The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II (page 7)

greater number of your facts were quite unknown to me. I now see that from the want of knowledge I did not make nearly sufficient use of the views which you advocate; and I almost wish I could believe in its importance to the same extent with you; for you well show, in a manner which never occurred to me, that it removes many difficulties and objections. But I must still believe that in many large areas all the individuals of the same species have been slowly modified, in the same manner, for instance, as the English race-horse has been improved, that is by the continued selection of the fleetest individuals, without any separation. But I admit that by this process two or more new species could hardly be found within the same limited area; some degree of separation, if not indispensable, would be highly advantageous; and here your facts and views will be of great value…

[The following letter bears on the same subject. It refers to Professor M. Wagner’s Essay, published in “Das Ausland”, May 31, 1875:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO MORITZ WAGNER.
Down, October 13, 1876.

Dear Sir,

I have now finished reading your essays, which have interested me in a very high degree, notwithstanding that I differ much from you on various points. For instance, several considerations make me doubt whether species are much more variable at one period than at another, except through the agency of changed conditions. I wish, however, that I could believe in this doctrine, as it removes many difficulties. But my strongest objection to your theory is that it does not explain the manifold adaptations in structure in every organic being–for instance in a Picus for climbing trees and catching insects–or in a Strix for catching animals at night, and so on ad infinitum. No theory is in the least satisfactory to me unless it clearly explains such adaptations. I think that you misunderstand my views on isolation. I believe that all the individuals of a species can be slowly modified within the same district, in nearly the same manner as man effects by what I have called the process of unconscious selection…I do not believe that one species will give birth to two or more new species as long as they are mingled together within the same district. Nevertheless I cannot doubt that many new species have been simultaneously developed within the same large continental area; and in my ‘Origin of Species’ I endeavoured to explain how two new species might be developed, although they met and intermingled on the BORDERS of their range. It would have been a strange fact if I had overlooked the importance of isolation, seeing that it was such cases as that of the Galapagos Archipelago, which chiefly led me to study the origin of species. In my opinion the greatest error which I have committed, has been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment, i.e. food, climate, etc., independently of natural selection. Modifications thus caused, which are neither of advantage nor disadvantage to the modified organism, would be especially favoured, as I can now see chiefly through your observations, by isolation in a small area, where only a few individuals lived under nearly uniform conditions.

When I wrote the ‘Origin,’ and for some years afterwards, I could find little good evidence of the direct action of the environment; now there is a large body of evidence, and your case of the Saturnia is one of the most remarkable of which I have heard. Although we differ so greatly, I hope that you will permit me to express my respect for your long-continued and successful labours in the good cause of natural science.

I remain, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

[The two following letters are also of interest as bearing on my father’s views on the action of isolation as regards the origin of new species:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER.
Down, November 26, 1878.

My dear Professor Semper,

When I published the sixth edition of the ‘Origin,’ I thought a good deal on the subject to which you refer, and the opinion therein expressed was my deliberate conviction. I went as far as I could, perhaps too far in agreement with Wagner; since that time I have seen no reason to change my mind, but then I must add that my attention has been absorbed on other subjects. There are two different classes of cases, as it appears to me, viz. those in which a species becomes slowly modified in the same country (of which I cannot doubt there are innumerable instances) and those cases in which a species splits into two or three or more new species, and in the latter case, I should think nearly perfect separation would greatly aid in their “specification,” to coin a new word.

I am very glad that you are taking up this subject, for you will be sure to throw much light on it. I remember well, long ago, oscillating much; when I thought of the Fauna and Flora of the Galapagos Islands I was all for isolation, when I thought of S. America I doubted much. Pray believe me,

Yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

P.S.–I hope that this letter will not be quite illegible, but I have no amanuensis at present.

CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER.
Down, November 30, 1878.

Dear Professor Semper,

Since writing I have recalled some of the thoughts and conclusions which have passed through my mind of late years. In North America, in going from north to south or from east to west, it is clear that the changed conditions of life have modified the organisms in the different regions, so that they now form distinct races or even species. It is further clear that in isolated districts, however small, the inhabitants almost always get slightly modified, and how far this is due to the nature of the slightly different conditions to which they are exposed, and how far to mere interbreeding, in the manner explained by Weismann, I can form no opinion. The same difficulty occurred to me (as shown in my ‘Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication’) with respect to the aboriginal breeds of cattle, sheep, etc., in the separated districts of Great Britain, and indeed throughout Europe. As our knowledge advances, very slight differences, considered by systematists as of no importance in structure, are continually found to be functionally important; and I have been especially struck with this fact in the case of plants to which my observations have of late years been confined. Therefore it seems to me rather rash to consider the slight differences between representative species, for instance those inhabiting the different islands of the same archipelago, as of no functional importance, and as not in any way due to natural selection. With respect to all adapted structures, and these are innumerable, I cannot see how M. Wagner’s view throws any light, nor indeed do I see at all more clearly than I did before, from the numerous cases which he has brought forward, how and why it is that a long isolated form should almost always become slightly modified. I do not know whether you will care about hearing my further opinion on the point in question, for as before remarked I have not attended much of late years to such questions, thinking it prudent, now that I am growing old, to work at easier subjects.

Believe me, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

I hope and trust that you will throw light on these points.

P.S.–I will add another remark which I remember occurred to me when I first read M. Wagner. When a species first arrives on a small island, it will probably increase rapidly, and unless all the individuals change instantaneously (which is improbable in the highest degree), the slowly, more or less, modifying offspring must intercross one with another, and with their unmodified parents, and any offspring not as yet modified. The case will then be like that of domesticated animals which have slowly become modified, either by the action of the external conditions or by the process which I have called the UNCONSCIOUS SELECTION by man–i.e., in contrast with methodical selection.

[The letters continue the history of the year 1872, which has been interrupted by a digression on Isolation.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO THE MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. Down, April 8, 1872.

Dear Sir,

I thank you very sincerely and feel much honoured by the trouble which you have taken in giving me your reflections on the origin of Man. It gratifies me extremely that some parts of my work have interested you, and that we agree on the main conclusion of the derivation of man from some lower form.

I will reflect on what you have said, but I cannot at present give up my belief in the close relationship of Man to the higher Simiae. I do not put much trust in any single character, even that of dentition; but I put the greatest faith in resemblances in many parts of the whole organisation, for I cannot believe that such resemblances can be due to any cause except close blood relationship. That man is closely allied to the higher Simiae is shown by the classification of Linnaeus, who was so good a judge of affinity. The man who in England knows most about the structure of the Simiae, namely, Mr. Mivart, and who is bitterly opposed to my doctrines about the derivation of the mental powers, yet has publicly admitted that I have not put man too close to the higher Simiae, as far as bodily structure is concerned. I do not think the absence of reversions of structure in man is of much weight; C. Vogt, indeed, argues that [the existence of] Micro- cephalous idiots is a case of reversion. No one who believes in Evolution will doubt that the Phocae are descended from some terrestrial Carnivore. Yet no one would expect to meet with any such reversion in them. The lesser divergence of character in the races of man in comparison with the species of Simiadae may perhaps be accounted for by man having spread over the world at a much later period than did the Simiadae. I am fully prepared to admit the high antiquity of man; but then we have evidence, in the Dryopithecus, of the high antiquity of the Anthropomorphous Simiae.

I am glad to hear that you are at work on your fossil plants, which of late years have afforded so rich a field for discovery. With my best thanks for your great kindness, and with much respect, I remain,

Dear Sir, yours very faithfully,
CHARLES DARWIN.

[In April, 1872, he was elected to the Royal Society of Holland, and wrote to Professor Donders:–

“Very many thanks for your letter. The honour of being elected a foreign member of your Royal Society has pleased me much. The sympathy of his fellow workers has always appeared to me by far the highest reward to which any scientific man can look. My gratification has been not a little increased by first hearing of the honour from you.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT.
Down, June 3, 1872.

My dear Sir,

Many thanks for your article (The proof-sheets of an article which appeared in the July number of the ‘North American Review.’ It was a rejoinder to Mr. Mivart’s reply (‘North American Review,’ April 1872) to Mr. Chauncey Wright’s pamphlet. Chauncey Wright says of it (‘Letters,’ page 238):–“It is not properly a rejoinder but a new article, repeating and expounding some of the points of my pamphlet, and answering some of Mr. Mivart’s replies incidentally.”) in the ‘North American Review,’ which I have read with great interest. Nothing can be clearer than the way in which you discuss the permanence or fixity of species. It never occurred to me to suppose that any one looked at the case as it seems Mr. Mivart does. Had I read his answer to you, perhaps I should have perceived this; but I have resolved to waste no more time in reading reviews of my works or on Evolution, excepting when I hear that they are good and contain new matter…It is pretty clear that Mr. Mivart has come to the end of his tether on this subject.

As your mind is so clear, and as you consider so carefully the meaning of words, I wish you would take some incidental occasion to consider when a thing may properly be said to be effected by the will of man. I have been led to the wish by reading an article by your Professor Whitney versus Schleicher. He argues, because each step of change in language is made by the will of man, the whole language so changes; but I do not think that this is so, as man has no intention or wish to change the language. It is a parallel case with what I have called “unconscious selection,” which depends on men consciously preserving the best individuals, and thus unconsciously altering the breed.

My dear Sir, yours sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.

[Not long afterwards (September) Mr. Chauncey Wright paid a visit to Down (Mr. and Mrs. C.L. Brace, who had given much of their lives to philanthropic work in New York, also paid a visit at Down in this summer. Some of their work is recorded in Mr. Brace’s ‘The Dangerous Classes of New York,’ and of this book my father wrote to the author:–

“Since you were here my wife has read aloud to me more than half of your work, and it has interested us both in the highest degree, and we shall read every word of the remainder. The facts seem to me very well told, and the inferences very striking. But after all this is but a weak part of the impression left on our minds by what we have read; for we are both filled with earnest admiration at the heroic labours of yourself and others.”), which he described in a letter (‘Letters, page 246-248.) to Miss S. Sedgwick (now Mrs. William Darwin): “If you can imagine me enthusiastic– absolutely and unqualifiedly so, without a BUT or criticism, then think of my last evening’s and this morning’s talks with Mr. Darwin…I was never so worked up in my life, and did not sleep many hours under the hospitable roof…It would be quite impossible to give by way of report any idea of these talks before and at and after dinner, at breakfast, and at leave- taking; and yet I dislike the egotism of ‘testifying’ like other religious enthusiasts, without any verification, or hint of similar experience.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO HERBERT SPENCER.
Bassett, Southampton, June 10, [1872].

Dear Spencer,

I dare say you will think me a foolish fellow, but I cannot resist the wish to express my unbounded admiration of your article (‘Mr. Martineau on Evolution,’ by Herbert Spencer, ‘Contemporary Review,’ July 1872.) in answer to Mr. Martineau. It is, indeed, admirable, and hardly less so your second article on Sociology (which, however, I have not yet finished): I never believed in the reigning influence of great men on the world’s progress; but if asked why I did not believe, I should have been sorely perplexed to have given a good answer. Every one with eyes to see and ears to hear (the number, I fear, are not many) ought to bow their knee to you, and I for one do.

Believe me, yours most sincerely,
C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, July 12 [1872].

My dear Hooker,

I must exhale and express my joy at the way in which the newspapers have taken up your case. I have seen the “Times”, the “Daily News”, and the “Pall Mall”, and hear that others have taken up the case.

The Memorial has done great good this way, whatever may be the result in the action of our wretched Government. On my soul, it is enough to make one turn into an old honest Tory…

If you answer this, I shall be sorry that I have relieved my feelings by writing.

Yours affectionately,
C. DARWIN.

[The memorial here referred to was addressed to Mr. Gladstone, and was signed by a number of distinguished men, including Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Bentham, Mr. Huxley, and Sir James Paget. It gives a complete account of the arbitrary and unjust treatment received by Sir J.D. Hooker at the hands of his official chief, the First Commissioner of Works. The document is published in full in ‘Nature’ (July 11, 1872), and is well worth studying as an example of the treatment which it is possible for science to receive from officialism. As ‘Nature’ observes, it is a paper which must be read with the greatest indignation by scientific men in every part of the world, and with shame by all Englishmen. The signatories of the memorial conclude by protesting against the expected consequences of Sir Joseph Hooker’s persecution–namely his resignation, and the loss of “a man honoured for his integrity, beloved for his courtesy and kindliness of heart; and who has spent in the public service not only a stainless but an illustrious life.”

Happily this misfortune was averted, and Sir Joseph was freed from further molestation.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE.
Down, August 3 [1872].

My dear Wallace,

I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps because I do it badly; but as Dr. Bree accuses you (Mr. Wallace had reviewed Dr. Bree’s book, ‘An Exposition of Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin,’ in ‘Nature,’ July 25, 1872.) of “blundering,” I have thought myself bound to send the enclosed letter (The letter is as follows:–“Bree on Darwinism.” ‘Nature,’ August 8, 1872. Permit me to state–though the statement is almost superfluous–that Mr. Wallace, in his review of Dr. Bree’s work, gives with perfect correctness what I intended to express, and what I believe was expressed clearly, with respect to the probable position of man in the early part of his pedigree. As I have not seen Dr. Bree’s recent work, and as his letter is unintelligible to me, I cannot even conjecture how he has so completely mistaken my meaning: but, perhaps, no one who has read Mr. Wallace’s article, or who has read a work formerly published by Dr. Bree on the same subject as his recent one, will be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding on his part.–Charles Darwin. August 3.) to ‘Nature,’ that is if you in the least desire it. In this case please post it. If you do not AT ALL wish it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in this case please to tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you intend answering Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably better than I should. Also please tear it up if you don’t like the letter.

My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE.
Down, August 28, 1872.

My dear Wallace,

I have at last finished the gigantic job of reading Dr. Bastian’s book (‘The Beginnings of Life.’ H.C. Bastian, 1872.) and have been deeply interested by it. You wished to hear my impression, but it is not worth sending.

He seems to me an extremely able man, as, indeed, I thought when I read his first essay. His general argument in favour of Archebiosis (That is to say, Spontaneous Generation. For the distinction between Archebiosis and Heterogenesis, see Bastian, chapter vi.) is wonderfully strong, though I cannot think much of some few of his arguments. The result is that I am bewildered and astonished by his statements, but am not convinced, though, on the whole, it seems to me probable that Archebiosis is true. I am not convinced, partly I think owing to the deductive cast of much of his reasoning; and I know not why, but I never feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H. Spencer’s writings. If Dr. Bastian’s book had been turned upside down, and he had begun with the various cases of Heterogenesis, and then gone on to organic, and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given his general arguments, I should have been, I believe, much more influenced. I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty is the effect of old convictions being stereotyped on my brain. I must have more evidence that germs, or the minutest fragments of the lowest forms, are always killed by 212 degrees of Fahr. Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statements given by Dr. Bastian [by] other men, whose judgment I respect, and who have worked long on the lower organisms, would suffice to convince me. Here is a fine confession of intellectual weakness; but what an inexplicable frame of mind is that of belief!

As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously generated, my mind can no more digest such statements, whether true or false, than my stomach can digest a lump of lead. Dr. Bastian is always comparing Archebiosis, as well as growth, to crystallisation; but, on this view, a Rotifer or Tardigrade is adapted to its humble conditions of life by a happy accident, and this I cannot believe…He must have worked with very impure materials in some cases, as plenty of organisms appeared in a saline solution not containing an atom of nitrogen.

I wholly disagree with Dr. Bastian about many points in his latter chapters. Thus the frequency of generalised forms in the older strata seems to me clearly to indicate the common descent with divergence of more recent forms. Notwithstanding all his sneers, I do not strike my colours as yet about Pangenesis. I should like to live to see Archebiosis proved true, for it would be a discovery of transcendent importance; or, if false, I should like to see it disproved, and the facts otherwise explained; but I shall not live to see all this. If ever proved, Dr. Bastian will have taken a prominent part in the work. How grand is the onward rush of science; it is enough to console us for the many errors which we have committed, and for our efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the mass of new facts and new views which are daily turning up.

This is all I have to say about Dr. Bastian’s book, and it certainly has not been worth saying…

CHARLES DARWIN TO A. DE CANDOLLE.
Down, December 11, 1872.

My dear Sir,

I began reading your new book (‘Histoire des Sciences et des Savants.’ 1873.) sooner than I intended, and when I once began, I could not stop; and now you must allow me to thank you for the very great pleasure which it has given me. I have hardly ever read anything more original and interesting than your treatment of the causes which favour the development of scientific men. The whole was quite new to me, and most curious. When I began your essay I was afraid that you were going to attack the principle of inheritance in relation to mind, but I soon found myself fully content to follow you and accept your limitations. I have felt, of course, special interest in the latter part of your work, but there was here less novelty to me. In many parts you do me much honour, and everywhere more than justice. Authors generally like to hear what points most strike different readers, so I will mention that of your shorter essays, that on the future prevalence of languages, and on vaccination interested me the most, as, indeed, did that on statistics, and free will. Great liability to certain diseases, being probably liable to atavism, is quite a new idea to me. At page 322 you suggest that a young swallow ought to be separated, and then let loose in order to test the power of instinct; but nature annually performs this experiment, as old cuckoos migrate in England some weeks before the young birds of the same year. By the way, I have just used the forbidden word “nature,” which, after reading your essay, I almost determined never to use again. There are very few remarks in your book to which I demur, but when you back up Asa Gray in saying that all instincts are congenital habits, I must protest.

Finally, will you permit me to ask you a question: have you yourself, or some one who can be quite trusted, observed (page 322) that the butterflies on the Alps are tamer than those on the lowlands? Do they belong to the same species? Has this fact been observed with more than one species? Are they brightly coloured kinds? I am especially curious about their alighting on the brightly coloured parts of ladies’ dresses, more especially because I have been more than once assured that butterflies like bright colours, for instance, in India the scarlet leaves of Poinsettia.

Once again allow me to thank you for having sent me your work, and for the very unusual amount of pleasure which I have received in reading it.

With much respect, I remain, my dear Sir,

Yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.

[The last revise of the ‘Expression of the Emotions’ was finished on August 22nd, 1872, and he wrote in his Diary:–“Has taken me about twelve months.” As usual he had no belief in the possibility of the book being generally successful. The following passage in a letter to Haeckel gives the impression that he had felt the writing of this book as a somewhat severe strain:–

“I have finished my little book on ‘Expression,’ and when it is published in November I will of course send you a copy, in case you would like to read it for amusement. I have resumed some old botanical work, and perhaps I shall never again attempt to discuss theoretical views.

“I am growing old and weak, and no man can tell when his intellectual powers begin to fail. Long life and happiness to you for your own sake and for that of science.”

It was published in the autumn. The edition consisted of 7000, and of these 5267 copies were sold at Mr. Murray’s sale in November. Two thousand were printed at the end of the year, and this proved a misfortune, as they did not afterwards sell so rapidly, and thus a mass of notes collected by the author was never employed for a second edition during his lifetime.

Among the reviews of the ‘Expression of the Emotions’ may be mentioned the unfavourable notices in the “Athenaeum”, November 9, 1872, and the “Times”, December 13, 1872. A good review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the ‘Quarterly Journal of Science,’ January 1873. Mr. Wallace truly remarks that the book exhibits certain “characteristics of the author’s mind in an eminent degree,” namely, “the insatiable longing to discover the causes of the varied and complex phenomena presented by living things.” He adds that in the case of the author “the restless curiosity of the child to know the ‘what for?’ the ‘why?’ and the ‘how?’ of everything” seems “never to have abated its force.”

A writer in one of the theological reviews describes the book as the most “powerful and insidious” of all the author’s works.

Professor Alexander Bain criticised the book in a postscript to the ‘Senses and the Intellect;’ to this essay the following letter refers:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ALEXANDER BAIN.
Down, October 9, 1873.

My dear Sir,

I am particularly obliged to you for having send me your essay. Your criticisms are all written in a quite fair spirit, and indeed no one who knows you or your works would expect anything else. What you say about the vagueness of what I have called the direct action of the nervous system, is perfectly just. I felt it so at the time, and even more of late. I confess that I have never been able fully to grasp your principle of spontaneity, as well as some other of your points, so as to apply them to special cases. But as we look at everything from different points of view, it is not likely that we should agree closely. (Professor Bain expounded his theory of Spontaneity in the essay here alluded to. It would be impossible to do justice to it within the limits of a foot-note. The following quotations may give some notion of it:–

“By Spontaneity I understand the readiness to pass into movement in the absence of all stimulation whatever; the essential requisite being that the nerve-centres and muscles shall be fresh and vigorous…The gesticulations and the carols of young and active animals are mere overflow of nervous energy; and although they are very apt to concur with pleasing emotion, they have an independent source…They are not properly movements of expression; they express nothing at all except an abundant stock of physical power.”)

I have been greatly pleased by what you say about the crying expression and about blushing. Did you read a review in a late ‘Edinburgh?’ (The review on the ‘Expression of the Emotions’ appeared in the April number of the ‘Edinburgh Review,’ 1873. The opening sentence is a fair sample of the general tone of the article: “Mr. Darwin has added another volume of amusing stories and grotesque illustrations to the remarkable series of works already devoted to the exposition and defence of the evolutionary hypothesis.” A few other quotations may be worth giving. “His one-sided devotion to an a priori scheme of interpretation seems thus steadily tending to impair the author’s hitherto unrivalled powers as an observer. However this may be, most impartial critics will, we think, admit that there is a marked falling off both in philosophical tone and scientific interest in the works produced since Mr. Darwin committed himself to the crude metaphysical conception so largely associated with his name.” The article is directed against Evolution as a whole, almost as much as against the doctrines of the book under discussion. We find throughout plenty of that effective style of criticism which consists in the use of such expressions as “dogmatism,” “intolerance,” “presumptuous,” “arrogant.” Together with accusations of such various faults a “virtual abandonment of the inductive method,” and the use of slang and vulgarisms.

The part of the article which seems to have interested my father is the discussion on the use which he ought to have made of painting and sculpture.) It was magnificently contemptuous towards myself and many others.

I retain a very pleasant recollection of our sojourn together at that delightful place, Moor Park.

With my renewed thanks, I remain, my dear Sir,

Yours sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. HALIBURTON. (Mrs. Haliburton was a daughter of my father’s old friend, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse. Her husband, Judge Haliburton, was the well-known author of ‘Sam Slick.’) Down, November 1 [1872].

My dear Mrs. Haliburton,

I dare say you will be surprised to hear from me. My object in writing now is to say that I have just published a book on the ‘Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals;’ and it has occurred to me that you might possibly like to read some parts of it; and I can hardly think that this would have been the case with any of the books which I have already published. So I send by this post my present book. Although I have had no communication with you or the other members of your family for so long a time, no scenes in my whole life pass so frequently or so vividly before my mind as those which relate to happy old days spent at Woodhouse. I should very much like to hear a little news about yourself and the other members of your family, if you will take the trouble to write to me. Formerly I used to glean some news about you from my sisters.

I have had many years of bad health and have not been able to visit anywhere; and now I feel very old. As long as I pass a perfectly uniform life, I am able to do some daily work in Natural History, which is still my passion, as it was in old days, when you used to laugh at me for collecting beetles with such zeal at Woodhouse. Excepting from my continued ill- health, which has excluded me from society, my life has been a very happy one; the greatest drawback being that several of my children have inherited from me feeble health. I hope with all my heart that you retain, at least to a large extent, the famous “Owen constitution.” With sincere feelings of gratitude and affection for all bearing the name of Owen, I venture to sign myself,

Yours affectionately,
CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. HALIBURTON.
Down, November 6 [1872].

My dear Sarah,

I have been very much pleased by your letter, which I must call charming. I hardly ventured to think that you would have retained a friendly recollection of me for so many years. Yet I ought to have felt assured that you would remain as warm-hearted and as true-hearted as you have ever been from my earliest recollection. I know well how many grievous sorrows you have gone through; but I am very sorry to hear that your health is not good. In the spring or summer, when the weather is better, if you can summon up courage to pay us a visit here, both my wife, as she desires me to say, and myself, would be truly glad to see you, and I know that you would not care about being rather dull here. It would be a real pleasure to me to see you.–Thank you much for telling about your family,–much of which was new to me. How kind you all were to me as a boy, and you especially, and how much happiness I owe to you. Believe me your affectionate and obliged friend,

CHARLES DARWIN.

P.S.–Perhaps you would like to see a photograph of me now that I am old.

1873.

[The only work (other than botanical) of this year was the preparation of a second edition of the ‘Descent of Man,’ the publication of which is referred to in the following chapter. This work was undertaken much against the grain, as he was at the time deeply immersed in the manuscript of ‘Insectivorous Plants.’ Thus he wrote to Mr. Wallace (November 19), “I never in my lifetime regretted an interruption so much as this new edition of the ‘Descent.'” And later (in December) he wrote to Mr. Huxley: “The new edition of the ‘Descent’ has turned out an awful job. It took me ten days merely to glance over letters and reviews with criticisms and new facts. It is a devil of a job.”

The work was continued until April 1, 1874, when he was able to return to his much loved Drosera. He wrote to Mr. Murray:–

“I have at last finished, after above three months as hard work as I have ever had in my life, a corrected edition of the ‘Descent,’ and I much wish to have it printed off as soon as possible. As it is to be stereotyped I shall never touch it again.”

The first of the miscellaneous letters of 1873 refers to a pleasant visit received from Colonel Higginson of Newport, U.S.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO THOS. WENTWORTH HIGGINSON. Down, February 27th [1873].

My dear Sir,

My wife has just finished reading aloud your ‘Life with a Black Regiment,’ and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you were here I did not know of the noble position which you had filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking. Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down, my wife and myself have over and over again regretted that we did not know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly liked to have heard a little about the South from your own lips.

Your descriptions have vividly recalled walks taken forty years ago in Brazil. We have your collected Essays, which were kindly sent us by Mr. [Moncure] Conway, but have not yet had time to read them. I occasionally glean a little news of you in the ‘Index’; and within the last hour have read an interesting article of yours on the progress of Free Thought.

Believe me, my dear sir, with sincere admiration, Yours very faithfully,
CH. DARWIN.

[On May 28th he sent the following answers to the questions that Mr. Galton was at that time addressing to various scientific men, in the course of the inquiry which is given in his ‘English Men of Science, their Nature and Nurture,’ 1874. With regard to the questions my father wrote, “I have filled up the answers as well as I could, but it is simply impossible for me to estimate the degrees.” For the sake of convenience, the questions and answers relating to “Nurture” are made to precede those on “Nature”:

NURTURE.

EDUCATION?

How taught? I consider that all I have learnt of any value has been self- taught.

Conducive to or restrictive of habits of observation? Restrictive of observation, being almost entirely classical.

Conducive to health or otherwise? Yes.

Peculiar merits? None whatever.

Chief omissions? No mathematics or modern languages, nor any habits of observation or reasoning.

RELIGION.

Has the religious creed taught in your youth had any deterrent effect on the freedom of your researches? No.

SCIENTIFIC TASTES.

Do your scientific tastes appear to have been innate? Certainly innate.

Were they determined by any and what events? My innate taste for natural history strongly confirmed and directed by the voyage in the “Beagle”.

NATURE.

Specify any interests that have been very actively pursued. Science, and field sports to a passionate degree during youth.

(C.D. = CHARLES DARWIN, R.D. = ROBERT DARWIN, his father.)

RELIGION?

C.D.–Nominally to Church of England. R.D.–Nominally to Church of England.

POLITICS?

C.D.–Liberal or Radical.
R.D.–Liberal.

HEALTH?

C.D.–Good when young–bad for last 33 years. R.D.–Good throughout life, except from gout.

HEIGHT, ETC?

C.D.–6ft. Figure, etc.?–Spare, whilst young rather stout. Measurement round inside of hat?–22 1/4 in. Colour of Hair?–Brown. Complexion?– Rather sallow.
R.D.–6ft. 2 in. Figure, etc?–Very broad and corpulent. Colour of hair? –Brown. Complexion?–Ruddy.

TEMPERAMENT?

C.D.–Somewhat nervous.
R.D.–Sanguine.

ENERGY OF BODY, ETC.?

C.D.–Energy shown by much activity, and whilst I had health, power of resisting fatigue. I and one other man were alone able to fetch water for a large party of officers and sailors utterly prostrated. Some of my expeditions in S. America were adventurous. An early riser in the morning. R.D.–Great power of endurance although feeling much fatigue, as after consultations after long journeys ; very active–not restless–very early riser, no travels. My father said his father suffered much from sense of fatigue, that he worked very hard.

ENERGY OF MIND, ETC.?

C.D.–Shown by rigorous and long-continued work on same subject, as 20 years on the ‘Origin of Species,’ and 9 years on ‘Cirripedia.’ R.D.–Habitually very active mind–shown in conversation with a succession of people during the whole day.

MEMORY?

C.D.–Memory very bad for dates, and for learning by rote; but good in retaining a general or vague recollection of many facts. R.D.–Wonderful memory for dates. In old age he told a person, reading aloud to him a book only read in youth, the passages which were coming– knew the birthdays and death, etc., of all friends and acquaintances.

STUDIOUSNESS?

C.D.–Very studious, but not large acquirements. R.D.–Not very studious or mentally receptive, except for facts in conversation–great collector of anecdotes.

INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT?

C.D.–I think fairly independent; but I can give no instances. I gave up common religious belief almost independently from my own reflections. R.D.–Free thinker in religious matters. Liberal, with rather a tendency to Toryism.

ORIGINALITY OR ECCENTRICITY?

C.D.– — Thinks this applies to me; I do not think so–i.e., as far as eccentricity. I suppose that I have shown originality in science, as I have made discoveries with regard to common objects. R.D.–Original character, had great personal influence and power of producing fear of himself in others. He kept his accounts with great care in a peculiar way, in a number of separate little books, without any general ledger.

SPECIAL TALENTS?

C.D.–None, except for business as evinced by keeping accounts, replies to correspondence, and investing money very well. Very methodical in all my habits.
R.D.–Practical business–made a large fortune and incurred no losses.

STRONGLY MARKED MENTAL PECULIARITIES, BEARING ON SCIENTIFIC SUCCESS, AND NOT SPECIFIED ABOVE?

C.D.–Steadiness–great curiosity about facts and their meaning. Some love of the new and marvellous.
R.D.–Strong social affection and great sympathy in the pleasures of others. Sceptical as to new things. Curious as to facts. Great foresight. Not much public spirit–great generosity in giving money and assistance.

N.B.–I find it quite impossible to estimate my character by your degrees.

The following letter refers inter alia to a letter which appeared in ‘Nature’ (September 25, 1873), “On the Males and Complemental Males of certain Cirripedes, and on Rudimentary Organs:”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO E. HAECKEL.
Down, September 25, 1873.

My dear Haeckel,

I thank you for the present of your book (‘Schopfungs-geschichte,’ 4th edition. The translation (‘The History of Creation’) was not published until 1876.), and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so many original observations. I have read the new preface with very great interest. The delay in the appearance of the English translation vexes and surprises me, for I have never been able to read it thoroughly in German, and I shall assuredly do so when it appears in English. Has the problem of the later stages of reduction of useless structures ever perplexed you? This problem has of late caused me much perplexity. I have just written a letter to ‘Nature’ with a hypothetical explanation of this difficulty, and I will send you the paper with the passage marked. I will at the same time send a paper which has interested me; it need not be returned. It contains a singular statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish that this latter question could be settled, but I see no prospect of it. If it could be proved true this would be most important to us…

Wishing you every success in your admirable labours,

I remain, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHAPTER 2.VIII.

MISCELLANEA, INCLUDING SECOND EDITIONS OF ‘CORAL REEFS,’ THE ‘DESCENT OF MAN,’ AND THE ‘VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS.’

1874 AND 1875.

[The year 1874 was given up to ‘Insectivorous Plants,’ with the exception of the months devoted to the second edition of the ‘Descent of Man,’ and with the further exception of the time given to a second edition of his ‘Coral Reefs’ (1874). The Preface to the latter states that new facts have been added, the whole book revised, and “the latter chapters almost rewritten.” In the Appendix some account is given of Professor Semper’s objections, and this was the occasion of correspondence between that naturalist and my father. In Professor Semper’s volume, ‘Animal Life’ (one of the International Series), the author calls attention to the subject in the following passage which I give in German, the published English translation being, as it seems to me, incorrect: “Es scheint mir als ob er in der zweiten Ausgabe seines allgemein bekannten Werks uber Korallenriffe einem Irrthume uber meine Beobachtungen zum Opfer gefallen ist, indem er die Angaben, die ich allerdings bisher immer nur sehr kurz gehalten hatte, vollstandig falsch wiedergegeben hat.”

The proof-sheets containing this passage were sent by Professor Semper to my father before ‘Animal Life’ was published, and this was the occasion for the following letter, which was afterwards published in Professor Semper’s book.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER.
Down, October 2, 1879.

My dear Professor Semper,

I thank you for your extremely kind letter of the 19th, and for the proof- sheets. I believe that I understand all, excepting one or two sentences, where my imperfect knowledge of German has interfered. This is my sole and poor excuse for the mistake which I made in the second edition of my ‘Coral’ book. Your account of the Pellew Islands is a fine addition to our knowledge on coral reefs. I have very little to say on the subject, even if I had formerly read your account and seen your maps, but had known nothing of the proofs of recent elevation, and of your belief that the islands have not since subsided. I have no doubt that I should have considered them as formed during subsidence. But I should have been much troubled in my mind by the sea not being so deep as it usually is round atolls, and by the reef on one side sloping so gradually beneath the sea; for this latter fact, as far as my memory serves me, is a very unusual and almost unparalleled case. I always foresaw that a bank at the proper depth beneath the surface would give rise to a reef which could not be distinguished from an atoll, formed during subsidence. I must still adhere to my opinion that the atolls and barrier reefs in the middle of the Pacific and Indian Oceans indicate subsidence; but I fully agree with you that such cases as that of the Pellew Islands, if of at all frequent occurrence, would make my general conclusions of very little value. Future observers must decide between us. It will be a strange fact if there has not been subsidence of the beds of the great oceans, and if this has not affected the forms of the coral reefs.

In the last three pages of the last sheet sent I am extremely glad to see that you are going to treat of the dispersion of animals. Your preliminary remarks seem to me quite excellent. There is nothing about M. Wagner, as I expected to find. I suppose that you have seen Moseley’s last book, which contains some good observations on dispersion.

I am glad that your book will appear in English, for then I can read it with ease. Pray believe me,

Yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.

[The most recent criticism on the Coral-reef theory is by Mr. Murray, one of the staff of the “Challenger”, who read a paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, April 5, 1880. (An abstract is published in volume x. of the ‘Proceedings,’ page 505, and in ‘Nature,’ August 12, 1880.) The chief point brought forward is the possibility of the building up of submarine mountains, which may serve as foundations for coral reefs. Mr. Murray also seeks to prove that “the chief features of coral reefs and islands can be accounted for without calling in the aid of great and general subsidence.” The following letter refers to this subject:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO A. AGASSIZ.
Down, May 5, 1881.

…You will have seen Mr. Murray’s views on the formation of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was known of the multitude of minute oceanic organisms. I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the “Beagle”, in the south temperate regions, I concluded that shells, the smaller corals, etc., decayed, and were dissolved, when not protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could not accumulate in the open ocean. Certainly, shells, etc., were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but you will know well whether this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute oceanic organisms could have accumulated to the thickness of many hundred feet…Pray forgive me for troubling you at such length, but it has occurred [to me] that you might be disposed to give, after your wide experience, your judgment. If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much, and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet…

[The second edition of the ‘Descent of Man’ was published in the autumn of 1874. Some severe remarks on the “monistic hypothesis” appeared in the July (The review necessarily deals with the first edition of the ‘Descent of Man.’) number of the ‘Quarterly Review’ (page 45). The Reviewer expresses his astonishment at the ignorance of certain elementary distinctions and principles (e.g. with regard to the verbum mentale) exhibited, among others, by Mr. Darwin, who does not exhibit the faintest indication of having grasped them, yet a clear perception of them, and a direct and detailed examination of his facts with regard to them, “was a sine qua non for attempting, with a chance of success, the solution of the mystery as to the descent of man.”

Some further criticisms of a later date may be here alluded to. In the ‘Academy,’ 1876 (pages 562, 587), appeared a review of Mr. Mivart’s ‘Lessons from Nature,’ by Mr. Wallace. When considering the part of Mr. Mivart’s book relating to Natural and Sexual Selection, Mr. Wallace says: “In his violent attack on Mr. Darwin’s theories our author uses unusually strong language. Not content with mere argument, he expresses ‘reprobation of Mr. Darwin’s views’; and asserts that though he (Mr. Darwin) has been obliged, virtually, to give up his theory, it is still maintained by Darwinians with ‘unscrupulous audacity,’ and the actual repudiation of it concealed by the ‘conspiracy of silence.'” Mr. Wallace goes on to show that these charges are without foundation, and points out that, “if there is one thing more than another for which Mr. Darwin is pre-eminent among modern literary and scientific men, it is for his perfect literary honesty, his self-abnegation in confessing himself wrong, and the eager haste with which he proclaims and even magnifies small errors in his works, for the most part discovered by himself.”

The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th) refers to Mr. Mivart’s statement (‘Lessons from Nature,’ page 144) that Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views as to the “bestiality of man”:–

“I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the Academy. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the ‘Origin’ I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, I went out of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted in my ‘Descent of Man.’ Therefore it is very unjust,…of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment.”

The letter which here follows is of interest in connection with the discussion, in the ‘Descent of Man,’ on the origin of the musical sense in man:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO E. GURNEY. (Author of ‘The Power of Sound.’) Down, July 8, 1876.

My dear Mr. Gurney,

I have read your article (“Some disputed Points in Music.”–‘Fortnightly Review,’ July, 1876.) with much interest, except the latter part, which soared above my ken. I am greatly pleased that you uphold my views to a certain extent. Your criticism of the rasping noise made by insects being necessarily rhythmical is very good; but though not made intentionally, it may be pleasing to the females from the nerve cells being nearly similar in function throughout the animal kingdom. With respect to your letter, I believe that I understand your meaning, and agree with you. I never supposed that the different degrees and kinds of pleasure derived from different music could be explained by the musical powers of our semi-human progenitors. Does not the fact that different people belonging to the same civilised nation are very differently affected by the same music, almost show that these diversities of taste and pleasure have been acquired during their individual lives? Your simile of architecture seems to me particularly good; for in this case the appreciation almost must be individual, though possibly the sense of sublimity excited by a grand cathedral, may have some connection with the vague feelings of terror and superstition in our savage ancestors, when they entered a great cavern or gloomy forest. I wish some one could analyse the feeling of sublimity. It amuses me to think how horrified some high flying aesthetic men will be at your encouraging such low degraded views as mine.

Believe me, yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.

[The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous interest. The first extract (from a letter, January 18, 1874) refers to a spiritualistic seance, held at Erasmus Darwin’s house, 6 Queen Anne Street, under the auspices of a well-known medium:]

“…We had grand fun, one afternoon, for George hired a medium, who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery points jump about in my brother’s diningroom, in a manner that astounded every one, and took away all their breaths. It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh Wedgwood held the medium’s hands and feet on both sides all the time. I found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these astounding miracles, or jugglery, took place. How the man could possibly do what was done passes my understanding. I came downstairs, and saw all the chairs, etc., on the table, which had been lifted over the heads of those sitting round it.

The Lord have mercy on us all, if we have to believe in such rubbish. F. Galton was there, and says it was a good seance…”

The Seance in question led to a smaller and more carefully organised one being undertaken, at which Mr. Huxley was present, and on which he reported to my father:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO PROFESSOR T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 29 [1874].

My dear Huxley,

It was very good of you to write so long an account. Though the seance did tire you so much it was, I think, really worth the exertion, as the same sort of things are done at all the seances, even at –‘s; and now to my mind an enormous weight of evidence would be requisite to make one believe in anything beyond mere trickery…I am pleased to think that I declared to all my family, the day before yesterday, that the more I thought of all that I had heard happened at Queen Anne St., the more convinced I was it was all imposture…my theory was that [the medium] managed to get the two men on each side of him to hold each other’s hands, instead of his, and that he was thus free to perform his antics. I am very glad that I issued my ukase to you to attend.

Yours affectionately,
CH. DARWIN.

[In the spring of this year (1874) he read a book which gave him great pleasure and of which he often spoke with admiration:–‘The Naturalist in Nicaragua,’ by the late Thomas Belt. Mr. Belt, whose untimely death may well be deplored by naturalists, was by profession an Engineer, so that all his admirable observations in Natural History in Nicaragua and elsewhere were the fruit of his leisure. The book is direct and vivid in style and is full of description and suggestive discussions. With reference to it my father wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:–

“Belt I have read, and I am delighted that you like it so much, it appears to me the best of all natural history journals which have ever been published.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO THE MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. Down, May 30, 1874.

Dear Sir,

I have been very neglectful in not having sooner thanked you for your kindness in having sent me your ‘Etudes sur la Vegetation,’ etc., and other memoirs. I have read several of them with very great interest, and nothing can be more important, in my opinion, than your evidence of the extremely slow and gradual manner in which specific forms change. I observe that M. A. De Candolle has lately quoted you on this head versus Heer. I hope that you may be able to throw light on the question whether such protean, or polymorphic forms, as those of Rubus, Hieracium, etc., at the present day, are those which generate new species; as for myself, I have always felt some doubt on this head. I trust that you may soon bring many of your countrymen to believe in Evolution, and my name will then perhaps cease to be scorned. With the most sincere respect, I remain, Dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,
CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, June 5 [1874].

My dear Gray,

I have now read your article (The article, “Charles Darwin,” in the series of “Scientific Worthies” (‘Nature,’ June 4, 1874). This admirable estimate of my father’s work in science is given in the form of a comparison and contrast between Robert Brown and Charles Darwin.) in ‘Nature,’ and the last two paragraphs were not included in the slip sent before. I wrote yesterday and cannot remember exactly what I said, and now cannot be easy without again telling you how profoundly I have been gratified. Every one, I suppose, occasionally thinks that he has worked in vain, and when one of these fits overtakes me, I will think of your article, and if that does not dispel the evil spirit, I shall know that I am at the time a little bit insane, as we all are occasionally.

What you say about Teleology (“Let us recognise Darwin’s great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology: so that instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology.”) pleases me especially, and I do not think any one else has ever noticed the point. (See, however, Mr. Huxley’s chapter on the ‘Reception of the Origin of Species’ in volume i.) I have always said you were the man to hit the nail on the head.

Yours gratefully and affectionately,
CH. DARWIN.

[As a contribution to the history of the reception of the ‘Origin of Species,’ the meeting of the British Association in 1874, at Belfast, should be mentioned. It is memorable for Professor Tyndall’s brilliant presidential address, in which a sketch of the history of Evolution is given culminating in an eloquent analysis of the ‘Origin of Species,’ and of the nature of its great success. With regard to Prof. Tyndall’s address, Lyell wrote (‘Life,’ ii. page 455) congratulating my father on the meeting, “on which occasion you and your theory of Evolution may be fairly said to have had an ovation.” In the same letter Sir Charles speaks of a paper (On the Ancient Volcanoes of the Highlands, ‘Journal of Geological Soc.,’ 1874.) of Professor Judd’s, and it is to this that the following letter refers:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL.
Down, September 23, 1874.

My dear Lyell,

I suppose that you have returned, or will soon return, to London (Sir Charles Lyell returned from Scotland towards the end of September.); and, I hope, reinvigorated by your outing. In your last letter you spoke of Mr. Judd’s paper on the Volcanoes of the Hebrides. I have just finished it, and to ease my mind must express my extreme admiration.

It is years since I have read a purely geological paper which has interested me so greatly. I was all the more interested, as in the Cordillera I often speculated on the sources of the deluges of submarine porphyritic lavas, of which they are built; and, as I have stated, I saw to a certain extent the causes of the obliteration of the points of eruption. I was also not a little pleased to see my volcanic book quoted, for I thought it was completely dead and forgotten. What fine work will Mr. Judd assuredly do!…Now I have eased my mind; and so farewell, with both E.D.’s and C.D.’s very kind remembrances to Miss Lyell.

Yours affectionately,
CHARLES DARWIN.

[Sir Charles Lyell’s reply to the above letter must have been one of the latest that my father received from his old friend, and it is with this letter that the volumes of his published correspondence closes.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO AUG. FOREL.
Down, October 15, 1874.

My dear Sir,

I have now read the whole of your admirable work (‘Les Fourmis de la Suisse,’ 4to, 1874.) and seldom in my life have I been more interested by any book. There are so many interesting facts and discussions, that I hardly know which to specify; but I think, firstly, the newest points to me have been about the size of the brain in the three sexes, together with your suggestion that increase of mind power may have led to the sterility of the workers. Secondly about the battles of the ants, and your curious account of the enraged ants being held by their comrades until they calmed down. Thirdly, the evidence of ants of the same community being the offspring of brothers and sisters. You admit, I think, that new communities will often be the product of a cross between not-related ants. Fritz Muller has made some interesting observations on this head with respect to Termites. The case of Anergates is most perplexing in many ways, but I have such faith in the law of occasional crossing that I believe an explanation will hereafter be found, such as the dimorphism of either sex and the occasional production of winged males. I see that you are puzzled how ants of the same community recognize each other; I once placed two (F. rufa) in a pill-box smelling strongly of asafoetida and after a day returned them to their homes; they were threatened, but at last recognized. I made the trial thinking that they might know each other by their odour; but this cannot have been the case, and I have often fancied that they must have some common signal. Your last chapter is one great mass of wonderful facts and suggestions, and the whole profoundly interesting. I have seldom been more gratified than by [your] honourable mention of my work.

I should like to tell you one little observation which I made with care many years ago; I saw ants (Formica rufa) carrying cocoons from a nest which was the largest I ever saw and which was well-known to all the country people near, and an old man, apparently about eighty years of age, told me that he had known it ever since he was a boy. The ants carrying the cocoons did not appear to be emigrating; following the line, I saw many ascending a tall fir tree still carrying their cocoons. But when I looked closely I found that all the cocoons were empty cases. This astonished me, and next day I got a man to observe with me, and we again saw ants bringing empty cocoons out of the nest; each of us fixed on one ant and slowly followed it, and repeated the observation on many others. We thus found that some ants soon dropped their empty cocoons; others carried them for many yards, as much as thirty paces, and others carried them high up the fir tree out of sight. Now here I think we have one instinct in contest with another and mistaken one. The first instinct being to carry the empty cocoons out of the nest, and it would have been sufficient to have laid them on the heap of rubbish, as the first breath of wind would have blown them away. And then came in the contest with the other very powerful instinct of preserving and carrying their cocoons as long as possible; and this they could not help doing although the cocoons were empty. According as the one or other instinct was the stronger in each individual ant, so did it carry the empty cocoon to a greater or less distance. If this little observation should ever prove of any use to you, you are quite at liberty to use it. Again thanking you cordially for the great pleasure which your work has given me, I remain with much respect,

Yours sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

P.S.–If you read English easily I should like to send you Mr. Belt’s book, as I think you would like it as much as did Fritz Muller.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J. FISKE.
Down, December 8, 1874.

My dear Sir,

You must allow me to thank you for the very great interest with which I have at last slowly read the whole of your work. (‘Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy,’ 2 volumes, 8vo. 1874.) I have long wished to know something about the views of the many great men whose doctrines you give. With the exception of special points I did not even understand H. Spencer’s general doctrine; for his style is too hard work for me. I never in my life read so lucid an expositor (and therefore thinker) as you are; and I think that I understand nearly the whole–perhaps less clearly about Cosmic Theism and Causation than other parts. It is hopeless to attempt out of so much to specify what has interested me most, and probably you would not care to hear. I wish some chemist would attempt to ascertain the result of the cooling of heated gases of the proper kinds, in relation to your hypothesis of the origin of living matter. It pleased me to find that here and there I had arrived from my own crude thoughts at some of the same conclusions with you; though I could seldom or never have given my reasons for such conclusions. I find that my mind is so fixed by the inducive method, that I cannot appreciate deductive reasoning: I must begin with a good body of facts and not from a principle (in which I always suspect some fallacy) and then as much deduction as you please. This may be very narrow-minded; but the result is that such parts of H. Spencer, as I have read with care impress my mind with the idea of his inexhaustible wealth of suggestion, but never convince me; and so I find it with some others. I believe the cause to lie in the frequency with which I have found first-formed theories [to be] erroneous. I thank you for the honourable mention which you make of my works. Parts of the ‘Descent of Man’ must have appeared laughably weak to you: nevertheless, I have sent you a new edition just published. Thanking you for the profound interest and profit with which I have read your work. I remain,

My dear Sir, yours very faithfully,
CH. DARWIN.

1875.

[The only work, not purely botanical, which occupied my father in the present year was the correction of the second edition of ‘The Variation of Animals and Plants,’ and on this he was engaged from the beginning of July till October 3rd. The rest of the year was taken up with his work on insectivorous plants, and on cross-fertilisation, as will be shown in a later chapter. The chief alterations in the second edition of ‘Animals and Plants’ are in the eleventh chapter on “Bud-variation and on certain anomalous modes of reproduction;” the chapter on Pangenesis “was also largely altered and remodelled.” He mentions briefly some of the authors who have noticed the doctrine. Professor Delpino’s ‘Sulla Darwiniana Teoria della Pangenesi’ (1869), an adverse but fair criticism, seems to have impressed him as valuable. Of another critique my father characteristically says (‘Animals and Plants,’ 2nd edition volume ii. page 350.), “Dr. Lionel Beale (‘Nature,’ May 11, 1871, page 26) sneers at the whole doctrine with much acerbity and some justice.” He also points out that, in Mantegazza’s ‘Elementi di Igiene,’ the theory of Pangenesis was clearly foreseen.

In connection with this subject, a letter of my father’s to ‘Nature’ (April 27, 1871) should be mentioned. A paper by Mr. Galton had been read before the Royal Society (March 30, 1871) in which were described experiments, on intertransfusion of blood, designed to test the truth of the hypothesis of pangenesis. My father, while giving all due credit to Mr. Galton for his ingenious experiments, does not allow that pangenesis has “as yet received its death-blow, though from presenting so many vulnerable points its life is always in jeopardy.”

He seems to have found the work of correcting very wearisome, for he wrote:–

“I have no news about myself, as I am merely slaving over the sickening work of preparing new editions. I wish I could get a touch of poor Lyell’s feelings, that it was delightful to improve a sentence, like a painter improving a picture.”

The feeling of effort or strain over this piece of work, is shown in a letter to Professor Haeckel:–

“What I shall do in future if I live, Heaven only knows; I ought perhaps to avoid general and large subjects, as too difficult for me with my advancing years, and I suppose enfeebled brain.”

At the end of March, in this year, the portrait for which he was sitting to Mr. Ouless was finished. He felt the sittings a great fatigue, in spite of Mr. Ouless’s considerate desire to spare him as far as was possible. In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker he wrote, “I look a very venerable, acute, melancholy old dog; whether I really look so I do not know.” The picture is in the possession of the family, and is known to many through M. Rajon’s etching. Mr. Ouless’s portrait is, in my opinion, the finest representation of my father that has been produced.

The following letter refers to the death of Sir Charles Lyell, which took place on February 22nd, 1875, in his seventy-eighth year.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS BUCKLEY (NOW MRS. FISHER). (Mrs. Fisher acted as Secretary to Sir Charles Lyell.)
Down, February 23, 1875.

My dear Miss Buckley,

I am grieved to hear of the death of my old and kind friend, though I knew that it could not be long delayed, and that it was a happy thing that his life should not have been prolonged, as I suppose that his mind would inevitably have suffered. I am glad that Lady Lyell (Lady Lyell died in 1873.) has been saved this terrible blow. His death makes me think of the time when I first saw him, and how full of sympathy and interest he was about what I could tell him of coral reefs and South America. I think that this sympathy with the work of every other naturalist was one of the finest features of his character. How completely he revolutionised Geology: for I can remember something of pre-Lyellian days.

I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works. Well, he has had a grand and happy career, and no one ever worked with a truer zeal in a noble cause. It seems strange to me that I shall never again sit with him and Lady Lyell at their breakfast. I am very much obliged to you for having so kindly written to me.

Pray give our kindest remembrances to Miss Lyell, and I hope that she has not suffered much in health, from fatigue and anxiety.

Believe me, my dear Miss Buckley,
Yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, February 25 [1875].

My dear Hooker,

Your letter so full of feeling has interested me greatly. I cannot say that I felt his [Lyell’s] death much, for I fully expected it, and have looked for some little time at his career as finished.

I dreaded nothing so much as his surviving with impaired mental powers. He was, indeed, a noble man in very many ways; perhaps in none more than in his warm sympathy with the work of others. How vividly I can recall my first conversation with him, and how he astonished me by his interest in what I told him. How grand also was his candour and pure love of truth. Well, he is gone, and I feel as if we were all soon to go…I am deeply rejoiced about Westminster Abbey (Sir C. Lyell was buried in Westminster Abbey.), the possibility of which had not occurred to me when I wrote before. I did think that his works were the most enduring of all testimonials (as you say) to him; but then I did not like the idea of his passing away with no outward sign of what scientific men thought of his merits. Now all this is changed, and nothing can be better than Westminster Abbey. Mrs. Lyell has asked me to be one of the pall-bearers, but I have written to say that I dared not, as I should so likely fail in the midst of the ceremony, and have my head whirling off my shoulders. All this affair must have cost you much fatigue and worry, and how I do wish you were out of England…

[In 1881 he wrote to Mrs. Fisher in reference to her article on Sir Charles Lyell in the ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’:–

“For such a publication I suppose you do not want to say much about his private character, otherwise his strong sense of humour and love of society might have been added. Also his extreme interest in the progress of the world, and in the happiness of mankind. Also his freedom from all religious bigotry, though these perhaps would be a superfluity.”

The following refers to the Zoological station at Naples, a subject on which my father felt an enthusiastic interest:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ANTON DOHRN.
Down, [1875?].

My dear Dr. Dohrn,

Many thanks for your most kind letter, I most heartily rejoice at your improved health and at the success of your grand undertaking, which will have so much influence on the progress of Zoology throughout Europe.

If we look to England alone, what capital work has already been done at the Station by Balfour and Ray Lankester…When you come to England, I suppose that you will bring Mrs. Dohrn, and we shall be delighted to see you both here. I have often boasted that I have had a live Uhlan in my house! It will be very interesting to me to read your new views on the ancestry of the Vertebrates. I shall be sorry to give up the Ascidians, to whom I feel profound gratitude; but the great thing, as it appears to me, is that any link whatever should be found between the main divisions of the Animal Kingdom…

CHARLES DARWIN TO AUGUST WEISMANN.
Down, December 6, 1875.

My dear Sir,

I have been profoundly interested by your essay on Amblystoma (‘Umwandlung des Axolotl.’), and think that you have removed a great stumbling block in the way of Evolution. I once thought of reversion in this case; but in a crude and imperfect manner. I write now to call your attention to the sterility of moths when hatched out of their proper season; I give references in chapter 18 of my ‘Variation under Domestication’ (volume ii. page 157, of English edition), and these cases illustrate, I think, the sterility of Amblystoma. Would it not be worth while to examine the reproductive organs of those individuals of WINGLESS Hemiptera which occasionally have wings, as in the case of the bed-bug. I think I have heard that the females of Mutilla sometimes have wings. These cases must be due to reversion. I dare say many anomalous cases will be hereafter explained on the same principle.

I hinted at this explanation in the extraordinary case of the black- shouldered peacock, the so-called Pavo nigripennis given in my ‘Variation under Domestication;’ and I might have been bolder, as the variety is in many respects intermediate between the two known species.

With much respect,
Yours sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

THE VIVISECTION QUESTION.

[It was in November 1875 that my father gave his evidence before the Royal Commission on Vivisection. (See volume i.) I have, therefore, placed together here the matter relating to this subject, irrespective of date. Something has already been said of my father’s strong feeling with regard to suffering both in man and beast. It was indeed one of the strongest feelings in his nature, and was exemplified in matters small and great, in his sympathy with the educational miseries of dancing dogs, or in his horror at the sufferings of slaves. (He once made an attempt to free a patient in a mad-house, who (as he wrongly supposed) was sane. He had some correspondence with the gardener at the asylum, and on one occasion he found a letter from a patient enclosed with one from the gardener. The letter was rational in tone and declared that the writer was sane and wrongfully confined.

My father wrote to the Lunacy Commissioners (without explaining the source of his information) and in due time heard that the man had been visited by the Commissioners, and that he was certainly insane. Sometime afterwards the patient was discharged, and wrote to thank my father for his interference, adding that he had undoubtedly been insane, when he wrote his former letter.)

The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in Brazil, when he was powerless to interfere with what he believed to be the torture of a slave, haunted him for years, especially at night. In smaller matters, where he could interfere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from his walk pale and faint from having seen a horse ill-used, and from the agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On another occasion he saw a horse- breaker teaching his son to ride, the little boy was frightened and the man was rough; my father stopped, and jumping out of the carriage reproved the man in no measured terms.

One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that his humanity to animals was well-known in his own neighbourhood. A visitor, driving from Orpington to Down, told the man to go faster, “Why,” said the driver, “If I had whipped the horse THIS much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would have got out of the carriage and abused me well.”

With respect to the special point under consideration,–the sufferings of animals subjected to experiment,–nothing could show a stronger feeling than the following extract from a letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871):–

“You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night.”

An extract from Sir Thomas Farrer’s notes shows how strongly he expressed himself in a similar manner in conversation:–

“The last time I had any conversation with him was at my house in Bryanston Square, just before one of his last seizures. He was then deeply interested in the vivisection question; and what he said made a deep impression on me. He was a man eminently fond of animals and tender to them; he would not knowingly have inflicted pain on a living creature; but he entertained the strongest opinion that to prohibit experiments on living animals, would be to put a stop to the knowledge of and the remedies for pain and disease.”

The Anti-Vivisection agitation, to which the following letters refer, seems to have become specially active in 1874, as may be seen, e.g. by the index to ‘Nature’ for that year, in which the word “Vivisection,” suddenly comes into prominence. But before that date the subject had received the earnest attention of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool Meeting of the British Association in 1870, a Committee was appointed, which reported, defining the circumstances and conditions under which, in the opinion of the signatories, experiments on living animals were justifiable. In the spring of 1875, Lord Hartismere introduced a Bill into the Upper House to regulate the course of physiological research. Shortly afterwards a Bill more just towards science in its provisions was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole, and Ashley. It was, however, withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. The Commissioners were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W.E. Forster, Sir J.B. Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen, and Mr. R.H. Hutton: they commenced their inquiry in July, 1875, and the Report was published early in the following year.

In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon’s Bill, entitled, “An Act to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals,” was introduced. It cannot be denied that the framers of this Bill, yielding to the unreasonable clamour of the public, went far beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As a correspondent in ‘Nature’ put it (1876, page 248), “the evidence on the strength of which legislation was recommended went beyond the facts, the Report went beyond the evidence, the Recommendations beyond the Report; and the Bill can hardly be said to have gone beyond the Recommendations; but rather to have contradicted them.”

The legislation which my father worked for, as described in the following letters, was practically what was introduced as Dr. Lyon Playfair’s Bill.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. LITCHFIELD. (His daughter.) January 4, 1875.

My dear H.

Your letter has led me to think over vivisection (I wish some new word like anaes-section could be invented (He communicated to ‘Nature’ (September 30, 1880) an article by Dr. Wilder, of Cornell University, an abstract of which was published (page 517). Dr. Wilder advocated the use of the word ‘Callisection’ for painless operations on animals.) for some hours, and I will jot down my conclusions, which will appear very unsatisfactory to you. I have long thought physiology one of the greatest of sciences, sure sooner, or more probably later, greatly to benefit mankind; but, judging from all other sciences, the benefits will accrue only indirectly in the search for abstract truth. It is certain that physiology can progress only by experiments on living animals. Therefore the proposal to limit research to points of which we can now see the bearings in regard to health, etc., I look at as puerile. I thought at first it would be good to limit vivisection to public laboratories; but I have heard only of those in London and Cambridge, and I think Oxford; but probably there may be a few others. Therefore only men living in a few great towns would carry on investigation, and this I should consider a great evil. If private men were permitted to work in their own houses, and required a licence, I do not see who is to determine whether any particular man should receive one. It is young unknown men who are the most likely to do good work. I would gladly punish severely any one who operated on an animal not rendered insensible, if the experiment made this possible; but here again I do not see that a magistrate or jury could possibly determine such a point. Therefore I conclude, if (as is likely) some experiments have been tried too often, or anaesthetics have not been used when they could have been, the cure must be in the improvement of humanitarian feelings. Under this point of view I have rejoiced at the present agitation. If stringent laws are passed, and this is likely, seeing how unscientific the House of Commons is, and that the gentlemen of England are humane, as long as their sports are not considered, which entailed a hundred or thousand-fold more suffering than the experiments of physiologists–if such laws are passed, the result will assuredly be that physiology, which has been until within the last few years at a standstill in England, will languish or quite cease. It will then be carried on solely on the Continent; and there will be so many the fewer workers on this grand subject, and this I should greatly regret. By the way, F. Balfour, who has worked for two or three years in the laboratory at Cambridge, declares to George that he has never seen an experiment, except with animals rendered insensible. No doubt the names of Doctors will have great weight with the House of Commons; but very many practitioners neither know nor care anything about the progress of knowledge. I cannot at present see my way to sign any petition, without hearing what physiologists thought would be its effect, and then judging for myself. I certainly could not sign the paper sent me by Miss Cobbe, with its monstrous (as it seems to me) attack on Virchow for experimenting on the Trichinae. I am tired and so no more.

Yours affectionately,
CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, April 14 [1875].

My dear Hooker,

I worked all the time in London on the vivisection question; and we now think it advisable to go further than a mere petition. Litchfield (Mr. R.B. Litchfield, his son-in-law.) drew up a sketch of a Bill, the essential features of which have been approved by Sanderson, Simon and Huxley, and from conversation, will, I believe, be approved by Paget, and almost certainly, I think, by Michael Foster. Sanderson, Simon and Paget wish me to see Lord Derby, and endeavour to gain his advocacy with the Home Secretary. Now, if this is carried into effect, it will be of great importance to me to be able to say that the Bill in its essential features has the approval of some half-dozen eminent scientific men. I have therefore asked Litchfield to enclose a copy to you in its first rough form; and if it is not essentially modified may I say that it meets with your approval as President of the Royal Society? The object is to protect animals, and at the same time not to injure Physiology, and Huxley and Sanderson’s approval almost suffices on this head. Pray let me have a line from you soon.

Yours affectionately,
CHARLES DARWIN.

[The Physiological Society, which was founded in 1876, was in some measure the outcome of the anti-vivisection movement, since it was this agitation which impressed on Physiologists the need of a centre for those engaged in this particular branch of science. With respect to the Society, my father wrote to Mr. Romanes (May 29, 1876):–

“I was very much gratified by the wholly unexpected honour of being elected one of the Honorary Members. This mark of sympathy has pleased me to a very high degree.”

The following letter appeared in the “Times”, April 18th, 1881:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO FRITHIOF HOLMGREN. (Professor of Physiology at Upsala.) Down, April 14, 1881.

Dear Sir,

In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, I have no objection to express my opinion with respect to the right of experimenting on living animals. I use this latter expression as more correct and comprehensive than that of vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it was asserted that inhumanity was here practised, and useless suffering caused to animals; and I was led to think that it might be advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill passed, such as would have removed all just cause of complaint, and at the same time have left physiologists free to pursue their researches,–a Bill very different from the Act which has since been passed. It is right to add that the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false. From all that I have heard, however, I fear that in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings of animals, and if this be the case, I should be glad to hear of legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind. Any one who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a century ago, must admit that it has made immense progress, and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate. What improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed to physiological research is a question which can be properly discussed only by those physiologists and medical practitioners who have studied the history of their subjects; but, as far as I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this may be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has done for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable benefits which will hereafter be derived from physiology, not only by man, but by the lower animals. Look for instance at Pasteur’s results in modifying the germs of the most malignant diseases, from which, as it so happens, animals will in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be remembered how many lives and what a fearful amount of suffering have been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and others on living animals. In the future every one will be astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to assure you that I honour, and shall always honour, every one who advances the noble science of physiology.

Dear Sir, yours faithfully,
CHARLES DARWIN.

[In the “Times” of the following day appeared a letter headed “Mr. Darwin and Vivisection,” signed by Miss Frances Power Cobbe. To this my father replied in the “Times” of April 22, 1881. On the same day he wrote to Mr. Romanes:–

“As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the “Times” on Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on all physiologists.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,

I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by Miss Cobbe in the letter which appeared in the “Times” of the 19th inst.; but as she asserts that I have “misinformed” my correspondent in Sweden in saying that “the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false,” I will merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences from the Report of the Commission.

1. The sentence–“It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists,” which Miss Cobbe quotes from page 17 of the report, and which, in her opinion, “can necessarily concern English physiologists alone and not foreigners,” is immediately followed by the words “We have seen that it was so in Magendie.” Magendie was a French physiologist who became notorious some half century ago for his cruel experiments on living animals.

2. The Commissioners, after speaking of the “general sentiment of humanity” prevailing in this country, say (page 10):–

“This principle is accepted generally by the very highly educated men whose lives are devoted either to scientific investigation and education or to the mitigation or the removal of the sufferings of their fellow-creatures; though differences of degree in regard to its practical application will be easily discernible by those who study the evidence as it has been laid before us.”

Again, according to the Commissioners (page 10):–

“The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, when asked whether the general tendency of the scientific world in this country is at variance with humanity, says he believes it to be very different, indeed, from that of foreign physiologists; and while giving it as the opinion of the society that experiments are performed which are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science, and that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not justifiable to inflict even for the scientific object in view, he readily acknowledges that he does not know a single case of wanton cruelty, and that in general the English physiologists have used anaesthetics where they think they can do so with safety to the experiment.”

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
CHARLES DARWIN.

April 21.

[In the “Times” of Saturday, April 23, 1881, appeared a letter from Miss Cobbe in reply:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES.
Down, April 25, 1881.

My dear Romanes,

I was very glad to read your last note with much news interesting to me. But I write now to say how I, and indeed all of us in the house have admired your letter in the “Times”. (April 25, 1881.–Mr. Romanes defended Dr. Sanderson against the accusations made by Miss Cobbe.) It was so simple and direct. I was particularly glad about Burton Sanderson, of whom I have been for several years a great admirer. I was also especially glad to read the last sentences. I have been bothered with several letters, but none abusive. Under a SELFISH point of view I am very glad of the publication of your letter, as I was at first inclined to think that I had done mischief by stirring up the mud. Now I feel sure that I have done good. Mr. Jesse has written to me very politely, he says his Society has had nothing to do with placards and diagrams against physiology, and I suppose, therefore, that these all originate with Miss Cobbe…Mr. Jesse complains bitterly that the “Times” will “burke” all his letters to this newspaper, nor am I surprised, judging from the laughable tirades advertised in “Nature”.

Ever yours, very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

[The next letter refers to a projected conjoint article on vivisection, to which Mr. Romanes wished my father to contribute:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES.
Down, September 2, 1881.

My dear Romanes,

Your letter has perplexed me beyond all measure. I fully recognise the duty of every one whose opinion is worth anything, expressing his opinion publicly on vivisection; and this made me send my letter to the “Times”. I have been thinking at intervals all morning what I could say, and it is the simple truth that I have nothing worth saying. You and men like you, whose ideas flow freely, and who can express them easily, cannot understand the state of mental paralysis in which I find myself. What is most wanted is a careful and accurate attempt to show what physiology has already done for man, and even still more strongly what there is every reason to believe it will hereafter do. Now I am absolutely incapable of doing this, or of discussing the other points suggested by you.

If you wish for my name (and I should be glad that it should appear with that of others in the same cause), could you not quote some sentence from my letter in the “Times” which I enclose, but please return it. If you thought fit you might say you quoted it with my approval, and that after still further reflection I still abide most strongly in my expressed conviction.

For Heaven’s sake, do think of this. I do not grudge the labour and thought; but I could write nothing worth any one reading.

Allow me to demur to your calling your conjoint article a “symposium” strictly a “drinking party.” This seems to me very bad taste, and I do hope every one of you will avoid any semblance of a joke on the subject. I KNOW that words, like a joke, on this subject have quite disgusted some persons not at all inimical to physiology. One person lamented to me that Mr. Simon, in his truly admirable Address at the Medical Congress (by far the best thing which I have read), spoke of the fantastic SENSUALITY (‘Transactions of the International Medical Congress,’ 1881, volume iv. page 413. The expression “lackadaisical” (not fantastic), and “feeble sensuality,” are used with regard to the feelings of the anti- vivisectionists.) (or some such term) of the many mistaken, but honest men and women who are half mad on the subject…

[To Dr. Lauder Brunton my father wrote in February 1882:–

“Have you read Mr. [Edmund] Gurney’s articles in the ‘Fortnightly’ (“A chapter in the Ethics of Pain,” ‘Fortnightly Review,’ 1881, volume xxx. page 778.) and ‘Cornhill?’ (“An Epilogue on Vivisection,” ‘Cornhill Magazine,’ 1882, volume xlv. page 191.) They seem to me very clever, though obscurely written, and I agree with almost everything he says, except with some passages which appear to imply that no experiments should be tried unless some immediate good can be predicted, and this is a gigantic mistake contradicted by the whole history of science.”]

CHAPTER 2.IX.

MISCELLANEA (continued)–A REVIVAL OF GEOLOGICAL WORK–THE BOOK ON EARTHWORMS–LIFE OF ERASMUS DARWIN–MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS.

1876-1882.

[We have now to consider the work (other than botanical) which occupied the concluding six years of my father’s life. A letter to his old friend Rev. L. Blomefield (Jenyns), written in March, 1877, shows what was my father’s estimate of his own powers of work at this time:–

“My dear Jenyns (I see I have forgotten your proper names).–Your extremely kind letter has given me warm pleasure. As one gets old, one’s thoughts turn back to the past rather than to the future, and I often think of the pleasant, and to me valuable, hours which I spent with you on the borders of the Fens.

“You ask about my future work; I doubt whether I shall be able to do much more that is new, and I always keep before my mind the example of poor old –, who in his old age had a cacoethes for writing. But I cannot endure doing nothing, so I suppose that I shall go on as long as I can without obviously making a fool of myself. I have a great mass of matter with respect to variation under nature; but so much has been published since the appearance of the ‘Origin of Species,’ that I very much doubt whether I retain power of mind and strength to reduce the mass into a digested whole. I have sometimes thought that I would try, but dread the attempt…”

His prophecy proved to be a true one with regard to any continuation of any general work in the direction of Evolution, but his estimate of powers which could afterwards prove capable of grappling with the ‘Power of Movement in Plants,’ and with the work on ‘Earthworms,’ was certainly a low one.

The year 1876, with which the present chapter begins, brought with it a revival of geological work. He had been astonished, as I hear from Professor Judd, and as appears in his letters, to learn that his books on ‘Volcanic Islands,’ 1844, and on ‘South America,’ 1846, were still consulted by geologists, and it was a surprise to him that new editions should be required. Both these works were originally published by Messrs. Smith and Elder, and the new edition of 1876 was also brought out by them. This appeared in one volume with the title ‘Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, and Parts of South America visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. “Beagle”.’ He has explained in the preface his reasons for leaving untouched the text of the original editions: “They relate to parts of the world which have been so rarely visited by men of science, that I am not aware that much could be corrected or added from observations subsequently made. Owing to the great progress which Geology has made within recent times, my views on some few points may be somewhat antiquated; but I have thought it best to leave them as they originally appeared.”

It may have been the revival of geological speculation, due to the revision of his early books, that led to his recording the observations of which some account is given in the following letter. Part of it has been published in Professor James Geikie’s ‘Prehistoric Europe,’ chapters vii. and ix. (My father’s suggestion is also noticed in Prof. Geikie’s address on the ‘Ice Age in Europe and North America,’ given at Edinburgh, November 20, 1884.), a few verbal alterations having been made at my father’s request in the passages quoted. Mr. Geikie lately wrote to me: “The views suggested in his letter as to the origin of the angular gravels, etc., in the South of England will, I believe, come to be accepted as the truth. This question has a much wider bearing than might at first appear. In point of fact it solves one of the most difficult problems in Quaternary Geology–and has already attracted the attention of German geologists.”]

CHARLES DARWIN TO JAMES GEIKIE.
Down, November 16, 1876.

My dear Sir,

I hope that you will forgive me for troubling you with a very long letter. But first allow me to tell you with what extreme pleasure and admiration I have just finished reading your ‘Great Ice Age.’ It seems to me admirably done, and most clear. Interesting as many chapters are in the history of the world, I do not think that any one comes [up] nearly to the glacial period or periods. Though I have steadily read much on the subject, your book makes the whole appear almost new to me.

I am now going to mention a small observation, made by me two or three years ago, near Southampton, but not followed out, as I have no strength for excursions. I need say nothing about the character of the drift there (which includes palaeolithic celts), for you have described its essential features in a few words at page 506. It covers the whole country [in an] even plain-like surface, almost irrespective of the present outline of the land.

The coarse stratification has sometimes been disturbed. I find that you allude “to the larger stones often standing on end;” and this is the point which struck me so much. Not only moderately sized angular stones, but small oval pebbles often stand vertically up, in a manner which I have never seen in ordinary gravel beds. This fact reminded me of what occurs near my home, in the stiff red clay, full of unworn flints over the chalk, which is no doubt the residue left undissolved by rain water. In this clay, flints as long and thin as my arm often stand perpendicularly up; and I have been told by the tank-diggers that it is their “natural position!” I presume that this position may safely be attributed to the differential movement of parts of the red clay as it subsided very slowly from the dissolution of the underlying chalk; so that the flints arrange themselves in the lines of least resistance. The similar but less strongly marked arrangement of the stones in the drift near Southampton makes me suspect that it also must have slowly subsided; and the notion has crossed my mind that during the commencement and height of the glacial period great beds of frozen snow accumulated over the south of England, and that, during the summer, gravel and stones were washed from the higher land over its surface, and in superficial channels. The larger streams may have cut right through the frozen snow, and deposited gravel in lines at the bottom. But on each succeeding autumn, when the running water failed, I imagine that the lines of drainage would have been filled up by blown snow afterwards congealed, and that, owing to great surface accumulations of snow, it would be a mere chance whether the drainage, together with gravel and sand, would follow the same lines during the next summer. Thus, as I apprehend, alternate layers of frozen snow and drift, in sheets and lines, would ultimately have covered the country to a great thickness, with lines of drift probably deposited in various directions at the bottom by the larger streams. As the climate became warmer, the lower beds of frozen snow would have melted with extreme slowness, and the many irregular beds of interstratified drift would have sunk down with equal slowness; and during this movement the elongated pebbles would have arranged themselves more or less vertically. The drift would also have been deposited almost irrespective of the outline of the underlying land. When I viewed the country I could not persuade myself that any flood, however great, could have deposited such coarse gravel over the almost level platforms between the valleys. My view differs from that of Holst, page 415 [‘Great Ice Age’], of which I had never heard, as his relates to channels cut through glaciers, and mine to beds of drift interstratified with frozen snow where no glaciers existed. The upshot of this long letter is to ask you to keep my notion in your head, and look out for upright pebbles in any lowland country which you may examine, where glaciers have not existed. Or if you think the notion deserves any further thought, but not otherwise, to tell any one of it, for instance Mr. Skertchly, who is examining such districts. Pray forgive me for writing so long a letter, and again thanking you for