitted a wonderful quantity of mucus (the
_Vestiges_[142] would have expected them to turn into tadpoles), so as
to adhere in a mass; but these seeds germinated and grew splendidly. The
germination of all (especially cress and lettuces) has been accelerated,
except the cabbages, which have come up very irregularly, and a good
many, I think, dead. One would, have thought, from their native habitat,
that the cabbage would have stood well. The Umbelliferae and onions seem
to stand the salt well. I wash the seed before planting them. I have
written to the _Gardeners' Chronicle_,[143] though I doubt whether it
was worth while. If my success seems to make it worth while, I will send
a seed list, to get you to mark some different classes of seeds. To-day
I replant the same seeds as above after fourteen days' immersion. As
many sea-currents go a mile an hour, even in a week they might be
transported 168 miles; the Gulf Stream is said to go fifty and sixty
miles a day. So much and too much on this head; but my geese are always
swans....
_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ [April 14th, 1855.]
... You are a good man to confess that you expected the cress would be
killed in a week, for this gives me a nice little triumph. The children
at first were tremendously eager, and asked me often, "whether I should
beat Dr. Hooker!" The cress and lettuce have just vegetated well after
twenty-one days' immersion. But I will write no more, which is a great
virtue in me; for it is to me a very great pleasure telling you
everything I do.
... If you knew some of the experiments (if they may be so called) which
I am trying, you would have a good right to sneer, for they are so
_absurd_ even in _my_ opinion that I dare not tell you.
Have not some men a nice notion of experimentising? I have had a letter
telling me that seeds _must_ have _great_ power of resisting salt water,
for otherwise how could they get to islands'? This is the true way to
solve a problem?
Experiments on the transportal of seeds through the agency of animals,
also gave him much labour. He wrote to Fox (1855):--
"All nature is perverse and will not do as I wish it; and just at
present I wish I had my old barnacles to work at, and nothing new."
And to Hooker:--
"Everything has been going wrong with me lately: the fish at the Zoolog.
Soc. ate up lots of soaked seeds, and in imagination they had in my mind
been swallowed, fish and all, by a heron, had been carried a hundred
miles, been voided on the banks of some other lake and germinated
splendidly, when lo and behold, the fish ejected vehemently, and with
disgust equal to my own, _all_ the seeds from their mouths."
THE UNFINISHED BOOK.
In his Autobiographical sketch (p. 41) my father wrote:--"Early in 1856
Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at once
to do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was
afterwards followed in my _Origin of Species_; yet it was only an
abstract of the materials which I had collected." The remainder of the
present chapter is chiefly concerned with the preparation of this
unfinished book.
The work was begun on May 14th, and steadily continued up to June 1858,
when it was interrupted by the arrival of Mr. Wallace's MS. During the
two years which we are now considering, he wrote ten chapters (that is
about one-half) of the projected book.
_C. D. to J. D. Hooker_. May 9th [1856].
... I very much want advice and _truthful_ consolation if you can give
it. I had a good talk with Lyell about my species work, and he urges me
strongly to publish something. I am fixed against any periodical or
Journal, as I positively will _not_ expose myself to an Editor or a
Council allowing a publication for which they might be abused. If I
publish anything it must be a _very thin_ and little volume, giving a
sketch of my views and difficulties; but it is really dreadfully
unphilosophical to give a _resume_, without exact references, of an
unpublished work. But Lyell seemed to think I might do this, at the
suggestion of friends, and on the ground, which I I might state, that I
had been at work for eighteen[144] years, and yet could not publish for
several years, and especially as I could point out difficulties which
seemed to me to require especial investigation. Now what think you? I
should be really grateful for advice. I thought of giving up a couple of
months and writing such a sketch, and trying to keep my judgment open
whether or no to publish it when completed. It will be simply impossible
for me to give exact references; anything important I should state on
the authority of the author generally; and instead of giving all the
facts on which I ground my opinion, I could give by memory only one or
two. In the Preface I would state that the work could not be considered
strictly scientific, but a mere sketch or outline of a future work in
which full references, &c., should be given. Eheu, eheu, I believe I
should sneer at any one else doing this, and my only comfort is, that I
_truly_ never dreamed of it, till Lyell suggested it, and seems
deliberately to think it advisable.
I am in a peck of troubles, and do pray forgive me for troubling you.
Yours affectionately.
He made an attempt at a sketch of his views, but as he wrote to Fox in
October 1856:--
"I found it such unsatisfactory work that I have desisted, and am now
drawing up my work as perfect as my materials of nineteen years'
collecting suffice, but do not intend to stop to perfect any line of
investigation beyond current work."
And in November he wrote to Sir Charles Lyell:--
"I am working very steadily at my big book; I have found it quite
impossible to publish any preliminary essay or sketch; but am doing my
work as completely as my present materials allow without waiting to
perfect them. And this much acceleration I owe to you."
Again to Mr. Fox, in February, 1857:--
"I am got most deeply interested in my subject; though I wish I could
set less value on the bauble fame, either present or posthumous, than I
do, but not I think, to any extreme degree: yet, if I know myself, I
would work just as hard, though with less gusto, if I knew that my book
would be published for ever anonymously."
_C. D. to A. R. Wallace._ Moor Park, May 1st, 1857.
MY DEAR SIR--I am much obliged for your letter of October 10th, from
Celebes, received a few days ago; in a laborious undertaking, sympathy
is a valuable and real encouragement. By your letter and even still more
by your paper[145] in the Annals, a year or more ago, I can plainly see
that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent have come to
similar conclusions. In regard to the Paper in the Annals, I agree to
the truth of almost every word of your paper; and I dare say that you
will agree with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty
closely with any theoretical paper; for it is lamentable how each man
draws his own different conclusions from the very same facts. This
summer will make the 20th year (!) since I opened my first note-book, on
the question how and in what way do species and varieties differ from
each other. I am now preparing my work for publication, but I find the
subject so very large, that though I have written many chapters, I do
not suppose I shall go to press for two years. I have never heard how
long you intend staying in the Malay Archipelago; I wish I might profit
by the publication of your Travels there before my work appears, for no
doubt you will reap a large harvest of facts. I have acted already in
accordance with your advice of keeping domestic varieties, and those
appearing in a state of nature, distinct; but I have sometimes doubted
of the wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad to be backed by your
opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt the truth of the now
very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic animals having descended
from several wild stocks; though I do not doubt that it is so in some
cases. I think there is rather better evidence on the sterility of
hybrid animals than you seem to admit: and in regard to plants the
collection of carefully recorded facts by Koelreuter and Gaertner (and
Herbert) is _enormous_. I most entirely agree with you on the little
effects of "climatal conditions," which one sees referred to _ad
nauseam_ in all books: I suppose some very little effect must be
attributed to such influences, but I fully believe that they are very
slight. It is really _impossible_ to explain my views (in the compass of
a letter), on the causes and means of variation in a state of nature;
but I have slowly adopted a distinct and tangible idea,--whether true or
false others must judge; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a
doctrine by its author, seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee
of truth!...
In December 1857 he wrote to the same correspondent:--
"You ask whether I shall discuss 'man.' I think I shall avoid the whole
subject, as so surrounded with prejudices; though I fully admit that it
is the highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist. My work,
on which I have now been at work more or less for twenty years, will not
fix or settle anything; but I hope it will aid by giving a large
collection of facts, with one definite end. I get on very slowly, partly
from ill-health, partly from being a very slow worker. I have got about
half written; but I do not suppose I shall publish under a couple of
years. I have now been three whole months on one chapter on Hybridism!
"I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three or four
years more. What a wonderful deal you will have seen, and what
interesting areas--the grand Malay Archipelago and the richest parts of
South America! I infinitely admire and honour your zeal and courage in
the good cause of Natural Science; and you have my very sincere and
cordial good wishes for success of all kinds, and may all your theories
succeed, except that on Oceanic Islands, on which subject I will do
battle to the death."
And to Fox in February 1858:--
"I am working very hard at my book, perhaps too hard. It will be very
big, and I am become most deeply interested in the way facts fall into
groups. I am like Croesus overwhelmed with my riches in facts, and I
mean to make my book as perfect as ever I can. I shall not go to press
at soonest for a couple of years."
The letter which follows, written from his favourite resting place, the
Water-Cure Establishment at Moor Park, comes in like a lull before the
storm,--the upset of all his plans by the arrival of Mr. Wallace's
manuscript, a phase in the history of his life to which the next chapter
is devoted.
_C. D. to Mrs. Darwin._ Moor Park, April [1858].
The weather is quite delicious. Yesterday, after writing to you, I
strolled a little beyond the glade for an hour and a half, and enjoyed
myself--the fresh yet dark green of the grand Scotch firs, the brown of
the catkins of the old birches, with their white stems, and a fringe of
distant green from the larches, made an excessively pretty view. At last
I fell fast asleep on the grass, and awoke with a chorus of birds
singing around me, and squirrels running up the trees, and some
woodpeckers laughing, and it was as pleasant and rural a scene as ever I
saw, and I did not care one penny how any of the beasts or birds had
been formed. I sat in the drawing-room till after eight, and then went
and read the Chief Justice's summing up, and thought Bernard[146]
guilty, and then read a bit of my novel, which is feminine, virtuous,
clerical, philanthropical, and all that sort of thing, but very
decidedly flat. I say feminine, for the author is ignorant about money
matters, and not much of a lady--for she makes her men say, "My Lady." I
like Miss Craik very much, though we have some battles, and differ on
every subject. I like also the Hungarian; a thorough gentleman, formerly
attache at Paris, and then in the Austrian cavalry, and now a pardoned
exile, with broken health. He does not seem to like Kossuth, but says,
he is certain [he is] a sincere patriot, most clever and eloquent, but
weak, with no determination of character....
FOOTNOTES:
[136] Rev. L. Blomefield.
[137] Mr. Jenyns' _Observations in Natural History_. It is prefaced by
an Introduction on "Habits of observing as connected with the study of
Natural History," and followed by a "Calendar of Periodic Phenomena in
Natural History," with "Remarks on the importance of such Registers."
[138] Rev. L. Blomefield.
[139] In _Bleak House_.
[140] Sir Joseph Hooker's _Himalayan Journal_.
[141] The Philosophical Club, to which my father was elected (as
Professor Bonney is good enough to inform me) on April 24, 1854. He
resigned his membership in 1864. The Club was founded in 1847. The
number of members being limited to 47, it was proposed to christen it
"the Club of 47," but the name was never adopted. The nature of the Club
may be gathered from its first rule: "The purpose of the Club is to
promote as much as possible the scientific objects of the Royal Society;
to facilitate intercourse between those Fellows who are actively engaged
in cultivating the various branches of Natural Science, and who have
contributed to its progress; to increase the attendance at the evening
meetings, and to encourage the contribution and discussion of papers."
The Club met for dinner at 6, and the chair was to be quitted at 8.15,
it being expected that members would go to the Royal Society. Of late
years the dinner has been at 6.30, the Society meeting in the afternoon.
[142] _The Vestiges of Creation_, by R. Chambers.
[143] A few words asking for information. The results were published in
the _Gardeners' Chronicle_, May 26, Nov. 24, 1855. In the same year (p.
789) he sent a postscript to his former paper, correcting a misprint and
adding a few words on the seeds of the Leguminosae. A fuller paper on the
germination of seeds after treatment in salt water, appeared in the
_Linnean Soc. Journal_, 1857, p. 130.
[144] The interval of eighteen years, from 1837 when he began to collect
facts, would bring the date of this letter to 1855, not 1856,
nevertheless the latter seems the more probable date.
[145] "On the Law that has regulated the Introduction of New
Species."--_Ann. Nat. Hist._, 1855.
[146] Simon Bernard was tried in April 1858 as an accessory to Orsini's
attempt on the life of the Emperor of the French. The verdict was "not
guilty."