THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.
1861--1871.
The beginning of the year 1861 saw my father engaged on the 3rd edition
(2000 copies) of the _Origin_, which was largely corrected and added to,
and was published in April, 1861.
On July 1, he started, with his family, for Torquay, where he remained
until August 27--a holiday which he characteristically enters in his
diary as "eight weeks and a day." The house he occupied was in Hesketh
Crescent, a pleasantly placed row of houses close above the sea,
somewhat removed from what was then the main body of the town, and not
far from the beautiful cliffed coast-line in the neighbourhood of
Anstey's Cove.
During the Torquay holiday, and for the remainder of the year, he worked
at the fertilisation of orchids. This part of the year 1861 is not dealt
with in the present chapter, because (as explained in the preface) the
record of his life, seems to become clearer when the whole of his
botanical work is placed together and treated separately. The present
chapter will, therefore, include only the progress of his work in the
direction of a general amplification of the _Origin of Species_--_e.g._,
the publication of _Animals and Plants_ and the _Descent of Man_. It
will also give some idea of the growth of belief in evolutionary
doctrines.
With regard to the third edition, he wrote to Mr. Murray in December,
1860:--
"I shall be glad to hear when you have decided how many copies you will
print off--the more the better for me in all ways, as far as compatible
with safety; for I hope never again to make so many corrections, or
rather additions, which I have made in hopes of making my many rather
stupid reviewers at least understand what is meant. I hope and think I
shall improve the book considerably."
An interesting feature in the new edition was the "Historical Sketch of
the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species,"[221] which now
appeared for the first time, and was continued in the later editions of
the work. It bears a strong impress of the author's personal character
in the obvious wish to do full justice to all his predecessors,--though
even in this respect it has not escaped some adverse criticism.
A passage in a letter to Hooker (March 27, 1861) gives the history of
one of his corrections.
"Here is a good joke: H. C. Watson (who, I fancy and hope, is going to
review the new edition of the _Origin_) says that in the first four
paragraphs of the introduction, the words 'I,' 'me,' 'my,' occur
forty-three times! I was dimly conscious of the accursed fact. He says
it can be explained phrenologically, which I suppose civilly means, that
I am the most egotistically self-sufficient man alive; perhaps so. I
wonder whether he will print this pleasing fact; it beats hollow the
parentheses in Wollaston's writing.
"I am, _my_ dear Hooker, ever yours,
"C. DARWIN.
"P.S.--Do not spread this pleasing joke; it is rather too biting."
He wrote a couple of years later, 1863, to Asa Gray, in a manner which
illustrates his use of the personal pronoun in the earlier editions of
the _Origin_:--
"You speak of Lyell as a judge; now what I complain of is that he
declines to be a judge.... I have sometimes almost wished that Lyell had
pronounced against me. When I say 'me,' I only mean _change of species
by descent_. That seems to me the turning-point. Personally, of course,
I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly
unimportant, compared to the question of Creation _or_ Modification."
He was, at first, alone, and felt himself to be so in maintaining a
rational workable theory of Evolution. It was therefore perfectly
natural that he should speak of "my" theory.
Towards the end of the present year (1861) the final arrangements for
the first French edition of the _Origin_ were completed, and in
September a copy of the third English edition was despatched to Mdlle.
Clemence Royer, who undertook the work of translation. The book was now
spreading on the Continent, a Dutch edition had appeared, and, as we
have seen, a German translation had been published in 1860. In a letter
to Mr. Murray (September 10, 1861), he wrote, "My book seems exciting
much attention in Germany, judging from the number of discussions sent
me." The silence had been broken, and in a few years the voice of German
science was to become one of the strongest of the advocates of
Evolution.
A letter, June 23, 1861, gave a pleasant echo from the Continent of the
growth of his views:--
_Hugh Falconer[222] to C. Darwin._ 31 Sackville St., W., June 23, 1861.
MY DEAR DARWIN,--I have been to Adelsberg cave and brought back with me
a live _Proteus anguinus_, designed for you from the moment I got it;
_i.e._ if you have got an aquarium and would care to have it. I only
returned last night from the Continent, and hearing from your brother
that you are about to go to Torquay, I lose no time in making you the
offer. The poor dear animal is still alive--although it has had no
appreciable means of sustenance for a month--and I am most anxious to
get rid of the responsibility of starving it longer. In your hands it
will thrive and have a fair chance of being developed without delay into
some type of the Columbidae--say a Pouter or a Tumbler.
My dear Darwin, I have been rambling through the north of Italy, and
Germany lately. Everywhere have I heard your views and your admirable
essay canvassed--the views of course often dissented from, according to
the special bias of the speaker--but the work, its honesty of purpose,
grandeur of conception, felicity of illustration, and courageous
exposition, always referred to in terms of the highest admiration. And
among your warmest friends no one rejoiced more heartily in the just
appreciation of Charles Darwin than did,
Yours very truly.
My father replied:--
Down [June 24, 1861].
MY DEAR FALCONER,--I have just received your note, and by good luck a
day earlier than properly, and I lose not a moment in answering you,
and thanking you heartily for your offer of the valuable specimen; but I
have no aquarium and shall soon start for Torquay, so that it would be a
thousand pities that I should have it. Yet I should certainly much like
to see it, but I fear it is impossible. Would not the Zoological Society
be the best place? and then the interest which many would take in this
extraordinary animal would repay you for your trouble.
Kind as you have been in taking this trouble and offering me this
specimen, to tell the truth I value your note more than the specimen. I
shall keep your note amongst a very few precious letters. Your kindness
has quite touched me.
Yours affectionately and gratefully.
My father, who had the strongest belief in the value of Asa Gray's help,
was anxious that his evolutionary writings should be more widely known
in England. In the autumn of 1860, and the early part of 1861, he had a
good deal of correspondence with him as to the publication, in the form
of a pamphlet, of Gray's three articles in the July, August, and October
numbers of the _Atlantic Monthly_, 1860.
The reader will find these articles republished in Dr. Gray's
_Darwiniana_, p. 87, under the title "Natural Selection not inconsistent
with Natural Theology." The pamphlet found many admirers, and my father
believed that it was of much value in lessening opposition, and making
converts to Evolution. His high opinion of it is shown not only in his
letters, but by the fact that he inserted a special notice of it in a
prominent place in the third edition of the _Origin_. Lyell, among
others, recognised its value as an antidote to the kind of criticism
from which the cause of Evolution suffered. Thus my father wrote to Dr.
Gray: "Just to exemplify the use of your pamphlet, the Bishop of London
was asking Lyell what he thought of the review in the _Quarterly_, and
Lyell answered, 'Read Asa Gray in the _Atlantic_.'"
On the same subject he wrote to Gray in the following year:--
"I believe that your pamphlet has done my book _great_ good; and I thank
you from my heart for myself: and believing that the views are in large
part true, I must think that you have done natural science a good turn.
Natural Selection seems to be making a little progress in England and on
the Continent; a new German edition is called for, and a French one has
just appeared."
The following may serve as an example of the form assumed between these
friends of the animosity at that time so strong between England and
America[223]:--
"Talking of books, I am in the middle of one which pleases me, though it
is very innocent food, viz. Miss Cooper's _Journal of a Naturalist_. Who
is she? She seems a very clever woman, and gives a capital account of
the battle between _our_ and _your_ weeds.[224] Does it not hurt your
Yankee pride that we thrash you so confoundedly? I am sure Mrs. Gray
will stick up for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more
honest, downright good sort of weeds. The book gives an extremely pretty
picture of one of your villages; but I see your autumn, though so much
more gorgeous than ours, comes on sooner, and that is one comfort."
A question constantly recurring in the letters to Gray is that of
design. For instance:--
"Your question what would convince me of design is a poser. If I saw an
angel come down to teach us good, and I was convinced from others seeing
him that I was not mad, I should believe in design. If I could be
convinced thoroughly that life and mind was in an unknown way a function
of other imponderable force, I should be convinced. If man was made of
brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism which had
ever lived, I should perhaps be convinced. But this is childish writing.
"I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts your
idea of the stream of variation having been led or designed. I have
asked him (and he says he will hereafter reflect and answer me) whether
he believes that the shape of my nose was designed. If he does I have
nothing more to say. If not, seeing what Fanciers have done by selecting
individual differences in the nasal bones of pigeons, I must think that
it is illogical to suppose that the variations, which natural selection
preserves for the good of any being, have been designed. But I know that
I am in the same sort of muddle (as I have said before) as all the
world seems to be in with respect to free will, yet with everything
supposed to have been foreseen or preordained."
The shape of his nose would perhaps not have been used as an
illustration, if he had remembered Fitz-Roy's objection to that feature
(see _Autobiography_, p. 26). He should, too, have remembered the
difficulty of predicting the value to an organism of an apparently
unimportant character.
In England Professor Huxley was at work in the evolutionary cause. He
gave, in 1862, two lectures at Edinburgh on _Man's Place in Nature_. My
father wrote:--
"I am heartily glad of your success in the North. By Jove, you have
attacked Bigotry in its stronghold. I thought you would have been
mobbed. I am so glad that you will publish your Lectures. You seem to
have kept a due medium between extreme boldness and caution. I am
heartily glad that all went off so well."
A review,[225] by F. W. Hutton, afterwards Professor of Biology and
Geology at Canterbury, N. Z., gave a hopeful note of the time not far
off when a broader view of the argument for Evolution would be accepted.
My father wrote to the author[226]:--
Down, April 20th, 1861.
DEAR SIR,--I hope that you will permit me to thank you for sending me a
copy of your paper in the _Geologist_, and at the same time to express
my opinion that you have done the subject a real service by the highly
original, striking, and condensed manner with which you have put the
case. I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend to
adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, but that I
believe that this view in the main is correct, because so many phenomena
can be thus grouped together and explained.
But it is generally of no use, I cannot make persons see this. I
generally throw in their teeth the universally admitted theory of the
undulations of light--neither the undulations, nor the very existence of
ether being proved--yet admitted because the view explains so much. You
are one of the very few who have seen this, and have now put it most
forcibly and clearly. I am much pleased to see how carefully you have
read my book, and what is far more important, reflected on so many
points with an independent spirit. As I am deeply interested in the
subject (and I hope not exclusively under a personal point of view) I
could not resist venturing to thank you for the right good service which
you have done. Pray believe me, dear sir,
Yours faithfully and obliged.
It was a still more hopeful sign that work of the first rank in value,
conceived on evolutionary principles, began to be published.
My father expressed this idea in a letter to the late Mr. Bates.[227]
"Under a general point of view, I am quite convinced (Hooker and Huxley
took the same view some months ago) that a philosophic view of nature
can solely be driven into naturalists by treating special subjects as
you have done."
This refers to Mr. Bates' celebrated paper on mimicry, with which the
following letter deals:--
Down Nov. 20 [1862].
DEAR BATES,--I have just finished, after several reads, your paper.[228]
In my opinion it is one of the most remarkable and admirable papers I
ever read in my life. The mimetic cases are truly marvellous, and you
connect excellently a host of analogous facts. The illustrations are
beautiful, and seem very well chosen; but it would have saved the reader
not a little trouble, if the name of each had been engraved below each
separate figure. No doubt this would have put the engraver into fits, as
it would have destroyed the beauty of the plate. I am not at all
surprised at such a paper having consumed much time. I am rejoiced that
I passed over the whole subject in the _Origin_, for I should have made
a precious mess of it. You have most clearly stated and solved a
wonderful problem. No doubt with most people this will be the cream of
the paper; but I am not sure that all your facts and reasonings on
variation, and on the segregation of complete and semi-complete species,
is not really more, or at least as valuable a part. I never conceived
the process nearly so clearly before; one feels present at the creation
of new forms. I wish, however, you had enlarged a little more on the
pairing of similar varieties; a rather more numerous body of facts seems
here wanted. Then, again, what a host of curious miscellaneous
observations there are--as on related sexual and individual variability:
these will some day, if I live, be a treasure to me.
With respect to mimetic resemblance being so common with insects, do you
not think it may be connected with their small size; they cannot defend
themselves; they cannot escape by flight, at least, from birds,
therefore they escape by trickery and deception?
I have one serious criticism to make, and that is about the title of the
paper; I cannot but think that you ought to have called prominent
attention in it to the mimetic resemblances. Your paper is too good to
be largely appreciated by the mob of naturalists without souls; but,
rely on it, that it will have _lasting_ value, and I cordially
congratulate you on your first great work. You will find, I should
think, that Wallace will appreciate it. How gets on your book? Keep your
spirits up. A book is no light labour. I have been better lately, and
working hard, but my health is very indifferent. How is your health?
Believe me, dear Bates,
Yours very sincerely.
1863.
Although the battle[229] of Evolution was not yet won, the growth of
belief was undoubtedly rapid. So that, for instance, Charles Kingsley
could write to F. D. Maurice[230]:
"The state of the scientific mind is most curious; Darwin is conquering
everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and
fact."
The change did not proceed without a certain amount of personal
bitterness. My father wrote in February, 1863:--
"What an accursed evil it is that there should be all this quarrelling
within what ought to be the peaceful realms of science."
I do not desire to keep alive the memories of dead quarrels, but some of
the burning questions of that day are too important from the
biographical point of view to be altogether omitted. Of this sort is the
history of Lyell's conversion to Evolution. It led to no flaw in the
friendship of the two men principally concerned, but it shook and
irritated a number of smaller people. Lyell was like the Mississippi in
flood, and as he changed his course, the dwellers on the banks were
angered and frightened by the general upsetting of landmarks.
_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, Feb. 24 [1863].
MY DEAR HOOKER,--I am astonished at your note. I have not seen the
_Athenaeum_,[231] but I have sent for it, and may get it to-morrow; and
will then say what I think.
I have read Lyell's book. [_The Antiquity of Man._] The whole certainly
struck me as a compilation, but of the highest class, for when possible
the facts have been verified on the spot, making it almost an original
work. The Glacial chapters seem to me best, and in parts magnificent. I
could hardly judge about Man, as all the gloss and novelty was
completely worn off. But certainly the aggregation of the evidence
produced a very striking effect on my mind. The chapter comparing
language and changes of species, seems most ingenious and interesting.
He has shown great skill in picking out salient points in the argument
for change of species; but I am deeply disappointed (I do not mean
personally) to find that his timidity prevents him giving any
judgment.... From all my communications with him, I must ever think that
he has really entirely lost faith in the immutability of species; and
yet one of his strongest sentences is nearly as follows; "If it should
_ever_[232] be rendered highly probable that species change by variation
and natural selection," &c. &c. I had hoped he would have guided the
public as far as his own belief went.... One thing does please me on
this subject, that he seems to appreciate your work. No doubt the public
or a part may be induced to think that, as he gives to us a larger space
than to Lamarck, he must think that there is something in our views.
When reading the brain chapter, it struck me forcibly that if he had
said openly that he believed in change of species, and as a consequence
that man was derived from some Quadrumanous animal, it would have been
very proper to have discussed by compilation the differences in the most
important organ, viz. the brain. As it is, the chapter seems to me to
come in rather by the head and shoulders. I do not think (but then I am
as prejudiced as Falconer and Huxley, or more so) that it is too severe;
it struck me as given with judicial force. It might perhaps be said with
truth that he had no business to judge on a subject on which he knows
nothing; but compilers must do this to a certain extent. (You know I
value and rank high compilers, being one myself!)
The Lyells are coming here on Sunday evening to stay till Wednesday. I
dread it, but I must say how much disappointed I am that he has not
spoken out on species, still less on man. And the best of the joke is
that he thinks he has acted with the courage of a martyr of old. I hope
I may have taken an exaggerated view of his timidity, and shall
_particularly_ be glad of your opinion on this head. When I got his book
I turned over the pages, and saw he had discussed the subject of
species, and said that I thought he would do more to convert the public
than all of us, and now (which makes the case worse for me) I must, in
common honesty, retract. I wish to Heaven he had said not a word on the
subject.
_C. D. to C. Lyell_. Down, March 6 [1863].
... I have been of course deeply interested by your book.[233] I have
hardly any remarks worth sending, but will scribble a little on what
most interested me. But I will first get out what I hate saying, viz.
that I have been greatly disappointed that you have not given judgment
and spoken fairly out what you think about the derivation of species. I
should have been contented if you had boldly said that species have not
been separately created, and had thrown as much doubt as you like on how
far variation and natural selection suffices. I hope to Heaven I am
wrong (and from what you say about Whewell it seems so), but I cannot
see how your chapters can do more good than an extraordinary able
review. I think the _Parthenon_ is right, that you will leave the public
in a fog. No doubt they may infer that as you give more space to myself,
Wallace, and Hooker, than to Lamarck, you think more of us. But I had
always thought that your judgment would have been an epoch in the
subject. All that is over with me, and I will only think on the
admirable skill with which you have selected the striking points, and
explained them. No praise can be too strong, in my opinion, for the
inimitable chapter on language in comparison with species....
I know you will forgive me for writing with perfect freedom, for you
must know how deeply I respect you as my old honoured guide and master.
I heartily hope and expect that your book will have a gigantic
circulation, and may do in many ways as much good as it ought to do. I
am tired, so no more. I have written so briefly that you will have to
guess my meaning. I fear my remarks are hardly worth sending. Farewell,
with kindest remembrance to Lady Lyell,
Ever yours.
A letter from Lyell to Hooker (Mar. 9, 1863), published in Lyell's
_Life and Letters_, vol. ii. p. 361, shows what was his feeling at the
time:--
"He [Darwin] seems much disappointed that I do not go farther with him,
or do not speak out more. I can only say that I have spoken out to the
full extent of my present convictions, and even beyond my state of
_feeling_ as to man's unbroken descent from the brutes, and I find I am
half converting not a few who were in arms against Darwin, and are even
now against Huxley." Lyell speaks, too, of having had to abandon "old
and long cherished ideas, which constituted the charm to me of the
theoretical part of the science in my earlier days, when I believed with
Pascal in the theory, as Hallam terms it, of 'the archangel ruined.'"
_C. D. to C. Lyell_. Down, 12th [March, 1863].
MY DEAR LYELL,--I thank you for your very interesting and kind, I may
say, charming letter. I feared you might be huffed for a little time
with me. I know some men would have been so.... As you say that you have
gone as far as you believe on the species question, I have not a word to
say; but I must feel convinced that at times, judging from conversation,
expressions, letters, &c., you have as completely given up belief in
immutability of specific forms as I have done. I must still think a
clear expression from you, _if you could have given it_, would have been
potent with the public, and all the more so, as you formerly held
opposite opinions. The more I work, the more satisfied I become with
variation and natural selection, but that part of the case I look at as
less important, though more interesting to me personally. As you ask for
criticisms on this head (and believe me that I should not have made them
unasked), I may specify (pp. 412, 413) that such words as "Mr. D.
labours to show," "is believed by the author to throw light," would lead
a common reader to think that you yourself do _not_ at all agree, but
merely think it fair to give my opinion. Lastly, you refer repeatedly to
my view as a modification of Lamarck's doctrine of development and
progression. If this is your deliberate opinion there is nothing to be
said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather
before Lamarck, and others, propounded the _obvious_ view that if
species were not created separately they must have descended from other
species, and I can see nothing else in common between the _Origin_ and
Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very injurious to its
acceptance, as it implies necessary progression, and closely connects
Wallace's and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate
readings, as a wretched book, and one from which (I well remember my
surprise) I gained nothing. But I know you rank it higher, which is
curious, as it did not in the least shake your belief. But enough, and
more than enough. Please remember you have brought it all down on
yourself!!
I am very sorry to hear about Falconer's "reclamation."[234] I hate the
very word, and have a sincere affection for him.
Did you ever read anything so wretched as the _Athenaeum_ reviews of you,
and of Huxley[235] especially. Your _object_ to make man old, and
Huxley's _object_ to degrade him. The wretched writer has not a glimpse
of what the discovery of scientific truth means. How splendid some pages
are in Huxley, but I fear the book will not be popular....
In the _Athenaeum_, Mar. 28, 1862, p. 417, appeared a notice of Dr.
Carpenter's book on 'Foraminifera,' which led to more skirmishing in the
same journal. The article was remarkable for upholding spontaneous
generation.
My father wrote, Mar. 29, 1863:--
"Many thanks for _Athenaeum_, received this morning, and to be returned
to-morrow morning. Who would have ever thought of the old stupid
_Athenaeum_ taking to Oken-like transcendental philosophy written in
Owenian style!
"It will be some time before we see 'slime, protoplasm, &c.' generating
a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public
opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation,[236] by which I
really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere
rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well
think of the origin of matter."
The _Athenaeum_ continued to be a scientific battle-ground. On April 4,
1863, Falconer wrote a severe article on Lyell. And my father wrote
(_Athenaeum_, 1863, p. 554), under the cloak of attacking spontaneous
generation, to defend Evolution. In reply, an article appeared in the
same Journal (May 2nd, 1863, p. 586), accusing my father of claiming for
his views the exclusive merit of "connecting by an intelligible thread
of reasoning" a number of facts in morphology, &c. The writer remarks
that, "The different generalisations cited by Mr. Darwin as being
connected by an intelligible thread of reasoning exclusively through his
attempt to explain specific transmutation are in fact related to it in
this wise, that they have prepared the minds of naturalists for a better
reception of such attempts to explain the way of the origin of species
from species."
To this my father replied as follows in the _Athenaeum_ of May 9th,
1863:--
Down, May 5 [1863].
I hope that you will grant me space to own that your reviewer is quite
correct when he states that any theory of descent will connect, "by an
intelligible thread of reasoning," the several generalizations before
specified. I ought to have made this admission expressly; with the
reservation, however, that, as far as I can judge, no theory so well
explains or connects these several generalizations (more especially the
formation of domestic races in comparison with natural species, the
principles of classification, embryonic resemblance, &c.) as the theory,
or hypothesis, or guess, if the reviewer so likes to call it, of Natural
Selection. Nor has any other satisfactory explanation been ever offered
of the almost perfect adaptation of all organic beings to each other,
and to their physical conditions of life. Whether the naturalist
believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, by the
author of the _Vestiges_, by Mr. Wallace and myself, or in any other
such view, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission
that species have descended from other species, and have not been
created immutable; for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide
field opened to him for further inquiry. I believe, however, from what I
see of the progress of opinion on the Continent, and in this country,
that the theory of Natural Selection will ultimately be adopted, with,
no doubt, many subordinate modifications and improvements.
CHARLES DARWIN.
In the following, he refers to the above letter to the _Athenaeum_:--
_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Saturday [May 11, 1863].
MY DEAR HOOKER,--You give good advice about not writing in newspapers; I
have been gnashing my teeth at my own folly; and this not caused by
----'s sneers, which were so good that I almost enjoyed them. I have
written once again to own to a certain extent of truth in what he says,
and then if I am ever such a fool again, have no mercy on me. I have
read the squib in _Public Opinion_;[237] it is capital; if there is
more, and you have a copy, do lend it. It shows well that a scientific
man had better be trampled in dirt than squabble.
In the following year (1864) he received the greatest honour which a
scientific man can receive in this country, the Copley Medal of the
Royal Society. It is presented at the Anniversary Meeting on St.
Andrew's Day (Nov. 30), the medallist being usually present to receive
it, but this the state of my father's health prevented. He wrote to Mr.
Fox:--
"I was glad to see your hand-writing. The Copley, being open to all
sciences and all the world, is reckoned a great honour; but excepting
from several kind letters, such things make little difference to me. It
shows, however, that Natural Selection is making some progress in this
country, and that pleases me. The subject, however, is safe in foreign
lands."
The presentation of the Copley Medal is of interest in connection with
what has gone before, inasmuch as it led to Sir C. Lyell making, in his
after-dinner speech, a "confession of faith as to the _Origin_." He
wrote to my father (_Life of Sir C. Lyell_, vol. ii. p. 384), "I said I
had been forced to give up my old faith without thoroughly seeing my way
to a new one. But I think you would have been satisfied with the length
I went."
Lyell's acceptance of Evolution was made public in the tenth edition of
the _Principles_, published in 1867 and 1868. It was a sign of
improvement, "a great triumph," as my father called it, that an
evolutionary article by Wallace, dealing with Lyell's book, should have
appeared in the _Quarterly Review_ (April, 1869). Mr. Wallace wrote:--
"The history of science hardly presents so striking an instance of
youthfulness of mind in advanced life as is shown by this abandonment of
opinions so long held and so powerfully advocated; and if we bear in
mind the extreme caution, combined with the ardent love of truth which
characterise every work which our author has produced, we shall be
convinced that so great a change was not decided on without long and
anxious deliberation, and that the views now adopted must indeed be
supported by arguments of overwhelming force. If for no other reason
than that Sir Charles Lyell in his tenth edition has adopted it, the
theory of Mr. Darwin deserves an attentive and respectful consideration
from every earnest seeker after truth."
The incident of the Copley Medal is interesting as giving an index of
the state of the scientific mind at the time.
My father wrote: "some of the old members of the Royal are quite shocked
at my having the Copley." In the _Reader_, December 3, 1864, General
Sabine's presidential address at the Anniversary Meeting is reported at
some length. Special weight was laid on my father's work in Geology,
Zoology, and Botany, but the _Origin of Species_ was praised chiefly as
containing a "mass of observations," &c. It is curious that as in the
case of his election to the French Institute, so in this case, he was
honoured not for the great work of his life, but for his less important
work in special lines.
I believe I am right in saying that no little dissatisfaction at the
President's manner of allusion to the _Origin_ was felt by some Fellows
of the Society.
My father spoke justly when he said that the subject was "safe in
foreign lands." In telling Lyell of the progress of opinion, he wrote
(March, 1863):--
"A first-rate German naturalist[238] (I now forget the name!), who has
lately published a grand folio, has spoken out to the utmost extent on
the _Origin_. De Candolle, in a very good paper on 'Oaks,' goes, in Asa
Gray's opinion, as far as he himself does; but De Candolle, in writing
to me, says _we_, 'we think this and that;' so that I infer he really
goes to the full extent with me, and tells me of a French good botanical
palaeontologist[239] (name forgotten), who writes to De Candolle that he
is sure that my views will ultimately prevail. But I did not intend to
have written all this. It satisfies me with the final results, but this
result, I begin to see, will take two or three life-times. The
entomologists are enough to keep the subject back for half a century."
The official attitude of French science was not very hopeful. The
Secretaire Perpetuel of the Academie published an _Examen du livre de M.
Darwin_, on which my father remarks:--
"A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book[240] against me,
which pleases me much, for it is plain that our good work is spreading
in France."
Mr. Huxley, who reviewed the book,[241] quotes the following passage
from Flourens:--
"M. Darwin continue: Aucune distinction absolue n'a ete et ne peut etre
etablie entre les especes et les varietes! Je vous ai deja dit que vous
vous trompiez; une distinction absolue separe les varietes d'avec les
especes." Mr. Huxley remarks on this, "Being devoid of the blessings of
an Academy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated
in this way even by a Perpetual Secretary." After demonstrating M.
Flourens' misapprehension of Natural Selection, Mr. Huxley says, "How
one knows it all by heart, and with what relief one reads at p. 65, 'Je
laisse M. Darwin.'"
The deterrent effect of the Academie on the spread of Evolution in
France has been most striking. Even at the present day a member of the
Institute does not feel quite happy in owning to a belief in Darwinism.
We may indeed be thankful that we are "devoid of such a blessing."
Among the Germans, he was fast gaining supporters. In 1865 he began a
correspondence with the distinguished Naturalist, Fritz Mueller, then, as
now, resident in Brazil. They never met, but the correspondence with
Mueller, which continued to the close of my father's life, was a source
of very great pleasure to him. My impression is that of all his unseen
friends Fritz Mueller was the one for whom he had the strongest regard.
Fritz Mueller is the brother of another distinguished man, the late
Hermann Mueller, the author of _Die Befruchtung der Blumen_ (The
Fertilisation of Flowers), and of much other valuable work.
The occasion of writing to Fritz Mueller was the latter's book, _Fuer
Darwin_, which was afterwards translated by Mr. Dallas at my father's
suggestion, under the title _Facts and Arguments for Darwin_.
Shortly afterwards, in 1866, began his connection with Professor Victor
Carus, of Leipzig, who undertook the translation of the 4th edition of
the _Origin_. From this time forward Professor Carus continued to
translate my father's books into German. The conscientious care with
which this work was done was of material service, and I well remember
the admiration (mingled with a tinge of vexation at his own
shortcomings) with which my father used to receive the lists of
oversights, &c., which Professor Carus discovered in the course of
translation. The connection was not a mere business one, but was
cemented by warm feelings of regard on both sides.
About this time, too, he came in contact with Professor Ernst Haeckel,
whose influence on German science has been so powerful.
The earliest letter which I have seen from my father to Professor
Haeckel, was written in 1865, and from that time forward they
corresponded (though not, I think, with any regularity) up to the end of
my father's life. His friendship with Haeckel was not merely the growth
of correspondence, as was the case with some others, for instance, Fritz
Mueller. Haeckel paid more than one visit to Down, and these were
thoroughly enjoyed by my father. The following letter will serve to show
the strong feeling of regard which he entertained for his
correspondent--a feeling which I have often heard him emphatically
express, and which was warmly returned. The book referred to is
Haeckel's _Generelle Morphologie_, published in 1866, a copy of which my
father received from the author in January, 1867.
Dr. E. Krause[242] has given a good account of Professor Haeckel's
services in the cause of Evolution. After speaking of the lukewarm
reception which the _Origin_ met with in Germany on its first
publication, he goes on to describe the first adherents of the new faith
as more or less popular writers, not especially likely to advance its
acceptance with the professorial or purely scientific world. And he
claims for Haeckel that it was his advocacy of Evolution in his
_Radiolaria_ (1862), and at the "Versammlung" of Naturalists at Stettin
in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the first time publicly
before the forum of German science, and his enthusiastic propagandism
that chiefly contributed to its success.
Mr. Huxley, writing in 1869, paid a high tribute to Professor Haeckel as
the Coryphaeus of the Darwinian movement in Germany. Of his _Generelle
Morphologie_, "an attempt to work out the practical applications" of the
doctrine of Evolution to their final results, he says that it has the
"force and suggestiveness, and ... systematising power of Oken without
his extravagance." Mr. Huxley also testifies to the value of Haeckel's
_Schoepfungs-Geschichte_ as an exposition of the _Generelle Morphologie_
"for an educated public."
Again, in his _Evolution in Biology_,[243] Mr. Huxley wrote: "Whatever
hesitation may not unfrequently be felt by less daring minds, in
following Haeckel in many of his speculations, his attempt to
systematise the doctrine of Evolution and to exhibit its influence as
the central thought of modern biology, cannot fail to have a
far-reaching influence on the progress of science."
In the following letter my father alludes to the somewhat fierce manner
in which Professor Haeckel fought the battle of 'Darwinismus,' and on
this subject Dr. Krause has some good remarks (p. 162). He asks whether
much that happened in the heat of the conflict might not well have been
otherwise, and adds that Haeckel himself is the last man to deny this.
Nevertheless he thinks that even these things may have worked well for
the cause of Evolution, inasmuch as Haeckel "concentrated on himself by
his _Ursprung des Menschen-Geschlechts_, his _Generelle Morphologie_,
and _Schoepfungs-Geschichte_, all the hatred and bitterness which
Evolution excited in certain quarters," so that, "in a surprisingly
short time it became the fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone should be
abused, while Darwin was held up as the ideal of forethought and
moderation."
_C. D. to E. Haeckel._ Down, May 21, 1867.
DEAR HAECKEL,--Your letter of the 18th has given me great pleasure, for
you have received what I said in the most kind and cordial manner. You
have in part taken what I said much stronger than I had intended. It
never occurred to me for a moment to doubt that your work, with the
whole subject so admirably and clearly arranged, as well as fortified by
so many new facts and arguments, would not advance our common object in
the highest degree. All that I think is that you will excite anger, and
that anger so completely blinds every one that your arguments would have
no chance of influencing those who are already opposed to our views.
Moreover, I do not at all like that you, towards whom I feel so much
friendship, should unnecessarily make enemies, and there is pain and
vexation enough in the world without more being caused. But I repeat
that I can feel no doubt that your work will greatly advance our
subject, and I heartily wish it could be translated into English, for my
own sake and that of others. With respect to what you say about my
advancing too strongly objections against my own views, some of my
English friends think that I have erred on this side; but truth
compelled me to write what I did, and I am inclined to think it was good
policy. The belief in the descent theory is slowly spreading in
England,[244] even amongst those who can give no reason for their
belief. No body of men were at first so much opposed to my views as the
members of the London Entomological Society, but now I am assured that,
with the exception of two or three old men, all the members concur with
me to a certain extent. It has been a great disappointment to me that I
have never received your long letter written to me from the Canary
Islands. I am rejoiced to hear that your tour, which seems to have been
a most interesting one, has done your health much good.
... I am very glad to hear that there is some chance of your visiting
England this autumn, and all in this house will be delighted to see you
here.
Believe me, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely.
I place here an extract from a letter of later date (Nov. 1868), which
refers to one of Haeckel's later works.[245]
"Your chapters on the affinities and genealogy of the animal kingdom
strike me as admirable and full of original thought. Your boldness,
however, sometimes makes me tremble, but as Huxley remarked, some one
must be bold enough to make a beginning in drawing up tables of descent.
Although you fully admit the imperfection of the geological record, yet
Huxley agreed with me in thinking that you are sometimes rather rash in
venturing to say at what periods the several groups first appeared. I
have this advantage over you, that I remember how wonderfully different
any statement on this subject made 20 years ago, would have been to what
would now be the case, and I expect the next 20 years will make quite as
great a difference."
The following extract from a letter to Professor W. Preyer, a well-known
physiologist, shows that he estimated at its true value the help he was
to receive from the scientific workers of Germany:--
March 31, 1868.
... I am delighted to hear that you uphold the doctrine of the
Modification of Species, and defend my views. The support which I
receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will
ultimately prevail. To the present day I am continually abused or
treated with contempt by writers of my own country; but the younger
naturalists are almost all on my side, and sooner or later the public
must follow those who make the subject their special study. The abuse
and contempt of ignorant writers hurts me very little....
I must now pass on to the publication, in 1868, of his book on _The
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_. It was begun two
days after the appearance of the second edition of the _Origin_, on Jan.
9, 1860, and it may, I think, be reckoned that about half of the eight
years that elapsed between its commencement and completion was spent on
it. The book did not escape adverse criticism: it was said, for
instance, that the public had been patiently waiting for Mr. Darwin's
_pieces justicatives_, and that after eight years of expectation, all
they got was a mass of detail about pigeons, rabbits and silk-worms. But
the true critics welcomed it as an expansion with unrivalled wealth of
illustration of a section of the _Origin_. Variation under the influence
of man was the only subject (except the question of man's origin) which
he was able to deal with in detail so as to utilise his full stores of
knowledge. When we remember how important for his argument is a
knowledge of the action of artificial selection, we may well rejoice
that this subject was chosen by him for amplification.
In 1864, he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker:
"I have begun looking over my old MS., and it is as fresh as if I had
never written it; parts are astonishingly dull, but yet worth printing,
I think; and other parts strike me as very good. I am a complete
millionaire in odd and curious little facts, and I have been really
astounded at my own industry whilst reading my chapters on Inheritance
and Selection. God knows when the book will ever be completed, for I
find that I am very weak, and on my best days cannot do more than one or
one and a half hours' work. It is a good deal harder than writing about
my dear climbing plants."
In Aug. 1867, when Lyell was reading the proofs of the book, my father
wrote:--
"I thank you cordially for your last two letters. The former one did me
_real_ good, for I had got so wearied with the subject that I could
hardly bear to correct the proofs, and you gave me fresh heart. I
remember thinking that when you came to the Pigeon chapter you would
pass it over as quite unreadable. I have been particularly pleased that
you have noticed Pangenesis. I do not know whether you ever had the
feeling of having thought so much over a subject that you had lost all
power of judging it. This is my case with Pangenesis (which is 26 or 27
years old), but I am inclined to think that if it be admitted as a
probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in Biology."
His theory of Pangenesis, by which he attempted to explain "how the
characters of the parents are 'photographed' on the child, by means of
material atoms derived from each cell in both parents, and developed in
the child," has never met with much acceptance. Nevertheless, some of
his contemporaries felt with him about it. Thus in February 1868, he
wrote to Hooker:--
"I heard yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid vanity), 'I can
hardly tell you how much I admire the chapter on _Pangenesis_. It is a
_positive comfort_ to me to have any feasible explanation of a
difficulty that has always been haunting me, and I shall never be able
to give it up till a better one supplies its place, and that I think
hardly possible.' Now his foregoing [italicised] words express my
sentiments exactly and fully: though perhaps I feel the relief extra
strongly from having during many years vainly attempted to form some
hypothesis. When you or Huxley say that a single cell of a plant, or the
stump of an amputated limb, has the 'potentiality' of reproducing the
whole--or 'diffuses an influence,' these words give me no positive
idea;--but, when it is said that the cells of a plant, or stump, include
atoms derived from every other cell of the whole organism and capable of
development, I gain a distinct idea."
Immediately after the publication of the book, he wrote:
Down, February 10 [1868].
MY DEAR HOOKER,--What is the good of having a friend, if one may not
boast to him? I heard yesterday that Murray has sold in a week the whole
edition of 1500 copies of my book, and the sale so pressing that he has
agreed with Clowes to get another edition in fourteen days! This has
done me a world of good, for I had got into a sort of dogged hatred of
my book. And now there has appeared a review in the _Pall Mall_ which
has pleased me excessively, more perhaps than is reasonable. I am quite
content, and do not care how much I may be pitched into. If by any
chance you should hear who wrote the article in the _Pall Mall_, do
please tell me; it is some one who writes capitally, and who knows the
subject. I went to luncheon on Sunday, to Lubbock's, partly in hopes of
seeing you, and, be hanged to you, you were not there.
Your cock-a-hoop friend,
C. D.
Independently of the favourable tone of the able series of notices in
the _Pall Mall Gazette_ (Feb. 10, 15, 17, 1868), my father may well have
been gratified by the following passages:--
"We must call attention to the rare and noble calmness with which he
expounds his own views, undisturbed by the heats of polemical agitation
which those views have excited, and persistently refusing to retort on
his antagonists by ridicule, by indignation, or by contempt. Considering
the amount of vituperation and insinuation which has come from the other
side, this forbearance is supremely dignified."
And again in the third notice, Feb. 17:--
"Nowhere has the author a word that could wound the most sensitive
self-love of an antagonist; nowhere does he, in text or note, expose the
fallacies and mistakes of brother investigators ... but while abstaining
from impertinent censure, he is lavish in acknowledging the smallest
debts he may owe; and his book will make many men happy."
I am indebted to Messrs. Smith and Elder for the information that these
articles were written by Mr. G. H. Lewes.
The following extract from a letter (Feb. 1870) to his friend Professor
Newton, the well-known ornithologist, shows how much he valued the
appreciation of his colleagues.
"I suppose it would be universally held extremely wrong for a defendant
to write to a Judge to express his satisfaction at a judgment in his
favour; and yet I am going thus to act. I have just read what you have
said in the 'Record'[246] about my pigeon chapters, and it has gratified
me beyond measure. I have sometimes felt a little disappointed that the
labour of so many years seemed to be almost thrown away, for you are the
first man capable of forming a judgment (excepting partly Quatrefages),
who seems to have thought anything of this part of my work. The amount
of labour, correspondence, and care, which the subject cost me, is more
than you could well suppose. I thought the article in the _Athenaeum_ was
very unjust; but now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for
your sympathy and too warm praise."
WORK ON MAN.
In February 1867, when the manuscript of _Animals and Plants_ had been
sent to Messrs. Clowes to be printed, and before the proofs began to
come in, he had an interval of spare time, and began a "Chapter on Man,"
but be soon found it growing under his hands, and determined to publish
it separately as a "very small volume."
It is remarkable that only four years before this date, namely in 1864,
he had given up hope of being able to work out this subject. He wrote to
Mr. Wallace:--
"I have collected a few notes on man, but I do not suppose that I shall
ever use them. Do you intend to follow out your views, and if so, would
you like at some future time to have my few references and notes? I am
sure I hardly know whether they are of any value, and they are at
present in a state of chaos. There is much more that I should like to
write, but I have not strength." But this was at a period of ill-health;
not long before, in 1863, he had written in the same depressed tone
about his future work generally:--
"I have been so steadily going downhill, I cannot help doubting whether
I can ever crawl a little uphill again. Unless I can, enough to work a
little, I hope my life may be very short, for to lie on a sofa all day
and do nothing but give trouble to the best and kindest of wives and
good dear children is dreadful."
The "Chapter on Man," which afterwards grew into the _Descent of Man_,
was interrupted by the necessity of correcting the proofs of _Animals
and Plants_, and by some botanical work, but was resumed with
unremitting industry on the first available day in the following year.
He could not rest, and he recognised with regret the gradual change in
his mind that rendered continuous work more and more necessary to him as
he grew older. This is expressed in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, June
17, 1868, which repeats to some extent what is given in the
_Autobiography_:--
"I am glad you were at the _Messiah_, it is the one thing that I should
like to hear again, but I dare say I should find my soul too dried up to
appreciate it as in old days; and then I should feel very flat, for it
is a horrid bore to feel as I constantly do, that I am a withered leaf
for every subject except Science. It sometimes makes me hate Science,
though God knows I ought to be thankful for such a perennial interest,
which makes me forget for some hours every day my accursed stomach."
_The Descent of Man_ (and this is indicated on its title-page) consists
of two separate books, namely on the pedigree of mankind, and on sexual
selection in the animal kingdom generally. In studying this latter part
of the subject he had to take into consideration the whole subject of
colour. I give the two following characteristic letters, in which the
reader is as it were present at the birth of a theory.
_C. D. to A. R. Wallace._ Down, February 23 [1867].
DEAR WALLACE,--I much regretted that I was unable to call on you, but
after Monday I was unable even to leave the house. On Monday evening I
called on Bates, and put a difficulty before him, which he could not
answer, and, as on some former similar occasion, his first suggestion
was, "You had better ask Wallace." My difficulty is, why are
caterpillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically coloured? Seeing
that many are coloured to escape danger, I can hardly attribute their
bright colour in other cases to mere physical conditions. Bates says the
most gaudy caterpillar he ever saw in Amazonia (of a sphinx) was
conspicuous at the distance of yards, from its black and red colours,
whilst feeding on large green leaves. If any one objected to male
butterflies having been made beautiful by sexual selection, and asked
why should they not have been made beautiful as well as their
caterpillars, what would you answer? I could not answer, but should
maintain my ground. Will you think over this, and some time, either by
letter or when we meet, tell me what you think?...
He seems to have received an explanation by return of post, for a day or
two afterwards he could write to Wallace:--
"Bates was quite right; you are the man to apply to in a difficulty. I
never heard anything more ingenious than your suggestion, and I hope you
may be able to prove it true. That is a splendid fact about the white
moths; it warms one's very blood to see a theory thus almost proved to
be true."
Mr. Wallace's suggestion was that conspicuous caterpillars or perfect
insects (_e.g._ white butterflies), which are distasteful to birds,
benefit by being promptly recognised and therefore easily avoided.[247]
The letter from Darwin to Wallace goes on: "The reason of my being so
much interested just at present about sexual selection is, that I have
almost resolved to publish a little essay on the origin of Mankind, and
I still strongly think (though I failed to convince you, and this, to
me, is the heaviest blow possible) that sexual selection has been the
main agent in forming the races of man.
"By the way, there is another subject which I shall introduce in my
essay, namely, expression of countenance. Now, do you happen to know by
any odd chance a very good-natured and acute observer in the Malay
Archipelago, who you think would make a few easy observations for me on
the expression of the Malays when excited by various emotions?"
The reference to the subject of expression in the above letter is
explained by the fact, that my father's original intention was to give
his essay on this subject as a chapter in the _Descent of Man_, which in
its turn grew, as we have seen, out of a proposed chapter in _Animals
and Plants_.
He got much valuable help from Dr. Guenther, of the Natural History
Museum, to whom he wrote in May 1870:--
"As I crawl on with the successive classes I am astonished to find how
similar the rules are about the nuptial or 'wedding dress' of all
animals. The subject has begun to interest me in an extraordinary
degree; but I must try not to fall into my common error of being too
speculative. But a drunkard might as well say he would drink a little
and not too much! My essay, as far as fishes, batrachians and reptiles
are concerned, will be in fact yours, only written by me."
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_, &c., 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 6000 more before the end of the year. My father notes that he
received for this edition L1470.
Nothing can give a better idea (in a small compass) of the growth of
Evolutionism, and its position at this time, than a quotation from Mr.
Huxley[248]:--
"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 had
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
Evolutionism. "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," 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_: "On every side it is raising a storm
of mingled wrath, wonder and admiration."
Haeckel seems to have been one of the first to write to my father about
the _Descent of Man_. I quote from Darwin's 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.[249] 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."
In March he wrote to Professor Ray Lankester:--
"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_."
About the same time 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 as yet. 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_[250]:--
"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 striking review appeared in the _Saturday Review_ (March 4 and 11,
1871) in which the position of Evolution is well stated.
"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."
We must now return to the history of the general principle of Evolution.
At the beginning of 1869[251] he was at work on the fifth edition of
the _Origin_. The most important alterations were suggested by a
remarkable paper in the _North British Review_ (June, 1867) written by
the late Fleeming Jenkin.
It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms, which my father, as I
believe, felt to be the most valuable ever made on his views should have
come, not from a professed naturalist but from a Professor of
Engineering.
The point on which Fleeming Jenkin convinced my father is the extreme
difficulty of believing that _single individuals_ which differ from
their fellows in the possession of some useful character can be the
starting point of a new variety. Thus the origin of a new variety is
more likely to be found in a species which presents the incipient
character in a large number of its individuals. This point of view was
of course perfectly familiar to him, it was this that induced him to
study "unconscious selection," where a breed is formed by the
long-continued preservation by Man of all those individuals which are
best adapted to his needs: not as in the art of the professed breeder,
where a single individual is picked out to breed from.
It is impossible to give in a short compass an account of Fleeming
Jenkin's argument. My father's copy of the paper (ripped out of the
volume as usual, and tied with a bit of string) is annotated in pencil
in many places. I quote a passage opposite which my father has written
"good sneers"--but it should be remembered that he used the word "sneer"
in rather a special sense, not as necessarily implying a feeling of
bitterness in the critic, but rather in the sense of "banter." Speaking
of the "true believer," Fleeming Jenkin says, p. 293:--
"He can invent trains of ancestors of whose existence there is no
evidence; he can marshal hosts of equally imaginary foes; he can call up
continents, floods, and peculiar atmospheres; he can dry up oceans,
split islands, and parcel out eternity at will; surely with these
advantages he must be a dull fellow if he cannot scheme some series of
animals and circumstances explaining our assumed difficulty quite
naturally. Feeling the difficulty of dealing with adversaries who
command so huge a domain of fancy, we will abandon these arguments, and
trust to those which at least cannot be assailed by mere efforts of
imagination."
In the fifth edition of the _Origin_, my father altered a passage in the
Historical Sketch (fourth edition, p. xviii.). He thus practically gave
up the difficult task of understanding whether or not Sir R. Owen claims
to have discovered the principle of Natural Selection. Adding, "As far
as the more enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is
concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded
me, for both of us ... were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr.
Matthew."
The desire that his views might spread in France was always strong with
my father, and he was therefore justly annoyed to find that in 1869 the
publisher of the French edition had brought out a third edition without
consulting the author. He was accordingly glad to enter into an
arrangement for a French translation of the fifth edition; this was
undertaken by M. Reinwald, with whom he continued to have pleasant
relations as the publisher of many of his books in French.
He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker:--
"I must enjoy myself and tell you about Mdlle. C. Royer, who translated
the _Origin_ into French, and for whose second edition I took infinite
trouble. She has now just brought out a third edition without informing
me, so that all the corrections, &c., in the fourth and fifth English
editions are lost. Besides her enormously long preface to the first
edition, she has added a second preface abusing me like a pickpocket for
Pangenesis, which of course has no relation to the _Origin_. So I wrote
to Paris; and Reinwald agrees to bring out at once a new translation
from the fifth English edition, in competition with her third
edition.... This fact shows that 'evolution of species' must at last be
spreading in France."
It will be well perhaps to place here all that remains to be said about
the _Origin of Species_. The sixth or final edition was published in
January 1872 in a smaller and cheaper form than its predecessors. The
chief addition was a discussion suggested by Mr. Mivart's _Genesis of
Species_, which appeared in 1871, before the publication of the _Descent
of Man_. The following quotation from a letter to Wallace (July 9, 1871)
may serve to show the spirit and method in which Mr. Mivart dealt with
the subject. "I grieve to see the omission of the words by Mivart,
detected by Wright.[252] 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."
My father continues, with his usual charity and moderation:--
"I conclude with sorrow that though he means to be honourable, he is so
bigoted that he cannot act fairly."
In July 1871, my father wrote to Mr. Wallace:--
"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.[253]
Farewell.
" ... There is a most cutting review of me in the [July] _Quarterly_; 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,[254] 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 _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 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 Darwin 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 harmonize 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,[255] in a dozen big folios. Among these I dived, to the great
astonishment of the librarian, and looking into them 'as careful robins
eye 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."[256]
In the sixth edition my father also referred to the "direct action of
the conditions of life" as a subordinate cause of modification in living
things: On this subject he wrote to Dr. Moritz Wagner (Oct. 13, 1876):
"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, &c., 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."
It has been supposed that such statements indicate a serious change of
front on my father's part. As a matter of fact the first edition of the
_Origin_ contains the words, "I am convinced that natural selection has
been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." Moreover,
any alteration that his views may have undergone was due not to a change
of opinion, but to change in the materials on which a judgment was to be
formed. Thus he wrote to Wagner in the above quoted letter:--
"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."
With the possibility of such action of the environment he had of course
been familiar for many years. Thus he wrote to Mr. Davidson in 1861:--
"My greatest trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct effects of
the long-continued action of changed conditions of life without any
selection, with the action of selection on mere accidental (so to speak)
variability. I oscillate much on this head, but generally return to my
belief that the direct action of the conditions of life has not been
great. At least this direct action can have played an extremely small
part in producing all the numberless and beautiful adaptations in every
living creature."
And to Sir Joseph Hooker in the following year:--
"I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading
me to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I
presume I regret it, because it lessens the glory of Natural Selection,
and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get
all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will
be."
Reference has already been made to the growth of his book on the
_Expression of the Emotions_ out of a projected chapter in the _Descent
of Man_.
It was published in the autumn of 1872. 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.[257]
As usual he had no belief in the possibility of the book being generally
successful. The following passage in a letter to Haeckel serves to show
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."
A good review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the _Quarterly Journal of
Science_, Jan. 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."
The publication of the Expression book was the occasion of the following
letter to one of his oldest friends, the late Mrs. Haliburton, who was
the daughter of a Shropshire neighbour, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse, and
became the wife of the author of _Sam Slick_.
Nov. 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 ill-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.
FOOTNOTES:
[221] The Historical Sketch had already appeared in the first German
edition (1860) and the American edition. Bronn states in the German
edition (footnote, p. 1) that it was his critique in the _N. Jahrbuch
fuer Mineralogie_ that suggested to my father the idea of such a sketch.
[222] Hugh Falconer, born 1809, died 1865. Chiefly known as a
palaeontologist, although employed as a botanist during his whole career
in India, where he was a medical officer in the H.E.I.C. Service.
[223] In his letters to Gray there are also numerous references to the
American war. I give a single passage. "I never knew the newspapers so
profoundly interesting. North America does not do England justice; I
have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few,
and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions
of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In
the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause
of humanity. What wonderful times we live in! Massachusetts seems to
show noble enthusiasm. Great God! how I should like to see the greatest
curse on earth--slavery--abolished!"
[224] This refers to the remarkable fact that many introduced European
weeds have spread over large parts of the United States.
[225] _Geologist_, 1861, p. 132.
[226] The letter is published in a lecture by Professor Hutton given
before the Philosoph. Institute, Canterbury, N.Z., Sept 12th, 1887.
[227] Mr. Bates is perhaps most widely known through his delightful _The
Naturalist on the Amazons_. It was with regard to this book that my
father wrote (April 1863) to the author:--"I have finished vol. i. My
criticisms may be condensed into a single sentence, namely, that it is
the best work of Natural History Travels ever published in England. Your
style seems to me admirable. Nothing can be better than the discussion
on the struggle for existence, and nothing better than the description
of the Forest scenery. It is a grand book, and whether or not it sells
quickly, it will last. You have spoken out boldly on Species; and
boldness on the subject seems to get rarer and rarer. How beautifully
illustrated it is."
[228] Mr. Bates' paper, 'Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazons
Valley' (_Linn. Soc. Trans._ xxiii. 1862), in which the now familiar
subject of mimicry was founded. My father wrote a short review of it in
the _Natural History Review_, 1863, p. 219, parts of which occur almost
verbatim in the later editions of the _Origin of Species_. A striking
passage occurs in the review, showing the difficulties of the case from
a creationist's point of view:--
"By what means, it may be asked, have so many butterflies of the
Amazonian region acquired their deceptive dress? Most naturalists will
answer that they were thus clothed from the hour of their creation--an
answer which will generally be so far triumphant that it can be met only
by long-drawn arguments; but it is made at the expense of putting an
effectual bar to all further inquiry. In this particular case, moreover,
the creationist will meet with special difficulties; for many of the
mimicking forms of _Leptalis_ can be shown by a graduated series to be
merely varieties of one species; other mimickers are undoubtedly
distinct species, or even distinct genera. So again, some of the
mimicked forms can be shown to be merely varieties; but the greater
number must be ranked as distinct species. Hence the creationist will
have to admit that some of these forms have become imitators, by means
of the laws of variation, whilst others he must look at as separately
created under their present guise; he will further have to admit that
some have been created in imitation of forms not themselves created as
we now see them, but due to the laws of variation! Professor Agassiz,
indeed, would think nothing of this difficulty; for he believes that not
only each species and each variety, but that groups of individuals,
though identically the same, when inhabiting distinct countries, have
been all separately created in due proportional numbers to the wants of
each land. Not many naturalists will be content thus to believe that
varieties and individuals have been turned out all ready made, almost as
a manufacturer turns out toys according to the temporary demand of the
market."
[229] Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating the
growing tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth in the
_Origin of Species_. He gave a series of lectures to working men at the
School of Mines in November, 1862. These were printed in 1863 from the
shorthand notes of Mr. May, as six little blue books, price 4_d._ each,
under the title, _Our Knowledge of the Causes of Organic Nature_.
[230] Kingsley's _Life_, vol. ii. p. 171.
[231] In the _Antiquity of Man_, first edition, p. 480, Lyell criticised
somewhat severely Owen's account of the difference between the Human and
Simian brains. The number of the _Athenaeum_ here referred to (1863, p.
262) contains a reply by Professor Owen to Lyell's strictures. The
surprise expressed by my father was at the revival of a controversy
which every one believed to be closed. Professor Huxley (_Medical
Times_, Oct. 25th, 1862, quoted in _Man's Place in Nature_, p. 117)
spoke of the "two years during which this preposterous controversy has
dragged its weary length." And this no doubt expressed a very general
feeling.
[232] The italics are not Lyell's.
[233] _The Antiquity of Man._
[234] "Falconer, whom I [Lyell] referred to oftener than to any other
author, says I have not done justice to the part he took in
resuscitating the cave question, and says he shall come out with a
separate paper to prove it. I offered to alter anything in the new
edition, but this he declined."--C. Lyell to C. Darwin, March 11, 1863;
Lyell's _Life_, vol ii. p. 364.
[235] _Man's Place in Nature_, 1863.
[236] This refers to a passage in which the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter's
book speaks of "an operation of force," or "a concurrence of forces
which have now no place in nature," as being, "a creative force, in
fact, which Darwin could only express in Pentateuchal terms as the
primordial form 'into which life was first breathed.'" The conception of
expressing a creative force as a primordial form is the reviewer's.
[237] _Public Opinion_, April 23, 1863, A lively account of a police
case, in which the quarrels of scientific men are satirised. Mr. John
Bull gives evidence that--
"The whole neighbourhood was unsettled by their disputes; Huxley
quarrelled with Owen, Owen with Darwin, Lyell with Owen, Falconer and
Prestwich with Lyell, and Gray the menagerie man with everybody. He had
pleasure, however, in stating that Darwin was the quietest of the set.
They were always picking bones with each other and fighting over their
gains. If either of the gravel sifters or stone breakers found anything,
he was obliged to conceal it immediately, or one of the old bone
collectors would be sure to appropriate it first and deny the theft
afterwards, and the consequent wrangling and disputes were as endless as
they were wearisome.
"Lord Mayor.--Probably the clergyman of the parish might exert some
influence over them?
"The gentleman smiled, shook his head, and stated that he regretted to
say that no class of men paid so little attention to the opinions of the
clergy as that to which these unhappy men belonged."
[238] No doubt Haeckel, whose monograph on the Radiolaria was published
in 1862.
[239] The Marquis de Saporta.
[240] _Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l'origine des especes_. Par P.
Flourens. 8vo. Paris, 1864.
[241] _Lay Sermons_, p. 328.
[242] _Charles Darwin und sein Verhaeltniss zu Deutschland_, 1885.
[243] An article in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 9th edit., reprinted
in _Science and Culture_, 1881, p. 298.
[244] In October, 1867, he wrote to Mr. Wallace:--"Mr. Warrington has
lately read an excellent and spirited abstract of the _Origin_ before
the Victoria Institute, and as this is a most orthodox body, he has
gained the name of the Devil's Advocate. The discussion which followed
during three consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense
talked."
[245] _Die natuerliche Schoepfungs-Geschichte_, 1868. It was translated
and published in 1876, under the title, _The History of Creation_.
[246] _Zoological Record._ The volume for 1868, published December,
1869.
[247] Mr. Jenner Weir's observations published in the _Transactions of
the Entomological Society_ (1869 and 1870) give strong support to the
theory in question.
[248] _Contemporary Review_, 1871.
[249] In the introduction to the _Descent of Man_ the author
wrote:--"This last naturalist [Haeckel] ... has recently ... published
his _Natuerliche Schoepfungs-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."
[250] April 7 and 8, 1871.
[251] His holiday this year was at Caerdeon, on the north shore of the
beautiful Barmouth estuary, and pleasantly placed in being close to wild
hill country behind, as well as to the picturesque wooded "hummocks,"
between the steeper hills and the river. My father was ill and somewhat
depressed throughout this visit, and I think felt imprisoned and
saddened by his inability to reach the hills over which he had once
wandered for days together.
He wrote from Caerdeon to Sir J. D. Hooker (June 22nd):--
"We have been here for ten days, how I wish it was possible for you to
pay us a visit here; we have a beautiful house with a terraced garden,
and a really magnificent view of Cader, right opposite. Old Cader is a
grand fellow, and shows himself off superbly with every changing light.
We remain here till the end of July, when the H. Wedgwoods have the
house. I have been as yet in a very poor way; it seems as soon as the
stimulus of mental work stops, my whole strength gives way. As yet I
have hardly crawled half a mile from the house, and then have been
fearfully fatigued. It is enough to make one wish oneself quiet in a
comfortable tomb."
[252] The late Chauncey Wright, in an article published in the _North
American Review_, vol. cxiii. pp. 83, 84. 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.
[253] My father, as an Evolutionist, felt that he required more time
than Sir W. Thomson's estimate of the age of the world allows.
[254] Chauncey Wright's review was published as a pamphlet in the autumn
of 1871.
[255] The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies.
[256] The same words may be applied to Mr. Mivart's treatment of my
father. The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th,
1874) refers to Mr. Mivart's statement (_Lessons from Nature_, p. 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."
[257] They were utilised to some extent in the 2nd edition, edited by
me, and published in 1890.--F. D.