MISCELLANEA.--REVIVAL OF GEOLOGICAL WORK.--THE VIVISECTION
QUESTION.--HONOURS.
In 1874 a second edition of his _Coral Reefs_ was published, which need
not specially concern us. It was not until some time afterwards that the
criticisms of my father's theory appeared, which have attracted a good
deal of attention.
The following interesting account of the subject is taken from
Professor's Judd's "Critical Introduction" to Messrs. Ward, Lock and
Co's. edition of _Coral Reefs_ and _Volcanic Islands, &c._[258]
"The first serious note of dissent to the generally accepted theory was
heard in 1863, when a distinguished German naturalist, Dr. Karl Semper,
declared that his study of the Pelew Islands showed that uninterrupted
subsidence could not have been going on in that region. Dr. Semper's
objections were very carefully considered by Mr. Darwin, and a reply to
them appeared in the second and revised edition of his _Coral Reefs_,
which was published in 1874. With characteristic frankness and freedom
from prejudices, Darwin admitted that the facts brought forward by Dr.
Semper proved that in certain specified cases, subsidence could not have
played the chief part in originating the peculiar forms of the coral
islands. But while making this admission, he firmly maintained that
exceptional cases, like those described in the Pelew Islands, were not
sufficient to invalidate the theory of subsidence as applied to the
widely spread atolls, encircling reefs, and barrier-reefs of the Pacific
and Indian Oceans. It is worthy of note that to the end of his life
Darwin maintained a friendly correspondence with Semper concerning the
points on which they were at issue.
"After the appearance of Semper's work, Dr. J. J. Rein published an
account of the Bermudas, in which he opposed the interpretation of the
structure of the islands given by Nelson and other authors, and
maintained that the facts observed in them are opposed to the views of
Darwin. Although so far as I am aware, Darwin had no opportunity of
studying and considering these particular objections, it may be
mentioned that two American geologists have since carefully re-examined
the district--Professor W. N. Rice in 1884 and Professor A. Heilprin in
1889--and they have independently arrived at the conclusion that Dr.
Rein's objections cannot be maintained.
"The most serious objection to Darwin's coral-reef theory, however, was
that which developed itself after the return of H.M.S. _Challenger_ from
her famous voyage. Mr. John Murray, one of the staff of naturalists on
board that vessel, propounded a new theory of coral-reefs, and
maintained that the view that they were formed by subsidence was one
that was no longer tenable; these objections have been supported by
Professor Alexander Agassiz in the United States, and by Dr. A. Geikie,
and Dr. H. B. Guppy in this country.
"Although Mr. Darwin did not live to bring out a third edition of his
_Coral Reefs_, I know from several conversations with him that he had
given the most patient and thoughtful consideration to Mr. Murray's
paper on the subject. He admitted to me that had he known, when he wrote
his work, of the abundant deposition of the remains of calcareous
organisms on the sea floor, he might have regarded this cause as
sufficient in a few cases to raise the summit of submerged volcanoes or
other mountains to a level at which reef-forming corals can commence to
flourish. But he did not think that the admission that under certain
favourable conditions, atolls might be thus formed without subsidence,
necessitated an abandonment of his theory in the case of the innumerable
examples of the kind which stud the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
"A letter written by Darwin to Professor Alexander Agassiz in May 1881,
shows exactly the attitude which careful consideration of the subject
led him to maintain towards the theory propounded by Mr. Murray:--
"'You will have seen,' he writes, 'Mr. Murray's views on the formation
of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I thought long
over the same view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are
concerned, for at that time little was known of the multitude of minute
oceanic organisms. I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made
in the _Beagle_, in the south temperate regions, I concluded that
shells, the smaller corals, &c., decayed, and were dissolved, when not
protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could not
accumulate in the open ocean. Certainly, shells, &c., were in several
cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but
you will know well whether this is in any degree common. I have
expressly said that a bank at the proper depth would give rise to an
atoll, which could not be distinguished from one formed during
subsidence. I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as
many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in the
great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute oceanic
organisms could have accumulated to the thickness of many hundred feet.
"Darwin's concluding words in the same letter written within a year of
his death, are a striking proof of the candour and openness of mind
which he preserved so well to the end, in this as in other
controversies.
"'If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so
much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there
should not have been much, and long continued, subsidence in the beds of
the great oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it
into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian
atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600
feet.'
"It is noteworthy that the objections to Darwin's theory have for the
most part proceeded from zoologists, while those who have fully
appreciated the geological aspect of the question have been the
staunchest supporters of the theory of subsidence. The desirability of
such boring operations in atolls has been insisted upon by several
geologists, and it may be hoped that before many years have passed away,
Darwin's hopes may be realised, either with or without the intervention
of the 'doubly rich millionaire.'
"Three years after the death of Darwin, the veteran Professor Dana
re-entered the lists and contributed a powerful defence of the theory of
subsidence in the form of a reply to an essay written by the ablest
exponent of the anti-Darwinian views on this subject, Dr. A. Geikie.
While pointing out that the Darwinian position had been to a great
extent misunderstood by its opponents, he showed that the rival theory
presented even greater difficulties than those which it professed to
remove.
"During the last five years, the whole question of the origin of
coral-reefs and islands has been re-opened, and a controversy has
arisen, into which, unfortunately, acrimonious elements have been very
unnecessarily introduced. Those who desire it, will find clear and
impartial statements of the varied and often mutually destructive views
put forward by different authors, in three works which have made their
appearance within the last year--_The Bermuda Islands_, by Professor
Angelo Heilprin: _Corals and Coral Islands_, new edition by Professor J.
D. Dana; and the third edition of Darwin's _Coral-Reefs_, with Notes and
Appendix by Professor T. G. Bonney.
"Most readers will, I think, rise from the perusal of these works with
the conviction that, while on certain points of detail it is clear that,
through the want of knowledge concerning the action of marine organisms
in the open ocean, Darwin was betrayed into some grave errors, yet the
main foundations of his argument have not been seriously impaired by the
new facts observed in the deep-sea researches, or by the severe
criticisms to which his theory has been subjected during the last ten
years. On the other hand, I think it will appear that much
misapprehension has been exhibited by some of Darwin's critics, as to
what his views and arguments really were; so that the reprint and wide
circulation of the book in its original form is greatly to be desired,
and cannot but be attended with advantage to all those who will have the
fairness to acquaint themselves with Darwin's views at first hand,
before attempting to reply to them."
The only important geological work of my father's later years is
embodied in his book on earthworms (1881), which may therefore be
conveniently considered in this place. This subject was one which had
interested him many years before this date, and in 1838 a paper on the
formation of mould was published in the _Proceedings of the Geological
Society_.
Here he showed that "fragments of burnt marl, cinders, &c., which had
been thickly strewed over the surface of several meadows were found
after a few years lying at a depth of some inches beneath the turf, but
still forming a layer." For the explanation of this fact, which forms
the central idea of the geological part of the book, he was indebted to
his uncle Josiah Wedgwood, who suggested that worms, by bringing earth
to the surface in their castings, must undermine any objects lying on
the surface and cause an apparent sinking.
In the book of 1881 he extended his observations on this burying action,
and devised a number of different ways of checking his estimates as to
the amount of work done. He also added a mass of observations on the
natural history and intelligence of worms, a part of the work which
added greatly to its popularity.
In 1877 Sir Thomas Farrer had discovered close to his garden the remains
of a building of Roman-British times, and thus gave my father the
opportunity of seeing for himself the effects produced by earthworms on
the old concrete floors, walls, &c. On his return he wrote to Sir Thomas
Farrer:--
"I cannot remember a more delightful week than the last. I know very
well that E. will not believe me, but the worms were by no means the
sole charm."
In the autumn of 1880, when the _Power of Movement in Plants_ was nearly
finished, he began once more on the subject. He wrote to Professor Carus
(September 21):--
"In the intervals of correcting the press, I am writing a very little
book, and have done nearly half of it. Its title will be (as at present
designed), _The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of
Worms_.[259] As far as I can judge, it will be a curious little book."
The manuscript was sent to the printers in April 1881, and when the
proof-sheets were coming in he wrote to Professor Carus: "The subject
has been to me a hobby-horse, and I have perhaps treated it in foolish
detail."
It was published on October 10, and 2000 copies were sold at once. He
wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, "I am glad that you approve of the _Worms_.
When in old days I used to tell you whatever I was doing, if you were at
all interested, I always felt as most men do when their work is finally
published."
To Mr. Mellard Reade he wrote (November 8): "It has been a complete
surprise to me how many persons have cared for the subject." And to Mr.
Dyer (in November): "My book has been received with almost laughable
enthusiasm, and 3500 copies have been sold!!!" Again to his friend Mr.
Anthony Rich, he wrote on February 4, 1882, "I have been plagued with an
endless stream of letters on the subject; most of them very foolish and
enthusiastic; but some containing good facts which I have used in
correcting yesterday the _Sixth Thousand_." The popularity of the book
may be roughly estimated by the fact that, in the three years following
its publication, 8500 copies were sold--a sale relatively greater than
that of the _Origin of Species_.
It is not difficult to account for its success with the non-scientific
public. Conclusions so wide and so novel, and so easily understood,
drawn from the study of creatures so familiar, and treated with unabated
vigour and freshness, may well have attracted many readers. A reviewer
remarks: "In the eyes of most men ... the earthworm is a mere blind,
dumbsenseless, and unpleasantly slimy annelid. Mr. Darwin under-takes
to rehabilitate his character, and the earthworm steps forth at once as
an intelligent and beneficent personage, a worker of vast geological
changes, a planer down of mountain sides ... a friend of man ... and an
ally of the Society for the preservation of ancient monuments." The _St.
James's Gazette_, of October 17th, 1881, pointed out that the teaching
of the cumulative importance of the infinitely little is the point of
contact between this book and the author's previous work.
One more book remains to be noticed, the _Life of Erasmus Darwin_.
In February 1879 an essay by Dr. Ernst Krause, on the scientific work of
Erasmus Darwin, appeared in the evolutionary journal, _Kosmos_. The
number of _Kosmos_ in question was a "Gratulationsheft,"[260] or special
congratulatory issue in honour of my father's birthday, so that Dr.
Krause's essay, glorifying the older evolutionist, was quite in its
place. He wrote to Dr. Krause, thanking him cordially for the honour
paid to Erasmus, and asking his permission to publish an English
translation of the Essay.
His chief reason for writing a notice of his grandfather's life was "to
contradict flatly some calumnies by Miss Seward." This appears from a
letter of March 27, 1879, to his cousin Reginald Darwin, in which he
asks for any documents and letters which might throw light on the
character of Erasmus. This led to Mr. Reginald Darwin placing in my
father's hands a quantity of valuable material, including a curious
folio common-place book, of which he wrote: "I have been deeply
interested by the great book, ... reading and looking at it is like
having communion with the dead ... [it] has taught me a good deal about
the occupations and tastes of our grandfather."
Dr. Krause's contribution formed the second part of the _Life of Erasmus
Darwin_, my father supplying a "preliminary notice." This expression on
the title-page is somewhat misleading; my father's contribution is more
than half the book, and should have been described as a biography. Work
of this kind was new to him, and he wrote doubtfully to Mr. Thiselton
Dyer, June 18th: "God only knows what I shall make of his life, it is
such a new kind of work to me." The strong interest he felt about his
forbears helped to give zest to the work, which became a decided
enjoyment to him. With the general public the book was not markedly
successful, but many of his friends recognised its merits. Sir J. D.
Hooker was one of these, and to him my father wrote, "Your praise of the
Life of Dr. D. has pleased me exceedingly, for I despised my work, and
thought myself a perfect fool to have undertaken such a job."
To Mr. Galton, too, he wrote, November 14:--
"I am extremely glad that you approve of the little _Life_ of our
grandfather, for I have been repenting that I ever undertook it, as the
work was quite beyond my tether."
THE VIVISECTION QUESTION.
Something has already been said of my father's strong feeling with
regard to suffering[261] both in man and beast. It was indeed one of the
strongest feelings in his nature, and was exemplified in matters small
and great, in his sympathy with the educational miseries of dancing
dogs, or his horror at the sufferings of slaves.
The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in Brazil, when he was
powerless to interfere with what he believed to be the torture of a
slave, haunted him for years, especially at night. In smaller matters,
where he could interfere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from
his walk pale and faint from having seen a horse ill-used, and from the
agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On another occasion
he saw a horse-breaker teaching his son to ride; the little boy was
frightened and the man was rough; my father stopped, and jumping out of
the carriage reproved the man in no measured terms.
One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that his humanity to
animals was well known in his own neighbourhood. A visitor, driving from
Orpington to Down, told the cabman to go faster. "Why," said the man,
"if I had whipped the horse _this_ much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would
have got out of the carriage and abused me well."
With respect to the special point under consideration,--the sufferings
of animals subjected to experiment,--nothing could show a stronger
feeling than the following words from a letter to Professor Ray
Lankester (March 22, 1871):--
"You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is
justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere
damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick
with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not
sleep to-night."
The Anti-Vivisection agitation, to which the following letters refer,
seems to have become specially active in 1874, as may be seen, _e.g._ by
the index to _Nature_ for that year, in which the word "Vivisection"
suddenly comes into prominence. But before that date the subject had
received the earnest attention of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool
Meeting of the British Association in 1870, a Committee was appointed,
whose report defined the circumstances and conditions under which, in
the opinion of the signatories, experiments on living animals were
justifiable. In the spring of 1875, Lord Hartismere introduced a Bill
into the Upper House to regulate the course of physiological research.
Shortly afterwards a Bill more just towards science in its provisions
was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair,
Walpole, and Ashley. It was, however, withdrawn on the appointment of a
Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. The Commissioners
were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W. E. Forster, Sir J. B.
Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen, and Mr. R. H. Hutton: they
commenced their inquiry in July, 1875, and the Report was published
early in the following year.
In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon's Bill, entitled, "An Act to
amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals," was introduced. The
framers of this Bill, yielding to the unreasonable clamour of the
public, went far beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As
a correspondent writes in _Nature_ (1876, p. 248), "the evidence on the
strength of which legislation was recommended went beyond the facts, the
Report went beyond the evidence, the Recommendations beyond the Report;
and the Bill can hardly be said to have gone beyond the Recommendations;
but rather to have contradicted them."
The legislation which my father worked for, was practically what was
introduced as Dr. Lyon Playfair's Bill.
The following letter appeared in the Times, April 18th, 1881:--
_C. D. to Frithiof Holmgren._[262] Down, April 14, 1881.
DEAR SIR,--In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, I have no
objection to express my opinion with respect to the right of
experimenting on living animals. I use this latter expression as more
correct and comprehensive than that of vivisection. You are at liberty
to make any use of this letter which you may think fit, but if published
I should wish the whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong
advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my
writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the agitation
against physiologists commenced in England, it was asserted that
inhumanity was here practised, and useless suffering caused to animals;
and I was led to think that it might be advisable to have an Act of
Parliament on the subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a
Bill passed, such as would have removed all just cause of complaint, and
at the same time have left physiologists free to pursue their
researches--a Bill very different from the Act which has since been
passed. It is right to add that the investigation of the matter by a
Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English
physiologists were false. From all that I have heard, however, I fear
that in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings of
animals, and if this be the case, I should be glad to hear of
legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the other hand, I
know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of
experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he
who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind.
Any one who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a
century ago must admit that it has made immense progress, and it is now
progressing at an ever-increasing rate. What improvements in medical
practice may be directly attributed to physiological research is a
question which can be properly discussed only by those physiologists and
medical practitioners who have studied the history of their subjects;
but, as far as I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this
may be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has done
for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable benefits which
will hereafter be derived from physiology, not only by man, but by the
lower animals. Look for instance at Pasteur's results in modifying the
germs of the most malignant diseases, from which, as it happens, animals
will in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be
remembered how many lives and what a fearful amount of suffering have
been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms through the
experiments of Virchow and others on living animals. In the future every
one will be astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to
these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to assure you
that I honour, and shall always honour, every one who advances the noble
science of physiology.
Dear Sir, yours faithfully.
In the _Times_ of the following day appeared a letter headed "Mr. Darwin
and Vivisection," signed by Miss Frances Power Cobbe. To this my father
replied in the _Times_ of April 22, 1881. On the same day he wrote to
Mr. Romanes:--
"As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the _Times_ on
Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to bear my share
of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on all physiologists."
_C. D. to the Editor of the 'Times.'_
SIR,--I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by Miss Cobbe in the
letter which appeared in the _Times_ of the 19th inst.; but as she
asserts that I have "misinformed" my correspondent in Sweden in saying
that "the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that
the accusations made against our English physiologists were false," I
will merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences from the report
of the Commission.
(1.) The sentence--"It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found
in persons of very high position as physiologists," which Miss Cobbe
quotes from page 17 of the report, and which, in her opinion, "can
necessarily concern English physiologists alone and not foreigners," is
immediately followed by the words "We have seen that it was so in
Magendie." Magendie was a French physiologist who became notorious some
half century ago for his cruel experiments on living animals.
(2.) The Commissioners, after speaking of the "general sentiment of
humanity" prevailing in this country, say (p. 10):--
"This principle is accepted generally by the very highly educated men
whose lives are devoted either to scientific investigation and education
or to the mitigation or the removal of the sufferings of their
fellow-creatures; though differences of degree in regard to its
practical application will be easily discernible by those who study the
evidence as it has been laid before us."
Again, according to the Commissioners (p. 10):--
"The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, when asked whether the general tendency of the scientific world
in this country is at variance with humanity, says he believes it to be
very different indeed from that of foreign physiologists; and while
giving it as the opinion of the society that experiments are performed
which are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science, and
that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not justifiable to
inflict even for the scientific object in view, he readily acknowledges
that he does not know a single case of wanton cruelty, and that in
general the English physiologists have used anaesthetics where they think
they can do so with safety to the experiment."
I am, Sir, your obedient servant.
April 21.
During the later years of my father's life there was a growing tendency
in the public to do him honour.[263] The honours which he valued most
highly were those which united the sympathy of friends with a mark of
recognition of his scientific colleagues. Of this type was the article
"Charles Darwin," published in _Nature_, June 4, 1874, and written by
Asa Gray. This admirable estimate of my father's work in science is
given in the form of a comparison and contrast between Robert Brown and
Charles Darwin.
To Gray he wrote:--
"I wrote yesterday and cannot remember exactly what I said, and now
cannot be easy without again telling you how profoundly I have been
gratified. Every one, I suppose, occasionally thinks that he has worked
in vain, and when one of these fits overtakes me, I will think of your
article, and if that does not dispel the evil spirit, I shall know that
I am at the time a little bit insane, as we all are occasionally.
"What you say about Teleology[264] pleases me especially, and I do not
think any one else has ever noticed the point. I have always said you
were the man to hit the nail on the head."
In 1877 he received the honorary degree of LL.D. from the University of
Cambridge. The degree was conferred on November 17, and with the
customary Latin speech from the Public Orator, concluding with the
words: "Tu vero, qui leges naturae tam docte illustraveris, legum doctor
nobis esto."
The honorary degree led to a movement being set on foot in the
University to obtain some permanent memorial of my father. In June 1879
he sat to Mr. W. Richmond for the portrait in the possession of the
University, now placed in the Library of the Philosophical Society at
Cambridge.
A similar wish on the part of the Linnean Society--with which my father
was so closely associated--led to his sitting in August, 1881, to Mr.
John Collier, for the portrait now in the possession of the Society. The
portrait represents him standing facing the observer in the loose cloak
so familiar to those who knew him, with his slouch hat in his hand. Many
of those who knew his face most intimately, think that Mr. Collier's
picture is the best of the portraits, and in this judgment the sitter
himself was inclined to agree. According to my feeling it is not so
simple or strong a representation of him as that given by Mr. Ouless.
The last-named portrait was painted at Down in 1875; it is in the
possession of the family,[265] and is known to many through Rajon's fine
etching. Of Mr. Ouless's picture my father wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker:
"I look a very venerable, acute, melancholy old dog; whether I really
look so I do not know."
Besides the Cambridge degree, he received about the same time honours of
an academic kind from some foreign societies.
On August 5, 1878, he was elected a Corresponding Member of the French
Institute in the Botanical Section,[266] and wrote to Dr. Asa Gray:--
"I see that we are both elected Corresponding Members of the Institute.
It is rather a good joke that I should be elected in the Botanical
Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more than that a daisy
is a Compositous plant and a pea a Leguminous one."
He valued very highly two photographic albums containing portraits of a
large number of scientific men in Germany and Holland, which he received
as birthday gifts in 1877.
In the year 1878 my father received a singular mark of recognition in
the form of a letter from a stranger, announcing that the writer
intended to leave to him the reversion of the greater part of his
fortune. Mr. Anthony Rich, who desired thus to mark his sense of my
father's services to science, was the author of a _Dictionary of Roman
and Greek Antiquities_, said to be the best book of the kind. It has
been translated into French, German, and Italian, and has, in English,
gone through several editions. Mr. Rich lived a great part of his life
in Italy, painting, and collecting books and engravings. He finally
settled, many years ago, at Worthing (then a small village), where he
was a friend of Byron's Trelawny. My father visited Mr. Rich at
Worthing, more than once, and gained a cordial liking and respect for
him.
Mr. Rich died in April, 1891, having arranged that his bequest[267]
should not lapse in consequence of the predecease of my father.
In 1879 he received from the Royal Academy of Turin the _Bressa_ Prize
for the years 1875-78, amounting to the sum of 12,000 francs. He refers
to this in a letter to Dr. Dohrn (February 15th, 1880):--
"Perhaps you saw in the papers that the Turin Society honoured me to an
extraordinary degree by awarding me the _Bressa_ Prize. Now it occurred
to me that if your station wanted some piece of apparatus, of about the
value of L100, I should very much like to be allowed to pay for it. Will
you be so kind as to keep this in mind, and if any want should occur to
you, I would send you a cheque at any time."
I find from my father's accounts that L100 was presented to the Naples
Station.
Two years before my father's death, and twenty-one years after the
publication of his greatest work, a lecture was given (April 9, 1880) at
the Royal Institution by Mr. Huxley[268] which was aptly named "The
Coming of Age of the Origin of Species." The following characteristic
letter, inferring to this subject, may fitly close the present chapter.
Abinger Hall, Dorking, Sunday, April 11, 1880.
MY DEAR HUXLEY,--I wished much to attend your Lecture, but I have had a
bad cough, and we have come here to see whether a change would do me
good, as it has done. What a magnificent success your lecture seems to
have been, as I judge from the reports in the _Standard_ and _Daily
News_, and more especially from the accounts given me by three of my
children. I suppose that you have not written out your lecture, so I
fear there is no chance of its being printed _in extenso_. You appear to
have piled, as on so many other occasions, honours high and thick on my
old head. But I well know how great a part you have played in
establishing and spreading the belief in the descent-theory, ever since
that grand review in the _Times_ and the battle royal at Oxford up to
the present day.
Ever, my dear Huxley,
Yours sincerely and gratefully,
CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.--It was absurdly stupid in me, but I had read the announcement of
your Lecture, and thought that you meant the maturity of the subject,
until my wife one day remarked, "it is almost twenty-one years since the
_Origin_ appeared," and then for the first time the meaning of your
words flashed on me.
FOOTNOTES:
[258] _The Minerva Library of famous Books_, 1890, edited by G. T.
Bettany.
[259] The full title is _The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the
Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits_, 1881.
[260] The same number contains a good biographical sketch of my father
of which the material was to a large extent supplied by him to the
writer, Professor Preyer of Jena. The article contains an excellent list
of my father's publications.
[261] He once made an attempt to free a patient in a mad-house, who (as
he wrongly supposed) was sane. He was in correspondence with the
gardener at the asylum, and on one occasion he found a letter from the
patient enclosed with one from the gardener. The letter was rational in
tone and declared that the writer was sane and wrongfully confined.
My father wrote to the Lunacy Commissioners (without explaining the
source of his information) and in due time heard that the man had been
visited by the Commissioners, and that he was certainly insane. Some
time afterward the patient was discharged, and wrote to thank my father
for his interference, adding that he had undoubtedly been insane when he
wrote his former letter.
[262] Professor of Physiology at Upsala.
[263] In 1867 he had received a distinguished honour from Germany,--the
order "Pour le Merite."
[264] "Let us recognise Darwin's great service to Natural Science in
bringing back to it Teleology; so that instead of Morphology _versus_
Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology." Similar
remarks had been previously made by Mr. Huxley. See _Critiques and
Addresses_, p. 305.
[265] A _replica_ by the artist hangs alongside of the portraits of
Milton and Paley in the hall of Christ's College, Cambridge.
[266] He received twenty-six votes out of a possible thirty-nine, five
blank papers were sent in, and eight votes were recorded for the other
candidates. In 1872 an attempt had been made to elect him in the Section
of Zoology, when, however, he only received fifteen out of forty-eight
votes, and Loven was chosen for the vacant place. It appears (_Nature_,
August 1st, 1872) that an eminent member of the Academy wrote to _Les
Mondes_ to the following effect:--
"What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the
science of those of his books which have made his chief title to
fame--the _Origin of Species_, and still more the _Descent of Man_, is
not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous
hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and
these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself
cannot encourage."
[267] Mr. Rich leaves a single near relative, to whom is bequeathed the
life-interest in his property.
[268] Published in _Science and Culture_, p. 310.
BOTANICAL WORK.
"I have been making some little trifling observations which have
interested and perplexed me much."
From a letter of June 1860.