page 338. The article referred to in the present letter is that in the
August number.)
Down, September 10th [1860].
I send by this post a review by Asa Gray, so good that I should like you
to see it; I must beg for its return. I want to ask, also, your opinion
about getting it reprinted in England. I thought of sending it to the
Editor of the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist." in which two hostile
reviews have appeared (although I suppose the "Annals" have a very poor
circulation), and asking them in the spirit of fair play to print this,
with Asa Gray's name, which I will take the responsibility of adding.
Also, as it is long, I would offer to pay expenses.
It is very good, in addition, as bringing in Pictet so largely.
(111/2. Pictet (1809-72) wrote a "perfectly fair" review opposed to the
"Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) Tell me briefly what
you think.
What an astonishing expedition this is of Hooker's to Syria! God knows
whether it is wise.
How are you and all yours? I hope you are not working too hard. For
Heaven's sake, think that you may become such a beast as I am. How goes
on the "Nat. Hist. Review?" Talking of reviews, I damned with a good
grace the review in the "Athenaeum" (111/3. Review of "The Glaciers of
the Alps" ("Athenaeum," September 1, 1860, page 280).) on Tyndall with a
mean, scurvy allusion to you. It is disgraceful about Tyndall,--in fact,
doubting his veracity.
I am very tired, and hate nearly the whole world. So good-night, and
take care of your digestion, which means brain.
LETTER 112. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, 26th [September
1860].
It has just occurred to me that I took no notice of your questions on
extinction in St. Helena. I am nearly sure that Hooker has information
on the extinction of plants (112/1. "Principles of Geology," Volume II.
(Edition X., 1868), page 453. Facts are quoted from Hooker illustrating
the extermination of plants in St. Helena.), but I cannot remember
where I have seen it. One may confidently assume that many insects were
exterminated.
By the way, I heard lately from Wollaston, who told me that he had just
received eminently Madeira and Canary Island insect forms from the Cape
of Good Hope, to which trifling distance, if he is logical, he will have
to extend his Atlantis! I have just received your letter, and am very
much pleased that you approve. But I am utterly disgusted and ashamed
about the dingo. I cannot think how I could have misunderstood the paper
so grossly. I hope I have not blundered likewise in its co-existence
with extinct species: what horrid blundering! I am grieved to hear that
you think I must work in the notes in the text; but you are so much
better a judge that I will obey. I am sorry that you had the trouble of
returning the Dog MS., which I suppose I shall receive to-morrow.
I mean to give good woodcuts of all the chief races of pigeons. (112/2.
"The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.)
Except the C. oenas (112/3. The Columba oenas of Europe roosts on trees
and builds its nest in holes, either in trees or the ground ("Var.
of Animals," Volume I., page 183).) (which is partly, indeed almost
entirely, a wood pigeon), there is no other rock pigeon with which
our domestic pigeon would cross--that is, if several exceedingly close
geographical races of C. livia, which hardly any ornithologist looks at
as true species, be all grouped under C. livia. (112/4. Columba livia,
the Rock-pigeon. "We may conclude with confidence that all the domestic
races, notwithstanding their great amount of difference, are descended
from the Columba livia, including under this name certain wild races"
(op. cit., Volume I., page 223).)
I am writing higgledy-piggledy, as I re-read your letter. I thought that
my letter had been much wilder than yours. I quite feel the comfort of
writing when one may "alter one's speculations the day after." It is
beyond my knowledge to weigh ranks of birds and monotremes; in the
respiratory and circulatory system and muscular energy I believe birds
are ahead of all mammals.
I knew that you must have known about New Guinea; but in writing to you
I never make myself civil!
After treating some half-dozen or dozen domestic animals in the same
manner as I treat dogs, I intended to have a chapter of conclusions.
But Heaven knows when I shall finish: I get on very slowly. You would be
surprised how long it took me to pick out what seemed useful about dogs
out of multitudes of details.
I see the force of your remark about more isolated races of man in old
times, and therefore more in number. It seems to me difficult to weigh
probabilities. Perhaps so, if you refer to very slight differences in
the races: to make great differences much time would be required, and
then, even at the earliest period I should have expected one race to
have spread, conquered, and exterminated the others.
With respect to Falconer's series of Elephants (112/5. In 1837 Dr.
Falconer and Sir Proby Cautley collected a large number of fossil
remains from the Siwalik Hills. Falconer and Cautley, "Fauna Antiqua
Sivalensis," 1845-49.), I think the case could be answered better than
I have done in the "Origin," page 334. (112/6. "Origin of Species,"
Edition I., page 334. "It is no real objection to the truth of
the statement that the fauna of each period as a whole is nearly
intermediate in character between the preceding and succeeding faunas,
that certain genera offer exceptions to the rule. For instance,
mastodons and elephants, when arranged by Dr. Falconer in two series,
first according to their mutual affinities and then according to their
periods of existence, do not accord in arrangement. The species extreme
in character are not the oldest, or the most recent; nor are those which
are intermediate in character intermediate in age. But supposing for
an instant, in this and other such cases, that the record of the first
appearance and disappearance of the species was perfect, we have no
reason to believe that forms successively produced necessarily
endure for corresponding lengths of time. A very ancient form might
occasionally last much longer than a form elsewhere subsequently
produced, especially in the case of terrestrial productions inhabiting
separated districts" (pages 334-5). The same words occur in the
later edition of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 306.) All these new
discoveries show how imperfect the discovered series is, which Falconer
thought years ago was nearly perfect.
I will send to-day or to-morrow two articles by Asa Gray. The longer
one (now not finally corrected) will come out in the October "Atlantic
Monthly," and they can be got at Trubner's. Hearty thanks for all your
kindness.
Do not hurry over Asa Gray. He strikes me as one of the best reasoners
and writers I ever read. He knows my book as well as I do myself.
LETTER 113. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 3rd
[1860].
Your last letter has interested me much in many ways.
I enclose a letter of Wyman's which touches on brains. Wyman is mistaken
in supposing that I did not know that the Cave-rat was an American form;
I made special enquiries. He does not know that the eye of the Tucotuco
was carefully dissected.
With respect to reviews by A. Gray. I thought of sending the Dialogue
to the "Saturday Review" in a week's time or so, as they have lately
discussed Design. (113/1. "Discussion between two Readers of Darwin's
Treatise on the Origin of Species, upon its Natural Theology" ("Amer.
Journ. Sci." Volume XXX, page 226, 1860). Reprinted in "Darwiniana,"
1876, page 62. The article begins with the following question: "First
Reader--Is Darwin's theory atheistic or pantheistic? Or does it tend to
atheism or pantheism?" The discussion is closed by the Second Reader,
who thus sums up his views: "Wherefore we may insist that, for all
that yet appears, the argument for design, as presented by the natural
theologians, is just as good now, if we accept Darwin's theory, as it
was before the theory was promulgated; and that the sceptical juryman,
who was about to join the other eleven in an unanimous verdict in favour
of design, finds no good excuse for keeping the Court longer waiting.")
I have sent the second, or August, "Atlantic" article to the "Annals and
Mag. of Nat. History." (113/2. "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI.,
pages 373-86, 1860. (From the "Atlantic Monthly," August, 1860.)) The
copy which you have I want to send to Pictet, as I told A. Gray I
would, thinking from what he said he would like this to be done. I doubt
whether it would be possible to get the October number reprinted in this
country; so that I am in no hurry at all for this.
I had a letter a few weeks ago from Symonds on the imperfection of the
Geological Record, less clear and forcible than I expected. I answered
him at length and very civilly, though I could hardly make out what
he was driving at. He spoke about you in a way which it did me good to
read.
I am extremely glad that you like A. Gray's reviews. How generous and
unselfish he has been in all his labour! Are you not struck by his
metaphors and similes? I have told him he is a poet and not a lawyer.
I should altogether doubt on turtles being converted into land tortoises
on any one island. Remember how closely similar tortoises are on all
continents, as well as islands; they must have all descended from one
ancient progenitor, including the gigantic tortoise of the Himalaya.
I think you must be cautious in not running the convenient doctrine that
only one species out of very many ever varies. Reflect on such cases as
the fauna and flora of Europe, North America, and Japan, which are so
similar, and yet which have a great majority of their species either
specifically distinct, or forming well-marked races. We must in such
cases incline to the belief that a multitude of species were once
identically the same in all the three countries when under a warmer
climate and more in connection; and have varied in all the three
countries. I am inclined to believe that almost every species (as we
see with nearly all our domestic productions) varies sufficiently for
Natural Selection to pick out and accumulate new specific differences,
under new organic and inorganic conditions of life, whenever a place is
open in the polity of nature. But looking to a long lapse of time and to
the whole world, or to large parts of the world, I believe only one or
a few species of each large genus ultimately becomes victorious, and
leaves modified descendants. To give an imaginary instance: the jay has
become modified in the three countries into (I believe) three or four
species; but the jay genus is not, apparently, so dominant a group
as the crows; and in the long run probably all the jays will be
exterminated and be replaced perhaps by some modified crows.
I merely give this illustration to show what seems to me probable.
But oh! what work there is before we shall understand the genealogy of
organic beings!
With respect to the Apteryx, I know not enough of anatomy; but ask Dr.
F. whether the clavicle, etc., do not give attachment to some of the
muscles of respiration. If my views are at all correct, the wing of the
Apteryx (113/3. "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 140.) cannot be
(page 452 of the "Origin") a nascent organ, as these wings are useless.
I dare not trust to memory, but I know I found the whole sternum always
reduced in size in all the fancy and confined pigeons relatively to the
same bones in the wild Rock-pigeon: the keel was generally still further
reduced relatively to the reduced length of the sternum; but in some
breeds it was in a most anomalous manner more prominent. I have got a
lot of facts on the reduction of the organs of flight in the pigeon,
which took me weeks to work out, and which Huxley thought curious.
I am utterly ashamed, and groan over my handwriting. It was "Natural
Preservation." Natural persecution is what the author ought to suffer.
It rejoices me that you do not object to the term. Hooker made the same
remark that it ought to have been "Variation and Natural Selection."
Yet with domestic productions, when selection is spoken of, variation is
always implied. But I entirely agree with your and Hooker's remark.
Have you begun regularly to write your book on the antiquity of man?
(113/4. Published in 1863.)
I do NOT agree with your remark that I make Natural Selection do too
much work. You will perhaps reply that every man rides his hobby-horse
to death; and that I am in the galloping state.
LETTER 114. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Friday 5th
[October, 1860].
I have two notes to thank you for, and I return Wollaston. It has always
seemed to me rather strange that Forbes, Wollaston and Co. should argue,
from the presence of allied, and not identical species in islands, for
the former continuity of land.
They argue, I suppose, from the species being allied in different
regions of the same continent, though specifically distinct. But I think
one might on the creative doctrine argue with equal force in a directly
reverse manner, and say that, as species are so often markedly distinct,
yet allied, on islands, all our continents existed as islands first, and
their inhabitants were first created on these islands, and since became
mingled together, so as not to be so distinct as they now generally are
on islands.
LETTER 115. TO H.G. BRONN. Down, October 5th [1860].
I ought to apologise for troubling you, but I have at last carefully
read your excellent criticisms on my book. (115/1. Bronn added critical
remarks to his German translation of the "Origin": see "Life and
Letters," II., page 279.) I agree with much of them, and wholly with
your final sentence. The objections and difficulties which may be urged
against my view are indeed heavy enough almost to break my back, but it
is not yet broken! You put very well and very fairly that I can in
no one instance explain the course of modification in any particular
instance. I could make some sort of answer to your case of the two rats;
and might I not turn round and ask him who believes in the separate
creation of each species, why one rat has a longer tail or shorter ears
than another? I presume that most people would say that these characters
were of some use, or stood in some connection with other parts; and if
so, Natural Selection would act on them. But as you put the case,
it tells well against me. You argue most justly against my question,
whether the many species were created as eggs (115/2. See Letter 110.)
or as mature, etc. I certainly had no right to ask that question.
I fully agree that there might have been as well a hundred thousand
creations as eight or ten, or only one. But then, on the view of eight
or ten creations (i.e. as many as there are distinct types of structure)
we can on my view understand the homological and embryological
resemblance of all the organisms of each type, and on this ground almost
alone I disbelieve in the innumerable acts of creation. There are only
two points on which I think you have misunderstood me. I refer only to
one Glacial period as affecting the distribution of organic beings; I
did not wish even to allude to the doubtful evidence of glacial action
in the Permian and Carboniferous periods. Secondly, I do not believe
that the process of development has always been carried on at the same
rate in all different parts of the world. Australia is opposed to such
belief. The nearly contemporaneous equal development in past periods I
attribute to the slow migration of the higher and more dominant forms
over the whole world, and not to independent acts of development in
different parts. Lastly, permit me to add that I cannot see the force
of your objection, that nothing is effected until the origin of life is
explained: surely it is worth while to attempt to follow out the action
of electricity, though we know not what electricity is.
If you should at any time do me the favour of writing to me, I should
be very much obliged if you would inform me whether you have yourself
examined Brehm's subspecies of birds; for I have looked through some of
his writings, but have never met an ornithologist who believed in his
[illegible]. Are these subspecies really characteristic of certain
different regions of Germany?
Should you write, I should much like to know how the German edition
sells.
LETTER 116. TO J.S. HENSLOW. October 26th [1860].
Many thanks for your note and for all the trouble about the seeds, which
will be most useful to me next spring. On my return home I will send the
shillings. (116/1. Shillings for the little girls in Henslow's parish
who collected seeds for Darwin.) I concluded that Dr. Bree had blundered
about the Celts. I care not for his dull, unvarying abuse of me,
and singular misrepresentation. But at page 244 he in fact doubts my
deliberate word, and that is the act of a man who has not the soul of a
gentleman in him. Kingsley is "the celebrated author and divine"
(116/2. "Species not Transmutable," by C.R. Bree. After quoting from the
"Origin," Edition II., page 481, the words in which a celebrated author
and divine confesses that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is
just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few
original forms, etc.," Dr. Bree goes on: "I think we ought to have had
the name of this divine given with this remarkable statement. I confess
that I have not yet fully made up my mind that any divine could have
ever penned lines so fatal to the truths he is called upon to
teach.") whose striking sentence I give in the second edition with his
permission. I did not choose to ask him to let me use his name, and as
he did not volunteer, I had of course no choice. (116/3. We are indebted
to Mr. G.W. Prothero for calling our attention to the following striking
passage from the works of a divine of this period:--"Just a similar
scepticism has been evinced by nearly all the first physiologists of the
day, who have joined in rejecting the development theories of Lamarck
and the 'Vestiges'...Yet it is now acknowledged under the high sanction
of the name of Owen that 'creation' is only another name for our
ignorance of the mode of production...while a work has now appeared by
a naturalist of the most acknowledged authority, Mr. Darwin's masterly
volume on the 'Origin of Species,' by the law of 'natural selection,'
which now substantiates on undeniable grounds the very principle so long
denounced by the first naturalists--the origination of new species by
natural causes: a work which must soon bring about an entire revolution
of opinion in favour of the grand principle of the self-evolving
powers of nature."--Prof. Baden Powell's "Study of the Evidences of
Christianity," "Essays and Reviews," 7th edition, 1861 (pages 138,
139).)
Dr. Freke has sent me his paper, which is far beyond my scope--something
like the capital quiz in the "Anti-Jacobin" on my grandfather, which was
quoted in the "Quarterly Review."
LETTER 117. TO D.T. ANSTED.
(117/1. The following letter was published in Professor Meldola's
presidential address to the Entomological Society, 1897, and to him we
are indebted for a copy.)
15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 27th [1860].
As I am away from home on account of my daughter's health, I do not
know your address, and fly this at random, and it is of very little
consequence if it never reaches you.
I have just been reading the greater part of your "Geological Gossip,"
and have found part very interesting; but I want to express my
admiration at the clear and correct manner in which you have given a
sketch of Natural Selection. You will think this very slight praise;
but I declare that the majority of readers seem utterly incapable
of comprehending my long argument. Some of the reviewers, who have
servilely stuck to my illustrations and almost to my words, have been
correct, but extraordinarily few others have succeeded. I can see
plainly, by your new illustrations and manner and order of putting the
case, that you thoroughly comprehend the subject. I assure you this is
most gratifying to me, and it is the sole way in which the public can
be indoctrinated. I am often in despair in making the generality of
NATURALISTS even comprehend me. Intelligent men who are not naturalists
and have not a bigoted idea of the term species, show more clearness
of mind. I think that you have done the subject a real service, and I
sincerely thank you. No doubt there will be much error found in my book,
but I have great confidence that the main view will be, in time, found
correct; for I find, without exception, that those naturalists who went
at first one inch with me now go a foot or yard with me.
This note obviously requires no answer.
LETTER 118. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 22nd [1860].
I thank you sincerely for writing to me and for your very interesting
letter. Your name has for very long been familiar to me, and I have
heard of your zealous exertions in the cause of Natural History. But
I did not know that you had worked with high philosophical questions
before your mind. I have an old belief that a good observer really means
a good theorist (118/1. For an opposite opinion, see Letter 13.), and I
fully expect to find your observations most valuable. I am very sorry to
hear that your health is shattered; but I trust under a healthy climate
it may be restored. I can sympathise with you fully on this score, for
I have had bad health for many years, and fear I shall ever remain a
confirmed invalid. I am delighted to hear that you, with all your large
practical knowledge of Natural History, anticipated me in many respects
and concur with me. As you say, I have been thoroughly well attacked and
reviled (especially by entomologists--Westwood, Wollaston, and A. Murray
have all reviewed and sneered at me to their hearts' content), but I
care nothing about their attacks; several really good judges go a long
way with me, and I observe that all those who go some little way tend
to go somewhat further. What a fine philosophical mind your friend Mr.
Wallace has, and he has acted, in relation to me, like a true man with
a noble spirit. I see by your letter that you have grappled with
several of the most difficult problems, as it seems to me, in Natural
History--such as the distinctions between the different kinds of
varieties, representative species, etc. Perhaps I shall find some facts
in your paper on intermediate varieties in intermediate regions, on
which subject I have found remarkably little information. I cannot tell
you how glad I am to hear that you have attended to the curious point
of equatorial refrigeration. I quite agree that it must have been small;
yet the more I go into that question the more convinced I feel that
there was during the Glacial period some migration from north to south.
The sketch in the "Origin" gives a very meagre account of my fuller MS.
essay on this subject.
I shall be particularly obliged for a copy of your paper when published
(118/2. Probably a paper by Bates entitled "Contributions to an Insect
Fauna of the Amazon Valley" ("Trans. Entomol. Soc." Volume V., page 335,
1858-61).); and if any suggestions occur to me (not that you require
any) or questions, I will write and ask.
I have at once to prepare a new edition of the "Origin," (118/3. Third
Edition, March, 1861.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you
a copy; but it will be only very slightly altered.
Cases of neuter ants, divided into castes, with intermediate gradations
(which I imagine are rare) interest me much. See "Origin" on the
driver-ant, page 241 (please look at the passage.)
LETTER 119. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(119/1. This refers to the first number of the new series of the
"Natural History Review," 1861, a periodical which Huxley was largely
instrumental in founding, and of which he was an editor (see Letter
107). The first series was published in Dublin, and ran to seven volumes
between 1854 and 1860. The new series came to an end in 1865.)
Down, January, 3rd [1861].
I have just finished No. 1 of the "Natural History Review," and must
congratulate you, as chiefly concerned, on its excellence. The whole
seems to me admirable,--so admirable that it is impossible that other
numbers should be so good, but it would be foolish to expect it. I am
rather a croaker, and I do rather fear that the merit of the articles
will be above the run of common readers and subscribers. I have been
much interested by your brain article. (119/2. The "Brain article" of
Huxley bore the title "On the Zoological Relations of Man with the
Lower Animals," and appeared in No. 1, January 1861, page 67. It was Mr.
Huxley's vindication of the unqualified contradiction given by him
at the Oxford meeting of the British Association to Professor Owen's
assertions as to the difference between the brains of man and the higher
apes. The sentence omitted by Owen in his lecture before the University
of Cambridge was a footnote on the close structural resemblance between
Homo and Pithecus, which occurs in his paper on the characters of the
class Mammalia in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," Volume II., 1857, page 20.
According to Huxley the lecture, or "Essay on the Classification of the
Mammalia," was, with this omission, a reprint of the Linnean paper. In
"Man's Place in Nature," page 110, note, Huxley remarks: "Surely it is
a little singular that the 'anatomist,' who finds it 'difficult' to
'determine the difference' between Homo and Pithecus, should yet range
them, on anatomical grounds, in distinct sub-classes.") What a complete
and awful smasher (and done like a "buttered angel") it is for Owen!
What a humbug he is to have left out the sentence in the lecture before
the orthodox Cambridge dons! I like Lubbock's paper very much: how well
he writes. (119/3. Sir John Lubbock's paper was a review of Leydig on
the Daphniidae. M'Donnell's was "On the Homologies of the Electric Organ
of the Torpedo," afterwards used in the "Origin" (see Edition VI., page
150).) M'Donnell, of course, pleases me greatly. But I am very curious
to know who wrote the Protozoa article: I shall hear, if it be not a
secret, from Lubbock. It strikes me as very good, and, by Jove, how Owen
is shown up--"this great and sound reasoner"! By the way, this reminds
me of a passage which I have just observed in Owen's address at Leeds,
which a clever reviewer might turn into good fun. He defines (page xc)
and further on amplifies his definition that creation means "a process
he knows not what." And in a previous sentence he says facts shake his
confidence that the Apteryx in New Zealand and Red Grouse in England are
"distinct creations." So that he has no confidence that these birds
were produced by "processes he knows not what!" To what miserable
inconsistencies and rubbish this truckling to opposite opinions leads
the great generaliser! (119/4. In the "Historical Sketch," which forms
part of the later editions of the "Origin," Mr. Darwin made use of
Owen's Leeds Address in the manner sketched above. See "Origin," Edition
VI., page xvii.)
Farewell: I heartily rejoice in the clear merit of this number. I hope
Mrs. Huxley goes on well. Etty keeps much the same, but has not got up
to the same pitch as when you were here. Farewell.
LETTER 120. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, February 25th [1861].
I am extremely much obliged for your very kind present of your beautiful
work, "Seasons with the Sea-Horses;" and I have no doubt that I shall
find much interesting from so careful and acute an observer as yourself.
(120/1. "Seasons with the Sea-Horses; or, Sporting Adventures in the
Northern Seas." London, 1861. Mr. Lamont (loc. cit., page 273) writes:
"The polar bear seems to me to be nothing more than a variety of the
bears inhabiting Northern Europe, Asia, and America; and it surely
requires no very great stretch of the imagination to suppose that
this variety was originally created, not as we see him now, but by
individuals of Ursus arctos in Siberia, who, finding their means of
subsistence running short, and pressed by hunger, ventured on the ice
and caught some seals. These individuals would find that they could
make a subsistence in this way, and would take up their residence on the
shore and gradually take to a life on the ice...Then it stands to reason
that those individuals who might happen to be palest in colour would
have the best chance of succeeding in surprising seals...The process
of Natural Selection would do the rest, and Ursus arctos would in the
course of a few thousands, or a few millions of years, be transformed
into the variety at present known as Ursus maritimus." The author adds
the following footnote (op. cit., page 275): "It will be obvious to
any one that I follow Mr. Darwin in these remarks; and, although the
substance of this chapter was written in Spitzbergen, before "The Origin
of Species" was published, I do not claim any originality for my views;
and I also cheerfully acknowledge that, but for the publication of that
work in connection with the name of so distinguished a naturalist, I
never would have ventured to give to the world my own humble opinions on
the subject.")
P.S. I have just been cutting the leaves of your book, and have been
very much pleased and surprised at your note about what you wrote in
Spitzbergen. As you thought it out independently, it is no wonder
that you so clearly understand Natural Selection, which so few of my
reviewers do or pretend not to do.
I never expected to see any one so heroically bold as to defend my
bear illustration. (120/2. "In North America the black bear was seen by
Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost
like a whale, insects in the water."--"Origin," Edition VI., page 141.
See Letter 110.) But a man who has done all that you have done must be
bold! It is laughable how often I have been attacked and misrepresented
about this bear. I am much pleased with your remarks, and thank you
cordially for coming to the rescue.
LETTER 121. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER.
(121/1. Mr. Darwin's letters to Mr. Tegetmeier, taken as a whole, give a
striking picture of the amount of assistance which Darwin received from
him during many years. Some citations from these letters given in "Life
and Letters," II., pages 52, 53, show how freely and generously Mr.
Tegetmeier gave his help, and how much his co-operation was valued.
The following letter is given as an example of the questions on which
Darwin sought Mr. Tegetmeier's opinion and guidance.)
Down, March 22 [1861].
I ought to have answered your last note sooner; but I have been very
busy. How wonderfully successful you have been in breeding Pouters! You
have a good right to be proud of your accuracy of eye and judgment. I
am in the thick of poultry, having just commenced, and shall be truly
grateful for the skulls, if you can send them by any conveyance to the
Nag's Head next Thursday.
You ask about vermilion wax: positively it was not in the state of comb,
but in solid bits and cakes, which were thrown with other rubbish not
far from my hives. You can make any use of the fact you like. Combs
could be concentrically and variously coloured and dates recorded by
giving for a few days wax darkly coloured with vermilion and indigo,
and I daresay other substances. You ask about my crossed fowls, and this
leads me to make a proposition to you, which I hope cannot be offensive
to you. I trust you know me too well to think that I would propose
anything objectionable to the best of my judgment. The case is this: for
my object of treating poultry I must give a sketch of several breeds,
with remarks on various points. I do not feel strong on the subject.
Now, when my MS. is fairly copied in an excellent handwriting, would
you read it over, which would take you at most an hour or two, and make
comments in pencil on it; and accept, like a barrister, a fee, we will
say, of a couple of guineas. This would be a great assistance to me,
specially if you would allow me to put a note, stating that you, a
distinguished judge and fancier, had read it over. I would state that
you doubted or concurred, as each case might be, of course striking out
what you were sure was incorrect. There would be little new in my MS. to
you; but if by chance you used any of my facts or conclusions before I
published, I should wish you to state that they were on my authority;
otherwise I shall be accused of stealing from you. There will be little
new, except that perhaps I have consulted some out-of-the-way books, and
have corresponded with some good authorities. Tell me frankly what you
think of this; but unless you will oblige me by accepting remuneration,
I cannot and will not give you such trouble. I have little doubt that
several points will arise which will require investigation, as I care
for many points disregarded by fanciers; and according to any time thus
spent, you will, I trust, allow me to make remuneration. I hope that
you will grant me this favour. There is one assistance which I will now
venture to beg of you--viz., to get me, if you can, another specimen
of an old white Angora rabbit. I want it dead for the skeleton; and not
knocked on the head. Secondly, I see in the "Cottage Gardener" (March
19th, page 375) there are impure half-lops with one ear quite upright
and shorter than the other lopped ear. I much want a dead one. Baker
cannot get one. Baily is looking out; but I want two specimens. Can you
assist me, if you meet any rabbit-fancier? I have had rabbits with
one ear more lopped than the other; but I want one with one ear quite
upright and shorter, and the other quite long and lopped.
LETTER 122. TO H.W. BATES. Down, March 26th [1861].
I have read your papers with extreme interest, and I have carefully read
every word of them. (122/1. "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the
Amazon Valley." (Read March 5th and November 24th, 1860). "Entomological
Soc. Trans." V., pages 223 and 335).) They seem to me to be far richer
in facts of variation, and especially on the distribution of varieties
and subspecies, than anything which I have read. Hereafter I shall
re-read them, and hope in my future work to profit by them and make use
of them. The amount of variation has much surprised me. The analogous
variation of distinct species in the same regions strikes me as
particularly curious. The greater variability of the female sex is new
to me. Your Guiana case seems in some degree analogous, as far as plants
are concerned, with the modern plains of La Plata, which seem to
have been colonised from the north, but the species have been hardly
modified. (122/2. Mr. Bates (page 349) gives reason to believe that the
Guiana region should be considered "a perfectly independent province,"
and that it has formed a centre "whence radiated the species which now
people the low lands on its borders.")
Would you kindly answer me two or three questions if in your power? When
species A becomes modified in another region into a well-marked form C,
but is connected with it by one (or more) gradational forms B inhabiting
an intermediate region; does this form B generally exist in equal
numbers with A and C, OR INHABIT AN EQUALLY LARGE AREA? The probability
is that you cannot answer this question, though one of your cases seems
to bear on it...
You will, I think, be glad to hear that I now often hear of naturalists
accepting my views more or less fully; but some are curiously cautious
in running the risk of any small odium in expressing their belief.
LETTER 123. TO H.W. BATES. Down, April 4th [1861].
I have been unwell, so have delayed thanking you for your admirable
letter. I hope you will not think me presumptuous in saying how much
I have been struck with your varied knowledge, and with the decisive
manner in which you bring it to bear on each point,--a rare and most
high quality, as far as my experience goes. I earnestly hope you will
find time to publish largely: before the Linnean Society you might bring
boldly out your views on species. Have you ever thought of publishing
your travels, and working in them the less abstruse parts of your
Natural History? I believe it would sell, and be a very valuable
contribution to Natural History. You must also have seen a good deal of
the natives. I know well it would be quite unreasonable to ask for any
further information from you; but I will just mention that I am now, and
shall be for a long time, writing on domestic varieties of all animals.
Any facts would be useful, especially any showing that savages take any
care in breeding their animals, or in rejecting the bad and preserving
the good; or any fancies which they may have that one coloured or marked
dog, etc., is better than another. I have already collected much on this
head, but am greedy for facts. You will at once see their bearing on
variation under domestication.
Hardly anything in your letter has pleased me more than about sexual
selection. In my larger MS. (and indeed in the "Origin" with respect
to the tuft of hairs on the breast of the cock-turkey) I have guarded
myself against going too far; but I did not at all know that male and
female butterflies haunted rather different sites. If I had to cut up
myself in a review I would have [worried?] and quizzed sexual selection;
therefore, though I am fully convinced that it is largely true, you may
imagine how pleased I am at what you say on your belief. This part
of your letter to me is a quintessence of richness. The fact about
butterflies attracted by coloured sepals is another good fact, worth its
weight in gold. It would have delighted the heart of old Christian C.
Sprengel--now many years in his grave.
I am glad to hear that you have specially attended to "mimetic"
analogies--a most curious subject; I hope you publish on it. I have
for a long time wished to know whether what Dr. Collingwood asserts
is true--that the most striking cases generally occur between insects
inhabiting the same country.
LETTER 124. TO F.W. HUTTON. Down, April 20th [1861].
I hope that you will permit me to thank you for sending me a copy of
your paper in "The Geologist" (124/1. In a letter to Hooker (April
23rd?, 1861) Darwin refers to Hutton's review as "very original," and
adds that Hutton is "one of the very few who see that the change of
species cannot be directly proved..." ("Life and Letters," II., page
362). The review appeared in "The Geologist" (afterwards known as "The
Geological Magazine") for 1861, pages 132-6 and 183-8. A letter on
"Difficulties of Darwinism" is published in the same volume of "The
Geologist," page 286.), 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 undulation of light,--neither the undulation 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.
I need hardly say that this note requires no answer.
LETTER 125. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(125/1. Parts of this letter are published in "Life and Letters," II.,
page 362.)
Down, [April] 23rd, [1861].
I have been much interested by Bentham's paper in the "Natural History
Review," but it would not, of course, from familiarity, strike you as
it did me. (125/2. This refers to Bentham's paper "On the Species and
Genera of Plants, etc." "Nat. Hist. Review," April, 1861, page 133,
which is founded on, or extracted from, a paper read before the Linn.
Soc., November 15th, 1858. It had been originally set down to be read
on July 1st, 1858, but gave way to the papers of Darwin and Wallace.
Mr. Bentham has described ("Life and Letters," II., page 294) how he
reluctantly cancelled the parts urging "original fixity" of specific
type, and the remainder seems not to have been published except in the
above-quoted paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review.") I liked the whole--all
the facts on the nature of close and varying species. Good Heavens! to
think of the British botanists turning up their noses and saying that
he knows nothing of British plants! I was also pleased at his remarks on
classification, because it showed me that I wrote truly on this subject
in the "Origin." I saw Bentham at the Linnean Society, and had some talk
with him and Lubbock and Edgeworth, Wallich, and several others. I asked
Bentham to give us his ideas of species; whether partially with us or
dead against us, he would write excellent matter. He made no answer, but
his manner made me think he might do so if urged--so do you attack him.
Every one was speaking with affection and anxiety of Henslow. I dined
with Bell at the Linnean Club, and liked my dinner...dining-out is such
a novelty to me that I enjoyed it. Bell has a real good heart. I
liked Rolleston's paper, but I never read anything so obscure and not
self-evident as his "canons." (125/3. See "Nat. Hist. Review," 1861,
page 206. The paper is "On the Brain of the Orang Utang," and forms part
of the bitter controversy of this period to which reference occurs in
letters to Huxley and elsewhere in these volumes. Rolleston's work is
quoted by Huxley ("Man's Place in Nature," page 117) as part of the
crushing refutation of Owen's position. Mr. Huxley's letter referred to
above is no doubt that in the "Athenaeum," April 13th, 1861, page 498;
it is certainly severe, but to those who know Mr. Huxley's "Succinct
History of the Controversy," etc. ("Man's Place in Nature," page 113),
it will not seem too severe.) I had a dim perception of the truth of
your profound remark--that he wrote in fear and trembling "of God, man,
and monkeys," but I would alter it into "God, man, Owen, and monkeys."
Huxley's letter was truculent, and I see that every one thinks it
too truculent; but in simple truth I am become quite demoniacal about
Owen--worse than Huxley; and I told Huxley that I should put myself
under his care to be rendered milder. But I mean to try and get more
angelic in my feelings; yet I never shall forget his cordial shake of
the hand, when he was writing as spitefully as he possibly could against
me. But I have always thought that you have more cause than I to be
demoniacally inclined towards him. Bell told me that Owen says that the
editor mutilated his article in the "Edinburgh Review" (125/4. This is
the only instance, with which we are acquainted, of Owen's acknowledging
the authorship of the "Edinburgh Review" article.), and Bell seemed to
think it was rendered more spiteful by the Editor; perhaps the opposite
view is as probable. Oh, dear! this does not look like becoming more
angelic in my temper!
I had a splendid long talk with Lyell (you may guess how splendid, for
he was many times on his knees, with elbows on the sofa) (125/5. Mr.
Darwin often spoke of Sir Charles Lyell's tendency to take curious
attitudes when excited.) on his work in France: he seems to have done
capital work in making out the age of the celt-bearing beds, but the
case gets more and more complicated. All, however, tends to greater and
greater antiquity of man. The shingle beds seem to be estuary deposits.
I called on R. Chambers at his very nice house in St. John's Wood, and
had a very pleasant half-hour's talk--he is really a capital fellow. He
made one good remark and chuckled over it: that the laymen universally
had treated the controversy on the "Essays and Reviews" as a merely
professional subject, and had not joined in it but had left it to the
clergy. I shall be anxious for your next letter about Henslow. Farewell,
with sincere sympathy, my old friend.
P.S.--We are very much obliged for "London Review." We like reading much
of it, and the science is incomparably better than in the "Athenaeum."
You shall not go on very long sending it, as you will be ruined by
pennies and trouble; but I am under a horrid spell to the "Athenaeum"
and "Gardeners' Chronicle," both of which are intolerably dull, but I
have taken them in for so many years that I cannot give them up.
The "Cottage Gardener," for my purpose, is now far better than the
"Gardeners' Chronicle."
LETTER 126. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, April 25 [1861].
I received this morning your "Unite de l'Espece Humaine" [published
in 1861], and most sincerely do I thank you for this your very kind
present. I had heard of and been recommended to read your articles, but,
not knowing that they were separately published, did not know how to get
them. So your present is most acceptable, and I am very anxious to
see your views on the whole subject of species and variation; and I am
certain to derive much benefit from your work. In cutting the pages I
observe that you have most kindly mentioned my work several times. My
views spread slowly in England and America; and I am much surprised to
find them most commonly accepted by geologists, next by botanists, and
least by zoologists. I am much pleased that the younger and middle-aged
geologists are coming round, for the arguments from Geology have always
seemed strongest against me. Not one of the older geologists (except
Lyell) has been even shaken in his views of the eternal immutability of
species. But so many of the younger men are turning round with zeal
that I look to the future with some confidence. I am now at work on
"Variation under Domestication," but make slow progress--it is such
tedious work comparing skeletons.
With very sincere thanks for the kind sympathy which you have always
shown me, and with much respect,...
P.S.--I have lately read M. Naudin's paper (126/1. Naudin's paper
("Revue Horticole," 1852) is mentioned in the "Historical Sketch"
prefixed to the later editions of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page xix).
Naudin insisted that species are formed in a manner analogous to the
production of varieties by cultivators, i.e., by selection, "but he does
not show how selection acts under nature." In the "Life and Letters,"
II., page 246, Darwin, speaking of Naudin's work, says: "Decaisne seems
to think he gives my whole theory."), but it does not seem to me to
anticipate me, as he does not show how selection could be applied under
nature; but an obscure writer (126/2. The obscure writer is Patrick
Matthew (see the "Historical Sketch" in the "Origin.") on forest
trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly and clearly anticipated
my views--though he put the case so briefly that no single person ever
noticed the scattered passages in his book.
LETTER 127. TO L. HINDMARSH.
(127/1. The following letter was in reply to one from Mr. Hindmarsh, to
whom Mr. Darwin had written asking for information on the average number
of animals killed each year in the Chillingham herd. The object of the
request was to obtain information which might throw light on the rate
of increase of the cattle relatively to those on the pampas of South
America. Mr. Hindmarsh had contributed a paper "On the Wild Cattle of
Chillingham Park" to the "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume II., page
274, 1839.)
Down, May 12th [1861].
I thank you sincerely for your prompt and great kindness, and return
the letter, which I have been very glad to see and have had copied.
The increase is more rapid than I anticipated, but it seems rather
conjectural; I had hoped that in so interesting a case some exact record
had been kept. The number of births, or of calves reared till they
followed their mothers, would perhaps have been the best datum. From
Mr. Hardy's letter I infer that ten must be annually born to make up the
deaths from various causes. In Paraguay, Azara states that in a herd of
4,000, from 1,000 to 1,300 are reared; but then, though they do not kill
calves, but castrate the young bulls, no doubt the oxen would be killed
earlier than the cows, so that the herd would contain probably more of
the female sex than the herd at Chillingham. There is not apparently
any record whether more young bulls are killed than cows. I am surprised
that Lord Tankerville does not have an exact record kept of deaths
and sexes and births: after a dozen years it would be an interesting
statistical record to the naturalist and agriculturist.
(PLATE: PROFESSOR HENSLOW.)
LETTER 128. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(128/1. The death of Professor Henslow (who was Sir J.D. Hooker's
father-in-law) occurred on May 16th, 1861.)
Down, May 24th [1861].
Thanks for your two notes. I am glad that the burial is over, and
sincerely sympathise and can most fully understand your feelings at your
loss.
I grieve to think how little I saw of Henslow for many years. With
respect to a biography of Henslow, I cannot help feeling rather
doubtful, on the principle that a biography could not do him justice.
His letters were generally written in a hurry, and I fear he did not
keep any journal or diary. If there were any vivid materials to describe
his life as parish priest, and manner of managing the poor, it would be
very good.
I am never very sanguine on literary projects. I cannot help fearing
his Life might turn out flat. There can hardly be marked incidents to
describe. I sincerely hope that I take a wrong and gloomy view, but
I cannot help fearing--I would rather see no Life than one that would
interest very few. It will be a pleasure and duty in me to consider what
I can recollect; but at present I can think of scarcely anything. The
equability and perfection of Henslow's whole character, I should think,
would make it very difficult for any one to pourtray him. I have been
thinking about Henslow all day a good deal, but the more I think the
less I can think of to write down. It is quite a new style for me to
set about, but I will continue to think what I could say to give any,
however imperfect, notion of him in the old Cambridge days.
Pray give my kindest remembrances to L. Jenyns (128/2. The Rev. Leonard
Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield) undertook the "Life" of Henslow, to which
Darwin contributed a characteristic and delightful sketch. See Letter
17.), who is often associated with my recollection of those old happy
days.
LETTER 129. HENRY FAWCETT TO CHARLES DARWIN.
(129/1. It was in reply to the following letter that Darwin wrote to
Fawcett: "You could not possibly have told me anything which would have
given me more satisfaction than what you say about Mr. Mill's opinion.
Until your review appeared I began to think that perhaps I did not
understand at all how to reason scientifically." ("Life of Henry
Fawcett," by Leslie Stephen, 1885, page 100.)
Bodenham, Salisbury, July 16th [1861].
I feel that I ought not to have so long delayed writing to thank you
for your very kind letter to me about my article on your book in
"Macmillan's Magazine."
I was particularly anxious to point out that the method of investigation
pursued was in every respect philosophically correct. I was spending an
evening last week with my friend Mr. John Stuart Mill, and I am sure you
will be pleased to hear from such an authority that he considers that
your reasoning throughout is in the most exact accordance with the
strict principles of logic. He also says the method of investigation you
have followed is the only one proper to such a subject.
It is easy for an antagonistic reviewer, when he finds it difficult
to answer your arguments, to attempt to dispose of the whole matter by
uttering some such commonplace as "This is not a Baconian induction."
I expect shortly to be spending a few days in your neighbourhood, and if
I should not be intruding upon you, I should esteem it a great favour if
you will allow me to call on you, and have half an hour's conversation
with you.
As far as I am personally concerned, I am sure I ought to be grateful to
you, for since my accident nothing has given me so much pleasure as the
perusal of your book. Such studies are now a great resource to me.
LETTER 130. TO C. LYELL. 2, Hesketh Terrace, Torquay [August 2nd, 1861].
I declare that you read the reviews on the "Origin" more carefully than
I do. I agree with all your remarks. The point of correlation struck me
as well put, and on varieties growing together; but I have already begun
to put things in train for information on this latter head, on which
Bronn also enlarges. With respect to sexuality, I have often speculated
on it, and have always concluded that we are too ignorant to speculate:
no physiologist can conjecture why the two elements go to form a new
being, and, more than that, why nature strives at uniting the two
elements from two individuals. What I am now working at in my orchids is
an admirable illustration of the law. I should certainly conclude that
all sexuality had descended from one prototype. Do you not underrate the
degree of lowness of organisation in which sexuality occurs--viz., in
Hydra, and still lower in some of the one-celled free confervae which
"conjugate," which good judges (Thwaites) believe is the simplest form
of true sexual generation? (130/1. See Letter 97.) But the whole case is
a mystery.
There is another point on which I have occasionally wished to say a few
words. I believe you think with Asa Gray that I have not allowed enough
for the stream of variation having been guided by a higher power. I have
had lately a good deal of correspondence on this head. Herschel, in his
"Physical Geography" (130/2. "Physical Geography of the Globe," by Sir
John F.W. Herschel, Edinburgh, 1861. On page 12 Herschel writes of
the revelations of Geology pointing to successive submersions and
reconstructions of the continents and fresh races of animals and plants.
He refers to a "great law of change" which has not operated either by
a gradually progressing variation of species, nor by a sudden and
total abolition of one race...The following footnote on page 12 of
the "Physical Geography" was added in January, 1861: "This was written
previous to the publication of Mr. Darwin's work on the "Origin of
Species," a work which, whatever its merit or ingenuity, we cannot,
however, consider as having disproved the view taken in the text. We
can no more accept the principle of arbitrary and casual variation
and natural selection as a sufficient account, per se, of the past
and present organic world, than we can receive the Laputan method of
composing books (pushed a outrance) as a sufficient one of Shakespeare
and the "Principia." Equally in either case an intelligence, guided by
a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the directions of the
steps of change--to regulate their amount, to limit their divergence,
and to continue them in a definite course. We do not believe that Mr.
Darwin means to deny the necessity of such intelligent direction. But it
does not, so far as we can see, enter into the formula of this law, and
without it we are unable to conceive how far the law can have led to
the results. On the other hand, we do not mean to deny that such
intelligence may act according to a law (that is to say, on a
preconceived and definite plan). Such law, stated in words, would be
no other than the actual observed law of organic succession; a one more
general, taking that form when applied to our own planet, and including
all the links of the chain which have disappeared. BUT THE ONE LAW IS A
NECESSARY SUPPLEMENT TO THE OTHER, AND OUGHT, IN ALL LOGICAL PROPRIETY,
TO FORM A PART OF ITS ENUNCIATION. Granting this, and with some demur
as to the genesis of man, we are far from disposed to repudiate the view
taken of this mysterious subject in Mr. Darwin's book." The sentence
in italics is no doubt the one referred to in the letter to Lyell. See
Letter 243.), has a sentence with respect to the "Origin," something to
the effect that the higher law of Providential Arrangement should always
be stated. But astronomers do not state that God directs the course
of each comet and planet. The view that each variation has been
providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely
superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new
species out of the range of science. But what makes me most object to
Asa Gray's view is the study of the extreme variability of domestic
animals. He who does not suppose that each variation in the pigeon was
providentially caused, by accumulating which variations, man made
a Fantail, cannot, I think, logically argue that the tail of the
woodpecker was formed by variations providentially ordained. It seems
to me that variations in the domestic and wild conditions are due to
unknown causes, and are without purpose, and in so far accidental; and
that they become purposeful only when they are selected by man for his
pleasure, or by what we call Natural Selection in the struggle for life,
and under changing conditions. I do not wish to say that God did not
foresee everything which would ensue; but here comes very nearly the
same sort of wretched imbroglio as between freewill and preordained
necessity. I doubt whether I have made what I think clear; but certainly
A. Gray's notion of the courses of variation having been led like a
stream of water by gravity, seems to me to smash the whole affair. It
reminds me of a Spaniard whom I told I was trying to make out how the
Cordillera was formed; and he answered me that it was useless, for "God
made them." It may be said that God foresaw how they would be made.
I wonder whether Herschel would say that you ought always to give the
higher providential law, and declare that God had ordered all certain
changes of level, that certain mountains should arise. I must think
that such views of Asa Gray and Herschel merely show that the subject in
their minds is in Comte's theological stage of science...
Of course I do not want any answer to my quasi-theological discussion,
but only for you to think of my notions, if you understand them.
I hope to Heaven your long and great labours on your new edition are
drawing to a close.
LETTER 131. TO C. LYELL. Torquay, [August 13th, 1861].
Very many thanks for the orchids, which have proved extremely useful to
me in two ways I did not anticipate, but were too monstrous (yet of some
use) for my special purpose.
When you come to "Deification" (131/1. See Letter 105, note.), ask
yourself honestly whether what you are thinking applies to the endless
variations of domestic productions, which man accumulates for his mere
fancy or use. No doubt these are all caused by some unknown law, but
I cannot believe they were ordained for any purpose, and if not so
ordained under domesticity, I can see no reason to believe that they
were ordained in a state of nature. Of course it may be said, when you
kick a stone, or a leaf falls from a tree, that it was ordained, before
the foundations of the world were laid, exactly where that stone or leaf
should lie. In this sense the subject has no interest for me.
Once again, many thanks for the orchids; you must let me repay you what
you paid the collector.
LETTER 132. TO C. LYELL.
(132/1. The first paragraph probably refers to the proof-sheets of
Lyell's "Antiquity of Man," but the passage referred to seems not to
occur in the book.)
Torquay, August 21st [1861].
...I have really no criticism, except a trifling one in pencil near the
end, which I have inserted on account of dominant and important species
generally varying most. You speak of "their views" rather as if you were
a thousand miles away from such wretches, but your concluding paragraph
shows that you are one of the wretches.
I am pleased that you approve of Hutton's review. (132/2. "Some Remarks
on Mr. Darwin's Theory," by F.W. Hutton. "Geologist," Volume IV.,
page 132 (1861). See Letter 124.) It seemed to me to take a more
philosophical view of the manner of judging the question than any other
review. The sentence you quote from it seems very true, but I do not
agree with the theological conclusion. I think he quotes from Asa Gray,
certainly not from me; but I have neither A. Gray nor "Origin" with me.
Indeed, I have over and over again said in the "Origin" that Natural
Selection does nothing without variability; I have given a whole chapter
on laws, and used the strongest language how ignorant we are on these
laws. But I agree that I have somehow (Hooker says it is owing to
my title) not made the great and manifest importance of previous
variability plain enough. Breeders constantly speak of Selection as
the one great means of improvement; but of course they imply individual
differences, and this I should have thought would have been obvious to
all in Natural Selection; but it has not been so.
I have just said that I cannot agree with "which variations are the
effects of an unknown law, ordained and guided without doubt by an
intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan." Will you
honestly tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you
believe that the shape of my nose (eheu!) was ordained and "guided by
an intelligent cause?" (132/3. It should be remembered that the shape
of his nose nearly determined Fitz-Roy to reject Darwin as naturalist to
H.M.S. "Beagle" ("Life and Letters," I., page 60).) By the selection of
analogous and less differences fanciers make almost generic differences
in their pigeons; and can you see any good reason why the Natural
Selection of analogous individual differences should not make new
species? If you say that God ordained that at some time and place a
dozen slight variations should arise, and that one of them alone should
be preserved in the struggle for life and the other eleven should perish
in the first or few first generations, then the saying seems to me
mere verbiage. It comes to merely saying that everything that is, is
ordained.
Let me add another sentence. Why should you or I speak of variation
as having been ordained and guided, more than does an astronomer, in
discussing the fall of a meteoric stone? He would simply say that it was
drawn to our earth by the attraction of gravity, having been displaced
in its course by the action of some quite unknown laws. Would you have
him say that its fall at some particular place and time was "ordained
and guided without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and
definite plan"? Would you not call this theological pedantry or display?
I believe it is not pedantry in the case of species, simply because
their formation has hitherto been viewed as beyond law; in fact, this
branch of science is still with most people under its theological phase
of development. The conclusion which I always come to after thinking of
such questions is that they are beyond the human intellect; and the less
one thinks on them the better. You may say, Then why trouble me? But I
should very much like to know clearly what you think.
LETTER 133. TO HENRY FAWCETT.
(133/1. The following letter was published in the "Life" of Mr. Fawcett
(1885); we are indebted to Mrs. Fawcett and Messrs. Smith & Elder for
permission to reprint it. See Letter 129.)
September 18th [1861].
I wondered who had so kindly sent me the newspaper (133/2. The newspaper
sent was the "Manchester Examiner" for September 9th, 1861, containing
a report of Mr. Fawcett's address given before Section D of the British
Association, "On the method of Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the
origin of species," in which the speaker showed that the "method of
investigation pursued by Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of
species is in strict accordance with the principles of logic." The "A"
of the letter (as published in Fawcett's Life) is the late Professor
Williamson, who is reported to have said that "while he would not say
that Mr. Darwin's book had caused him a loss of reputation, he was sure
that it had not caused a gain." The reference to "B" is explained by the
report of the late Dr. Lankester's speech in which he said, "The facts
brought forward in support of the hypothesis had a very different value
indeed from that of the hypothesis...A great naturalist, who was still a
friend of Mr. Darwin, once said to him (Dr. Lankester), 'The mistake is,
that Darwin has dealt with origin. Why did he not put his facts before
us, and let them rest?'" Another speaker, the Rt. Hon. J.R. Napier,
remarked: "I am going to speak closely to the question. If the
hypothesis is put forward to contradict facts, and the averments are
contrary to the Word of God, I say that it is not a logical argument."
At this point the chairman, Professor Babington, wisely interfered, on
the ground that the meeting was a scientific one.), which I was very
glad to see; and now I have to thank you sincerely for allowing me to
see your MS. It seems to me very good and sound; though I am certainly
not an impartial judge. You will have done good service in calling the
attention of scientific men to means and laws of philosophising. As far
as I could judge by the papers, your opponents were unworthy of you. How
miserably A. talked of my reputation, as if that had anything to do with
it!...How profoundly ignorant B must be of the very soul of observation!
About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only
to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at
this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles
and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that
all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any
service!
I have returned only lately from a two months' visit to Torquay,
which did my health at the time good; but I am one of those miserable
creatures who are never comfortable for twenty-four hours; and it is
clear to me that I ought to be exterminated. I have been rather idle of
late, or, speaking more strictly, working at some miscellaneous papers,
which, however, have some direct bearing on the subject of species; yet
I feel guilty at having neglected my larger book. But, to me, observing
is much better sport than writing. I fear that I shall have wearied you
with this long note.
Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful that you have taken up the
cudgels in defence of the line of argument in the "Origin;" you will
have benefited the subject.
Many are so fearful of speaking out. A German naturalist came here the
other day; and he tells me that there are many in Germany on our side,
but that all seem fearful of speaking out, and waiting for some one to
speak, and then many will follow. The naturalists seem as timid as
young ladies should be, about their scientific reputation. There is much
discussion on the subject on the Continent, even in quiet Holland; and I
had a pamphlet from Moscow the other day by a man who sticks up famously
for the imperfection of the "Geological Record," but complains that I
have sadly understated the variability of the old fossilised animals!
But I must not run on.
LETTER 134. TO H.W. BATES. Down, September 25th [1861].
Now for a few words on science. Many thanks for facts on neuters. You
cannot tell how I rejoice that you do not think what I have said on the
subject absurd. Only two persons have even noticed it to me--viz.,
the bitter sneer of Owen in the "Edinburgh Review" (134/1. "Edinburgh
Review," April, 1860, page 525.), and my good friend and supporter,
Sir C. Lyell, who could only screw up courage to say, "Well, you have
manfully faced the difficulty."
What a wonderful case of Volucella of which I had never heard. (134/2.
Volucella is a fly--one of the Syrphidae--supposed to supply a case of
mimicry; this was doubtless the point of interest with Bates. Dr. Sharp
says ["Insects," Part II. (in the Camb. Nat. Hist. series), 1899, page
500]: "It was formerly assumed that the Volucella larvae lived on
the larvae of the bees, and that the parent flies were providentially
endowed with a bee-like appearance that they might obtain entrance into
the bees' nests without being detected." Dr. Sharp goes on to say
that what little is known on the subject supports the belief that the
"presence of the Volucella in the nests is advantageous to both fly and
bee.") I had no idea such a case occurred in nature; I must get and see
specimens in British Museum. I hope and suppose you will give a
good deal of Natural History in your Travels; every one cares about
ants--more notice has been taken about slave-ants in the "Origin" than
of any other passage.
I fully expect to delight in your Travels. Keep to simple style, as in
your excellent letters,--but I beg pardon, I am again advising.
What a capital paper yours will be on mimetic resemblances! You will
make quite a new subject of it. I had thought of such cases as a
difficulty; and once, when corresponding with Dr. Collingwood, I thought
of your explanation; but I drove it from my mind, for I felt that I had
not knowledge to judge one way or the other. Dr C., I think, states that
the mimetic forms inhabit the same country, but I did not know whether
to believe him. What wonderful cases yours seem to be! Could you not
give a few woodcuts in your Travels to illustrate this? I am tired with
a hard day's work, so no more, except to give my sincere thanks and
hearty wishes for the success of your Travels.
LETTER 135. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 18th [1862].
Your letter discusses lots of interesting subjects, and I am very glad
you have sent for your letter to Bates. (135/1. Published in Mr. Clodd's
memoir of Bates in the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1892, page l.) What
do you mean by "individual plants"? (135/2. In a letter to Mr. Darwin
dated March 17th, 1862, Sir J.D. Hooker had discussed a supposed
difference between animals and plants, "inasmuch as the individual
animal is certainly changed materially by external conditions, the
latter (I think) never, except in such a coarse way as stunting or
enlarging--e.g. no increase of cold on the spot, or change of individual
plant from hot to cold, will induce said individual plant to get more
woolly covering; but I suppose a series of cold seasons would bring
about such a change in an individual quadruped, just as rowing will
harden hands, etc.") I fancied a bud lived only a year, and you could
hardly expect any change in that time; but if you call a tree or plant
an individual, you have sporting buds. Perhaps you mean that the
whole tree does not change. Tulips, in "breaking," change. Fruit seems
certainly affected by the stock. I think I have (135/3. See note, Letter
16.) got cases of slight change in alpine plants transplanted. All these
subjects have rather gone out of my head owing to orchids, but I shall
soon have to enter on them in earnest when I come again to my volume on
variation under domestication.
...In the lifetime of an animal you would, I think, find it very
difficult to show effects of external condition on animals more than
shade and light, good and bad soil, produce on a plant.
You speak of "an inherent tendency to vary wholly independent of
physical conditions"! This is a very simple way of putting the case (as
Dr. Prosper Lucas also puts it) (135/4. Prosper Lucas, the author of
"Traite philosophique et physiologique de l'heredite naturelle dans
les etats de sante et de maladie du systeme nerveux": 2 volumes,
Paris, 1847-50.): but two great classes of facts make me think that all
variability is due to change in the conditions of life: firstly, that
there is more variability and more monstrosities (and these graduate
into each other) under unnatural domestic conditions than under nature;
and, secondly, that changed conditions affect in an especial manner the
reproductive organs--those organs which are to produce a new being. But
why one seedling out of thousands presents some new character transcends
the wildest powers of conjecture. It was in this sense that I spoke of
"climate," etc., possibly producing without selection a hooked seed,
or any not great variation. (135/5. This statement probably occurs in a
letter, and not in Darwin's published works.)
I have for years and years been fighting with myself not to attribute
too much to Natural Selection--to attribute something to direct action
of conditions; and perhaps I have too much conquered my tendency to lay
hardly any stress on conditions of life.
I am not shaken about "saltus" (135/6. Sir Joseph had written, March
17th, 1862: "Huxley is rather disposed to think you have overlooked
saltus, but I am not sure that he is right--saltus quoad individuals is
not saltus quoad species--as I pointed out in the Begonia case, though
perhaps that was rather special pleading in the present state of
science." For the Begonia case, see "Life and Letters," II., page
275, also letter 110, page 166.), I did not write without going pretty
carefully into all the cases of normal structure in animals resembling
monstrosities which appear per saltus.
LETTER 136. TO J.D. HOOKER. 26th [March, 1862].
Thanks also for your own (136/1. See note in Letter 135.) and Bates'
letter now returned. They are both excellent; you have, I think, said
all that can be said against direct effects of conditions, and capitally
put. But I still stick to my own and Bates' side. Nevertheless I am
pleased to attribute little to conditions, and I wish I had done what
you suggest--started on the fundamental principle of variation being
an innate principle, and afterwards made a few remarks showing that
hereafter, perhaps, this principle would be explicable. Whenever my
book on poultry, pigeons, ducks, and rabbits is published, with all the
measurements and weighings of bones, I think you will see that "use
and disuse" at least have some effect. I do not believe in perfect
reversion. I rather demur to your doctrine of "centrifugal variation."
(136/2. The "doctrine of centrifugal variation" is given in Sir J.D.
Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania" (Part III. of the
Botany of the Antarctic Expedition), 1859, page viii. In paragraph 10
the author writes: "The tendency of varieties, both in nature and under
cultivation...is rather to depart more and more widely from the original
type than to revert to it." In Sir Joseph's letter to Bates (loc. cit.,
page lii) he wrote: "Darwin also believes in some reversion to type
which is opposed to my view of variation." It may be noted in this
connection that Mr. Galton has shown reason to believe in a centripetal
tendency in variation (to use Hooker's phraseology) which is not
identical with the reversion of cultivated plants to their ancestors,
the case to which Hooker apparently refers. See "Natural Inheritance,"
by F. Galton, 1889.) I suppose you do not agree with or do not remember
my doctrine of the good of diversification (136/3. Darwin usually used
the word "divergence" in this connection.); this seems to me amply to
account for variation being centrifugal--if you forget it, look at
this discussion (page 117 of 3rd edition), it was the best point which,
according to my notions, I made out, and it has always pleased me. It is
really curiously satisfactory to me to see so able a man as Bates (and
yourself) believing more fully in Natural Selection than I think I even
do myself. (136/4. This refers to a very interesting passage in Hooker's
letter to Bates (loc. cit., page liii): "I am sure that with you, as
with me, the more you think the less occasion you will see for anything
but time and natural selection to effect change; and that this view
is the simplest and clearest in the present state of science is one
advantage, at any rate. Indeed, I think that it is, in the present state
of the inquiry, the legitimate position to take up; it is time enough to
bother our heads with the secondary cause when there is some evidence of
it or some demand for it--at present I do not see one or the other, and
so feel inclined to renounce any other for the present.") By the way, I
always boast to you, and so I think Owen will be wrong that my book will
be forgotten in ten years, for a French edition is now going through the
press and a second German edition wanted. Your long letter to Bates has
set my head working, and makes me repent of the nine months spent on
orchids; though I know not why I should not have amused myself on them
as well as slaving on bones of ducks and pigeons, etc. The orchids have
been splendid sport, though at present I am fearfully sick of them.
I enclose a waste copy of woodcut of Mormodes ignea; I wish you had a
plant at Kew, for I am sure its wonderful mechanism and structure would
amuse you. Is it not curious the way the labellum sits on the top of the
column?--here insects alight and are beautifully shot, when they touch a
certain sensitive point, by the pollinia.
How kindly you have helped me in my work! Farewell, my dear old fellow.
LETTER 137. TO H.W. BATES. Down, May 4th [1862].
Hearty thanks for your most interesting letter and three very valuable
extracts. I am very glad that you have been looking at the South
Temperate insects. I wish that the materials in the British Museum had
been richer; but I should think the case of the South American Carabi,
supported by some other case, would be worth a paper. To us who theorise
I am sure the case is very important. Do the South American Carabi
differ more from the other species than do, for instance, the Siberian
and European and North American and Himalayan (if the genus exists
there)? If they do, I entirely agree with you that the difference would
be too great to account for by the recent Glacial period. I agree, also,
with you in utterly rejecting an independent origin for these Carabi.
There is a difficulty, as far as I know, in our ignorance whether
insects change quickly in time; you could judge of this by knowing how
far closely allied coleoptera generally have much restricted ranges,
for this almost implies rapid change. What a curious case is offered by
land-shells, which become modified in every sub-district, and have yet
retained the same general structure from very remote geological periods!
When working at the Glacial period, I remember feeling much surprised
how few birds, no mammals, and very few sea-mollusca seemed to have
crossed, or deeply entered, the inter-tropical regions during the cold
period. Insects, from all you say, seem to come under the same category.
Plants seem to migrate more readily than animals. Do not underrate the
length of Glacial period: Forbes used to argue that it was equivalent to
the whole of the Pleistocene period in the warmer latitudes. I believe,
with you, that we shall be driven to an older Glacial period.
I am very sorry to hear about the British Museum; it would be hopeless
to contend against any one supported by Owen. Perhaps another chance
might occur before very long. How would it be to speak to Owen as soon
as your own mind is made up? From what I have heard, since talking to
you, I fear the strongest personal interest with a Minister is requisite
for a pension.
Farewell, and may success attend the acerrimo pro-pugnatori.
P.S. I deeply wish you could find some situation in which you could
give your time to science; it would be a great thing for science and for
yourself.
LETTER 138. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, July 11th [1862].
I thank you cordially for so kindly and promptly answering my questions.
I will quote some of your remarks. The case seems to me of some
importance with reference to my heretical notions, for it shows how
larvae might be modified. I shall not publish, I daresay, for a year,
for much time is expended in experiments. If within this time you should
acquire any fresh information on the similarity of the moths of distinct
races, and would allow me to quote any facts on your authority, I should
feel very grateful.
I thank you for your great kindness with respect to the translation of
the "Origin;" it is very liberal in you, as we differ to a considerable
degree. I have been atrociously abused by my religious countrymen; but
as I live an independent life in the country, it does not in the least
hurt me in any way, except indeed when the abuse comes from an old
friend like Professor Owen, who abuses me and then advances the doctrine
that all birds are probably descended from one parent.
I wish the translator (138/1. Mdlle. Royer, who translated the first
French edition of the "Origin.') had known more of Natural History; she
must be a clever but singular lady, but I never heard of her till she
proposed to translate my book.
LETTER 139. TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 23rd [1862].
I received several days ago two large packets, but have as yet read only
your letter; for we have been in fearful distress, and I could attend
to nothing. Our poor boy had the rare case of second rash and sore
throat...; and, as if this was not enough, a most serious attack of
erysipelas, with typhoid symptoms. I despaired of his life; but this
evening he has eaten one mouthful, and I think has passed the crisis. He
has lived on port wine every three-quarters of an hour, day and night.
This evening, to our astonishment, he asked whether his stamps were
safe, and I told him of one sent by you, and that he should see it
to-morrow. He answered, "I should awfully like to see it now"; so with
difficulty he opened his eyelids and glanced at it, and, with a sigh of
satisfaction, said, "All right." Children are one's greatest happiness,
but often and often a still greater misery. A man of science ought to
have none--perhaps not a wife; for then there would be nothing in
this wide world worth caring for, and a man might (whether he could is
another question) work away like a Trojan. I hope in a few days to get
my brains in order, and then I will pick out all your orchid letters,
and return them in hopes of your making use of them...
Of all the carpenters for knocking the right nail on the head, you are
the very best; no one else has perceived that my chief interest in my
orchid book has been that it was a "flank movement" on the enemy. I
live in such solitude that I hear nothing, and have no idea to what you
allude about Bentham and the orchids and species. But I must enquire.
By the way, one of my chief enemies (the sole one who has annoyed me),
namely Owen, I hear has been lecturing on birds; and admits that all
have descended from one, and advances as his own idea that the oceanic
wingless birds have lost their wings by gradual disuse. He never alludes
to me, or only with bitter sneers, and coupled with Buffon and the
"Vestiges."
Well, it has been an amusement to me this first evening, scribbling as
egotistically as usual about myself and my doings; so you must forgive
me, as I know well your kind heart will do. I have managed to skim the
newspaper, but had not heart to read all the bloody details. Good God!
What will the end be? Perhaps we are too despondent here; but I must
think you are too hopeful on your side of the water. I never believed
the "canards" of the army of the Potomac having capitulated. My good
dear wife and self are come to wish for peace at any price. Good night,
my good friend. I will scribble on no more.
One more word. I should like to hear what you think about what I say
in the last chapter of the orchid book on the meaning and cause of the
endless diversity of means for the same general purpose. It bears on
design, that endless question. Good night, good night!
LETTER 140. TO C. LYELL. 1, Carlton Terrace, Southampton, August 22nd
[1862].
You say that the Bishop and Owen will be down on you (140/1. This refers
to the "Antiquity of Man," which was published in 1863.): the latter
hardly can, for I was assured that Owen, in his lectures this spring,
advanced as a new idea that wingless birds had lost their wings by
disuse. (140/2. The first paragraph of this letter was published in
"Life and Letters," II., pages 387, 388.) Also that magpies stole
spoons, etc., from a remnant of some instinct like that of the
bower-bird, which ornaments its playing passage with pretty feathers.
Indeed, I am told that he hinted plainly that all birds are descended
from one. What an unblushing man he must be to lecture thus after
abusing me so, and never to have openly retracted, or alluded to my
book!
LETTER 141. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (LORD AVEBURY). Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth,
September 5th [1862].
Many thanks for your pleasant note in return for all my stupid trouble.
I did not fully appreciate your insect-diving case (141/1. "On two
Aquatic Hymenoptera, one of which uses its Wings in Swimming." By John
Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., 1864, pages 135-42.) [Read
May 7th, 1863.] In this paper Lubbock describes a new species of
Polynema--P. natans--which swims by means of its wings, and is capable
of living under water for several hours; the other species, referred to
a new genus Prestwichia, lives under water, holds its wings motionless
and uses its legs as oars.) before your last note, nor had I any idea
that the fact was new, though new to me. It is really very interesting.
Of course you will publish an account of it. You will then say whether
the insect can fly well through the air. (141/2. In describing the
habits of Polynema, Lubbock writes, "I was unfortunately unable to
ascertain whether they could fly" (loc. cit., page 137).) My wife
asked, "How did he find that it stayed four hours under water without
breathing?" I answered at once: "Mrs. Lubbock sat four hours watching."
I wonder whether I am right.
I long to be at home and at steady work, and I hope we may be in another
month. I fear it is hopeless my coming to you, for I am squashier than
ever, but hope two shower-baths a day will give me a little strength, so
that you will, I hope, come to us. It is an age since I have seen you or
any scientific friend.
I heard from Lyell the other day in the Isle of Wight, and from
Hooker in Scotland. About Huxley I know nothing, but I hope his book
progresses, for I shall be very curious to see it. (141/3. "Man's Place
in Nature." London, 1863.)