The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II (page 3)

was an unprosperous and unhappy one, full of money difficulties and darkened by the death of his wife after a few years of marriage.), of Calcutta, who is much disappointed at hearing that Lord Canning will not grant any money; so I much fear that all your great pains will be thrown away. Blyth says (and he is in many respects a very good judge) that his ideas on species are quite revolutionised…

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, June 5th [1860].

My dear Hooker,

It is a pleasure to me to write to you, as I have no one to talk about such matters as we write on. But I seriously beg you not to write to me unless so inclined; for busy as you are, and seeing many people, the case is very different between us…

Have you seen –‘s abusive article on me?…It out does even the ‘North British’ and ‘Edinburgh’ in misapprehension and misrepresentation. I never knew anything so unfair as in discussing cells of bees, his ignoring the case of Melipona, which builds combs almost exactly intermediate between hive and humble bees. What has — done that he feels so immeasurably superior to all us wretched naturalists, and to all political economists, including that great philosopher Malthus? This review, however, and Harvey’s letter have convinced me that I must be a very bad explainer. Neither really understand what I mean by Natural Selection. I am inclined to give up the attempt as hopeless. Those who do not understand, it seems, cannot be made to understand.

By the way, I think, we entirely agree, except perhaps that I use too forcible language about selection. I entirely agree, indeed would almost go further than you when you say that climate (i.e. variability from all unknown causes) is “an active handmaid, influencing its mistress most materially.” Indeed, I have never hinted that Natural Selection is “the efficient cause to the exclusion of the other,” i.e. variability from Climate, etc. The very term SELECTION implies something, i.e. variation or difference, to be selected…

How does your book progress (I mean your general sort of book on plants), I hope to God you will be more successful than I have been in making people understand your meaning. I should begin to think myself wholly in the wrong, and that I was an utter fool, but then I cannot yet persuade myself, that Lyell, and you and Huxley, Carpenter, Asa Gray, and Watson, etc., are all fools together. Well, time will show, and nothing but time. Farewell…

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, June 6th [1860].

…It consoles me that — sneers at Malthus, for that clearly shows, mathematician though he may be, he cannot understand common reasoning. By the way what a discouraging example Malthus is, to show during what long years the plainest case may be misrepresented and misunderstood. I have read the ‘Future’; how curious it is that several of my reviewers should advance such wild arguments, as that varieties of dogs and cats do not mingle; and should bring up the old exploded doctrine of definite analogies…I am beginning to despair of ever making the majority understand my notions. Even Hopkins does not thoroughly. By the way, I have been so much pleased by the way he personally alludes to me. I must be a very bad explainer. I hope to Heaven that you will succeed better. Several reviews and several letters have shown me too clearly how little I am understood. I suppose “natural selection” was a bad term; but to change it now, I think, would make confusion worse confounded, nor can I think of a better; “Natural Preservation” would not imply a preservation of particular varieties, and would seem a truism, and would not bring man’s and nature’s selection under one point of view. I can only hope by reiterated explanations finally to make the matter clearer. If my MS. spreads out, I think I shall publish one volume exclusively on variation of animals and plants under domestication. I want to show that I have not been quite so rash as many suppose.

Though weary of reviews, I should like to see Lowell’s (The late J.A. Lowell in the ‘Christian Examiner’ (Boston, U.S., May, 1860.) some time…I suppose Lowell’s difficulty about instinct is the same as Bowen’s; but it seems to me wholly to rest on the assumption that instincts cannot graduate as finely as structures. I have stated in my volume that it is hardly possible to know which, i.e. whether instinct or structure, change first by insensible steps. Probably sometimes instinct, sometimes structure. When a British insect feeds on an exotic plant, instinct has changed by very small steps, and their structures might change so as to fully profit by the new food. Or structure might change first, as the direction of tusks in one variety of Indian elephants, which leads it to attack the tiger in a different manner from other kinds of elephants. Thanks for your letter of the 2nd, chiefly about Murray. (N.B. Harvey of Dublin gives me, in a letter, the argument of tall men marrying short women, as one of great weight!)

I do not quite understand what you mean by saying, “that the more they prove that you underrate physical conditions, the better for you, as Geology comes in to your aid.”

…I see in Murray and many others one incessant fallacy, when alluding to slight differences of physical conditions as being very important; namely, oblivion of the fact that all species, except very local ones, range over a considerable area, and though exposed to what the world calls considerable DIVERSITIES, yet keep constant. I have just alluded to this in the ‘Origin’ in comparing the productions of the Old and the New Worlds. Farewell, shall you be at Oxford? If H. gets quite well, perhaps I shall go there.

Yours affectionately,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down [June 14th, 1860].

…Lowell’s review (J.A. Lowell in the ‘Christian Examiner,’ May 1860.) is pleasantly written, but it is clear that he is not a naturalist. He quite overlooks the importance of the accumulation of mere individual differences, and which, I think I can show, is the great agency of change under domestication. I have not finished Schaaffhausen, as I read German so badly. I have ordered a copy for myself, and should like to keep yours till my own arrives, but will return it to you instantly if wanted. He admits statements rather rashly, as I dare say I do. I see only one sentence as yet at all approaching natural selection.

There is a notice of me in the penultimate number of ‘All the Year Round,’ but not worth consulting; chiefly a well-done hash of my own words. Your last note was very interesting and consolatory to me.

I have expressly stated that I believe physical conditions have a more direct effect on plants than on animals. But the more I study, the more I am led to think that natural selection regulates, in a state of nature, most trifling differences. As squared stone, or bricks, or timber, are the indispensable materials for a building, and influence its character, so is variability not only indispensable, but influential. Yet in the same manner as the architect is the ALL important person in a building, so is selection with organic bodies…

[The meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is famous for two pitched battles over the ‘Origin of Species.’ Both of them originated in unimportant papers. On Thursday, June 28, Dr. Daubeny of Oxford made a communication to Section D: “On the final causes of the sexuality of plants, with particular reference to Mr. Darwin’s work on the ‘Origin of Species.'” Mr. Huxley was called on by the President, but tried (according to the “Athenaeum” report) to avoid a discussion, on the ground “that a general audience, in which sentiment would unduly interfere with intellect, was not the public before which such a discussion should be carried on.” However, the subject was not allowed to drop. Sir R. Owen (I quote from the “Athenaeum”, July 7, 1860), who “wished to approach this subject in the spirit of the philosopher,” expressed his “conviction that there were facts by which the public could come to some conclusion with regard to the probabilities of the truth of Mr. Darwin’s theory.” He went on to say that the brain of the gorilla “presented more differences, as compared with the brain of man, than it did when compared with the brains of the very lowest and most problematical of the Quadrumana.” Mr. Huxley replied, and gave these assertions a “direct and unqualified contradiction,” pledging himself to “justify that unusual procedure elsewhere” (‘Man’s Place in Nature,’ by T.H. Huxley, 1863, page 114.), a pledge which he amply fulfilled. (See the ‘Nat. Hist. Review,’ 1861.) On Friday there was peace, but on Saturday 30th, the battle arose with redoubled fury over a paper by Dr. Draper of New York, on the ‘Intellectual development of Europe considered with reference to the views of Mr. Darwin.’

The following account is from an eye-witness of the scene.

“The excitement was tremendous. The Lecture-room, in which it had been arranged that the discussion should be held, proved far too small for the audience, and the meeting adjourned to the Library of the Museum, which was crammed to suffocation long before the champions entered the lists. The numbers were estimated at from 700 to 1000. Had it been term-time, or had the general public been admitted, it would have been impossible to have accommodated the rush to hear the oratory of the bold Bishop. Professor Henslow, the President of Section D, occupied the chair and wisely announced in limine that none who had not valid arguments to bring forward on one side or the other, would be allowed to address the meeting: a caution that proved necessary, for no fewer than four combatants had their utterances burked by him, because of their indulgence in vague declamation.

“The Bishop was up to time, and spoke for full half-an-hour with inimitable spirit, emptiness and unfairness. It was evident from his handling of the subject that he had been ‘crammed’ up to the throat, and that he knew nothing at first hand; in fact, he used no argument not to be found in his ‘Quarterly’ article. He ridiculed Darwin badly, and Huxley savagely, but all in such dulcet tones, so persuasive a manner, and in such well-turned periods, that I who had been inclined to blame the President for allowing a discussion that could serve no scientific purpose now forgave him from the bottom of my heart. Unfortunately the Bishop, hurried along on the current of his own eloquence, so far forgot himself as to push his attempted advantage to the verge of personality in a telling passage in which he turned round and addressed Huxley: I forgot the precise words, and quote from Lyell. ‘The Bishop asked whether Huxley was related by his grandfather’s or grandmother’s side to an ape.’ (Lyell’s ‘Letters,’ vol. ii. page 335.) Huxley replied to the scientific argument of his opponent with force and eloquence, and to the personal allusion with a self- restraint, that gave dignity to his crushing rejoinder.”

Many versions of Mr. Huxley’s speech were current: the following report of his conclusion is from a letter addressed by the late John Richard Green, then an undergraduate, to a fellow-student, now Professor Boyd Dawkins. “I asserted, and I repeat, that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an equivocal (Prof. V. Carus, who has a distinct recollection of the scene, does not remember the word equivocal. He believes too that Lyell’s version of the “ape” sentence is slightly incorrect.) success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.”

The letter above quoted continues:

“The excitement was now at its height; a lady fainted and had to be carried out, and it was some time before the discussion was resumed. Some voices called for Hooker, and his name having been handed up, the President invited him to give his view of the theory from the Botanical side. This he did, demonstrating that the Bishop, by his own showing, had never grasped the principles of the ‘Origin’ (With regard to the Bishop’s ‘Quarterly Review,’ my father wrote: “These very clever men think they can write a review with a very slight knowledge of the book reviewed or subject in question.”), and that he was absolutely ignorant of the elements of botanical science. The Bishop made no reply, and the meeting broke up.

“There was a crowded conversazione in the evening at the rooms of the hospitable and genial Professor of Botany, Dr. Daubeny, where the almost sole topic was the battle of the ‘Origin,’ and I was much struck with the fair and unprejudiced way in which the black coats and white cravats of Oxford discussed the question, and the frankness with which they offered their congratulations to the winners in the combat.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Sudbrook Park, Monday night
[July 2nd, 1860].

My dear Hooker,

I have just received your letter. I have been very poorly, with almost continuous bad headache for forty-eight hours, and I was low enough, and thinking what a useless burthen I was to myself and all others, when your letter came, and it has so cheered me; your kindness and affection brought tears into my eyes. Talk of fame, honour, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with affection; and this is a doctrine with which, I know, from your letter, that you will agree with from the bottom of your heart…How I should have liked to have wandered about Oxford with you, if I had been well enough; and how still more I should have liked to have heard you triumphing over the Bishop. I am astonished at your success and audacity. It is something unintelligible to me how any one can argue in public like orators do. I had no idea you had this power. I have read lately so many hostile views, that I was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the wrong, and that — was right when he said the whole subject would be forgotten in ten years; but now that I hear that you and Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I never could do), I fully believe that our cause will, in the long-run, prevail. I am glad I was not in Oxford, for I should have been overwhelmed, with my [health] in its present state.

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Sudbrook Park, Richmond,
July 3rd [1860].

…I had a letter from Oxford, written by Hooker late on Sunday night, giving me some account of the awful battles which have raged about species at Oxford. He tells me you fought nobly with Owen (but I have heard no particulars), and that you answered the B. of O. capitally. I often think that my friends (and you far beyond others) have good cause to hate me, for having stirred up so much mud, and led them into so much odious trouble. If I had been a friend of myself, I should have hated me. (How to make that sentence good English, I know not.) But remember, if I had not stirred up the mud, some one else certainly soon would. I honour your pluck; I would as soon have died as tried to answer the Bishop in such an assembly…

[On July 20th, my father wrote to Mr. Huxley:

“From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did the subject great good. It is of enormous importance, the showing the world that a few first-rate men are not afraid of expressing their opinion.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
[July 1860].

…I have just read the ‘Quarterly.’ (‘Quarterly Review,’ July 1860. The article in question was by Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and was afterwards published in his “Essays Contributed to the ‘Quarterly Review,’ 1874.” The passage from the ‘Anti-Jacobin’ gives the history of the evolution of space from the “primaeval point or punctum saliens of the universe,” which is conceived to have moved “forward in a right line ad infinitum, till it grew tired; after which the right line, which it had generated, would begin to put itself in motion in a lateral direction, describing an area of infinite extent. This area, as soon as it became conscious of its own existence, would begin to ascend or descend according as its specific gravity would determine it, forming an immense solid space filled with vacuum, and capable of containing the present universe.”

The following (page 263) may serve as an example of the passages in which the reviewer refers to Sir Charles Lyell:–“That Mr. Darwin should have wandered from this broad highway of nature’s works into the jungle of fanciful assumption is no small evil. We trust that he is mistaken in believing that he may count Sir C. Lyell as one of his converts. We know, indeed, that the strength of the temptations which he can bring to bear upon his geological brother…Yet no man has been more distinct and more logical in the denial of the transmutation of species than Sir C. Lyell, and that not in the infancy of his scientific life, but in its full vigour and maturity.” The Bishop goes on to appeal to Lyell, in order that with his help “this flimsy speculation may be as completely put down as was what in spite of all denials we must venture to call its twin though less instructed brother, the ‘Vestiges of Creation.'”

With reference to this article, Mr. Brodie Innes, my father’s old friend and neighbour, writes:–“Most men would have been annoyed by an article written with the Bishop’s accustomed vigour, a mixture of argument and ridicule. Mr. Darwin was writing on some parish matter, and put a postscript–‘If you have not seen the last ‘Quarterly,’ do get it; the Bishop of Oxford has made such capital fun of me and my grandfather.’ By a curious coincidence, when I received the letter, I was staying in the same house with the Bishop, and showed it to him. He said, ‘I am very glad he takes it in that way, he is such a capital fellow.'”) It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the ‘Anti-Jacobin’ versus my Grandfather. You are not alluded to, nor, strange to say, Huxley; and I can plainly see, here and there, –‘s hand. The concluding pages will make Lyell shake in his shoes. By Jove, if he sticks to us, he will be a real hero. Good-night. Your well- quizzed, but not sorrowful, and affectionate friend.

C.D.

I can see there has been some queer tampering with the Review, for a page has been cut out and reprinted.

[Writing on July 22 to Dr. Asa Gray my father thus refers to Lyell’s position:–

“Considering his age, his former views and position in society, I think his conduct has been heroic on this subject.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
[Hartfield, Sussex] July 22nd [1860].

My dear Gray,

Owing to absence from home at water-cure and then having to move my sick girl to whence I am now writing, I have only lately read the discussion in Proc. American Acad. (April 10, 1860. Dr. Gray criticised in detail “several of the positions taken at the preceding meeting by Mr. [J.A.] Lowell, Prof. Bowen and Prof. Agassiz.” It was reprinted in the “Athenaeum”, August 4, 1860.), and now I cannot resist expressing my sincere admiration of your most clear powers of reasoning. As Hooker lately said in a note to me, you are more than ANY ONE else the thorough master of the subject. I declare that you know my book as well as I do myself; and bring to the question new lines of illustration and argument in a manner which excites my astonishment and almost my envy! I admire these discussions, I think, almost more than your article in Silliman’s Journal. Every single word seems weighed carefully, and tells like a 32-pound shot. It makes me much wish (but I know that you have not time) that you could write more in detail, and give, for instance, the facts on the variability of the American wild fruits. The “Athenaeum” has the largest circulation, and I have sent my copy to the editor with a request that he would republish the first discussion; I much fear he will not, as he reviewed the subject in so hostile a spirit…I shall be curious [to see] and will order the August number, as soon as I know that it contains your review of Reviews. My conclusion is that you have made a mistake in being a botanist, you ought to have been a lawyer.

…Henslow (Professor Henslow was mentioned in the December number of ‘Macmillan’s Magazine’ as being an adherent of Evolution. In consequence of this he published, in the February number of the following year, a letter defining his position. This he did by means of an extract from a letter addressed to him by the Rev. L. Jenyns (Blomefield) which “very nearly,” as he says, expressed his views. Mr. Blomefield wrote, “I was not aware that you had become a convert to his (Darwin’s) theory, and can hardly suppose you have accepted it as a whole, though, like myself, you may go to the length of imagining that many of the smaller groups, both of animals and plants, may at some remote period have had a common parentage. I do not with some say that the whole of his theory cannot be true–but that it is very far from proved; and I doubt its ever being possible to prove it.”) and Daubeny are shaken. I hear from Hooker that he hears from Hochstetter that my views are making very considerable progress in Germany, and the good workers are discussing the question. Bronn at the end of his translation has a chapter of criticism, but it is such difficult German that I have not yet read it. Hopkins’s review in ‘Fraser’ is thought the best which has appeared against us. I believe that Hopkins is so much opposed because his course of study has never led him to reflect much on such subjects as geographical distribution, classification, homologies, etc., so that he does not feel it a relief to have some kind of explanation.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Hartfield [Sussex], July 30th [1860].

…I had lots of pleasant letters about the British Association, and our side seems to have got on very well. There has been as much discussion on the other side of the Atlantic as on this. No one I think understands the whole case better than Asa Gray, and he has been fighting nobly. He is a capital reasoner. I have sent one of his printed discussions to our “Athenaeum”, and the editor says he will print it. The ‘Quarterly’ has been out some time. It contains no malice, which is wonderful…It makes me say many things which I do not say. At the end it quotes all your conclusions against Lamarck, and makes a solemn appeal to you to keep firm in the true faith. I fancy it will make you quake a little. — has ingeniously primed the Bishop (with Murchison) against you as head of the uniformitarians. The only other review worth mentioning, which I can think of, is in the third No. of the ‘London Review,’ by some geologist, and favorable for a wonder. It is very ably done, and I should like much to know who is the author. I shall be very curious to hear on your return whether Bronn’s German translation of the ‘Origin’ has drawn any attention to the subject. Huxley is eager about a ‘Natural History Review,’ which he and others are going to edit, and he has got so many first-rate assistants, that I really believe he will make it a first-rate production. I have been doing nothing, except a little botanical work as amusement. I shall hereafter be very anxious to hear how your tour has answered. I expect your book on the geological history of Man will, with a vengeance, be a bomb-shell. I hope it will not be very long delayed. Our kindest remembrances to Lady Lyell. This is not worth sending, but I have nothing better to say.

Yours affectionately,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO F. WATKINS. (See Volume I.) Down, July 30th, [1860?].

My dear Watkins,

Your note gave me real pleasure. Leading the retired life which I do, with bad health, I oftener think of old times than most men probably do; and your face now rises before me, with the pleasant old expression, as vividly as if I saw you.

My book has been well abused, praised, and splendidly quizzed by the Bishop of Oxford; but from what I see of its influence on really good workers in science, I feel confident that, IN THE MAIN, I am on the right road. With respect to your question, I think the arguments are valid, showing that all animals have descended from four or five primordial forms; and that analogy and weak reasons go to show that all have descended from some single prototype.

Farewell, my old friend. I look back to old Cambridge days with unalloyed pleasure.

Believe me, yours most sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.

T.H. HUXLEY TO CHARLES DARWIN.
August 6th, 1860.

My dear Darwin,

I have to announce a new and great ally for you…

Von Baer writes to me thus:–Et outre cela, je trouve que vous ecrivez encore des redactions. Vous avez ecrit sur l’ouvrage de M. Darwin une critique dont je n’ai trouve que des debris dans un journal allemand. J’ai oublie le nom terrible du journal anglais dans lequel se trouve votre recension. En tout cas aussi je ne peux pas trouver le journal ici. Comme je m’interesse beaucoup pour les idees de M. Darwin, sur lesquelles j’ai parle publiquement et sur lesquelles je ferai peut-etre imprimer quelque chose–vous m’obligeriez infiniment si vous pourriez me faire parvenir ce que vous avez ecrit sur ces idees.

“J’ai enonce les memes idees sur la transformation des types ou origine d’especes que M. Darwin. (See Vol. I.) Mais c’est seulement sur la geographie zoologique que je m’appuie. Vous trouverez, dans le dernier chapitre du traite ‘Ueber Papuas und Alfuren,’ que j’en parle tres decidement sans savoir que M. Darwin s’occupait de cet objet.”

The treatise to which Von Baer refers he gave me when over here, but I have not been able to lay hands on it since this letter reached me two days ago. When I find it I will let you know what there is in it.

Ever yours faithfully,
T.H. HUXLEY.

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, August 8 [1860].

My dear Huxley,

Your note contained magnificent news, and thank you heartily for sending it me. Von Baer weighs down with a vengeance all the virulence of [the ‘Edinburgh’ reviewer] and weak arguments of Agassiz. If you write to Von Baer, for heaven’s sake tell him that we should think one nod of approbation on our side, of the greatest value; and if he does write anything, beg him to send us a copy, for I would try and get it translated and published in the “Athenaeum” and in ‘Silliman’ to touch up Agassiz…Have you seen Agassiz’s weak metaphysical and theological attack on the ‘Origin’ in the last ‘Silliman’? (The ‘American Journal of Science and Arts’ (commonly called ‘Silliman’s Journal’), July 1860. Printed from advanced sheets of vol. iii. of ‘Contributions to the Nat. Hist. of the U.S.’ My father’s copy has a pencilled “Truly” opposite the following passage:–“Unless Darwin and his followers succeed in showing that the struggle for life tends to something beyond favouring the existence of certain individuals over that of other individuals, they will soon find that they are following a shadow.”) I would send it you, but apprehend it would be less trouble for you to look at it in London than return it to me. R. Wagner has sent me a German pamphlet (‘Louis Agassiz’s Prinzipien der Classification, etc., mit Rucksicht auf Darwins Ansichten. Separat-Abdruck aus den Gottingischen gelehrten Anzeigen,’ 1860.), giving an abstract of Agassiz’s ‘Essay on Classification,’ “mit Rucksicht auf Darwins Ansichten,” etc. etc. He won’t go very “dangerous lengths,” but thinks the truth lies half-way between Agassiz and the ‘Origin.’ As he goes thus far he will, nolens volens, have to go further. He says he is going to review me in [his] yearly Report. My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel–i.e. the devil’s gospel.

Ever yours,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, August 11th [1860].

…I have laughed at Woodward thinking that you were a man who could be influenced in your judgment by the voice of the public; and yet after mortally sneering at him, I was obliged to confess to myself, that I had had fears, what the effect might be of so many heavy guns fired by great men. As I have (sent by Murray) a spare ‘Quarterly Review,’ I send it by this post, as it may amuse you. The Anti-Jacobin part amused me. It is full of errors, and Hooker is thinking of answering it. There has been a cancelled page; I should like to know what gigantic blunder it contained. Hooker says that — has played on the Bishop, and made him strike whatever note he liked; he has wished to make the article as disagreeable to you as possible. I will send the “Athenaeum” in a day or two.

As you wish to hear what reviews have appeared, I may mention that Agassiz has fired off a shot in the last ‘Silliman,’ not good at all, denies variations and rests on the perfection of Geological evidence. Asa Gray tells me that a very clever friend has been almost converted to our side by this review of Agassiz’s…Professor Parsons (Theophilus Parsons, Professor of Law in Harvard University.) has published in the same ‘Silliman’ a speculative paper correcting my notions, worth nothing. In the ‘Highland Agricultural Journal’ there is a review by some Entomologist, not worth much. This is all that I can remember…As Huxley says, the platoon firing must soon cease. Hooker and Huxley, and Asa Gray, I see, are determined to stick to the battle and not give in; I am fully convinced that whenever you publish, it will produce a great effect on all TRIMMERS, and on many others. By the way I forgot to mention Daubeny’s pamphlet (‘Remarks on the final causes of the sexuality of plants with particular reference to Mr. Darwin’s work on the “Origin of Species.”‘–British Association Report, 1860.), very liberal and candid, but scientifically weak. I believe Hooker is going nowhere this summer; he is excessively busy…He has written me many, most nice letters. I shall be very curious to hear on your return some account of your Geological doings. Talking of Geology, you used to be interested about the “pipes” in the chalk. About three years ago a perfectly circular hole suddenly appeared in a flat grass field to everyone’s astonishment, and was filled up with many waggon loads of earth; and now two or three days ago, again it has circularly subsided about two feet more. How clearly this shows what is still slowly going on. This morning I recommenced work, and am at dogs; when I have written my short discussion on them, I will have it copied, and if you like, you can then see how the argument stands, about their multiple origin. As you seemed to think this important, it might be worth your reading; though I do not feel sure that you will come to the same probable conclusion that I have done. By the way, the Bishop makes a very telling case against me, by accumulating several instances where I speak very doubtfully; but this is very unfair, as in such cases as this of the dog, the evidence is and must be very doubtful…

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, August 11 [1860].

My dear Gray,

On my return home from Sussex about a week ago, I found several articles sent by you. The first article, from the ‘Atlantic Monthly,’ I am very glad to possess. By the way, the editor of the “Athenaeum” (August 4, 1860.) has inserted your answer to Agassiz, Bowen, and Co., and when I therein read them, I admired them even more than at first. They really seemed to be admirable in their condensation, force, clearness and novelty.

I am surprised that Agassiz did not succeed in writing something better. How absurd that logical quibble–“if species do not exist, how can they vary?” As if any one doubted their temporary existence. How coolly he assumes that there is some clearly defined distinction between individual differences and varieties. It is no wonder that a man who calls identical forms, when found in two countries, distinct species, cannot find variation in nature. Again, how unreasonable to suppose that domestic varieties selected by man for his own fancy should resemble natural varieties or species. The whole article seems to me poor; it seems to me hardly worth a detailed answer (even if I could do it, and I much doubt whether I possess your skill in picking out salient points and driving a nail into them), and indeed you have already answered several points. Agassiz’s name, no doubt, is a heavy weight against us…

If you see Professor Parsons, will you thank him for the extremely liberal and fair spirit in which his Essay (‘Silliman’s Journal,’ July, 1860.) is written. Please tell him that I reflected much on the chance of favourable monstrosities (i.e. great and sudden variation) arising. I have, of course, no objection to this, indeed it would be a great aid, but I do not allude to the subject, for, after much labour, I could find nothing which satisfied me of the probability of such occurrences. There seems to me in almost every case too much, too complex, and too beautiful adaptation, in every structure, to believe in its sudden production. I have alluded under the head of beautifully hooked seeds to such possibility. Monsters are apt to be sterile, or NOT to transmit monstrous peculiarities. Look at the fineness of gradation in the shells of successive SUB-STAGES of the same great formation; I could give many other considerations which made me doubt such view. It holds, to a certain extent, with domestic productions no doubt, where man preserves some abrupt change in structure. It amused me to see Sir R. Murchison quoted as a judge of affinities of animals, and it gave me a cold shudder to hear of any one speculating about a true crustacean giving birth to a true fish! (Parson’s, loc. cit. page 5, speaking of Pterichthys and Cephalaspis, says:–“Now is it too much to infer from these facts that either of these animals, if a crustacean, was so nearly a fish that some of its ova may have become fish; or, if itself a fish, was so nearly a crustacean that it may have been born from the ovum of a crustacean?”)

Yours most truly,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, September 1st [1860].

My dear Lyell,

I have been much interested by your letter of the 28th, received this morning. It has DELIGHTED me, because it demonstrates that you have thought a good deal lately on Natural Selection. Few things have surprised me more than the entire paucity of objections and difficulties new to me in the published reviews. Your remarks are of a different stamp and new to me. I will run through them, and make a few pleadings such as occur to me.

I put in the possibility of the Galapagos having been CONTINUOUSLY joined to America, out of mere subservience to the many who believe in Forbes’s doctrine, and did not see the danger of admission, about small mammals surviving there in such case. The case of the Galapagos, from certain facts on littoral sea-shells (viz. Pacific Ocean and South American littoral species), in fact convinced me more than in any other case of other islands, that the Galapagos had never been continuously united with the mainland; it was mere base subservience, and terror of Hooker and Co.

With respect to atolls, I think mammals would hardly survive VERY LONG, even if the main islands (for as I have said in the Coral Book, the outline of groups of atolls do not look like a former CONTINENT) had been tenanted by mammals, from the extremely small area, the very peculiar conditions, and the probability that during subsidence all or nearly all atolls have been breached and flooded by the sea many times during their existence as atolls.

I cannot conceive any existing reptile being converted into a mammal. From homologies I should look at it as certain that all mammals had descended from some single progenitor. What its nature was, it is impossible to speculate. More like, probably, the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna than any known form; as these animals combine reptilian characters (and in a less degree bird character) with mammalian. We must imagine some form as intermediate, as is Lepidosiren now, between reptiles and fish, between mammals and birds on the one hand (for they retain longer the same embryological character) and reptiles on the other hand. With respect to a mammal not being developed on any island, besides want of time for so prodigious a development, there must have arrived on the island the necessary and peculiar progenitor, having a character like the embryo of a mammal; and not an ALREADY DEVELOPED reptile, bird or fish.

We might give to a bird the habits of a mammal, but inheritance would retain almost for eternity some of the bird-like structure, and prevent a new creature ranking as a true mammal.

I have often speculated on antiquity of islands, but not with your precision, or at all under the point of view of Natural Selection NOT having done what might have been anticipated. The argument of littoral Miocene shells at the Canary Islands is new to me. I was deeply impressed (from the amount of the denudation) [with the] antiquity of St. Helena, and its age agrees with the peculiarity of the flora. With respect to bats at New Zealand (N.B. There are two or three European bats in Madeira, and I think in the Canary Islands) not having given rise to a group of non-volant bats, it is, now you put the case, surprising; more especially as the genus of bats in New Zealand is very peculiar, and therefore has probably been long introduced, and they now speak of Cretacean fossils there. But the first necessary step has to be shown, namely, of a bat taking to feed on the ground, or anyhow, and anywhere, except in the air. I am bound to confess I do know one single such fact, viz. of an Indian species killing frogs. Observe, that in my wretched Polar Bear case, I do show the first step by which conversion into a whale “would be easy,” “would offer no difficulty”!! So with seals, I know of no fact showing any the least incipient variation of seals feeding on the shore. Moreover, seals wander much; I searched in vain, and could not find ONE case of any species of seal confined to any islands. And hence wanderers would be apt to cross with individuals undergoing any change on an island, as in the case of land birds of Madeira and Bermuda. The same remark applies even to bats, as they frequently come to Bermuda from the mainland, though about 600 miles distant. With respect to the Amblyrhynchus of the Galapagos, one may infer as probable, from marine habits being so rare with Saurians, and from the terrestrial species being confined to a few central islets, that its progenitor first arrived at the Galapagos; from what country it is impossible to say, as its affinity I believe is not very clear to any known species. The offspring of the terrestrial species was probably rendered marine. Now in this case I do not pretend I can show variation in habits; but we have in the terrestrial species a vegetable feeder (in itself a rather unusual circumstance), largely on LICHENS, and it would not be a great change for its offspring to feed first on littoral algae and then on submarine algae. I have said what I can in defence, but yours is a good line of attack. We should, however, always remember that no change will ever be effected till a variation in the habits or structure or of both CHANCE to occur in the right direction, so as to give the organism in question an advantage over other already established occupants of land or water, and this may be in any particular case indefinitely long. I am very glad you will read my dogs MS., for it will be important to me to see what you think of the balance of evidence. After long pondering on a subject it is often hard to judge. With hearty thanks for your most interesting letter. Farewell.

My dear old master,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, September 2nd [1860].

My dear Hooker,

I am astounded at your news received this morning. I am become such an old fogy that I am amazed at your spirit. For God’s sake do not go and get your throat cut. Bless my soul, I think you must be a little insane. I must confess it will be a most interesting tour; and, if you get to the top of Lebanon, I suppose extremely interesting–you ought to collect any beetles under stones there; but the Entomologists are such slow coaches. I dare say no result could be made out of them. [They] have never worked the Alpines of Britain.

If you come across any Brine lakes, do attend to their minute flora and fauna; I have often been surprised how little this has been attended to.

I have had a long letter from Lyell, who starts ingenious difficulties opposed to Natural Selection, because it has not done more than it has. This is very good, as it shows that he has thoroughly mastered the subject; and shows he is in earnest. Very striking letter altogether and it rejoices the cockles of my heart.

…How I shall miss you, my best and kindest of friends. God bless you.

Yours ever affectionately,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, September 10 [1860].

…You will be weary of my praise, but it (Dr. Gray in the ‘Atlantic Monthly’ for July, 1860.) does strike me as quite admirably argued, and so well and pleasantly written. Your many metaphors are inimitably good. I said in a former letter that you were a lawyer, but I made a gross mistake, I am sure that you are a poet. No, by Jove, I will tell you what you are, a hybrid, a complex cross of lawyer, poet, naturalist and theologian! Was there ever such a monster seen before?

I have just looked through the passages which I have marked as appearing to me extra good, but I see that they are too numerous to specify, and this is no exaggeration. My eye just alights on the happy comparison of the colours of the prism and our artificial groups. I see one little error of fossil CATTLE in South America.

It is curious how each one, I suppose, weighs arguments in a different balance: embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favour of change of forms, and not one, I think, of my reviewers has alluded to this. Variation not coming on at a very early age, and being inherited at not a very early corresponding period, explains, as it seems to me, the grandest of all facts in natural history, or rather in zoology, viz. the resemblance of embryos.

[Dr. Gray wrote three articles in the ‘Atlantic Monthly’ for July, August, and October, which were reprinted as a pamphlet in 1861, and now form chapter iii. in ‘Darwiniana’ (1876), with the heading ‘Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.’]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL
Down, September 12th [1860].

My dear Lyell,

I never thought of showing your letter to any one. I mentioned in a letter to Hooker that I had been much interested by a letter of yours with original objections, founded chiefly on Natural Selection not having done so much as might have been expected…In your letter just received, you have improved your case versus Natural Selection; and it would tell with the public (do not be tempted by its novelty to make it too strong); yet is seems to me, not REALLY very killing, though I cannot answer your case, especially, why Rodents have not become highly developed in Australia. You must assume that they have inhabited Australia for a very long period, and this may or may not be the case. But I feel that our ignorance is so profound, why one form is preserved with nearly the same structure, or advances in organisation or even retrogrades, or becomes extinct, that I cannot put very great weight on the difficulty. Then, as you say often in your letter, we know not how many geological ages it may have taken to make any great advance in organisation. Remember monkeys in the Eocene formations: but I admit that you have made out an excellent objection and difficulty, and I can give only unsatisfactory and quite vague answers, such as you have yourself put; however, you hardly put weight enough on the absolute necessity of variations first arising in the right direction, videlicet, of seals beginning to feed on the shore.

I entirely agree with what you say about only one species of many becoming modified. I remember this struck me much when tabulating the varieties of plants, and I have a discussion somewhere on this point. It is absolutely implied in my ideas of classification and divergence that only one or two species, of even large genera, give birth to new species; and many whole genera become WHOLLY extinct…Please see page 341 of the ‘Origin.’ But I cannot remember that I have stated in the ‘Origin’ the fact of only very few species in each genus varying. You have put the view much better in your letter. Instead of saying, as I often have, that very few species vary at the same time, I ought to have said, that very few species of a genus EVER vary so as to become modified; for this is the fundamental explanation of classification, and is shown in my engraved diagram…

I quite agree with you on the strange and inexplicable fact of Ornithorhynchus having been preserved, and Australian Trigonia, or the Silurian Lingula. I always repeat to myself that we hardly know why any one single species is rare or common in the best-known countries. I have got a set of notes somewhere on the inhabitants of fresh water; and it is singular how many of these are ancient, or intermediate forms; which I think is explained by the competition having been less severe, and the rate of change of organic forms having been slower in small confined areas, such as all the fresh waters make compared with sea or land.

I see that you do allude in the last page, as a difficulty, to Marsupials not having become Placentals in Australia; but this I think you have no right at all to expect; for we ought to look at Marsupials and Placentals as having descended from some intermediate and lower form. The argument of Rodents not having become highly developed in Australia (supposing that they have long existed there) is much stronger. I grieve to see you hint at the creation “of distinct successive types, as well as of a certain number of distinct aboriginal types.” Remember, if you admit this, you give up the embryological argument (THE WEIGHTIEST OF ALL TO ME), and the morphological or homological argument. You cut my throat, and your own throat; and I believe will live to be sorry for it. So much for species.

The striking extract which E. copied was your own writing!! in a note to me, many long years ago–which she copied and sent to Mme. Sismondi; and lately my aunt, in sorting her letters, found E.’s and returned them to her…I have been of late shamefully idle, i.e. observing (Drosera) instead of writing, and how much better fun observing is than writing.

Yours affectionately,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,
Sunday [September 23rd, 1860].

My dear Lyell,

I got your letter of the 18th just before starting here. You speak of saving me trouble in answering. Never think of this, for I look at every letter of yours as an honour and pleasure, which is a pretty deal more than I can say of some of the letters which I receive. I have now one of 13 CLOSELY WRITTEN FOLIO PAGES to answer on species!…

I have a very decided opinion that all mammals must have descended from a SINGLE parent. Reflect on the multitude of details, very many of them of extremely little importance to their habits (as the number of bones of the head, etc., covering of hair, identical embryological development, etc. etc.). Now this large amount of similarity I must look at as certainly due to inheritance from a common stock. I am aware that some cases occur in which a similar or nearly similar organ has been acquired by independent acts of natural selection. But in most of such cases of these apparently so closely similar organs, some important homological difference may be detected. Please read page 193, beginning, “The electric organs,” and trust me that the sentence, “In all these cases of two very distinct species,” etc. etc., was not put in rashly, for I went carefully into every case. Apply this argument to the whole frame, internal and external, of mammifers, and you will see why I think so strongly that all have descended from one progenitor. I have just re-read your letter, and I am not perfectly sure that I understand your point.

I enclose two diagrams showing the sort of manner I CONJECTURE that mammals have been developed. I thought a little on this when writing page 429, beginning, “Mr. Waterhouse.” (Please read the paragraph.) I have not knowledge enough to choose between these two diagrams. If the brain of Marsupials in embryo closely resembles that of Placentals, I should strongly prefer No.2, and this agrees with the antiquity of Microlestes. As a general rule I should prefer No.1 diagram; whether or not Marsupials have gone on being developed, or rising in rank, from a very early period would depend on circumstances too complex for even a conjecture. Lingula has not risen since the Silurian epoch, whereas other molluscs may have risen.

Here appear two diagrams.

Diagram I.

A
–
Mammals, not true Marsupials nor true Placentals. –
2 branches
–
Branch I, True Placental, from which branch off Rodents,
Insectivora,
a branch terminating in Ruminants and Pachyderms, Canidae
and terminates in Quadrumana.
–
Branch II, True Marsupial, from which branches off Kangaroo family
an unnamed branch terminating in 2 unnamed branches and terminates in Didelphys Family.

Diagram II.

A
–
True Marsupials, lowly developed.
–
True Marsupials, highly developed.
–
2 branches
–
Branch I, Placentals, from which branch off Rodents,
Insectivora,
a branch terminating in Ruminants and Pachyderms, Canidae
and terminates in Quadrumana.
–
Branch II, Present Marsupials, splitting into two branches terminating in Kangaroo family (with 2 unnamed branches) and Didelphys family.

A, in the two diagrams, represents an unknown form, probably intermediate between Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds, as intermediate as Lepidosiren now is between Fish and Batrachians. This unknown form is probably more closely related to Ornithorhynchus than to any other known form.

I do not think that the multiple origin of dogs goes against the single origin of man…All the races of man are so infinitely closer together than to any ape, that (as in the case of descent of all mammals from one progenitor), I should look at all races of men as having certainly descended from one parent. I should look at it as probable that the races of men were less numerous and less divergent formerly than now, unless, indeed, some lower and more aberrant race even than the Hottentot has become extinct. Supposing, as I do for one believe, that our dogs have descended from two or three wolves, jackals, etc., yet these have, on OUR VIEW, descended from a single remote unknown progenitor. With domestic dogs the question is simply whether the whole amount of difference has been produced since man domesticated a single species; or whether part of the difference arises in the state of nature. Agassiz and Co. think the negro and Caucasian are now distinct species, and it is a mere vain discussion whether, when they were rather less distinct, they would, on this standard of specific value, deserve to be called species.

I agree with your answer which you give to yourself on this point; and the simile of man now keeping down any new man which might be developed, strikes me as good and new. The white man is “improving off the face of the earth” even races nearly his equals. With respect to islands, I think I would trust to want of time alone, and not to bats and Rodents.

N.B.–I know of no rodents on oceanic islands (except my Galapagos mouse, which MAY have been introduced by man) keeping down the development of other classes. Still MUCH more weight I should attribute to there being now, neither in islands nor elsewhere, [any] known animals of a grade of organisation intermediate between mammals, fish, reptiles, etc., whence a new mammal could be developed. If every vertebrate were destroyed throughout the world, except our NOW WELL-ESTABLISHED reptiles, millions of ages might elapse before reptiles could become highly developed on a scale equal to mammals; and, on the principle of inheritance, they would make some quite NEW CLASS, and not mammals; though POSSIBLY more intellectual! I have not an idea that you will care for this letter, so speculative.

Most truly yours,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, September 26 [1860].

…I have had a letter of fourteen folio pages from Harvey against my book, with some ingenious and new remarks; but it is an extraordinary fact that he does not understand at all what I mean by Natural Selection. I have begged him to read the Dialogue in next ‘Silliman,’ as you never touch the subject without making it clearer. I look at it as even more extraordinary that you never say a word or use an epithet which does not express fully my meaning. Now Lyell, Hooker, and others, who perfectly understand my book, yet sometimes use expressions to which I demur. Well, your extraordinary labour is over; if there is any fair amount of truth in my view, I am well assured that your great labour has not been thrown away…

I yet hope and almost believe, that the time will come when you will go further, in believing a very large amount of modification of species, than you did at first or do now. Can you tell me whether you believe further or more firmly than you did at first? I should really like to know this. I can perceive in my immense correspondence with Lyell, who objected to much at first, that he has, perhaps unconsciousnessly to himself, converted himself very much during the last six months, and I think this is the case even with Hooker. This fact gives me far more confidence than any other fact.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,
Friday evening [September 28th, 1860].

…I am very glad to hear about the Germans reading my book. No one will be converted who has not independently begun to doubt about species. Is not Krohn (There are two papers by Aug. Krohn, one on the Cement Glands, and the other on the development of Cirripedes, ‘Wiegmann’s Archiv,’ xxv. and xxvi. My father has remarked that he “blundered dreadfully about the cement glands,” ‘Autobiography.’) a good fellow? I have long meant to write to him. He has been working at Cirripedes, and has detected two or three gigantic blunders,…about which, I thank Heaven, I spoke rather doubtfully. Such difficult dissection that even Huxley failed. It is chiefly the interpretation which I put on parts that is so wrong, and not the parts which I describe. But they were gigantic blunders, and why I say all this is because Krohn, instead of crowing at all, pointed out my errors with the utmost gentleness and pleasantness. I have always meant to write to him and thank him. I suppose Dr. Krohn, Bonn, would reach him.

I cannot see yet how the multiple origin of dog can be properly brought as argument for the multiple origin of man. Is not your feeling a remnant of the deeply impressed one on all our minds, that a species is an entity, something quite distinct from a variety? Is it not that the dog case injures the argument from fertility, so that one main argument that the races of man are varieties and not species–i.e., because they are fertile inter se, is much weakened?

I quite agree with what Hooker says, that whatever variation is possible under culture, is POSSIBLE under nature; not that the same form would ever be accumulated and arrived at by selection for man’s pleasure, and by natural selection for the organism’s own good.

Talking of “natural selection;” if I had to commence de novo, I would have used “natural preservation.” For I find men like Harvey of Dublin cannot understand me, though he has read the book twice. Dr. Gray of the British Museum remarked to me that, “SELECTION was obviously impossible with plants! No one could tell him how it could be possible!” And he may now add that the author did not attempt it to him!

Yours ever affectionately,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,
October 8th [1860].

My dear Lyell,

I send the [English] translation of Bronn (A MS. translation of Bronn’s chapter of objections at the end of his German translation of the ‘Origin of Species.’), the first part of the chapter with generalities and praise is not translated. There are some good hits. He makes an apparently, and in part truly, telling case against me, says that I cannot explain why one rat has a longer tail and another longer ears, etc. But he seems to muddle in assuming that these parts did not all vary together, or one part so insensibly before the other, as to be in fact contemporaneous. I might ask the creationist whether he thinks these differences in the two rats of any use, or as standing in some relation from laws of growth; and if he admits this, selection might come into play. He who thinks that God created animals unlike for mere sport or variety, as man fashions his clothes, will not admit any force in my argumentum ad hominem.

Bronn blunders about my supposing several Glacial periods, whether or no such ever did occur.

He blunders about my supposing that development goes on at the same rate in all parts of the world. I presume that he has misunderstood this from the supposed migration into all regions of the more dominant forms.

I have ordered Dr. Bree (‘Species not Transmutable,’ by C.R. Bree, 1860.), and will lend it to you, if you like, and if it turns out good.

…I am very glad that I misunderstood you about species not having the capacity to vary, though in fact few do give birth to new species. It seems that I am very apt to misunderstand you; I suppose I am always fancying objections. Your case of the Red Indian shows me that we agree entirely…

I had a letter yesterday from Thwaites of Ceylon, who was much opposed to me. He now says, “I find that the more familiar I become with your views in connection with the various phenomena of nature, the more they commend themselves to my mind.”

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. RODWELL. (Rev. J.M. Rodwell, who was at Cambridge with my father, remembers him saying:–“It strikes me that all our knowledge about the structure of our earth is very much like what an old hen would know of a hundred acre field, in a corner of which she is scratching.”)
15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne.
November 5th [1860].

My dear Sir,

I am extremely much obliged for your letter, which I can compare only to a plum-pudding, so full it is of good things. I have been rash about the cats (“Cats with blue eyes are invariably deaf,” ‘Origin of Species,’ edition i. page 12.): yet I spoke on what seemed to me, good authority. The Rev. W.D. Fox gave me a list of cases of various foreign breeds in which he had observed the correlation, and for years he had vainly sought an exception. A French paper also gives numerous cases, and one very curious case of a kitten which GRADUALLY lost the blue colour in its eyes and as gradually acquired its power of hearing. I had not heard of your uncle, Mr. Kirby’s case (William Kirby, joint author with Spence, of the well-known ‘Introduction to Entomology,’ 1818.) (whom I, for as long as I can remember, have venerated) of care in breeding cats. I do not know whether Mr. Kirby was your uncle by marriage, but your letters show me that you ought to have Kirby blood in your veins, and that if you had not taken to languages you would have been a first-rate naturalist.

I sincerely hope that you will be able to carry out your intention of writing on the “Birth, Life, and Death of Words.” Anyhow, you have a capital title, and some think this the most difficult part of a book. I remember years ago at the Cape of Good Hope, Sir J. Herschel saying to me, I wish some one would treat language as Lyell has treated geology. What a linguist you must be to translate the Koran! Having a vilely bad head for languages, I feel an awful respect for linguists.

I do not know whether my brother-in-law, Hensleigh Wedgwood’s ‘Etymological Dictionary’ would be at all in your line; but he treats briefly on the genesis of words; and, as it seems to me, very ingeniously. You kindly say that you would communicate any facts which might occur to you, and I am sure that I should be most grateful. Of the multitude of letters which I receive, not one in a thousand is like yours in value.

With my cordial thanks, and apologies for this untidy letter written in haste, pray believe me, my dear Sir,

Yours sincerely obliged,
CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
November 20th [1860].

…I have not had heart to read Phillips (‘Life on the Earth.’) yet, or a tremendous long hostile review by Professor Bowen in the 4to Mem. of the American Academy of Sciences. (“Remarks on the latest form of the Development Theory.” By Francis Bowen, Professor of Natural Religion and Moral Philosophy, at Harvard University. ‘American Academy of Arts and Sciences,’ vol. viii.) (By the way, I hear Agassiz is going to thunder against me in the next part of the ‘Contributions.’) Thank you for telling me of the sale of the ‘Origin,’ of which I had not heard. There will be some time, I presume, a new edition, and I especially want your advice on one point, and you know I think you the wisest of men, and I shall be ABSOLUTELY GUIDED BY YOUR ADVICE. It has occurred to me, that it would PERHAPS be a good plan to put a set of notes (some twenty to forty or fifty) to the ‘Origin,’ which now has none, exclusively devoted to errors of my reviewers. It has occurred to me that where a reviewer has erred, a common reader might err. Secondly, it will show the reader that he must not trust implicitly to reviewers. Thirdly, when any special fact has been attacked, I should like to defend it. I would show no sort of anger. I enclose a mere rough specimen, done without any care or accuracy–done from memory alone–to be torn up, just to show the sort of thing that has occurred to me. WILL YOU DO ME THE GREAT KINDNESS TO CONSIDER THIS WELL?

It seems to me it would have a good effect, and give some confidence to the reader. It would [be] a horrid bore going through all the reviews.

Yours affectionately,
C. DARWIN.

[Here follow samples of foot-notes, the references to volume and page being left blank. It will be seen that in some cases he seems to have forgotten that he was writing foot-notes, and to have continued as if writing to Lyell:–

*Dr. Bree asserts that I explain the structure of the cells of the Hive Bee by “the exploded doctrine of pressure.” But I do not say one word which directly or indirectly can be interpreted into any reference to pressure.

*The ‘Edinburgh’ Reviewer quotes my work as saying that the “dorsal vertebrae of pigeons vary in number, and disputes the fact.” I nowhere even allude to the dorsal vertebrae, only to the sacral and caudal vertebrae.

*The ‘Edinburgh’ Reviewer throws a doubt on these organs being the Branchiae of Cirripedes. But Professor Owen in 1854 admits, without hesitation, that they are Branchiae, as did John Hunter long ago.

*The confounded Wealden Calculation to be struck out, and a note to be inserted to the effect that I am convinced of its inaccuracy from a review in the “Saturday Review”, and from Phillips, as I see in his Table of Contents that he alludes to it.

*Mr. Hopkins (‘Fraser’) states–I am quoting only from vague memory–that, “I argue in favour of my views from the extreme imperfection of the Geological Record,” and says this is the first time in the history of Science he has ever heard of ignorance being adduced as an argument. But I repeatedly admit, in the most emphatic language which I can use, that the imperfect evidence which Geology offers in regard to transitorial forms is most strongly opposed to my views. Surely there is a wide difference in fully admitting an objection, and then in endeavouring to show that it is not so strong as it at first appears, and in Mr. Hopkins’s assertion that I found my argument on the Objection.

*I would also put a note to “Natural Selection,” and show how variously it has been misunderstood.

*A writer in the ‘Edinburgh Philosophical Journal’ denies my statement that the Woodpecker of La Plata never frequents trees. I observed its habits during two years, but, what is more to the purpose, Azara, whose accuracy all admit, is more emphatic than I am in regard to its never frequenting trees. Mr. A. Murray denies that it ought to be called a woodpecker; it has two toes in front and two behind, pointed tail feathers, a long pointed tongue, and the same general form of body, the same manner of flight, colouring and voice. It was classed, until recently, in the same genus– Picus–with all other woodpeckers, but now has been ranked as a distinct genus amongst the Picidae. It differs from the typical Picus only in the beak, not being quite so strong, and in the upper mandible being slightly arched. I think these facts fully justify my statement that it is “in all essential parts of its organisation” a Woodpecker.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, November 22 [1860].

My dear Huxley,

For heaven’s sake don’t write an anti-Darwinian article; you would do it so confoundedly well. I have sometimes amused myself with thinking how I could best pitch into myself, and I believe I could give two or three good digs; but I will see you — first before I will try. I shall be very impatient to see the Review. (The first number of the new series of the ‘Nat. Hist. Review’ appeared in 1861.) If it succeeds it may really do much, very much good…

I heard to-day from Murray that I must set to work at once on a new edition (The 3rd edition.) of the ‘Origin.’ [Murray] says the Reviews have not improved the sale. I shall always think those early reviews, almost entirely yours, did the subject an ENORMOUS service. If you have any important suggestions or criticisms to make on any part of the ‘Origin,’ I should, of course, be very grateful for [them]. For I mean to correct as far as I can, but not enlarge. How you must be wearied with and hate the subject, and it is God’s blessing if you do not get to hate me. Adios.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, November 24th [1860].

My dear Lyell,

I thank you much for your letter. I had got to take pleasure in thinking how I could best snub my reviewers; but I was determined, in any case, to follow your advice, and, before I had got to the end of your letter, I was convinced of the wisdom of your advice. (“I get on slowly with my new edition. I find that your advice was EXCELLENT. I can answer all reviews, without any direct notice of them, by a little enlargement here and there, with here and there a new paragraph. Bronn alone I shall treat with the respect of giving his objections with his name. I think I shall improve my book a good deal, and add only some twenty pages.”–From a letter to Lyell, December 4th, 1860.) What an advantage it is to me to have such friends as you. I shall follow every hint in your letter exactly.

I have just heard from Murray; he says he sold 700 copies at his sale, and that he has not half the number to supply; so that I must begin at once (On the third edition of the ‘Origin of Species,’ published in April 1861.)…

P.S.–I must tell you one little fact which has pleased me. You may remember that I adduce electrical organs of fish as one of the greatest difficulties which have occurred to me, and — notices the passage in a singularly disingenuous spirit. Well, McDonnell, of Dublin (a first-rate man), writes to me that he felt the difficulty of the whole case as overwhelming against me. Not only are the fishes which have electric organs very remote in scale, but the organ is near the head in some, and near the tail in others, and supplied by wholly different nerves. It seems impossible that there could be any transition. Some friend, who is much opposed to me, seems to have crowed over McDonnell, who reports that he said to himself, that if Darwin is right, there must be homologous organs both near the head and tail in other non-electric fish. He set to work, and, by Jove, he has found them! (‘On an organ in the Skate, which appears to be the homologue of the electrical organ of the Torpedo,’ by R. McDonnell, ‘Nat. Hist. Review,’ 1861, page 57.) so that some of the difficulty is removed; and is it not satisfactory that my hypothetical notions should have led to pretty discoveries? McDonnell seems very cautious; he says, years must pass before he will venture to call himself a believer in my doctrine, but that on the subjects which he knows well, viz., Morphology and Embryology, my views accord well, and throw light on the whole subject.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, November 26th, 1860.

My dear Gray,

I have to thank you for two letters. The latter with corrections, written before you received my letter asking for an American reprint, and saying that it was hopeless to print your reviews as a pamphlet, owing to the impossibility of getting pamphlets known. I am very glad to say that the August or second ‘Atlantic’ article has been reprinted in the ‘Annals and Magazine of Natural History’; but I have not seen it there. Yesterday I read over with care the third article; and it seems to me, as before, ADMIRABLE. But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design. To take a crucial example, you lead me to infer (page 414) that you believe “that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines.” I cannot believe this; and I think you would have to believe, that the tail of the Fantail was led to vary in the number and direction of its feathers in order to gratify the caprice of a few men. Yet if the Fantail had been a wild bird, and had used its abnormal tail for some special end, as to sail before the wind, unlike other birds, every one would have said, “What a beautiful and designed adaptation.” Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle.

Thank you much for Bowen’s 4to. review. (‘Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,’ vol. viii.) The coolness with which he makes all animals to be destitute of reason is simply absurd. It is monstrous at page 103, that he should argue against the possibility of accumulative variation, and actually leave out, entirely, selection! The chance that an improved Short-horn, or improved Pouter-pigeon, should be produced by accumulative variation without man’s selection is as almost infinity to nothing; so with natural species without natural selection. How capitally in the ‘Atlantic’ you show that Geology and Astronomy are, according to Bowen, Metaphysics; but he leaves out this in the 4to. Memoir.

I have not much to tell you about my Book. I have just heard that Du Bois- Reymond agrees with me. The sale of my book goes on well, and the multitude of reviews has not stopped the sale…; so I must begin at once on a new corrected edition. I will send you a copy for the chance of your ever re-reading; but, good Heavens, how sick you must be of it!

CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, December 2nd [1860].

…I have got fairly sick of hostile reviews. Nevertheless, they have been of use in showing me when to expatiate a little and to introduce a few new discussions. OF COURSE I will send you a copy of the new edition.

I entirely agree with you, that the difficulties on my notions are terrific, yet having seen what all the Reviews have said against me, I have far more confidence in the GENERAL truth of the doctrine than I formerly had. Another thing gives me confidence, viz. that some who went half an inch with me now go further, and some who were bitterly opposed are now less bitterly opposed. And this makes me feel a little disappointed that you are not inclined to think the general view in some slight degree more probable than you did at first. This I consider rather ominous. Otherwise I should be more contented with your degree of belief. I can pretty plainly see that, if my view is ever to be generally adopted, it will be by young men growing up and replacing the old workers, and then young ones finding that they can group facts and search out new lines of investigation better on the notion of descent, than on that of creation. But forgive me for running on so egotistically. Living so solitary as I do, one gets to think in a silly manner of one’s own work.

Ever yours very sincerely,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, December 11th [1860].

…I heard from A. Gray this morning; at my suggestion he is going to reprint the three ‘Atlantic’ articles as a pamphlet, and send 250 copies to England, for which I intend to pay half the cost of the whole edition, and shall give away, and try to sell by getting a few advertisements put in, and if possible notices in Periodicals.

…David Forbes has been carefully working the Geology of Chile, and as I value praise for accurate observation far higher than for any other quality, forgive (if you can) the INSUFFERABLE vanity of my copying the last sentence in his note: “I regard your Monograph on Chile as, without exception, one of the finest specimens of Geological enquiry.” I feel inclined to strut like a Turkey-cock!

CHAPTER 2.III.

SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

1861-1862.

[The beginning of the year 1861 saw my father with the third chapter of ‘The Variation of Animals and Plants’ still on his hands. It had been begun in the previous August, and was not finished until March 1861. He was, however, for part of this time (I believe during December 1860 and January 1861) engaged in a new edition (2000 copies) of the ‘Origin,’ which was largely corrected and added to, and was published in April 1861.

With regard to this, the third edition, he wrote to Mr. Murray in December 1860:–

“I shall be glad to hear when you have decided how many copies you will print off–the more the better for me in all ways, as far as compatible with safety; for I hope never again to make so many corrections, or rather additions, which I have made in hopes of making my many rather stupid reviewers at least understand what is meant. I hope and think I shall improve the book considerably.”

An interesting feature in the new edition was the “Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species” (The Historical Sketch had already appeared in the first German edition (1860) and the American edition. Bronn states in the German edition (footnote, page 1) that it was his critique in the ‘N. Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie’ that suggested the idea of such a sketch to my father.) which now appeared for the first time, and was continued in the later editions of the work. It bears a strong impress of the author’s personal character in the obvious wish to do full justice to all his predecessors,–though even in this respect it has not escaped some adverse criticism.

Towards the end of the present year (1861), the final arrangements for the first French edition of the ‘Origin’ were completed, and in September a copy of the third English edition was despatched to Mdlle. Clemence Royer, who undertook the work of translation. The book was now spreading on the Continent, a Dutch edition had appeared, and, as we have seen, a German translation had been published in 1860. In a letter to Mr. Murray (September 10, 1861), he wrote, “My book seems exciting much attention in Germany, judging from the number of discussions sent me.” The silence had been broken, and in a few years the voice of German science was to become one of the strongest of the advocates of evolution.

During all the early part of the year (1861) he was working at the mass of details which are marshalled in order in the early chapter of ‘Animals and Plants.’ Thus in his Diary occur the laconic entries, “May 16, Finished Fowls (eight weeks); May 31, Ducks.”

On July 1, he started, with his family, for Torquay, where he remained until August 27–a holiday which he characteristically enters in his diary as “eight weeks and a day.” The house he occupied was in Hesketh Crescent, a pleasantly placed row of houses close above the sea, somewhat removed from what was then the main body of the town, and not far from the beautiful cliffed coast-line in the neighbourhood of Anstey’s Cove.

During the Torquay holiday, and for the remainder of the year, he worked at the fertilisation of orchids. This part of the year 1861 is not dealt with in the present chapter, because (as explained in the preface) the record of his life, as told in his letters, seems to become clearer when the whole of his botanical work is placed together and treated separately. The present series of chapters will, therefore, include only the progress of his works in the direction of a general amplification of the ‘Origin of Species’– e.g., the publication of ‘Animals and Plants,’ ‘Descent of Man,’ etc.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, January 15 [1861].

My dear Hooker,

The sight of your handwriting always rejoices the very cockles of my heart…

I most fully agree to what you say about Huxley’s Article (‘Natural History Review,’ 1861, page 67, “On the Zoological Relations of Man with the Lower Animals.” This memoir had its origin in a discussion at the previous meeting of the British Association, when Professor Huxley felt himself “compelled to give a diametrical contradiction to certain assertions respecting the differences which obtain between the brains of the higher apes and of man, which fell from Professor Owen.” But in order that his criticisms might refer to deliberately recorded words, he bases them on Professor Owen’s paper, “On the Characters, etc., of the Class Mammalia,” read before the Linnean Society in February and April, 1857, in which he proposed to place man not only in a distinct order, but in “a distinct sub- class of the Mammalia”–the Archencephala.), and the power of writing…The whole review seems to me excellent. How capitally Oliver has done the resume of botanical books. Good Heavens, how he must have read!…

I quite agree that Phillips (‘Life on the Earth’ (1860), by Prof. Phillips, containing the substance of the Rede Lecture (May 1860).) is unreadably dull. You need not attempt Bree. (The following sentence (page 16) from ‘Species not Transmutable,’ by Dr. Bree, illustrates the degree in which he understood the ‘Origin of Species’: “The only real difference between Mr. Darwin and his two predecessors” [Lamarck and the ‘Vestiges’] “is this:– that while the latter have each given a mode by which they conceive the great changes they believe in have been brought about, Mr. Darwin does no such thing.” After this we need not be surprised at a passage in the preface: “No one has derived greater pleasure than I have in past days from the study of Mr. Darwin’s other works, and no one has felt a greater degree of regret that he should have imperilled his fame by the publication of his treatise upon the ‘Origin of Species.'”)…

If you come across Dr. Freke on ‘Origin of Species by means of Organic Affinity,’ read a page here and there…He tells the reader to observe [that his result] has been arrived at by “induction,” whereas all my results are arrived at only by “analogy.” I see a Mr. Neale has read a paper before the Zoological Society on ‘Typical Selection;’ what it means I know not. I have not read H. Spencer, for I find that I must more and more husband the very little strength which I have. I sometimes suspect I shall soon entirely fail…As soon as this dreadful weather gets a little milder, I must try a little water cure. Have you read the ‘Woman in White’? the plot is wonderfully interesting. I can recommend a book which has interested me greatly, viz. Olmsted’s ‘Journey in the Back Country.’ It is an admirably lively picture of man and slavery in the Southern States…

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
February 2, 1861.

My dear Lyell,

I have thought you would like to read the enclosed passage in a letter from A. Gray (who is printing his reviews as a pamphlet (“Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology,” from the ‘Atlantic Monthly’ for July, August, and October, 1860; published by Trubner.), and will send copies to England), as I think his account is really favourable in high degree to us:–

“I wish I had time to write you an account of the lengths to which Bowen and Agassiz, each in their own way, are going. The first denying all heredity (all transmission except specific) whatever. The second coming near to deny that we are genetically descended from our great-great- grandfathers; and insisting that evidently affiliated languages, e.g. Latin, Greek, Sanscrit, owe none of their similarities to a community of origin, are all autochthonal; Agassiz admits that the derivation of languages, and that of species or forms, stand on the same foundation, and that he must allow the latter if he allows the former, which I tell him is perfectly logical.”

Is not this marvellous?

Ever yours,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, February 4 [1861].

My dear Hooker,

I was delighted to get your long chatty letter, and to hear that you are thawing towards science. I almost wish you had remained frozen rather longer; but do not thaw too quickly and strongly. No one can work long as you used to do. Be idle; but I am a pretty man to preach, for I cannot be idle, much as I wish it, and am never comfortable except when at work. The word holiday is written in a dead language for me, and much I grieve at it. We thank you sincerely for your kind sympathy about poor H. [his daughter]…She has now come up to her old point, and can sometimes get up for an hour or two twice a day…Never to look to the future or as little as possible is becoming our rule of life. What a different thing life was in youth with no dread in the future; all golden, if baseless, hopes.

…With respect to the ‘Natural History Review’ I can hardly think that ladies would be so very sensitive about “lizards’ guts;” but the publication is at present certainly a sort of hybrid, and original illustrated papers ought hardly to appear in a review. I doubt its ever paying; but I shall much regret if it dies. All that you say seems very sensible, but could a review in the strict sense of the word be filled with readable matter?

I have been doing little, except finishing the new edition of the ‘Origin,’ and crawling on most slowly with my volume of ‘Variation under Domestication’…

[The following letter refers to Mr. Bates’s paper, “Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley,” in the ‘Transactions of the Entomological Society,’ vol.5, N.S. (The paper was read November 24, 1860.) Mr. Bates points out that with the return, after the glacial period, of a warmer climate in the equatorial regions, the “species then living near the equator would retreat north and south to their former homes, leaving some of their congeners, slowly modified subsequently…to re-people the zone they had forsaken.” In this case the species now living at the equator ought to show clear relationship to the species inhabiting the regions about the 25th parallel, whose distant relatives they would of course be. But this is not the case, and this is the difficulty my father refers to. Mr. Belt has offered an explanation in his ‘Naturalist in Nicaragua’ (1874), page 266. “I believe the answer is that there was much extermination during the glacial period, that many species (and some genera, etc., as, for instance, the American horse), did not survive it…but that a refuge was found for many species on lands now below the ocean, that were uncovered by the lowering of the sea, caused by the immense quantity of water that was locked up in frozen masses on the land.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, 27th [March 1861].

My dear Hooker,

I had intended to have sent you Bates’s article this very day. I am so glad you like it. I have been extremely much struck with it. How well he argues, and with what crushing force against the glacial doctrine. I cannot wriggle out of it: I am dumbfounded; yet I do believe that some explanation some day will appear, and I cannot give up equatorial cooling. It explains so much and harmonises with so much. When you write (and much interested I shall be in your letter) please say how far floras are generally uniform in generic character from 0 to 25 degrees N. and S.

Before reading Bates, I had become thoroughly dissatisfied with what I wrote to you. I hope you may get Bates to write in the ‘Linnean.’

Here is a good joke: H.C. Watson (who, I fancy and hope, is going to review the new edition (third edition of 2000 copies, published in April, 1861.) of the ‘Origin’) says that in the first four paragraphs of the introduction, the words “I,” “me,” “my,” occur forty-three times! I was dimly conscious of the accursed fact. He says it can be explained phrenologically, which I suppose civilly means, that I am the most egotistically self-sufficient man alive; perhaps so. I wonder whether he will print this pleasing fact; it beats hollow the parentheses in Wollaston’s writing.

_I_ am, MY dear Hooker, ever yours,
C. DARWIN.

P.S.–Do not spread this pleasing joke; it is rather too biting.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, [April] 23? [1861].

…I quite agree with what you say on Lieutenant Hutton’s Review (In the ‘Geologist,’ 1861, page 132, by Lieutenant Frederick Wollaston Hutton, now Professor of Biology and Geology at Canterbury College, New Zealand.) (who he is I know not); it struck me as very original. He is one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be directly proved, and that the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains phenomena. It is really curious how few judge it in this way, which is clearly the right way. I have been much interested by Bentham’s paper (“On the Species and Genera of Plants, etc.,” ‘Natural History Review,’ 1861, page 133.) in the N.H.R., but it would not, of course, from familiarity strike you as it did me. 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. (Prof. Henslow was in his last illness.) 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.’ (George Rolleston, M.D., F.R.S., 1829-1881. Linacre Professor of Anatomy and Physiology at Oxford. A man of much learning, who left but few published works, among which may be mentioned his handbook ‘Forms of Animal Life.’ For the ‘Canons,’ see ‘Nat. Hist. Review,’ 1861, page 206.)…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. (Sir Joseph Hooker was Prof. Henslow’s son-in-law.) Farewell, with sincere sympathy, my old friend,

C. DARWIN.

P.S.–We are very much obliged for the ‘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 the “Gardener’s Chronicle”, but I have taken them in for so many years, that I CANNOT give them up.

[The next letter refers to Lyell’s visit to the Biddenham gravel-pits near Bedford in April 1861. The visit was made at the invitation of Mr. James Wyatt, who had recently discovered two stone implements “at the depth of thirteen feet from the surface of the soil,” resting “immediately on solid beds of oolitic-limestone.” (‘Antiquity of Man,’ fourth edition, page 214.) Here, says Sir C. Lyell, “I…for the first time, saw evidence which satisfied me of the chronological relations of those three phenomena–the antique tools, the extinct mammalia, and the glacial formation.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, April 12 [1861].

My dear Lyell,

I have been most deeply interested by your letter. You seem to have done the grandest work, and made the greatest step, of any one with respect to man.

It is an especial relief to hear that you think the French superficial deposits are deltoid and semi-marine; but two days ago I was saying to a friend, that the unknown manner of the accumulation of these deposits, seemed the great blot in all the work done. I could not stomach debacles or lacustrine beds. It is grand. I remember Falconer told me that he thought some of the remains in the Devonshire caverns were pre-glacial, and this, I presume, is now your conclusion for the older celts with hyena and hippopotamus. It is grand. What a fine long pedigree you have given the human race!

I am sure I never thought of parallel roads having been accumulated during subsidence. I think I see some difficulties on this view, though, at first reading your note, I jumped at the idea. But I will think over all I saw there. I am (stomacho volente) coming up to London on Tuesday to work on cocks and hens, and on Wednesday morning, about a quarter before ten, I will call on you (unless I hear to the contrary), for I long to see you. I congratulate you on your grand work.

Ever yours,
C. DARWIN.

P.S.–Tell Lady Lyell that I was unable to digest the funereal ceremonies of the ants, notwithstanding that Erasmus has often told me that I should find some day that they have their bishops. After a battle I have always seen the ants carry away the dead for food. Ants display the utmost economy, and always carry away a dead fellow-creature as food. But I have just forwarded two most extraordinary letters to Busk, from a backwoodsman in Texas, who has evidently watched ants carefully, and declares most positively that they plant and cultivate a kind of grass for store food, and plant other bushes for shelter! I do not know what to think, except that the old gentleman is not fibbing intentionally. I have left the responsibility with Busk whether or no to read the letters. (I.e. to read them before the Linnean Society.)

CHARLES DARWIN TO THOMAS DAVIDSON. (Thomas Davidson, F.R.S., born in Edinburgh, May 17, 1817; died 1885. His researches were chiefly connected with the sciences of geology and palaeontology, and were directed especially to the elucidation of the characters, classification, history, geological and geographical distribution of recent and fossil Brachiopoda. On this subject he brought out an important work, ‘British Fossil Brachiopoda,’ 5 vols. 4to. (Cooper, ‘Men of the Time,’ 1884.)) Down, April 26, 1861.

My dear Sir,

I hope that you will excuse me for venturing to make a suggestion to you which I am perfectly well aware it is a very remote chance that you would adopt. I do not know whether you have read my ‘Origin of Species’; in that book I have made the remark, which I apprehend will be universally admitted, that AS A WHOLE, the fauna of any formation is intermediate in character between that of the formations above and below. But several really good judges have remarked to me how desirable it would be that this should be exemplified and worked out in some detail and with some single group of beings. Now every one will admit that no one in the world could do this better than you with Brachiopods. The result might turn out very unfavourable to the views which I hold; if so, so much the better for those who are opposed to me. (“Mr. Davidson is not at all a full believer in great changes of species, which will make his work all the more valuable.– C. Darwin to R. Chambers (April 30, 1861).) But I am inclined to suspect that on the whole it would be favourable to the notion of descent with modification; for about a year ago, Mr. Salter (John William Salter; 1820- 1869. He entered the service of the Geological Survey in 1846, and ultimately became its Palaeontologist, on the retirement of Edward Forbes, and gave up the office in 1863. He was associated with several well-known naturalists in their work–with Sedgwick, Murchison, Lyell, Ramsay, and Huxley. There are sixty entries under his name in the Royal Society Catalogue. The above facts are taken from an obituary notice of Mr. Salter in the ‘Geological Magazine,’ 1869.) in the Museum in Jermyn Street, glued on a board some Spirifers, etc., from three palaeozoic stages, and arranged them in single and branching lines, with horizontal lines marking the formations (like the diagram in my book, if you know it), and the result seemed to me very striking, though I was too ignorant fully to appreciate the lines of affinities. I longed to have had these shells engraved, as arranged by Mr. Salter, and connected by dotted lines, and would have gladly paid the expense: but I could not persuade Mr. Salter to publish a little paper on the subject. I can hardly doubt that many curious points would occur to any one thoroughly instructed in the subject, who would consider a group of beings under this point of view of descent with modification. All those forms which have come down from an ancient period very slightly modified ought, I think, to be omitted, and those forms alone considered which have undergone considerable change at each successive epoch. My fear is whether brachiopods have changed enough. The absolute amount of difference of the forms in such groups at the opposite extremes of time ought to be considered, and how far the early forms are intermediate in character between those which appeared much later in time. The antiquity of a group is not really diminished, as some seem vaguely to think, because it has transmitted to the present day closely allied forms. Another point is how far the succession of each genus is unbroken, from the first time it appeared to its extinction, with due allowance made for formations poor in fossils. I cannot but think that an important essay (far more important than a hundred literary reviews) might be written by one like yourself, and without very great labour. I know it is highly probable that you may not have leisure, or not care for, or dislike the subject, but I trust to your kindness to forgive me for making this suggestion. If by any extraordinary good fortune you were inclined to take up this notion, I would ask you to read my Chapter X. on Geological Succession. And I should like in this case to be permitted to send you a copy of the new edition, just published, in which I have added and corrected somewhat in Chapters IX. and X.

Pray excuse this long letter, and believe me, My dear Sir, yours very faithfully,
C. DARWIN.

P.S.–I write so bad a hand that I have had this note copied.

CHARLES DARWIN TO THOMAS DAVIDSON.
Down, April 30, 1861.

My dear Sir,

I thank you warmly for your letter; I did not in the least know that you had attended to my work. I assure you that the attention which you have paid to it, considering your knowledge and the philosophical tone of your mind (for I well remember one remarkable letter you wrote to me, and have looked through your various publications), I consider one of the highest, perhaps the very highest, compliments which I have received. I live so solitary a life that I do not often hear what goes on, and I should much like to know in what work you have published some remarks on my book. I take a deep interest in the subject, and I hope not simply an egotistical interest; therefore you may believe how much your letter has gratified me; I am perfectly contented if any one will fairly consider the subject, whether or not he fully or only very slightly agrees with me. Pray do not think that I feel the least surprise at your demurring to a ready acceptance; in fact, I should not much respect anyone’s judgment who did so: that is, if I may judge others from the long time which it has taken me to go round. Each stage of belief cost me years. The difficulties are, as you say, many and very great; but the more I reflect, the more they seem to me to be due to our underestimating our ignorance. I belong so much to old times that I find that I weigh the difficulties from the imperfection of the geological record, heavier than some of the younger men. I find, to my astonishment and joy, that such good men as Ramsay, Jukes, Geikie, and one old worker, Lyell, do not think that I have in the least exaggerated the imperfection of the record. (Professor Sedgwick treated this part of the ‘Origin of Species’ very differently, as might have been expected from his vehement objection to Evolution in general. In the article in the “Spectator” of March 24, 1860, already noticed, Sedgwick wrote: “We know the complicated organic phenomena of the Mesozoic (or Oolitic) period. It defies the transmutationist at every step. Oh! but the document, says Darwin, is a fragment; I will interpolate long periods to account for all the changes. I say, in reply, if you deny my conclusion, grounded on positive evidence, I toss back your conclusion, derived from negative evidence,–the inflated cushion on which you try to bolster up the defects of your hypothesis.” [The punctuation of the imaginary dialogue is slightly altered from the original, which is obscure in one place.]) If my views ever are proved true, our current geological views will have to be considerably modified. My greatest trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct effects of the long-continued action of changed conditions of life without any selection, with the action of selection on mere accidental (so to speak) variability. I oscillate much on this head, but generally return to my belief that the direct action of the conditions of life has not been great. At least this direct action can have played an extremely small part in producing all the numberless and beautiful adaptations in every living creature. With respect to a person’s belief, what does rather surprise me is that any one (like Carpenter) should be willing TO GO SO VERY FAR as to believe that all birds may have descended from one parent, and not go a little farther and include all the members of the same great division; for on such a scale of belief, all the facts in Morphology and in Embryology (the most important in my opinion of all subjects) become mere Divine mockeries…I cannot express how profoundly glad I am that some day you will publish your theoretical view on the modification and endurance of Brachiopodous species; I am sure it will be a most valuable contribution to knowledge.

Pray forgive this very egotistical letter, but you yourself are partly to blame for having pleased me so much. I have told Murray to send a copy of my new edition to you, and have written your name.

With cordial thanks, pray believe me, my dear Sir,

Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

[In Mr. Davidson’s Monograph on British Brachiopoda, published shortly afterwards by the Palaeontographical Society, results such as my father anticipated were to some extent obtained. “No less than fifteen commonly received species are demonstrated by Mr. Davidson by the aid of a long series of transitional forms to appertain to…one type.” “Lyell, ‘Antiquity of Man,’ first edition, page 428.)

In the autumn of 1860, and the early part of 1861, my father had a good deal of correspondence with Professor Asa Gray on a subject to which reference has already been made–the publication in the form of a pamphlet, of Professor Gray’s three articles in the July, August, and October numbers of the ‘Atlantic Monthly,’ 1860. The pamphlet was published by Messrs. Trubner, with reference to whom my father wrote, “Messrs. Trubner have been most liberal and kind, and say they shall make no charge for all their trouble. I have settled about a few advertisements, and they will gratuitously insert one in their own periodicals.”

The reader will find these articles republished in Dr. Gray’s ‘Darwiniana,’ page 87, under the title “Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.” The pamphlet found many admirers among those most capable of judging of its merits, and my father believed that it was of much value in lessening opposition, and making converts to Evolution. His high opinion of it is shown not only in his letters, but by the fact that he inserted a special notice of it in a most prominent place in the third edition of the ‘Origin.’ Lyell, among others, recognised its value as an antidote to the kind of criticism from which the cause of Evolution suffered. Thus my father wrote to Dr. Gray:–“Just to exemplify the use of your pamphlet, the Bishop of London was asking Lyell what he thought of the review in the ‘Quarterly,’ and Lyell answered, ‘Read Asa Gray in the ‘Atlantic.'”. It comes out very clearly that in the case of such publications as Dr. Gray’s, my father did not rejoice over the success of his special view of Evolution, viz. that modification is mainly due to Natural Selection; on the contrary, he felt strongly that the really important point was that the doctrine of Descent should be accepted. Thus he wrote to Professor Gray (May 11, 1863), with reference to Lyell’s ‘Antiquity of Man’:–

“You speak of Lyell as a judge; now what I complain of is that he declines to be a judge…I have sometimes almost wished that Lyell had pronounced against me. When I say ‘me,’ I only mean CHANGE OF SPECIES BY DESCENT. That seems to me the turning-point. Personally, of course, I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant, compared to the question of Creation OR Modification.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, April 11 [1861].

My dear Gray,

I was very glad to get your photograph: I am expecting mine, which I will send off as soon as it comes. It is an ugly affair, and I fear the fault does not lie with the photographer…Since writing last, I have had several letters full of the highest commendation of your Essay; all agree that it is by far the best thing written, and I do not doubt it has done the ‘Origin’ much good. I have not yet heard how it has sold. You will have seen a review in the “Gardeners’ Chronicle”. Poor dear Henslow, to whom I owe much, is dying, and Hooker is with him. Many thanks for two sets of sheets of your Proceedings. I cannot understand what Agassiz is driving at. You once spoke, I think, of Professor Bowen as a very clever man. I should have thought him a singularly unobservant man from his writings. He never can have seen much of animals, or he would have seen the difference of old and wise dogs and young ones. His paper about hereditariness beats everything. Tell a breeder that he might pick out his worst INDIVIDUAL animals and breed from them, and hope to win a prize, and he would think you…insane.

[Professor Henslow died on May 16, 1861, from a complication of bronchitis, congestion of the lungs, and enlargement of the heart. His strong constitution was slow in giving way, and he lingered for weeks in a painful condition of weakness, knowing that his end was near, and looking at death with fearless eyes. In Mr. Blomefield’s (Jenyns) ‘Memoir of Henslow’ (1862) is a dignified and touching description of Prof. Sedgwick’s farewell visit to his old friend. Sedgwick said afterwards that he had never seen “a human being whose soul was nearer heaven.”

My father wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker on hearing of Henslow’s death, “I fully believe a better man never walked this earth.”

He gave his impressions of Henslow’s character in Mr. Blomefield’s ‘Memoir.’ In reference to these recollections he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (May 30, 1861):–

“This morning I wrote my recollections and impressions of character of poor dear Henslow about the year 1830. I liked the job, and so have written four or five pages, now being copied. I do not suppose you will use all, of course you can chop and change as much as you like. If more than a sentence is used, I should like to see a proof-page, as I never can write decently till I see it in print. Very likely some of my remarks may appear too trifling, but I thought it best to give my thoughts as they arose, for you or Jenyns to use as you think fit.

“You will see that I have exceeded your request, but, as I said when I began, I took pleasure in writing my impression of his admirable character.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, June 5 [1861].

My dear Gray,

I have been rather extra busy, so have been slack in answering your note of May 6th. I hope you have received long ago the third edition of the ‘Origin.’…I have heard nothing from Trubner of the sale of your Essay, hence fear it has not been great; I wrote to say you could supply more. I send a copy to Sir J. Herschel, and in his new edition of his ‘Physical Geography’ he has a note on the ‘Origin of Species,’ and agrees, to a certain limited extent, but puts in a caution on design–much like yours…I have been led to think more on this subject of late, and grieve to say that I come to differ more from you. It is not that designed variation makes, as it seems to me, my deity “Natural Selection” superfluous, but rather from studying, lately, domestic variation, and seeing what an enormous field of undesigned variability there is ready for natural selection to appropriate for any purpose useful to each creature.

I thank you much for sending me your review of Phillips. (‘Life on the Earth,’ 1860.) I remember once telling you a lot of trades which you ought to have followed, but now I am convinced that you are a born reviewer. By Jove, how well and often you hit the nail on the head! You rank Phillips’s book higher than I do, or than Lyell does, who thinks it fearfully retrograde. I amused myself by parodying Phillips’s argument as applied to domestic variation; and you might thus prove that the duck or pigeon has not varied because the goose has not, though more anciently domesticated, and no good reason can be assigned why it has not produced many varieties …

I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. North America does not do England justice; I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in! Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God! How I should like to see the greatest curse on earth–slavery–abolished!

Farewell. Hooker has been absorbed with poor dear revered Henslow’s affairs. Farewell.

Ever yours,
C. DARWIN.

HUGH FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN.
31 Sackville St., W., June 23, 1861.

My dear Darwin,

I have been to Adelsberg cave and brought back with me a live Proteus anguinus, designed for you from the moment I got it; i.e. if you have got an aquarium and would care to have it. I only returned last night from the continent, and hearing from your brother that you are about to go to Torquay, I lose no time in making you the offer. The poor dear animal is still alive–although it has had no appreciable means of sustenance for a month–and I am most anxious to get rid of the responsibility of starving