the Internet Archive
with funding from
soft Corporation
"1
+
—
~~
5 = ee
CHARLES DARWIN:
HIS LIFE TOLD IN AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL
CHAPTER, AND IN A SELECTED SERIES
OF HIS PUBLISHED LETTERS.
EDITED BY HIS SON,
FRANGIS DARWIN, FBS.
WITH A PORTRAIT.
44% S3 4
LONDON: 27.5.44
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1908.
.
ea a 1
‘pee: Ap Ln
TO DR. HOLLAND, ST. MORITZ.
13th July, 1892,
Dear Hoiuanp,
This book is associated in my mind with St. Moritz
(where I worked at it), and therefore with you.
I inscribe your name on it, not only in token of
my remembrance of your many acts of friendship, but
also as a sign of my respect for one who lives a difficult
life well.
Yours gratefully,
Franors Darwin,
“For myself I found that I was fitted for nothing so well
as for the study of Truth; ... as being gifted by nature
with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate,
slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to
dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither
affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates
every kind of imposture. So I thought my nature had a
kind of familiarity and relationship with Truth,”—Baoon.
(Proem to the Interpretatio Nature.)
:
|
|
.
_————
PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION (1892).
i oaemnet teenameein’
In preparing this volume, which is practically an abbre-
viation of the Life and Letters (1887), my aim has been to
retain as far as possible the personal parts of those volumes.
To render this feasible, large numbers of the more purely
scientific letters are omitted, or represented by the citation of
a few sentences.* In certain periods of my father’s life the
scientific and the personal elements run a parallel course,
rising and falling together in their degree of interest. Thus
the writing of the Origin of Species, and its publication, appeal
equally to the reader who follows my father’s career from
interest in the man, and to the naturalist who desires to know
something of this turning point in the history of Biology.
This part of the story has therefore been told with nearly the
full amount of available detail.
In arranging my material I have followed a roughly
chronological sequence, but the character and variety of my
father’s researches make a strictly chronological order an
impossibility. It was.his habit to work more or less simul-
taneously at several subjects. Experimental work was often
carried on as a refreshment or variety, while books entailing
reasoning and the marshalling of large bodies of facts were
* Thave not thought it necessary to indicate all the omissions in the
- abbreviated letters.
vi PREFAOE.
being written, Moreover many of his researches were dropped
only to be resumed after years had elapsed. Thus a chrono-
logical record of his work would be a patchwork, from which
it would be difficult to disentangle the history of any given
subject. The Table of Contents will show how I have tried
to avoid this result. It will be seen, for instance, that after
Chapter VIII. a break occurs; the story turns back from
1854 to 1831 in order that the Evolutionary chapters which
follow may tell a continuous story. In the same way the
Botanical Work which occupied so much of my father’s time
during the latter part of his life is treated separately in
i es ere
Chapters XVI. and XVII.
i
With regard to Chapter IV., in which I have attempted to
give an account of my father’s manner of working, I may be
allowed to say that I acted as his assistant during the last
eight years of his life, and had therefore an opportunity of
knowing something of his habits and methods,
My acknowledgments are gladly made to the publishers
of the Century Magazine, who have courteously given me
the use of one of their illustrations for the heading of
Chapter IV.
FRANCIS DARWIN.
WYOHFIELD, CAMBRIDGE,
August, 1892.
NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
It is pleasure to me to acknowledge the kindness of Messrs.
Elliott & Fry in allowing me to reproduce the fine photograph
which appears as the frontispiece to the present issue.
FRANCIS DARWIN.
WYCHFIELD, CAMBRIDGE,
April, 1902,
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
——————
CHAP, PAGE
—The Darwins 4 . . . . . ‘ 1
Il.—Autobiography . ° . ° . ° i
IIIl—Religion . : : . : . : . CBB
IV. — Reminiscences ; (66
V.—Cambridge Life—The Appointment to the Beagle: aay
1828-1831 ; ; ; C104
Vi.—tThe Voyage: 1831-1836 , : - 124
VIl.—London and Cambridge: 1836-1842. . . (140
VIII.—Life at Down: 1842-1854 . ° . 150
1X.—The Foundations of the Origin of Hosclie’ 1831-1844 (165
X.—The Growth of the Origin of Species: 1848-1858 wet 73)
XI.—The Writing of the Origin of Species, June 1858, to
November 1859. ‘ 185
_ XII.—The Publication of the Origin of Sesies, October to
December 1859 . ; 206
! XIlI.—The Origin of Byeckee—Reviows aint: Oeiiiatennie- eke ok ~)
| hesions and Attacks: 1860. oS aie
XIV.—The Spread of Evolution: 1861-1871 : ; . 245
XV.—Miscellanea—Revival of Geological Work—The Vivi-
section Question—Honours . . ; 281.
XVI.—The Fertilisation of Flowers . ; C297 i
XVII.—Climbing Plants—Power of Werwtied: in Plants— — _
Insectivorous Plants— Kew Index of Plant Names . C313"
_ XVIII.—Concelusion e e e ° a e 4 Cy
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX
I.—The Funeral in Westminster Abbey. . ° » 829
1i.—Portraits *. ° ° . ” e ” . 831
. Inpex - 9 9 2 e 3 ° e 2 P 833
op qed sont Capo mp mye 7
a pina + ef run wy
* ~
et Bate TN podvy Ee
CHARLES DARWIN.
ee aed
CHAPTER L
THE DARWINS.
Cartes Roszrt Darwin was the second son of Dr. Robert
Waring Darwin, of Shrewsbury, where he was born on
February 12, 1809. Dr. Darwin was a son of Erasmus
Darwin, sometimes described as a poet, but more deservedly
known as physician and naturalist. Charles Darwin’s mother
was ea me daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, the well-known
potter of Etruria, in Staffordshire.
If such speculations are permissible, we may hazard the
guess that Charles Darwin inherited his sweetness of disposi-
tion from the Wedgwood side, while the character of his genius
came rather from the Darwin grandfather.*
Robert Waring Darwin was a man of well-marked character.
He had no pretensions to being a man of science, no tendency
to generalise his knowledge, and though a successful physician
he was guided more by intuition and everyday observation than
by a deep knowledge of his subject. His chief mental charac-
teristics were his keen powers of observation, and his know-
ledge of men, qualities which led him to “read the characters
and even the thoughts of those whom he saw even for a short
time.” It is not therefore surprising that his help should have
been sought, not merely in illness, but in cases of family
trouble and sorrow. This was largely the case, and his wise
sympathy, no less than his medical skill, obtained for him a
strong influence over the lives of a large number of people.
He was a man of a quick, vivid temperament, with a lively
interest in even the smaller details in the lives of those with
* See Charles Darwin’s biographical sketch of his grandfather, pre-
fixed to Ernst Krause’s Erasmus Darwin. (Translated from the German
by W. 8. Dallas, 1878.) Also Miss Meteyard’s Life of Josiah Wedgwood.
B
2 THE DARWINS. (Cu. L
whom he came in contact. He was fond of society, and enter-
tained a good deal, and with his large practice and many
friends, the life at Shrewsbury must have been a stirring and
varied one—very different in this respect to the later home of
his son at Down.*
We have a miniature of his wife, Susannah, with a remarkably
sweet and happy face, bearing some resemblance to the portrait
of her father painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds; a countenance
expressive of the gentle and sympathetic nature which Miss
Meteyard ascribes to her.t She died July 15, 1817, thirty-two
years before her husband, whose death occurred on Novem-
ber 18,1848. Dr. Darwin lived before his marriage for two or
three years on St. John’s Hill, afterwards at the Crescent,
where his eldest daughter Marianne was born, lastly at the
“Mount,” in the part of Shrewsbury known as Frankwell,
where the other children were born. This house was built by
Dr. Darwin about 1800, it is now in the possession of Mr.
Spencer Phillips, and has undergone but little alteration, It
is a large, plain, square, red-brick house, of which the most
attractive feature is the pretty green-house, opening out of the
morning-room.
The house is charmingly placed, on the top of a steep bank
leading down to the Severn. The terraced bank is traversed
by a long walk, leading from end to end, still called “the
Doctor’s Walk.” At one point in this walk grows a Spanish
chestnut, the branches of which bend back parallel to them-
selves in a curious manner, and this was Charles Darwin’s
favourite tree as a boy, where he and his sister Catharine had
each their special seat.
The Doctor took great pleasure in his garden, planting it
with ornamental trees and shrubs, and being especially suc-
cessful with fruit trees; and this love of planis was, I think,
the only taste kindred to natural history which he possessed.
Charles Darwin had the strongest feeling of love and respect
for his father’s memory. His recollection of everything that
was connected with him was peculiarly distinct, and he spoke
of him frequently, generally prefacing an anecdote with some
such phrase as, “My father, who was the wisest man I ever
knew,” &c. It was astonishing how clearly he remembered his
father’s opinions, so that he was able to quote some maxim or
hint of his in many cases of illness. Asa rule he put small
* The above passage is, by permission of Messrs. Smith & Elder, taken
from my article Charles Darwin, in the Dictionary of National Biography.
t A Group of Englishmen, by Miss Meteyard, 1871.
ea ee a? ee
ee a ee ee ee
Cx. LJ THE DARWINS. 3
faith in doctors, and thus his unlimited belief in Dr. Darwin's
medical instinct and methods of treatment was all the more
striking. |
His reverence for him was boundless, and most touching.
He would have wished to judge everything else in the world
dispassionately, but anything his father had said was received
with almost implicit faith. His daughter, Mrs. Litchfield,
remembers him saying that he hoped none of his sons would
ever believe anything because he said it, unless they were
themselves convinced of its truth—a feeling in striking contrast
with his own manner of faith.
A visit which Charles Darwin made to Shrewsbury in 1869
left on the mind of the daughter who accompanied him a strong
impression of his love for his old home. The tenant of the
Mount at the time, showed them over the house, and with mis-
taken hospitality remained with the party during the whole
visit. As they were leaving, Charles Darwin said, with a
pathetic look of regret, “If I could have been left alone in
that green-house for five minutes, I know I should have been
able to see my father in his wheel-chair as vividly as if he had
been there before me.”
Perhaps this incident shows what I think is the truth, that
the memory of his father he loved the best, was that of him as
an old man. Mrs. Litchfield has noted down a few words
which illustrate well his feeling towards his father. She
describes him as saying with the most tender respect, “I think
my father was a little unjust to me when I was young; but
afterwards, I am thankful to think I became a prime favourite
with him.” She has a vivid recollection of the expression of
happy reverie that accompanied these words, as if he were
reviewing the whole relation, and the remembrance left a deep
sense of peace and gratitude.
Dr. Darwin had six children, of whom none are now living:
Marianne, married Dr. Henry Parker ; Caroline, married Josiah
Wedgwood; Erasmus Alvey ; Susan, died unmarried; Charles
_ Robert; Catharine, married Rev. Charles Langton.
The elder son, Erasmus, was born in 1804, and died un-
married at the age of seventy-seven.
His name, not known to the general public, may be remem-
bered from a few words of description occurring in Carlyle’s
Reminiscences (vol. ii. p. ea A truer and more sympathetic
sketch of his character, by his cousin, Miss Julia Wedgwood,
was published in the Speciator, September 3, 1881.
There was something pathetic in Charles Darwin’s affection
for his brother Erasmus, as if he always recollected his solitary
Ba
4 THE DARWINS. {Cx. I.
life, and the touching patience and sweetness of his nature.
He often spoke of him as “ Poor old Ras,” or “ Poor dear old
Philos.” I imagine Philos (Philosopher) was a relic of the
days when they worked at chemistry in the tool-house at
Shrewsbury—a time of which he always preserved a pleasant
memory. Erasmus was rather more than four years older than
Charles Darwin, so that they were not long together at Cam-
bridge, but previously at Edinburgh they shared the same
lodgings, and after the Voyage they lived for a time together
in Erasmus’ house in Great Marlborough Street. In later
years Erasmus Darwin came to Down occasionally, or joined
his brother’s family in a summer holiday. But gradually it
came about that he could not, through ill health, make up his
mind to leave London, and thus they only saw each other when
Charles Darwin went for a week at a time to his brother’s house
in Queen Anne Street.
This brief sketch of the family to which Charles Darwin
belonged may perhaps suffice to introduce the reader to the
autobiographical chapter which follows,
( 5)
CHAPTER Il
AUTOBIOGRAPHY.
[My father’s autobiographical recollections, given in the present
chapter, were written for his children,—and written without any thought
that they would ever be published. To many this may seem an
impossibility; but those who knew my father will understand how it was
not only possible, but natural. The autobiography bears the heading,
Recollections of the Development of my Mind and Character, and ends wit
the following note :—* Aug. 3, 1876. This sketch of my life was begun
about May 28th at Hopedene,* and since then I have written for nearly
an hour on most afternoons.” It will easily be understood that, in a
narrative of a personal and-intimate kind written for his wife and
children, should occur which must here be omitted; and I have
not thought it necessary to indicate where such omissions are made. It
has been found necessary to make a few corrections of obvious verbal
slips, but the number of such alterations has been kept down to the
minimum.—F, D.]
A German Editor having written to me for an account of the
development of my mind and character with some sketch of
my autobiography, I have thought that the attempt would
amuse me, and might possibly interest my children or their
children. I know that it would have interested me greatly to
have read even so short and dull a sketch of the mind of my
grandfather, written by himself, and what he thought and did,
and how he worked. I have attempted to write the following
account of myself, as if I were a dead man in another world
looking back at my own life. Nor have I found this difficult,
for life is nearly over with me. I have taken no pains about
my style of writing.
I was born at Shrewsbury on February 12th, 1809, and my
earliest recollection goes back only to when I was a few months
over four years old, when we went to near Abergele for sea-
bathing, and I recollect some events and places there with some
little distinctness.
My mother died in July 1817, when I was a little over eight
years old, and it is odd that I can remember hardly anything
about her except her deathbed, her black velvet gown, and her
* The late Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood’s house in Surrey.
6 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ca. Il.
curiously constructed work-table, In the spring of this same
year I was sent to a day-school in Shrewsbury, where I stayed
a year. I have been told that I was much slower in learning
than my younger sister Catherine, and Ijbelieve that I was in
many ways a naughty boy.
By the time I went to this day-school* my taste for natural
history, and more especially for collecting, was well developed.
I tried to make out the names of plants, and collected all
sorts of things, shells, seals, franks, coins, and minerals.- The
passion for collecting which leads a man to be a systematic
naturalist, a virtuoso, or @ miser, was very strong in me, and
was clearly innate, as none of my sisters or brother ever had
this taste.
One little event during this year has fixed itself very firmly
in my mind, and I hope that it has done so from my conscience
having been afterwards sorely troubled by it; it is curious as
showing that apparently I was interested at this early age in
the variability of plants! I told another little boy (1 believe
it was Leighton,t who afterwards became a well-known lichen-
ologist and botanist), that I could produce variously coloured
polyanthuses and primroses by watering them with certain
coloured fluids, which was of course a monstrous fable, and had
never been tried by me. I may here also confess that as a
little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods,
and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement. For
instance, I once gathered much valuable fruit from my father’s
trees and hid it in the shrubbery, and then ran in breathless
haste to spread the news that I had discovered a hoard of
stolen fruit.f
I must have been a very simple little fellow when I first
went to the school. A boy of the name of Garnett took me
* Kept by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian Chapel in the High
Street. Mrs. Darwin was a Unitarian and attended Mr. Case’s chapel,
and my father as a little boy went there with his elder sisters. But both
he and his brother were christened and intended to belong to the Church
of England; and after his early boyhood he seems usually to have gone
to church and not to Mr. Case’s. It appears (St. James’s Gazette,
December 15, 1883) that a mural tablet has been erected to his memory in
the chapel, which is now known as the “ Free Christian Church.”—F. D.
+t Rev. W. A. Leighton remembers his bringing a flower to school and
saying that his mother had taught him how by looking at the inside of
the blossom the name of the plant could be discovered. Mr. Leighton
goes on, “ This greatly roused my attention and curiosity, and I inquired
of him repeatedly how this could be done?”—but his lesson was
naturally enough not transmissible—F. D.
¢ His father wisely treated this tendency not by making crimes of the
fibs, but by making light of the discoveries.—F’, D.
On. II.) BOYHOOD. 7
into a cake shop one day, and bought some cakes for which he
did not pay, as the shopman trusted him. When we came out
I asked him why he did not pay for them, and he instantly
answered, “ Why, do you not know that my uncle left a great
sum of money to the town on condition that every tradesman
should give whatever was wanted without payment to any one
who wore his old hat and moved [it] in a particular manner ? ”
and he then showed me how it was moved. He then went into
another shop where he was trusted, and asked for some small
article, moving his hat in the proper manner, and of course
obtained it without payment. When we came out he said,
“Now if you like to go by yourself into that cake-shop (how
well I remember its exact position), I will lend you my hat, and
rc can get whatever you like if you move the hat on your
ead properly.” I gladly accepted the generous offer, and
went in and asked for some cakes, moved the old hat, and was
walking out of the shop, when the shopman made arush at
me, so I dropped the cakes and ran for dear life, and was
astonished by being greeted with shouts of laughter by my
false friend Garnett.
I can say in my own favour that I was as a boy humane, but
I owed this entirely to the instruction and example of my
sisters. I doubt indeed whether humanity is a natural or innate
quality. I was very fond of collecting eggs, but I never took
more than a single egg out of a bird’s nest, except on one
single occasion, when I took all, not for their value, but from a
sort of bravado. —
I had a strong taste for angling, and would sit for any
number of hours on the bank of a river or pond watchin
the float; when at Maer* I was told that I could kill the
worms with salt and water, and from that day I never spitted
a living worm, though at the expense probably of some loss of
SUCCESS. .
Once as a very little boy whilst at the diy school, or before
that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply
from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not
have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel
sure as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on
my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot
where the crime was commitied. It probably lay all the
heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time
afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was
an adept in robbing their love from their masters.
* The house of his uncle, Josiah Wedgwood, the younger.
8 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ca. IT.
I remember clearly only one other incident during this year
whilst at Mr. Case’s daily school,—namely, the burial of a
dragoon soldier; and it is surprising how clearly I can siill
see the horse with the man’s empty boots and carbine sus-
pended to the saddle, and the firing over the grave. This
scene deeply stirred whatever poetic fancy there was in me.*
In the summer of 1818 I went to Dr. Butler’s great school in
Shrewsbury, and remained there for seven years till Mid-
summer 1825, when I was sixteen years old. I boarded at this
school, so that I had the great advantage of living the life of a
true schoolboy; but as the distance was hardly more than a
mile to my home, I very often ran there in the longer intervals
between the callings over and before locking up at night.
This, I think, was in many ways advantageous to me by
keeping up home affections and interests. I remember in the
early part of my school life that I often had to run very quickly
to be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generall
successful ; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to
help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to
the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how
generally I was aided.
I have heard my father and elder sister say that I had, as a
very young boy, a strong taste for long solitary walks; but
what I thought about I know not. I often became quite
absorbed, and once, whilst returning to school on the summit
of the old fortifications round Shrewsbury, which had been
converted into a public foot-path with no parapet on one side,
I walked off and fell to the ground, but the height was only
seven or eight feet. Nevertheless, the number of thoughts
which passed through my mind during this very short, but
sudden and wholly unexpected fall, was astonishing, and seem
hardly compatible with what physiologists have, I. believe,
proved about each thought requiring quite an appreciable
amount of time.
Nothing could have been worse for the development of m
mind than Dr. !Butler’s school, as it was strictly classical,
nothing else being taught, except a little ancient geography
and history. The school as a means of education to me was
* It is curious that another Shrewsbury boy should have been impressed
by this military funeral; Mr. Gretton, in his Memory’s Harkback, says that
the scene is so strongly impressed on his mind that he could “ walk
straight to the spot in St. Chad’s churchyard where the poor fellow was
buried.” The soldier was an Inniskilling Dragoon, and the officer in
command had been recently wounded at Waterloo, where his corps did
good service against the French Cuirassiers.
Cx. II.) ; BOYHOOD. 9
simply a blank. During my whole life I have been singularly
incapable of mastering any language. Especial attention was
paid to verse-making, and this I could never do well. I had
many friends, and got together a good collection of old verses,
which by patching together, sometimes aided by other boys, I
could work into any subject. Much attention was paid to
learning by heart the lessons of the previous day ; this I could
effect with great facility, learning forty or fifty lines of Virgil
or Homer, whilst I was in morning chapel; but this exercise
was utterly useless, for every verse was forgotten in forty-eight
hours. I was not idle, and with the exception of versification,
generally worked conscientiously at my classics, not using
cribs. ‘The sole pleasure I ever received from such studies,
was from some of the odes of Horace, which I admired
greatly.
When I left the school I was for my ago neither high nor low
in it; and I believe that I was considered by all my masters
‘and by my father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the
common standard in intellect. To my deep mortification my
father once said to me, “ You care for nothing but shooting,
dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself
and all your family.” But my father, who was the kindest
man I ever knew, and whose memory I love with all my heart,
must have been angry and somewhat unjust when he used such
words.
Looking back as well as I can at my character during my
school life, the only qualities which at this period promised
well for the future, were, that I had strong and diversified
tastes, much zeal for whatever interested me, and a keen
pleasure in understanding any complex subject or thing. I
was taught Euclid by a private tutor, and I distinctly remem-
ber the intense satisfaction which the clear geometrical proofs
gave me. I remember with equal distinctness the delight
which my uncle (the father of Francis Galton) gave me by
explaining the principle of the vernier of a barometer, With
respect to diversified tastes, independently of science, I was
fond of reading various books, and I used to sit for hours
reading the historical plays of Shakespeare, generally in an old
window in the thick walls of the school. I read also other
poetry, such as Thomson’s Seasons, and the recently pub-
lished poems of Byron and Scott. I mention this because later
in life I wholly lost, to my great regret, all pleasure from
poetry of any kind, including Shakespeare. In connection
with pleasure from poetry, I may add that in 1822 a vivid
delight in scenery was first awakened in my mind, during a
10 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx: If.
riding tour on the borders of Wales, and this has lasted longer
than any other esthetic pleasure.
Early in my school-days a boy had a copy of the Wonders
of the World, which I often read, and disputed with other
boys about the veracity of some of the statements; and I
believe that this book first gave me a wish to travel in remote
countries, which was ultimately fulfilled by the voyage of the
Beagle. In the latter part of my school life I became
passionately fond of shooting; I do not believe that any one
could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did
for shooting birds. How well I remember killing my first
snipe, and my excitement was so great that I had much diffi-
culty in reloading my gun from the trembling of my hands.
This taste long continued, and I became a very good shot.
When at Cambridge I used to practice throwing up my gun to
my shoulder before a looking glass to see that I threw it up
straight. Another and better plan was to get a friend to wave
about a lighted candle, and then to fire at it with a cap on the
nipple, and if the aim was accurate the little puff of air would
blow out the candle. The explosion of the cap caused a sha
crack, and I was told that the tutor of the college remarked,
“ What an extraordinary thing it is, Mr. Darwin seems to spend
hours in cracking a horse-whip in his room, for I often hear the
crack when I pass under his windows.”
I had many friends amongst the schoolboys, whom I loved
dearly, and I think that my disposition was then very
affectionate.
With respect to science, I continued collecting minerals
with much zeal, but quite unscientifically—all that I cared
about was a new-named mineral, and I hardly attempted to
classify them. I must have observed insects with some little
care, for when ten years old (1819) I went for three weeks to
Plas Edwards on the sea-coast in Wales, I was very much
interested and surprised at seeing a large black and scarlet
Hemipterous insect, many moths (Zygcena), and a Cicindela,
which are not found in Shropshire. I almost made up my
mind to begin collecting all the insects which I could find
dead, for on consulting my sister, I concluded that it was not
right to kill insects for the sake of making a collection. From —
reading White’s Selborne, I took much pleasure in watching
the habits of birds, and even made notes on the subject. In
my simplicity, I remember wondering why every gentleman did
not become an ornithologist.
Towards the close of my school life, my brother worked hard
at chemistry, and made a fair laboratory with proper apparatus,
Cu. Il.) ' EDINBURGH. {1
in the tool-house in the garden, and I was allowed to aid him
as a servant in most of his experiments. He made all the gases
and many compounds, and I read with care several books on
chemistry, such as Henry and Parkes’ Chemical Catechism.
The subject interested me greatly, and we often used to go on
4 working till rather late at night. This was the best part of
my education at school, for it showed me practically the mean-
ing of experimental science. The fact that we worked at
chemistry somehow got known at school, and as it was an
_ unprecedented fact, I was nicknamed “Gas.” I was also once
_ publicly rebuked by the head-master, Dr. Butler, for thus
_ wasting my time on such useless subjects; and he called me
very unjustly a “ poco curante,” and as I did not understand
what he meant, it seemed to me a fearful reproach.
As I was doing no good at school, my father wisely took me
away at a rather earlier age than usual, and sent me (October
1825) to Edinburgh* University with my brother, where I
_ stayed for two years or sessions. My brother was completing
his medical studies, though I do not believe he ever really
intended to practise, and I was sent there to commence them.
But soon after this period I became convinced from various
small circumstances that my father would leave me property
enough to subsist on with some comfort, though I never
imagined that I should be so rich a manas I am; but my
belief was sufficient to check any strenuous effort to learn
medicine.
The instruction at Edinburgh was altogether by lectures, and
_ these were intolerably dull, with the exception of those on
_ chemistry by Hope; but to my mind there are no advantages
and many disadvantages in lectures compared with reading.
_ Dr. Duncan’s lectures on Materia Medica at 8 o’clock on a
winter's morning are something fearful to remember. Dr.
Munro made his lectures on human anatomy as dull as he was
himself, and the subject disgusted me. It has proved one of
the greatest evils in my life that I was not urged to practise
dissection, for I should soon have got over my disgust, and the
_ eae would have been invaluable for all my future work.
is has been an irremediable evil, as well as my incapacity
to draw. I also attended regularly the clinical wards in the
* He lodged at Mrs. Mackay’s, 11, Lothian Street. What little the
records of Edinburgh University can reveal has been published in the
_ Edinburgh Weekly Dispatch, May 22,1888 ; and in the St. James’s Gazette,
February 16, 1888. From the latter journal it appears that he and his
brother Erasmus made more use of the library than was usual among the
students of their time.
12 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx. IL.
hospital. Some of the cases distressed me a good deal, and I
still have vivid pictures before me of some of them; but I was
not so foolish as to allow this to lessen my attendance. I
cannot understand why this part of my medical course did not
interest me in a greater degree; for during the summer before
coming to Edinburgh, I began attending some of the poor
people, chiefly children and women in Shrewsbury: I wrote
down as full an account as I could of the case with all the
symptoms, and read them aloud to my father, who suggested
further inquiries and advised me what medicines to give, which
I made up myself. At one time I had at least a dozen
patients, and I felt a keen interest in the work.* My father,
who was by far the best judge of character whom I ever knew,
declared that I should make a successful physician,—meaning
by this, one who would get many patients. He maintained
that the chief element of success was exciting confidence ;
but what he saw in me which convinced him that I should
create confidence I know not. I also attended on two occasions
the operating theatre in the hospital at Edinburgh, and saw two
very bad operations, one on a child, but I rushed away before
they were completed. Nor did I ever attend again, for hardly
any inducement would have been strong enough to make me do
so; this being long before the blessed days of chloroform. The
two cases fairly haunted me for many a long year.
My brother stayed only one year at the University, so that
during the second year I was left to my own resources; and
this was an advantage, for I became well acquainted with several
young men fond of natural science. One of these was
Ainsworth, who afterwards published his travels in Assyria ;
he was a Wernerian geologist, and knew a little about many
subjects. Dr. Coldstream{ was a very different young man,
prim, formal, highly religious, and most kind-hearted ; he
afterwards published some good zoological articles. A third
young man was Hardie, who would, I think, have made a good
botanist, but died early in India. Lastly, Dr. Grant, my
senior by several years, but how I became acquainted with him
I cannot remember; he published some first-rate zoological
papers, but after coming to London as Professor in University
College, he did nothing more in science, a fact which has
always been inexplicable to me. I knew him well; he was
dry and formal in manner, with much enthusiasm beneath this
* I have heard him call to mind the pride he felt at the results of the
successful treatment of a whole family with tartar emetic.—F, D.
+ Dr. Coldstream died September 17, 1863; see Crown 16mo. Book
Tract, No. 19 of the Religious Tract Society (no date).
Cn, 11) | EDINBURGH. 13
outer crust. He one day, when wo were walking together,
_ burst forth in high admiration of Lamarck and his views on
- evolution. I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I
can judge, without any effect on my mind. I had previously
the Zoonomia of my grandfather, in which similar
views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me.
Nevertheless it is probable that the hearing rather early in
life such views maintained and praised may have favoured
my upholding them under a different form in my Origin of
Species. At this time I admired greatly the Zoonomia; but
on reading it a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen
ears, I was much disappointed ; the proportion of speculation
ing so large to the facts given.
Drs. Grant and Coldstream attended much to marine
Zoology, and I often accompanied the former to collect animals
in the tidal pools, which I dissected as well as I could. I
also became friends with some of the Newhaven fishermen,
and sometimes accompanied them when they trawled for
_ oysters, and thus got many specimens. But from not having
had any regular practice in dissection, and from possessing
only a wretched microscope, my attempts were very poor.
Nevertheless I made one interesting little discovery, and read,
about the beginning of the year 1826, a short paper on the
subject before the Plinian Society. This was that the so-
~ ealled ova of Flustra had the power of independent movement
ee eee ee
‘ by means of cilia, and were in fact larve. In another short
paper, I showed that the little globular bodies which had been
supposed to be the young state of Fucus loreus were the egg-
cases of the worm-like Pontobdella muricata.
The Plinian Society* was encouraged and, I believe,
founded by Professor Jameson: it consisted of students, and
met in an underground room in the University for the sake
of reading nea on natural science and discussing them. I
used regularly to attend, and the meetings had a good effect
on me in stimulating my zeal and giving me new congenial
acquaintances. One evening a poor young man got up, and
after stammering for a prodigious length of time, blushing
crimson, he at last slowly got out the words, “ Mr. President,
_ Ihave forgotten what I was going to say.” The poor fellow
looked quite overwhelmed, and all the members were so sur-
_ prised that no one could think of a word to say to cover his
_ confusion. The papers which were read to our little society
were not printed, so that I had not the satisfaction of seeing
* The society was founded in 1823, and expired about 1848 (Edinburgh
Weekly Dispatch, May 22, 1888),
14 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ox. IL.
my paper in print; but I believe Dr. Grant noticed my small
discovery in his excellent memoir on Flustra.
I was also a member of the Royal Medical Society, and
attended pretty regularly; but as the subjects were exclusively
medical, I did not much care about them. Much rubbish was
talked there, but there were some good speakers, of whom the
best was the [late] Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth. Dr. Grant took
me occasionally to the meetings of the Wernerian Society,
where various papers on natural history were read, discussed,
and afterwards published in the Transactions. I heard
Audubon deliver there some interesting discourses on the
habits of N. American birds, sneering somewhat unjustly at
Waterton. By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had
travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing
birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for pay-
ment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very
pleasant and intelligent man.
' Mr. Leonard Horner also took me once to a meeting of the
Royal Society of Edinburgh, where I saw Sir Walter Scott in
the chair as President, and he apologised to the meeting as
not feeling fitted for such a position. I looked at him and at
the whole scene with some awe and reverence, and I think it
was owing to this visit during my youth, and to my having
attended the Royal Medical Society, that I felt the honour of
being elected a few years ago an honorary member of both
these Societies, more than any other similar honour. If I had
been told at that time that I should ono day have been thus
honoured, I declare that I should have thought it as ridiculous
and improbable, as if I had been told that I should be elected
King of England.
During my second year at Edinburgh I attended Jameson’s
lectures on Geology and Zoology, but they were incredibly
dull. The sole effect they produced on me was the deter-
mination never as long as I lived to read a book on Geology,
or in any way to study the science. Yet I feel sure that I was
repared for a philosophical treatment of the subject; for an
old Mr. Cotton, in Shropshire, who knew a good deal about
rocks, had pointed out to me two or three years previously a
well-known large erratic boulder in the town of Shrewsbury,
called the “bell-stone ;” he told me that there was no rock
of the same kind nearer than Cumberland or Scotland, and he
solemnly assured me that the world would come to an end
before any one would be able to explain how this stone came
where it now lay. This produced a deep impression on me,
and I meditated over this wonderful stone. So that I felt the
_ Ox. IL) EDINBURGH. 15
ts -*
_ keenest delight when I first read of the action of icebergs in
_ transporting boulders, and I gloried in the progress of Geology.
Equally striking is the fact that I, though now only sixty-
seven years old, heard the Professor, in a field lecture at
Salisbury Oraigs, discoursing on a trap-dyke, with amygda-
loidal margins and the strata indurated on each side, with
voleanic rocks all around us, say that it was a fissure filled
with sediment from above, adding with a snecr that there were
men who maintaixed that it had been injected from beneath in
‘a molten condition, When I think of this lecture, I do not
wonder that I determined never to attend to Geology.
_ From attending Jameson’s lectures, I became acquainted with
the curator of the museum, Mr, Macgillivray, who afterwards
eo a large and excellent book on the birds of Scotland.
had much interesting natural-history talk with him, and he
_ was very kind tome. He gave me some rare shells, for I at
that time collected marine mollusca, but with no great zeal.
My summer vacations during these two years were wholly
iven up to amusements, though I always had some book in
d, which I read with interest. During the summer of
1826, I took a long walking tour with two friends with knap-
sacks on our backs through North Wales. We walked thirty
miles most days, including one day the ascent of Snowdon.
I also went with my sister a riding tour in North Wales, a
servant with saddle-bags carrying our clothes. The autumns
were devoted to shooting, chiefly at Mr. Owen’s, at Woodhouse,
and at my Uncle Jos’s,* at Maer. My zeal was so great that
I used to place my shooting-boots open by my bed-side when I
went to bed, so as not to Jose half a minute in putting them
- onin the morning; and on one occasion I reached a distant
— ye ey ae
part of the Maer estate, on the 20th of August for black-
game shooting, before I could see: I then toiled on with the
apt the whole day through thick heath and young
tch firs.
I kept an exact record of every bird which I shot throughout
the whole season. One day when shooting at Woodhouse with
Captain Owen, the eldest son, and Major Hill, his cousin, after-
wards Lord Berwick, both of whom I liked very much, I
thought myself shamefully used, for every time after I had fired
and thought that I had killed a bird, one of the two acted as if
loading his gun, and cried out, “ You must not count that bird,
_ for I fired at the same time,” and the gamekeeper, perceiving
_ the joke, backed them up. After some hours they told me the
* Josiah Wedgwood, the son of the founder of the Etruria Works,
16 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ca. IL.
joke, but it was no joke to me, for I had shot a large number of
birds, but did not know how many, and could not add them to
my list, which I used to do by making a knot in a piece of
string tied to a button-hole. This my wicked friends had
perceived.
How I did enjoy shooting! but I think that I must have been
half-consciously ashamed of my zeal, for I tried to persuade
myself that shooting was almost an intellectual employment ;
it required so much skill to judge where to find most game and
to hunt the dogs well.
One of my autumnal visits to Maer in 1827 was memorable
from meeting there Sir J. Mackintosh, who was the best con-
verser I ever listened to. I heard afterwards with a glow of
pride that he had said, “ There is something in that young man
that interests me.” This must have been chiefly due to his
perceiving that I listened with much interest to everything
which he said, for I was as ignorant as a pig about his subjects
of history, politics, and moral philosophy. To hear of praise
from an eminent person, though no doubt apt or certain to
excite vanity, is, I think, good for a young man, as it helps to
keep him in the right course.
My visits to Maer during these two or three succeeding years
were quite delightful, independently of the autumnal shooting.
Life there was perfectly free; the country was very pleasant
for walking or riding; and in the evening there was much very
agreeable conversation, not so personal as it generally is in
large family parties, together with music. In the summer the
whole family used often to sit on the steps of the old portico
with the flower-garden in front, and with the steep wooded bank
opposite the house reflected in the lake, with here and there a
fish rising or a water-bird paddling about. Nothing has left a
more vivid picture on my mind than these evenings at Maer. I
was also attached to and greatly revered my Uncle Jos; he was
silent and reserved, so as to be a rather awful man; but he
sometimes talked openly with me. He was the very type of an
upright man, with the clearest judgment. I do not believe that
any power on earth could have made him swerve an inch from
what he considered the right course. I used to apply to him in
my mind the well-known ode of Horace, now forgotten by me,
in which the words “ nec vultus tyranni, &c.,” * come in.
* Justum et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni
Mente quatit solida.
“a <>
eee ee ee
Cua, IL.) CAMBRIDGE. 17
Cambridge, 1828-1831.—After having spent two sessions in
Edinburgh, my father perceived, or he heard from my sisters,
that I did not like the thought of being a physician, so he
proposed that I should become a clergyman. He was very
properly vehement against my turning into an idle sporting
man, which then seemed my probable destination. I asked for
some time to consider, as from what little I had heard or
thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my
belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though
otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman.
Accordingly I read with great care Pearson on the Creed, and a
few other books on divinity ; and as I did not then in the least
doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I
soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted.
Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the
orthodox, if seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a
clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father’s wish ever
formally given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving
Cambridge, I joined the Beagle as naturalist. If the phren-
ologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect to be
a clergyman. A few years ago the secretaries of a German
psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photo-
graph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the pro-
ceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that the
shape of my head had been the subject of a public discus-
sion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of
reverence developed enough for ten priests.
As it was decided that I should be a clergyman, it was
necessary that I should go to one of the English universities
and take a degree ; but as I had never opened a classical book
since leaving school, I found to my dismay, that in the two
intervening years, I had actually forgotten, incredible as it may
appear, almost everything which I had learnt, even to some few
of the Greek letters. 1 did not therefore proceed to Cambridge
at the usual time in October, but worked with a private tutor
in Shrewsbury, and went to Cambridge after the Christmas
vacation, early in 1828. I soon recovered my school standard
of knowledge, and could translate easy Greek books, such as
Homer and the Greek Testament, with moderate facility.
During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time
was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as
completely as at Edinburgh and at school. I attempted
‘mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a
private tutor to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The
work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to
fo)
18 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ou. IT.
see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience
was very foolish, and in after years 1 have deeply regretted
that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand some-
thing of the great leading principles of mathematics, for men
thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not
believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low
grade. With respect to Classics I did nothing except attend a
few compulsory college lectures, and the attendance was almost
nominal, In my second year I had to work for a month or two
to pass the Little-Go, which I did easily. Again, in my last
year I worked with some earnestness for my final degree of
B.A., and brushed up my Classics, together with a little
Algebra and Euclid, which latter gave me much pleasure, as it
did at school. In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was
also necessary to get up Paley’s Evidences of Christianity, and his
Moral Philosophy. This was done in a thorough manner, and I
am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the
Evidences with perfect correctness, but not of course in the
clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and, as I may
add, of his Natural Theology, gave me as much delight as did
Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting
to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical
course which, as I then felt, and as I still believe, was of the
least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that
time trouble myself about Paley’s premises ; and taking these
on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of
argumentation. By answering well the examination questions
in Paley, by doing Euclid well, and by not failing miserably
in Classics, I gained a good place among the oi wodAol or
crowd of men who do not go in for honours. Oddly enough, I
cannot remember how high I stood, and my memory fluctuates
between the fifth, tenth, or twelfth, name on the list.*
Public lectures on several branches were given in the
University, attendance being quite voluntary; but I was so
sickened with lectures at Edinburgh that I did not even attend
Sedgwick’s eloquent and interesting lectures. Had I done so
I should probably have become a geologist earlier than I did.
I attended, however, Henslow’s lectures on Botany, and liked
them much for their extreme clearness, and the admirable
illustrations; but I did not study botany. Henslow used to
take his pupils, including several of the older members of the
University, field excursions, on foot or in coaches, to distant
places, or in a barge down the river, and lectured on the
* Tenth in the list of January 1831,
Cu. I.) CAMBRIDGE. ; 19
rarer’ plants and animals which were observed. These
excursions were delightful.
Although, as we shall presently see, there were some
redeeming features in my life at Cambridge, my time was sadly
wasted there, and worse than wasted. From my passion for
shooting and for hunting, and, when this failed, for riding
across country, I got into a sporting set, including some dissi-
pated low-minded young men. We used often to dine together
in the evening, though these dinners often included men of a
higher stamp, and we sometimes drank too much, with jolly
singing and playing at cards afterwards. I know that I ought
to feel ashamed of days and evenings thus spent, but as some of
my friends were very pleasant, and we were all in the highest
spirits, I cannot help looking back to these times with much
pleasure.*
But Iam glad to think that I had many other friends of a
widely different nature. I was very intimate with Whitley,
who was afterwards Senior Wrangler, and we used continually
to take long walks together. He inoculated me with a taste for
pictures and good engravings, of which I bought some. I fre-
quently went to the Fitzwilliam Gallery, and my taste must
have been fairly good, for I certainly admired the best pictures,
which I discussed with the old curator. I read also with
much interest Sir Joshua Reynolds’ book. This taste, though
not natural to me, lasted for several years, and many of the
pictures in the National Gallery in London gave me much
pleasure; that of Sebastian del Piombo exciting in me a sense
of sublimity.
I also got into a musical set, I believe by means of my warm-
hearted friend, Herbert,t who took a high wrangler’s degree,
From associating with these men, and hearing them play, I ac-
quired a strong taste for music, and used very often to time my
walks so as to hear on week days the anthem in King’s College
Chapel. This gave me intense pleasure, so that my backbone
would sometimes shiver. Iam sure that there was no affecta-
tion or mere imitation in this taste, for I used generally to
go by myself to King’s College, and I sometimes hired the
chorister boys to sing in my rooms. Nevertheless I am so
utterly destitute of an ear, that I cannot perceive a discord, or
* I gather from some of my father’s contemporaries that he has
rated the Bacchanalian nature of these } ekme OF D.
+ Rev. C. Whitley, Hon. Canon of Durham, formerly Reader in Natural
Philosophy in Durham University.
+ The late John Maurice Herbert, County Court Judge of Cardiff and
- the Monmouth Circuit. .
: Cc
\
20 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx. IL.
keep time and hum a tune correctly ; and it is a mystery how I
could possibly have derived pleasure from music.
My musical friends soon perceived my state, and sometimes
amused themselves by making me pass an examination, which
consisted in ascertaining how many tunes I could recognise,
when they were played rather more quickly or slowly than
usual, ‘God save the King,’ when thus played, was a sore
puzzle, There was another man with almost as bad an ear as
I had, and strange to say he played a little on the flute. Once
I had the triumph of beating him in one of our musical
examinations.
But no pursuit at Cambridge was followed with nearly so
much eagerness or gave me so much pleasure as collecting
beetles. It was the mere passion for collecting, for I did not
dissect them, and rarely compared their external characters
with published descriptions, but got them named anyhow. I
will give a proof of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old
bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand ; then
I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so
that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into ri
mouth. Alas! it ejected some intensely acrid fluid, whic
burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out,
which was lost, as was the third one.
I was very successful in collecting, and invented two new
methods ; I employed a labourer to scrape, during the winter,
moss off old trees and place it in a large bag, and likewise to
collect the rubbish at the bottom of the barges in which reeds
are brought from the fens, and thus I got some very rare
species. No poet ever felt more delighted at seeing his first
poem published than I did at seeing, in Stephens’ Illustrations
of British Insects, the magic words, “ captured by C. Darwin,
Esq.” I was introduced to entomology by my second cousin,
' W. Darwin Fox, a clever and most pleasant man, who was
then at Christ’s College, and with whom I became extremely
intimate. Afterwards I became well acquainted, and went out
collecting, with Albert Way of Trinity, who in after years
became a well-known archeologist ; also with H. Thompson,*
of the same College, afterwards a leading agriculturist, chair- |
man of a great railway, and Member of Parliament. It seems,
therefore, that a taste for collecting beetles is some indication
of future success in life!
I am surprised what an indelible impression many of the
beetles which I caught at Cambridge have left on my mind, I
* Afterwards Sir H. Thompson, first baronet.
i
Cx. 11.) CAMBRIDGE. 21
can remember the exact appearance of certain posts, old trees
and banks where I made a good capture. The pretty Panagzus
crux-major was a treasure in those days, and here at Down I
saw a beetle running across a walk, and on picking it up
instantly perceived that it differed slightly from P. crua-major,
and it turned out to be P. quadripwnctatus, which is only a
variety or closely allied species, differing from it very slightly
in outline. I had never seen in those old days Licinus alive,
which to an uneducated eye hardly differs from many of the
black Carabidous beetles ; but my sons found here a specimen,
and I instantly recognised that it was new to me; yet I had
not looked at a British beetle for the last twenty years,
I have not yet mentioned a circumstance which influenced my
whole career more than any other. This was my friendship
with Professor Henslow. Before coming up to Cambridge, I
had heard of him from my brother as a man who knew every
branch of science, and I was accordingly prepared to reverence
him. He kept open house once every week * when all under-
graduates and some older members of the University, who were
attached to science, used to meet in the evening. I soon got,
through Fox, an invitation, and went there regularly. Before
long I became well acquainted with Henslow, and during the
latter half of my time at Cambridge took long walks with him
on most days; so that I was called by some of the dons “ the
man who walks with Henslow ;” and in the evening I was very
often asked to join his family dinner. His knowledge was
eat in botany, entomology, chemistry, mineralogy, and geo-
ogy. His strongest taste was to draw conclusions from long-
continued minute observations. His judgment was excellent,
and his whole mind well-balanced ; but I do not suppose that
any one would say that he possessed much original genius.
He was deeply religious, and so orthodox, that he told me
one day he should be grieved if a single word of the Thirty-nine
Articles were altered. His moral qualities were in every way
admirable. He was free from every tinge of vanity or other
petty feeling ; and I never saw a man who thought so little
about himself or his own concerns. His temper was imperturb-
ably good, with the most winning and courteous manners ; yet,
as I have seen, he could be roused by any bad action to the
warmest indignation and prompt action.
* The Cambridge Ray Club, which in 1887 attained its fiftieth anniver-
sary, is the direct descendant of these meetings, having been founded to
fill the blank caused by the discontinuance, in 1836, of Henslow’s Friday
evenings. See Professor Babington’s pamphlet, The Cambridge Ray
Club, 1887.
22 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx. Il.
I once saw in his company ‘in the streets of Cambridge
almost as horrid a scene as could have been witnessed during
the French Revolution. Two body-snatchers had been arrested,
and whilst being taken to prison had been torn from the
constable by a crowd of the roughest men, who dragged them
by their legs along the muddy and stony road. They were
covered from head to foot with mud, and their faces were
bleeding either from having been kicked or from the stones ;
they looked like corpses, but the crowd was so dense that I
got only a few momentary glimpses of the wretched creatures.
Never in my life have I seen such wrath painted on a man’s
face as was shown by Henslow at this horrid scene. He tried
repeatedly to penetrate the mob; but it was simply impossible.
He then rushed away to the mayor, telling me not to follow
him, but to get more policemen. I forget the issue, except
that the two men were got into the prison without being killed.
Henslow’s benevolence was unbounded, as he proved by his
many excellent schemes for his poor parishioners, when in
after years he held the living of Hitcham. My intimacy with
such a man ought to have been, and I hope was, an inestimable
benefit. I cannot resist mentioning a trifling incident, which
showed his kind consideration. Whilst examining some pollen-
grains on a damp surface, I saw the tubes exserted, and in-
stantly rushed off to communicate my surprising discovery to
him. Now I do not suppose any other professor of botany
could have helped laughing at my coming in such a hurry to
make such a communication. But he agreed how interesting
the phenomenon was, and explained its meaning, but made me
clearly understand how well it was known; so I left him not
in the least mortified, but well pleased at having discovered for
myself so remarkable a fact, but determined not to be in such
a hurry again to communicate my discoveries.
Dr. Whewell was one of the older and distinguished men
who sometimes visited Henslow, and on several occasions I
walked home with him at night. Next to Sir J. Mackintosh
he was the best converser on grave subjects to whom I ever
listened. Leonard Jenyns,* who afterwards published some |
good essays in Natural History, often stayed with Henslow,
who was his brother-in-law. I visited him at his nage
on the borders of the Fens [Swaffham Bulbeck], and had many
* Mr. Jenyns (now Blomefield) described the fish for the Zoology of the
Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle; and is author of a long series of papers, chiefly
Zoological. In 1887 he printed, for private circulation, an autobiographical
sketch, Chapters in my Life, and subsequently some (undated) addenda,
The well-known Soame Jenyns was cousin to Mr, Jenyns’ father, * ,
Cu. IL] CAMBRIDGE. 23
a good walk and talk with him about Natural History. I
became also acquainted with several other men older than me,
who did not care much about science, but were friends of
Henslow: One was a Scotchman, brother of Sir Alexander
Ramsay, and tutor of Jesus College ; he was a delightful man,
but did not live for many years. Another was Mr. Dawes,
afterwards Dean of Hereford, and famous for his success in
the education of the poor. These men and others of the same
standing, together with Henslow, used sometimes to take
distant excursions into the country, which I was allowed to
join, and they were most agreeable.
Looking back, I infer that there must have been something in
me a little superior to the common run of youths, otherwise
the above-mentioned men, so much older than me and higher
in academical position, would never have allowed me to asso-
ciate with them. Certainly I was not aware of any such
superiority, and I remember one of my sporting friends, Turner,
who saw me at work with my beetles, saying that I should
some day be a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the notion
seemed to me ok sca
During my last year at Cambridge, I read with care and
profound interest Humboldt’s Personal Narrative. This work,
and Sir J. Herschel’s Introduction to the Study of Natural Philo-
sophy, stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most
humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science.
No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much
as these two. I copied out from Humboldt long passages
about Teneriffe, and read them aloud on one of the above-
mentioned excursions, to (I think) Henslow, Ramsay, and
Dawes, for on a previous occasion I had talked about the
glories of Teneriffe, and some of the party declared they would
endeavour to go there; but I think they were only half in
earnest. I was, however, quite in earnest, and got an intro-
duction to a merchant in London to enquire about ships; but
the scheme was, of course, knocked on the head by the voyage
of the Beagle.
My summer vacations were given up to collecting beetles, to
some reading, and short tours. In the autumn my whole time
was devoted to shooting, chiefly at Woodhouse and Maer, and
sometimes with young Eyton of Eyton. Upon the whole the
three years which I spent at Cambridge were the most joyful
in my happy life; for I was then in excellent health, and
almost always in high spirits.
As I had at first come up to Cambridge at Christmas, I was
forced to keep two terms after passing my final examination, at
24 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ox. I.
the commencement of 1831; and Henslow then persuaded me
to begin the study of geology. Therefore on my return to
Shropshire I examined sections, and coloured a map of parts
round Shrewsbury. Professor Sedgwick intended to visit
North Wales in the beginning of August to pursue his famous
geological investigations amongst the older rocks, and Henslow
asked him to allow me to accompany him.* Accordingly he
came and slept at my father’s house.
A short conversation with him during this evening produced
a strong impression on my mind. Whilst examining an old
gravel-pit near Shrewsbury, a labourer told me that he had found
in it a large worn tropical Volute shell, such as may be seen
on chimney-pieces of cottages; and as he would not sell the
shell, I was convinced that he had really found it in the pit. I
told Sedgwick of the fact, and he at once said (no doubt truly)
that it must have been thrown away by some one into the pit;
but then added, if really embedded there it would be the
greatest misfortune to geology, as it would overthrow all that
we know about the superficial deposits of the Midland Counties.
These gravel-beds belong in fact to the glacial period, and in
after years I found in them broken arctic shells. But I was
then utterly astonished at Sedgwick not being delighted at so
wonderful a fact as a tropical shell being found near the surface
in the middle of England. Nothing before had ever made me
thoroughly realise, though I had read various scientific books,
that science consists in grouping facts so that general laws or
conclusions may be drawn from them.
Next morning we started for Llangollen, Conway, Bangor, and
Capel Curig. This tour was of decided use in teaching me a
little how to make out the geology of a country. Sedgwick
often sent me on a line parallel to his, telling me to bring back
specimens of the rocks and to mark the stratification on a map.
I have little doubt that he did this for my good, as I was too
ignorant to have aided him. On this tour I had a striking ~
instance how easy it is to overlook phenomena, however con-
spicious, before they have been observed by any one. We
spent many hours in Cwm Idwal, examining all the rocks with
extreme care, as Sedgwick was anxious to find fossils in them ;
* In connection with this tour my father used to tell a story about
Sedgwick: they had started from their inn one morning, and had walked
a mile or two, when Sedgwick suddenly stopped, and vowed that he would
return, being certain “ that damned scoundrel ” (the waiter) had not given
the chambermaid the sixpence intrusted to him for the pry He was
ultimately persuaded to give up the project, maring that there was no
reason for suspecting the waiter of perfidy.—F’. D
Cu. II.) VOYAGE. 25
but neither of us saw a trace of the wonderful glacial pheno-
mena all around us; we did not notice the plainly scored
rocks, the perched boulders, the lateral and terminal moraines.
Yet these phenomena are so conspicuous that, as I declared in
a paper published many years afterwards in the Philosophical
Magazine,* a house burnt down by fire did not tell its story
more plainly than did this valley. If it had still been filled
by a glacier, the phenomena would have been less distinct than
they now are.
At Capel Curig I left Sedgwick and went in a straight
line by compass and map across the mountains to Barmouth,
never following any track unless it coincided with my course.
I thus came on some strange wild places, and enjoyed much
this manner of travelling. I visited Barmouth to see some
Cambridge friends who were reading there, and thence returned
to Shrewsbury and to Maer for shooting; for at that time I
should have thought myself mad to give up the first days of
partridge-shooting for geology or any other science.
Voyage of the * Beagle’: from December 27, 1831, to October 2,
1836.
On returning home from my short geological tour in North
Wales, I found a letter from Henslow, informing me that
Captain Fitz-Roy was willing to give up part of his own cabin
to any young man who would volunteer to go with him without
pay as naturalist to the Voyage of the Beagle. I have given,
as I believe, in my MS. Journal an account of all the circum-
stances which then occurred; I will here only say that I was
instantly eager to accept the offer, but my father strongly
objected, adding the words, fortunate for me, “ If you can find
any man of common-sense who advises you to go I will give
my consent.” §o I wrote that evening and refused the offer. On
the next morning I went to Maer to be ready for September Ist,
and whilst out shooting, my uncle t sent for me, offering to
drive me over to Shrewsbury and talk with my father, as my
uncle thought it would be wise in me to accept the offer. My
father always maintained that [my uncle] was one of the most
sensible men in the world, and he at once consented in the
kindest manner. I had been rather extravagant at Cambridge,
and to console my father, said, “that I should be deuced clever
to spend more than my allowance whilst on board the Beagle ;”
i he answered with a smile, “ But they tell me you are very
ever.”
* Philosophical Magazine, 1842. t Josiah Wedgwood.
26 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cu. IT.
Next day I started for Cambridge to see Henslow, and thence
to London to see Fitz-Roy, and all was soon arranged. After-
wards, on becoming very intimate with Fitz-Roy, I heard that
I had run a very narrow risk of being rejected on account of
the shape of my nose! He was an ardent disciple of Lavater,
and was convinced that he could judge of a man’s character by
the outline of his features; and he doubted whether any one
with my nose could possess sufficient energy and determination
for the voyage. But I think he was afterwards well satisfied
that my nose had spoken falsely.
Fitz-Roy’s character was.a singular one, with very many
noble features: he was devoted to his duty, generous to a fault,
bold, determined, and indomitably energetic, and an ardent
friend to all under his sway. He would undertake any sort of
trouble to assist those whom he thought deserved assistance.
He was a handsome man, strikingly like a gentleman, with
highly-courteous manners, which resembled those of his maternal
uncle, the famous Lord Castlereagh, as I was told by the
Minister at Rio. Nevertheless he must have inherited much
in his appearance from Charles II., for Dr. Wallich gave me
a collection of photographs which he had made, and I was
struck with the resemblance of one to Fitz-Roy; and on
looking at the name, I found it Ch. E. Sobieski Stuart, Count
d’Albanie,* a descendant of the same monarch.
Fitz-Roy’s temper was a most unfortunate one. It was
usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he
could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and
was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me,
but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms
which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in
the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early
in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised
slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just
visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his
slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether
they wished to be free, and all answered “ No.” I then asked
him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer
of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything ?
This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted
his word we could not live any longer together. I thought
that I should have been compelled to leave the ship; but as
* The Count d’Albanie’s claim to Royal descent has been shown to be
based on a myth. See the Quarterly Review, 1847, vol. Ixxxi. p. 83 ; also
Hayward’s Biographical and Critical Essays, 1873, vol. ii. p. 201.
Cu. IL.) VOYAGE. 27
soon as the news spread, which it did quickly, as the captain
sont for the first lieutenant to assuage his anger by abusing me,
I was deeply gratified by receiving an invitation from all the
-room officers to mess with them. But after a few hours
itz-Roy showed his usual magnanimity by sending an officer
to me with an apology and a request that I would continue to
live with him.
His character was in several respects one of the most noble
which I have ever known.
The Mt hg the Beagle has been by far the most important
event in my life, and has determined my whole career; yet it
depended on so small a circumstance as my uncle offering to
drive me thirty miles to Shrewsbury, which few uncles would
have done, and on such a trifle as the shape of my nose. I
have always felt that I owe to the voyage the first real training
or education of my mind; I was led to attend closely to
several branches of natural history, and thus my powers of
achat were improved, though they were always fairly
eveloped.
The investigation of the geology of all the places visited was
far more important, as reasoning here comes into play. On
first examining a new district, nothing can appear more hope-
less than the of rocks; but by recording the stratification
and nature of the rocks and fossils at many points, always
reasoning and predicting what will be found elsewhere, light
soon begins to dawn on the district, and the structure of the
whole becomes more or less intelligible. I had brought with
me the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which I
studied attentively ; and the book was of the highest service to
me in many ways. The very first place which I examined,
namely, St. Jago, in the Cape de Verde islands, showed me
clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell’s manner of treating
geology: compared with that of any other author whose works
had with me or ever afterwards read.
Another of my occupations was collecting animals of all
classes, briefly describing and roughly dissecting many of the
marine ones; but from not being able to draw, and from not
having sufficient anatomical knowledge, a great pile of MS.
which I made during the voyage has proved almost useless.
I thus lost much time, with the exception of that spent in
acquiring some knowledge of the Crustaceans, as this was of
service when in after years I undertook a monograph of the
Cirripedia.
During some part of the day I wrote my Journal, and took
tauch pains in describing carefully and vividly all that I had
emer ee,
28 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ca. IT,
seen; and this was good practice. My Journal served also, in
part, as letters to my home, and portions were sent to England
whenever there was an opportunity.
The above various special studies were, however, of no
importance compared with the habit of energetic industry and
of concentrated attention to whatever I was engaged in, which
I then acquired. Everything about which I thought or read
was made to bear directly on what I had seen or was likely to
see; and this habit of mind was continued during the five
years of the voyage. I feel sure that it was this train-
ing which has enabled me to do whatever I have done in
science.
Looking backwards, I can now perceive how my love for
science gradually preponderated over every other taste.
During the first two years my old passion for shooting
survived in nearly full force, and I shot myself all the birds
and animals for my collection; but gradually I gave up my
gun more and more, and finally altogether, to my servant,
as shooting interfered with my work, more especially with
making out the geological structure of a country. I discovered,
though unconsciously and insensibly, that the pleasure of
observing and reasoning was a much higher one than that
of skill and sport. That my mind became developed through
my pursuits during the voyage is rendered probable by a
remark made by my father, who was the most acute observer
whom I ever saw, of a sceptical disposition, and far from
being a believer in phrenology ; for on first seeing me after the
voyage, he turned round to my sisters, and exclaimed, “ Why,
the shape of his head is quite altered.”
To return to the voyage. On September 11th (1831), I
paid a flying visit with Fitz-Roy to the Beagle at Plymouth.
Thence to Shrewsbury to wish my father and sisters a long
farewell. On October 24th I took up my residence at
Plymouth, and remained there until December 27th, when
the Beagle finally left the shores of England for her circum-
navigation of the world. We made two earlier attempts to
sail, but were driven back each time by heavy gales. ‘These
two months at Plymouth were the most miserable which
I ever spent, though I exerted myself in various ways. I was
out of spirits at the thought of leaving all my family and
friends for so long a time, and the weather seemed to me
inexpressibly gloomy. I was also troubled with palpitation
and pain about the heart, and like many a young ignorant
man, especially one with a smattering of medical knowledge,
was conyinced that I had heart disease. I did not consult any
Cn. Il.) VOYAGE. 29
doctor, as I fully expected to hear the verdict that I was not
fit for the voyage, and I was resolved to go at all hazards.
I need not here refer to the events of the voyage—where we
went and what we did—as I have given a sufficiently full
account in my published Journal. The glories of the
vegetation of the Tropics rise before my mind at the present
time more vividly than anything else; though the sense of
sublimity, which the great deserts of Patagonia and the
forest-clad mountains of Tierra del Fuego excited in me, has
left an indelible impression on my mind. The sight of a
naked savage in his native land is an event which can never
be forgotten. Many of my excursions on horseback through
wild countries, or in the boats, some of which lasted several
weeks, were deeply interesting; their discomfort and some
degree of danger were at that time hardly a drawback, and
none at all afterwards. I also reflect with high satisfaction
on some of my scientific work, such as solving the problem of
coral islands, and making out the geological structure of
certain islands, for instance, St. Helena. Nor must I pass
over the discovery of the singular relations of the animals
and plants inhabiting the several islands of the Galapagos
archipelago, and of all of them to the inhabitants of South
America.
As far as I can judge of myself, I worked to the utmost
during the voyage from the mere pleasure of investigation,
and from my strong desire to add a few facts to the great mass
of facts in Natural Science. But I was also ambitious to take
a fair place among scientific men,—whether more ambitious
or less so than most of my fellow-workers, I can form no
opinion.
The geology of St. Jago is very striking, yet simple: a
stream of lava formerly flowed over the bed of the sea, formed
of triturated recent shells and corals, which it has baked into
a hard white rock. Since then the whole island has been
upheaved. But the line of white rock revealed to me a new
and important fact, namely, that there had been afterwards
subsidence round the craters, which had since been in action,
and had poured forth lava. It then first dawned on me that I
might perhaps write a book on the geology of the various
countries visited, and this made me thrill with delight. That
was a memorable hour to me, and how distinctly I can call to
mind the low cliif of lava beneath which I rested, with the sun
glaring hot, a few strange desert plants growing near, and
with living corals in the tidal pools at my feet. ‘Later in the
voyage, Fitz-Roy asked me to read some of my Journal, and
~
30 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ox. If.
declared it would be worth publishing ; so here was a second
book in prospect !
Towards the close of our voyage I received a letter whilst
at Ascension, in which my sisters told me that Sedgwick had
called on my father, and said that I should take a place among
the leading scientific men. I could not at the time under-
stand how he could have learnt anything of my proceedings,
but 1 heard (I believe afterwards) that Henslow had read
some of the letters which I wrote to him before the Philo-
sophical Society of Cambridge,* and had printed them for
private distribution. My collection of fossil bones, which
had been sent to Henslow, also excited considerable atten-
tion amongst paleontologists. After reading this letter, I
clambered over the mountains of Ascension with a boundin
step and made the volcanic rocks resound under my geologi
hammer. All this shows how ambitious I was; but I think
that I can say with truth that in after years, though I cared
in the highest degree for the approbation of such men as
Lyell and Hooker, who were my friends, I did not care much
about the general public. I do not mean to say that a
favourable review or a large sale of my books did not please
me greatly, but the pleasure was a fleeting one, and I am sure
that I have never turned one inch out of my course to gain
fame.
From my return to England (October 2, 1836) to my marriage
(January 29, 1839),
These two years and three months were the most active
ones which I ever spent, though I was occasionally unwell, and
so lost some time. After going backwards and forwards several
times between Shrewsbury, Maer, Cambridge, and London,
I settled in lodgings at Cambridge ft on December 13th,
where all my collections were under the care of Henslow.
I stayed here three months, and got my minerals and rocks
examined by the aid of Professor Miller.
I began preparing my Journal of Travels, which was not
hard work, as my MS. Journal had been written with care, and
my chief labour was making an abstract of my more interesting
scientific results. I sent also; at the request of Lyell, a short
account of my observations on the elevation of the coast of
Chili to the Geological Society.t
* Read at the meeting held November 16, 1835, and printed in a
pamphlet of 31 pp. for distribution among the members of the Society.
+ In Fitzwilliam Street.
t Geolog. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838, pp. 446-449,
Cu, IL.J LONDON. 31
On March 7th, 1837, I took lodgings in Great Marlborough
Street in London, and remained there for nearly two years,
until I was married. During these two years I finished my
Journal, read several papers before the Geological Society,
began preparing the MS. for my Geological Observations, and
arranged for the publication of the Zoology of the Voyage of
the Beagle. In July I opened my first note-book for facts
in relation to the Origin of Species, about which I had long
‘ yeflected, and never ceased working for the next twenty years.
During these two years I also went a little into society, and
acted as one of the honorary secretaries of the Geological
Society. I saw a t deal of Lyell. One of his chief
characteristics was his sympathy with the work of others,
and I was as much astonished as delighted at the interest
which he showed when, on my return to England, I explained
to him my views on coral reefs. This encouraged me greatly,
and his advice and example had much influence on me.
During this time I saw also a good deal of Robert Brown;
I used often to call and sit with him during his breakfast
on Sunday mornings, and he poured forth a rich treasure
of curious observations and acute remarks, but they almost
always related to minute points, and he never with me
discussed large or general questions in science.
During these two years I took several short excursions as a
relaxation, and one longer one to the parallel roads of Glen
Roy, an account of which was published in the Philosophical
Transactions.* This paper was a great failure, and I am
ashamed of it. Having been deeply impressed with what I
had seen of the elevation of the land in South America, I
attributed the parallel lines to the action of the sea; but I had
to give up this view when Agassiz propounded his glacier-lake
theory. Because no other explanation was possible under our
then state of knowledge, I argued in favour of sea-action ; and
my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science
to the principle of exclusion.
As I was not able to work all day at science, I read a good
deal during these two years on various subjects, including some
metaphysical books ; but I was not well fitted for such studies.
About this time I took much delight in Wordsworth’s and
Coleridge’s poetry; and can boast that I read the Excursion
twice through. Formerly Milton’s Paradise Lost had been
my chief favourite, and in my excursions during the vovage of
the Beagle, when I could take only a single volume, I always
chose Milton.
* 1839, pp. 39-82.
hc ei
ined Le ee ——
*
32 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx. IL
From my marriage, January 29, 1839, and residence in Upper
Gower Street, to our leaving London and settling at Down,
September 14, 1842.
[After speaking of his happy married life, and of his
children, he continues :]
During the three years and eight months whilst we resided
in London, I did less scientific work, though I worked as hard
as I possibly could, than during any other equal length of time
in my life. This was owing to frequently recurring un-
wellness, and to one long and serious illness. The greater
part of my time, when I could do anything, was devoted to my
work on Coral Reefs, which I had begun before my marriage,
and of which the last proof-sheet was corrected on May 6th,
1842. This book, though a small one, cost me twenty months
of hard work, as I had to read every work on the islands of
the Pacific and to consult many charts. It was thought
highly of by scientific men, and the theory therein given is, I
think, now well established.
No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as
this, for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of
South America, before I had seen a true coral reef. I had
therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful
examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I
had during the two previous years been incessantly attending
to the effects on the shores of South America of the inter-
mittent elevation of the land, together with denudation
and the deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to
reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to
replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by
the upward growth of corals. To do this was to form my
theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls.
Besides my work on coral-reefs, during my residence in
London, I read before the Geological Society papers on the
Erratic Boulders of South America,* on Earthquakes,f and on
the Formation by the Agency of Earth-worms of Mould.t I
also continued to superintend the publication of the Zoology of
the Voyage of the Beagle. Nor did I ever intermit collecting
facts bearing on the origin of species; and I could sometimes
do this when I could do nothing else from illness.
In the summer of 1842 I was stronger than I had been for
some time, and took a little tour by myself in North Wales,
for the sake of observing the effects of the old glaciers which
* Geolog. Soc, Proc, iii. 1842. + Geolog. Trans. y. 1840.
$ Geolog. Soe, Proe, ii. 1888.
Cx. IL.) LYELL. 83
formerly filled all the larger valleys. I published a short
account of what I saw in the Philosophical Magazine.* This
excursion interested me greatly, and it was the last time I was
ever strong enough to climb mountains or to take long walks
such as are necessary for geological work.
During the early part of our life in London, I was strong
enough to go into general society, and saw a good deal of
several scientific men and other more or less distinguished
men. I will give my impressions with respect to some of them,
though I have little to say worth saying.
I saw more of Lyell than of any other man, both before and
after my marriage. His mind was characterised, as it ap
to me, by clearness, caution, sound judgment, and a good deal
of originality. When I made any remark to him on Geology,
he never rested until he saw the whole case clearly, and often
made me see it more clearly than I had done before. He would
advance all possible objections to my suggestion, and even after
these were exhausted would long remain dubious. A second
characteristic was his hearty sympathy with the work of other
scientific men.
On my return from the voyage of the Beagle, I explained to
him my views on coral-reefs, which differed from his, and
I was greatly ised and encouraged by the vivid interest
which he showed. His delight in science was ardent, and he
felt the keenest interest in the future progress of mankind.
He was very kind-hearted, and thoroughly liberal in his
religious beliefs, or rather disbeliefs ; but he was a strong
theist. His candour was highly remarkable. He exhibited
this by becoming a convert to the Descent theory, though he
had gained much fame by opposing Lamarck’s views, and this
after he had grown old. He reminded me that I had many
years before said to him, when discussing the opposition of the
old school of geologists to his new views, “ What a good thing
it would be if every scientific man was to die when sixty years
old, as afterwards he would be sure to oppose all new doctrines.”
But he hoped that now he might be allowed to live.
The science of Geology is enormously indebted to Lyell—
more so, as I believe, than to any other man who ever lived,
When [I was] starting on the voyage of the Beagle, the
sagacious Henslow, who, like all other geologists, believed at
that time in successive cataclysms, advised me to get and study
* Philosophical Magazine, 1842.
+ The slight repetition here observable is accounted for by the notes on
Lyell, &c., having been added in April, 1881, a few years after the rest of
the Recollections were written.—F. D.
D
34 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cu. II.
the first volume of the Principles, which had then just been
published, but on no account to accept the views therein
advocated. How differently would any one now speak of the
Principles!’ I am proud to remember that the first place,
namely, St. Jago,in the Cape de Verde Archipelago, in which
I geologised, convinced me of the infinite superiority of Lyell’s
views over those advocated in any other work known to me.
The powerful effects of Lyell’s works could formerly be
plainly seen in the different progress of the science in France
and England. The present total oblivion of Elie de Beau-
mont’s wild hypotheses, such as his Craters of Elevation and
Lines of Elevation (which latter hypothesis I heard Sedgwick at
the Geological Society lauding to the skies), may be largely
attributed to Lyell.
I saw a good deal of Robert Brown, “facile Princeps
Botanicorum,” as he was called by Humboldt. He seemed to
me to be chiefly remarkable for the minuteness of his observa-
tions and their perfect accuracy. His knowledge was extra-
ordinarily great, and much died with him, owing to his
excessive fear of ever making a mistake. He poured out his
knowledge to me in the most unreserved manner, yet was
strangely jealous on some points. I called on him two or three
times before the voyage of the Beagle, and on one occasion he
asked me to look through a microscope and describe what I
saw. This I did, and believe now that it was the marvellous
currents of protoplasm in some vegetable cell. I then asked
him what I had seen; but he answered me, “ That is my little
secret.”
He was capable of the most generous actions. When old,
much out of health, and quite unfit for any exertion, he daily
visited (as Hooker told me) an old man-servant, who lived at a
distance (and whom he supported), and read aloud to him.
This is enough to make up for any degree of scientific
penuriousness or jealousy.
I may here mention a few other eminent men whom I have
occasionally seen, but I have little to say about them worth
saying. I felt a high reverence for Sir J. Herschel, and was
delighted to dine with him at his charming house at the Cape —
of Good Hope and afterwards at his London house. Isaw him,
also, on a few other occasions. He never talked much, but
every word which he uttered was worth listening to.
I once met at breakfast, at Sir R. Murchison’s house, the
illustrious Humboldt, who honoured me by expressing a wish
to see me. I was a little disappointed with the great man, but
my anticipations probably were too high. I can remember
Cu. II.) SYDNEY SMITH. 35
nothing distinctly about our interview, except that Humboldt
was very ch and talked much.
X.* reminds me of Buckle, whom I once met at Hensleigh
Wedgwood’s. I was very glad to learn from { Buckle] his system
of collecting facts. He told me that he bought all the books
which he read, and made a full index to each, of the facts which
he thought might prove serviceable to him, and that he could
always remember in what book he had read anything, for his
memory was wonderful. I asked him how at first he could
judge what facts would be serviceable, and he answered that he
did not know, but that a sort of instinct guided him. From
this habit of making indices, he was enabled to give the
astonishing number of references on all sorts of subjects which
may be found in his History of Civilisation. This book I
thought most interesting, and read it twice, but I doubt
whether his generalisations are worth anything. Buckle was a
t talker; and I listened to him, saying hardly a word, nor
indeed could I have done so, for he left no gaps. When Mrs.
Farrer began to sing, I jumped up and said that I must listen
to her. After I had moved away, he turned round to a friend,
and said (as was overheard by my brother), “Well, Mr.
Darwin’s books are much better than his conversation.”
Of other great literary men, I once met Sydney Smith at
Dean Milman’s house. There was something inexplicably
amusing in every word which he uttered. Perhaps this was
y due to the expectation of being amused. He was talking
about Lady Cork, who was then extremely old. This was the
lady who, as he said, was once so much affected by one of his
charity sermons, that she borrowed a guinea from a friend to put
in the plate. He now said, “It is generally believed that my
dear old friend Lady Cork has been overlooked ” ; and he said
this in such a manner that no one could for a moment doubt
that he meant that his dear old friend had been overlooked by
the devil. How he managed to express this I know not.
I likewise once met Macaulay at Lord Stanhope’s (the
historian’s) house, and as there was only one other man at
dinner, I had a grand opportunity of hearing him converse, and
he was very agreeable. He did not talk at all too much, nor
indeed could such a man talk too much, as long as he allowed
others to turn the stream of his conversation, and this he did
allow.
Lord Stanhope once gaye me a curious little proof of the
accuracy and fulness of Macaulay’s memory. Many historians
* A passage referring to X. is here omitted. —F. D. ‘
D
36 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx. IL
used often to meet at Lord Stanhope’s house; and, in disc
various subjects, they would sometimes differ from Macaulay,
and formerly they often referred to some book to see who was
right; but latterly, as Lord Stanhope noticed, no historian ever
took this trouble, and whatever Macaulay said was final.
On another occasion I met at Lord Stanhope’s house one of
his parties of historians and other literary men, and amongst
them were Motley and Grote. After luncheon I walked about
Chevening Park for nearly an hour with Grote, and was much
interested by his conversation and pleased by the simplicity and
absence of all pretension in his manners.
Long ago I dined occasionally with the old Earl, the father
of the historian. He was a strange man, but what little I knew
of him I liked much. He was frank, genial, and pleasant.
He had strongly-marked features, with a brown complexion,
and his clothes, when I saw him, were all brown. He seemed
to believe in everything which was to others utterly incredible.
He said one day to me, “ Why don’t you give up your fiddle-
faddle of geology and zoology, and turn to the occult sciences ?”
The historian, then Lord Mahon, seemed shocked at such a
speech to me, and his charming wife much amused.
The last man whom I will mention is Carlyle, seen by mo
several times at my brother’s house and two or three times at
my own house. His talk was very racy and interesting, just
like his writings, but he sometimes went on too long on the
same subject. I remember a funny dinner at my brother’s,
where, amongst a few others, were Babbage and Lyell, both of
whom liked to talk. Carlyle, however, silenced every one by
haranguing during the whole dinner on the advantages of
silence. After dinner, Babbage, in his grimmest manner,
thanked Carlyle for his very interesting lecture on silence.
Carlyle sneered at almost every one: One day in my house
he called Grote’s History “a fetid quagmire, with nothing
spiritual about it.” I always thought, until his Reminiscences
appeared, that his sneers were partly jokes, but this now seems
rather doubtful. His expression was that of a depressed,
almost despondent, yet benevolent man, and it is notorious how _
heartily he laughed. I believe that his benevolence was real,
though stained by not a little jealousy. No one can doubt
about his extraordinary power of drawing pictures of things and
men—far more vivid, as it appears to me, than any drawn by
Macaulay. Whether his pictures of men were true ones is another
question.
He has been all-powerful in impressing some grand moral
truths on the minds of men. On the other hand, his views
Cu. II.] DOWN. 37
about slavery were revolting. In his eyes might was right.
His mind seemed to me a very narrow one ; even if all branches
of science, which he despised, are excluded. It is astonishing
to me that Kingsley should have spoken of him as a man well
fitted to advance science. He laughed to scorn the idea that a
mathematician, such as Whewell, could judge, as I maintained
he could, of Goethe’s views on light. He thought it a most
ridiculous thing that any one should care whether a glacier
moved a little quicker or a little slower, or moved at all. As
far as I could judge, I never met a man with a mind so ill
adapted for scientific research.
Whilst living in London, I attended as regularly as I could
the meetings of several scientific societies, and acted as secretary
to the Geological Society. But such attendance, and ordinary
society, suited my health so badly that we resolved to live
in the country, which we both preferred and have never
repented of.
Residence at Down, from September 14, 1842, to the
present time, 1876.
After several fruitless searches in Surrey and elsewhere, we
found this house and purchased it. I was pleased with the
diversified appearance of the vegetation proper to a chalk
district, and so unlike what I had been accustomed to in the
Midland counties; and still more pleased with the extreme
quietness and rusticity of the place. It is not, however, quite
so retired a place as a writer in a German periodical makes
it, who says that my house can be approached only by a mule-
track! Our fixing ourselves here has answered admirably in
one way which we did not anticipate, namely, by being very
convenient for frequent visits from our children.
_ Few persons can have lived a more retired life than we have
done. Besides short visits to the houses of relations, and
occasionally to the seaside or elsewhere, we have gone nowhere.
During the first part of our residence we went a little into
society, and received a few friends here; but my health almost
always suffered from the excitement, violent shivering and
vomiting attacks being thus brought on. I have therefore
been compelled for many years to give up all dinner-parties ;
and this me been somewhat of a deprivation to me, as such
parties always put me into high spirits. From the same
cause I have been able to invite here very few scientific
acquaintances.
My chief enjoyment and sole employment throughout life
38 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cu. IL
has been scientific work, and the excitement from such work
makes me for the time forget, or drives quite away, my daily
discomfort. I have therefore nothing to record during the
rest of my life, except the publication of my several books.
Perhaps a few details how they arose may be worth giving.
My several Publications—In the early part of 1844, my
observations on the volcanic islands visited during the voyage
of the Beagle were published. In 1845, I took much pains
in correcting a new edition of my Journal of Researches,
which was originally published in 1839 as part of Fitz-Roy’s
work. The success of this my first literary child always
tickles my vanity more than that of any of my other books.
Even to this day it sells steadily in England and the United
States, and has been translated for the second time into
German, and into French and other languages. This success
of a book of travels, especially of a scientific one, so many years
after its first publication, is surprising. ‘Ten thousand copies
have been sold in England of the second edition. In 1846
my Geological Observations on South America were published.
I record in alittle diary, which I have always kept, that my
three geological books (Coral Reefs included) consumed four
and a half years’ steady work; “and now it is ten years since
my return to England. How much time have I lost by
illness ?” I have nothing to say about these three books
except that to my surprise new editions have lately been
' called for.*
In October, 1846, I began to work on ‘ Cirripedia’ (Barnacles
When on the coast of Chile, I found a most curious form, whi
burrowed into shells of Concholepas, and which differed so
much from all other Cirripedes that I had to form a new sub-
order for its sole reception. Lately an allied burrowing genus
has been found on the shores of Portugal. To understand the
structure of my new Cirripede I had to examine and dissect
many of the common forms: and this gradually led me on to
take up the whole group. I worked steadily on the subject
for the next eight years, and ultimately published two thick
volumes,} describing all the known living species, and two thin
quartos on the extinct species. I do not doubt that Sir E. |
Lytton Bulwer had me in his mind when he introduced in one
of his novels a Professor Long, who had written two huge
volumes on limpets.
Although I was employed during eight years on this work,
yet I record in my diary that about two years out of this time
* Geological Observations, 2nd Edit. 1876. Coral Reefs, 2nd Edit. 1874
+ Published by the Ray Society.
On. IT] BARNAOLES. 39
was lost by illness. On this account I went in 1848 for some
months to Malvern for hydropathic treatment, which did me
much good, so that on my return home I was able to resume
work. So much was I out of health that when my dear father
died on November 13th, 1848, I was unable to attend his
funeral or to act as one of his executors.
My work on the Cirripedia possesses, I think, considerable
value, as besides describing several new and remarkable forms,
I made out the homologies of the various parts—I discovered
the cementing apparatus, though I blundered dreadfully about
the cement glands—and lastly I proved the existence in certain
genera of minute males complemental to and parasitic on the
hermaphrodites. This latter discovery has at last been fully
confirmed; though at one time a German writer was pleased
to attribute the whole account to my fertile imagination. The
Cirripedes form a highly varying and difficult group of species
to class ; and my work was of considerable use to me, when I
had to discuss in the Origin of Species the principles of a
natural classification. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the work
was worth the consumption of so much time.
From September 1854 I devoted my whole time to arranging
my huge pile of notes, to observing, and to experimenting in
relation to the transmutation of species. During the voyage of
the Beagle I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the
Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour
like that on the existing armadillos; secondly, by the manner
in which closely allied animals replace one another in pro-
ceeding southwards over the Continent; and thirdly, by the
South American character of most of the productions of the
Galapagos archipelago, and more especially by the manner in
which they differ slightly on each island of the group; none of
the islands mer: to be very ancient in a geological sense.
It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many
others, could only be explained on the supposition that species
gradually become modified ; and the subject haunted me. But
it was equally evident that neither the action of the surrounding
conditions, nor the will of the organisms (especially in the case
of plants) could account for the innumerable cases in which
organisms of every kind are beautifully adapted to their habits
of life—for instance, a woodpecker or a tree-frog to climb trees,
or a seed for dispersal by hooks or plumes. I had always been
much struck by such adaptations, and until these could be
explained it seemed to me almost useless to endeavour to prove
by indirect evidence that species have been modified.
After my return to England it appeared to me that by
i iatebaes te ers
At ARON D SE REE VI cert ae dat
40 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cu. If.
following the example of Lyell in Geology, and by collecting
all facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals
and plants under domestication and nature, some light might
perhaps be thrown on the whole subject. My first note-book
was opened in July 1837. I worked on true Baconian prin-
ciples, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale
scale, more especially with respect to domesticated productions,
by printed enquiries, by conversation with skilful breeders and
gardeners, and by extensive reading. When I see the list of
books of all kinds which I read and abstracted, including
whole series of Journals and Transactions, I am surprised at
my industry. I soon perceived that selection was the keystone
of man’s success in making useful races of animals and plants.
But how selection could be applied to organisms living in a
state of nature remained for some time a mystery to me.
In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun
my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement
Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate
the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from lon
continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at
once struck me that under these circumstances favourable
variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones
to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of
new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which
to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I
determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch
of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of
writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35
pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into
one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still
possess.
But at that time I overlooked one problem of great im-
portance ; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle
of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and
its solution. This*problem is the tendency in organic beings
descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they
become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious
from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed
under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders,
and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road,
whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to
me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The
solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all
dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to
many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature,
Cu, 11] ‘ORIGIN OF SPECIES’ | 41
Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views
pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale three or
four times as extensive as that which was afterwards followed
in my Origin of Species ; yet it was only an abstract of the
materials which I had collected, and I got through about half
the work on this scale. But my plans were overthrown, for
early in the summer of 1858 Mr. Wallace, who was then in the
Malay archipelago, sent me an essay On the Tendency of
Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type ; and this
essay contained exactly the same theory as mine. Mr. Wallace
expressed the wish that if I thought well of his essay, I should
send it to Lyell for perusal. /
The circumstances under which I consented at the request
of Lyell and Hooker to allow of an abstract from my MS.,
together with a letter to Asa Gray, dated September 5, 1857,
to be published at the same time with Wallace’s Essay, are
given in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society,
1858, p. 45. I was at first very unwilling to consent, as I
thought Mr. Wallace might consider my doing so unjustifiable,
for I did not then know how generous and noble was his
disposition, The extract from my MS. and the letter to Asa
Gray had neither been intended for publication, and were
badly written. Mr. Wallace’s essay, on the other hand, was
admirably expressed and quite clear. Nevertheless, our joint
productions excited very little attention, and the only published
notice of them which I can remember was by Professor
Haughton of Dublin, whose verdict was that all that was new
in them was false, and what was true was old. This shows
how necessary it is that any new view should be explained at
considerable length in order to arouse public attention.
In September 1858 I set to work by the strong advice of
Lyell and Hooker to prepare a volume on the transmutation of
species, but was often interrupted by ill-health, and short
visits to Dr. Lane’s delightful hydropathic establishment at
Moor Park. I abstracted the MS. begun on a much larger
scale in 1856, and completed the volume on the same reduced
scale. It cost me thirteen months and ten days’ hard labour
It was published under the title of the Origin of Species, in
November 1859. Though considerably added to and corrected
os the later editions, it has remained substantially the same
k.
It is no doubt the chief work of my life. It was from the
successful. The first small edition of 1250 copies
of publication, “and “a second edition of
8000 copies soon afterwards. Sixteen thousand copies have
PO
'
WS
—
oe aad
Serer
LTT ——— Te,
\
42 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ox. IT.
now (1876) been sold in England; and considering how stiff a
book rhe this isalargesale. It has been translated into almost
every European tongue, even into such languages as Spanish,
Bohemian, Polish, and Russian. It has ia according to
Miss Bird, been translated into Japanese,* and is there much
studied. Even an essay in Hebrew has appeared on it, show-
ing that the theory is contained in the Old Testament! The
reviews were very numerous; for some time I collected all
that appeared on the Origin and on my related books, and
these amount (excluding newspaper reviews) to 265 ; but after
a time I gave up the attempt in despair. Many separate
essays and books on the subject have appeared; and in
Germany a catalogue or bibliography on “ Darwinismus” has
appeared every year or two.
The success of the Origin may, I think, be attributed in
large part to my having long before written two condensed
sketches, and to my having finally abstracted a much larger
manuscript, which was itself an abstract. By this means I was
enabled to select the more striking facts and conclusions. I
had, also, during many years, followed a golden rule, namely,
that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought
came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to
make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had
found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far
more apt to escape from the memory than favourable ones.
Owing to this habit, very few objections were raised against
my views which I had not at least noticed and attempted to
answer.
It has sometimes been said that the success of the Origin
proved “ that the subject was in the air,” or “ that men’s minds
were prepared for it.” I do not think that this is strictly true,
for I occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never
happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt about
the permanence of species. Even Lyell and Hooker, though
they would listen with interest to me, never seemed to agree. I
tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by
Natural selection, but signally failed. What I believe was
strictly true is that innumerable well-observed facts were
stored in the minds of naturalists ready to take their proper
places as soon as any theory which would receive them was
sufficiently explained. Another element in the success of the
book was its moderate size; and this I owe to the appearance
of Mr. Wallace’s essay ; had I published on the scale in which
* Miss Bird is mistaken, as I learn from Professor Mitsukuri.—F, D,
Cu. IT.) ‘ORIGIN OF SPECIES.’ - 43
I began to write in 1856, the book would have been four or
five times as large as the Origin, and very few would have had
the patience to read it.
I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839,
when the theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost
nothing by it, for I cared_very little whether men attributed
most originality fo sua. o Wallaco; i is es no doubt
aided in the reception of the theory. I was fore fallod in only
one important point, which my vanity has always made me
régret, name e explanation by means of the Glacial period
9 same ies of plants and of some few
als istant mountain summits and in the arctic regions.
This view pleased me so much that I wrote it out in extenso,
and I believe that it was read by Hooker some years before
E. Forbes published his celebrated memoir* on the subject.
In the very few points in which we differed, I still think that
I was in the right. I have never, of course, alluded in print
to my having independently worked out this view.
Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was
at work on the Origin, as the explanation of the wide difference
inmany classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and
of the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class,
No notice of this pomt was taken, as far as I remember, in
the early reviews of the Origin, and I recollect expressing my
surprise on this head in a letter to Asa Gray. Within late
years several reviewers have given the whole credit to Fritz
Miiller and Hiickel, who undoubtedly have worked it out much
more fully, and in some respects more correctly than I did.
I had materials for a whole chapter on the subject, and I ought
to have made the discussion longer ; for it is clear that I failed
to impress my readers; and he who succeeds in doing so
deserves, in my opinion, all the credit.
This leads me to remark that I have almost always been
treated honestly by my reviewers, passing over those without
scientific knowledge as not worthy of notice. My views have
often been grossly misrepresented, bitterly opposed and ridi-
culed, but this has been generally done, as I believe, in good
faith. On the whole I do not doubt that my works have been
over and over again greatly overpraised. I rejoice that I haye
avoided controversies, and this I owe to Lyéll, who many years
4 a 90 logical. works, strongly sien 1 me
never to get od in a controversy, as_i sly did an
good-and-enusei-w miserable Toss of time and temper.
-
Oe +
* Geolog. Survey Mem., 1846. ees
st
44 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx. IL.
Whenever I have found out that I have blundered, or that
my work has been imperfect, and when I have been con-
temptuously criticised, and even when I have been overpraised,
so that I have felt mortified, it has been my greatest comfort
to say hundreds of times to myself that “I have worked as
hard and as well as I could, and no man can do more than
this.” I remember when in Good Success Bay, in Tierra del
Fuego, thinking (and, I believe, that I wrote home to the
effect) that I could not employ my life better than in adding a
little to Natural Science. This I have done to the best of my
abilities, and critics may say what they like, but they cannot
destroy this conviction.
During the two last months of 1859 I was fully occupied in
preparing a second edition of the Origin, and by an enormous
correspondence. On January Ist, 1860, I began arranging my
notes for my work on the Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication ; but it was not published until the beginning
of 1868; the delay having been caused partly by frequent
illnesses, one of which lasted seven months, and partly by
being tempted to publish on other subjects which at the
time interested me more.
On May 15th, 1862, my little book on the Fertilisation of
Orchids, which cost me ten months’ work, was published :
most of the facts had been slowly accumulated during several
previous years. During the summer of 1839, and, I believe,
during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-
fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come
to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species,
that crossing played an important part in keeping specific
forms constant. I attended to the subject more or less during
every subsequent summer; and my interest in if was greatly
enhanced by having procured and read in November 1841,
through the advice of Robert Brown, a copy of CO. K. Sprengel’s
wonderful book, Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur. For
some years before 1862 I had specially attended to the fertili-
sation of our British orchids; and it seemed to me the best
plan to prepare as complete a treatise on this group of plants as
well as I could, rather than to utilise the great mass of matter
which I had slowly collected with respect to other plants.
My resolve proved a wise one; for since the appearance of
my book, a surprising number of papers and separate works on
the fertilisation of all kinds of flowers have appeared; and
these are far better done than I could possibly have effected.
The merits of poor old Sprengel, so long overlooked, are now
fully recognised many years after his death.
Ox. IZ]! ORCHIDS. 45
During the same year I published in the Journal of the
Linnean Society, a paper On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Con-
dition of Primula, and during the next five years, five other
papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants. I do not think
anything in my scientific life has given me so much satisfaction
as making out the meaning of the structure of these plants. I
had noticed in 1838 or 1839 the dimorphism of Linum flavum,
and had at first thought that it was merely a case of unmeaning
variability. But on examining the common species of Primula,
I found that the two forms were much too regular and constant
to be thus viewed. I therefore became almost convinced that
the common cowslip and primrose were on the high-road to
become dicecious ;—that the short pistil in the one form, and
the short stamens in the other form were tending towards
abortion. The plants were therefore subjected under this
point of view to trial; but as soon as the flowers with short
pistils fertilised with pollen from the short stamens, were found
to yield more seeds than any other of the four possible unions,
the abortion-theory was knocked on the head. After some
additional experiment, it became evident that the two forms,
though both were perfect hermaphrodites, bore almost the same
relation to one another as do the two sexes of an ordinary
animal. With Lythrum we have the still more wonderful
case of three forms standing in a similar relation to one
another. I afterwards found that the offspring from the union
of two plants belonging to the same forms presented a close
and curious analogy with hybrids from the union of two
distinct species.
In the autumn of 1864 I finished a long paper on Climbing
Plants, and sent it to the Linnean Society. The writing of
this paper cost me four months: but I was so unwell when I
received the proof-sheets that I was forced to leave them very
badly and often obscurely expressed. The paper was little
noticed, but when in 1875 it was corrected and published as a
separate book it sold well. I was led to take up this subject
by reading a short paper by Asa Gray, published in 1858. He
sent me seeds, and on raising some plants I was so much
fascinated and perplexed by the revolving movements of the
tendrils and stems, which movements are really very simple,
though appearing at first sight very complex, that I procured
yarious other kinds of climbing plants, and studied the whole
subject. I was all the more attracted to it, from not being at
all satisfied with the explanation which Henslow gave us in his
lectures, about twining plants, namely, that they had a natural
tendency to grow up inaspire. This explanation proved quite
46 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Ox. I.
erroneous. Some of the adaptations displayed by climbing
plants are as beautiful as those of Orchids for ensuring cross-
fertilisation.
My Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication
was begun, as already stated, in the beginning of 1860, but was
not published until the beginning of 1868. It was a big book,
and cost me four years and two months’ hard labour. It gives
all my observations and an immense number of facts collected
from various sources, about our domestic productions. In the
second volume the causes and laws of variation, inheritance,
&c., are discussed, as far as our present state of knowledge per-
mits. Towards the end of the work I give my well-abused
hypothesis of Pangenesis. An unverified hypothesis is of
little or no value; but if any one should hereafter be led to
make observations by which some such hypothesis could be
established, I shall have done good service, as an astonishin
number of isolated facts can be thus connected together an
rendered intelligible. In 1875 a second and largely corrected
edition, which cost me a good deal of labour, was brought out.
My Descent of Man was published in February 1871. As
soon as I had become, in the year 1837 or 1838, convinced that
species were mutable productions, I could not avoid the belief
that man must come under the same law. Accordingly I
collected notes on the subject for my own satisfaction, and not
for a long time with any intention of publishing. Although in
the Origin of Species the derivation of any particular ies is
never discussed, yet I thought it best, in order that no honour-
able man should accuse me of concealing my views, to add that
by the work “light would be thrown on the origin of man and
his history.” It would have been useless, and injurious to the
success of the book to have paraded, without giving any
evidence, my conviction with respect to his origin.
But when I found that many naturalists fully accepted the
doctrine of the evolution of species, it seemed to me advisable
to work up such notes as I possessed, and to publish a special
treatise on the origin of man. Iwas the more glad to do so, as
it gave me an opportunity of fully discussing sexual selection
—a subject which had always greatly interested me, This
subject, and that of the variation of our domestic productions,
together with the causes and laws of variation, inheritance, and
the intercrossing of plants, are the sole subjects which I have
been able to write about in full, so as to use all the materials
which I have collected. The Descent of Man took me three
years to write, but then as usual some of this time was lost by
ill-health, and some was consumed by preparing new editions
Cn. II.) ‘DESCENT OF MAN.’ 47
and other minor works. A second and largely corrected edition
of the Descent appeared in 1874.
My book on the Hzpression of the Emotions in Men and
Animals was published in the autumn of 1872. I had intended
to give only a chapter on the subject in the Descent of Man,
but as soon as I began to put my notes together, I saw that it
would require a separate treatise.
My first child was born on December 27th, 1839, and I at
once commenced to make notes on the first dawn of the various
expressions which he exhibited, for I felt convinced, even at
this early period, that the most complex and fine shades of
expression must all have had a gradual and natural origin.
During the summer of the following year, 1840, I read Sir
©. Bell’s admirable work on expression, and this greatly
increased the interest which I felt in the subject, though I
could not at all agree with his belief that various muscles
had been specially created for the sake of expression. From
this time forward I occasionally attended to the subject, both
with respect to man and our domesticated animals. My book
sold largely ; 5267 copies having been disposed of on the day
of publication.
the summer of 1860 I was idling and resting near Hart-
field, where two species of pave! abound; and I noticed
that numerous insects had been entrapped by the leaves. I
carried home some plants, and on giving them insects saw the
movements of the tentacles, and this made me think it pro-
bable that the insects were caught for some special purpose.
Fortunately a crucial test occurred to me, that of placing a
large number of leaves in various nitrogenous and non-nitro-
genous fluids of equal density; and as soon as I found that
the former alone excited energetic movements, it was obvious
that here was a fine new field for investigation.
During subsequent years, whenever I had leisure, I pursued
my experiments, and my book on Insectivorous Plants was
published in July 1875—that is sixteen years after my first
observations. The delay in this case, as with all my other
books, has been a great advantage to me; for a man after a
long interval can criticise his own work, almost as well as if
it were that of another person. The fact that a plant should
_ secrete, when properly excited, a fluid containing an acid and
_ ferment, closely analogous to the digestive fluid of an animal,
was certainly a remarkable discovery.
: During this autumn of 1876 I shall publish on the Efecis
of Oross- and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom. This
book will form a complement to that on the Fertilisation of
48 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx. II.
Orchids, in which I showed how perfect were the means for
cross-fertilisation, and here I shall show how important are
the results. I was led to make, during eleven years, the
numerous experiments recorded in this volume, by a mere
accidental observation ; and indeed it required the accident to
be repeated before my attention was thoroughly aroused to
the remarkable fact that seedlings of self-fertilised parentage
are inferior, even in the first generation, in height and vigour
to seedlings of cross-fertilised parentage. I hope also to
republish a revised edition of my book on Orchids, and here-
after my papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants, together
with some additional observations on allied points which I
never have had time to arrange. My strength will then
probably be exhausted, and I shall be ready to exclaim * Nune
dimittis.”
Written May 1st, 1881.—The Effects of Cross- and Self-
Fertilisation was published in the autumn of 1876; and the
results there arrived at explain, as I believe, the endless and
wonderful contrivances for the transportal of pollen from one
plant to another of the same species. I now believe, how-
ever, chiefly from the observations of Hermann Miiller, that I
ought to have insisted more strongly than I did on the many
adaptations for self-fertilisation ; though I was well aware of
many such adaptations. A much enlarged edition of my
Fertilisation of Orchids was published in 1877.
In this same year The Different Forms of Flowers, éc.,
appeared, and in 1880 a second edition. This book consists
chiefly of the several papers on Hetero-styled flowers origi-
nally published by the Linnean Society, corrected, with
much new matter added, together with observations on some
other cases in which the same plant bears two kinds of flowers.
As before remarked, no little discovery of mine ever gaye me
so much pleasure as the making out the meaning of hetero-
styled flowers. The results of crossing such flowers in an
illegitimate manner, I believe to be very important, as bearing
on the sterility of hybrids; although these results have been
noticed by only a few persons.
In 1879, I had a translation of Dr. Ernst Krause’s Life of
Erasmus Darwin published, and I added a sketch of his
character and habits from material in my possession. Many
persons have been much interested by this little life, and I am
surprised that only 800 or 900 copies were sold.
In 1880 I published, with [my son] Frank’s assistance our
Power of Movement in Plants. This was a tough piece of
work. ‘The book bears somewhat the same relation to my
Cu. IL.) EARTHWORMS. 49
little book on Climbing Plants, which Cross-Fertilisation did
to the Fertilisation of Orchids; for in accordance with the
principle of evolution it was impossible to account for climbing
plants having been developed in so many widely different
groups unless all kinds of plants possess some slight power
of movement of an analogous kind. This I proved to be the
case ; and I was further led to a rather wide generalisation,
viz., that the great and important classes of movements, ex-
cited by light, the attraction of gravity, &c., are all modified
forms of the fundamental movement of circumnutation. It
has always pleased me to exalt plants in the scale of organised
beings; and I therefore felt an especial pleasure in showing
how many and what admirably well adapted movements the
tip of a root possesses,
I have now (May 1, 1881) sent to the printers the MS. of
a little book on The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the
Action of Worms. This is a subject of but small importance ;
and I know not whether it will interest any readers,* but it
has interested me. Itis the completion of a short paper read
before the Geological Society more than forty years ago, and
s reyived old geological thoughts. /
have now mentioned all the books which I have published,
d these have been the milestones in my life, so that little
ains to be said. Iam not conscious of any change in my
mind during the last thirty years, excepting in one point pre-
sently to be mentioned; nor, indeed, could any change have been
expected unless one of general deterioration. But my father
lived to his eighty-third year with his mind as lively as ever
it was, and all his faculties undimmed ; and I hope that I
may die before my mind fails to a sensible extent. I think
that I have become a li i ing”
ttle more_skilful _
explanations and “in devisin imental tests; but.this
bably be the result of mere practice, and of a larger
~~
sane ot amaladgay 1 Tava oa mich dificnliy. os ever in
expressing myself clearly and concisely; and this difficulty
has Saased = a very great loss Of time; but it has the
compensa vantage of forcing me to think long and
inkontly “about Ovary” BeNvEnco, and thus I have been led to
—
see errors in reasoning and in my own ose
of otners.
There seems to be a sort of fatality in my mind leading
me to put at first my statement or proposition in a wrong or
awkward form. Formerly I used to think about my sentences
. egg November 1881 and February 1884, 8500 copies were
EOI matory, 4
a ie CR ry pen 5 creel
50 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. ({On. II.
before writing them down; but for several years I have found
that it saves time to scribble in a vile hand, whole pages as
quickly as I possibly can, contracting half the words; and
then correct deliberately. Sentences thus scribbled down are
often better ones than I could have written deliberately.
Having said thus much about my manner of writing, I will
add that with my large books I spend a good deal of time -
over the general arrangement of the matter. I first make the
rudest outline in two or three pages, and then a larger one
in several pages, a few words or one word standing for a
whole discussion or series of facts. Each one of these headings
is again enlarged and often transferred before I begin to write
in extenso. As in several of my books facts observed by
others have been very extensively used, and as I have always
had several quite distinct subjects in hand at the same time,
I may mention that I keep from thirty to forty large port-
folios, in cabinets with labelled shelves, into which I can at
once put a detached reference or memorandum. I have bought
many books, and at their ends I make an index of all the
facts that concern my work; or, if the book is not my own,
write out a separate abstract, and of such abstracts I have
a large drawer full. Before beginning on any subject I look
to all the short indexes and make a general and classified
index, and by taking the one or more proper portfolios I have
all the information collected during my life ready for use.
I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during
the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or
beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton,
Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gaye me |
great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight ‘.
in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have
said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music
very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure
to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shake-
speare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me.
I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music. Music
generally sets me thinking too energetically on what I have
been at work on, instead of giving me pleasure. I retain
some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the
exquisite delight which it formerly did. On the other hand,
novels, which are works of the imagination, though not of
a very high order, have been for years a wonderful relief and
pleasure to me, and I often bless all novelists. A surprising
number have been read aloud to me, and I like all if mode-
rately good, and if they do not end unhappily—against which
:
Cu. 1f.] CHARACTERISTICS. 51
a law ought to be passed. A novel, according to my taste,
does not come into the first class unless it contains some
on whom one can thoroughly love, and if a pretty woman
all the better.
_ This curious and lamentable loss of the higher ssthetic
tastes is all the odder, as books on history, biographies, and
travels (independently of any scientific facts which they may
contain), and essays on all sorts of subjects interest me as much
as ever they did, My mind seems to have. become-a—kind-of
machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of
facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part
e brain a on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot
conceive. A man with a mind more highly organised or better
constituted than mine, would not, I suppose, have thus suffered ;
and if I had to live my life again, I would have made a rule to
read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every
week ; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would
thus have been kept active through use. The loss of these
tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to
@ intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by
My books have sold largely in England, have been BR
into many languages, and d through several editions in
foreign countries. I have heard it said that the success of a
work abroad is the best test of its enduring value. I doubt
whether this is at all trustworthy ; but judged by this standard
my name ought to last fora few years. Therefore it may be
worth while to try to analyse the mental qualities and the con-
ditions on which my success has depended ; though I am aware :
that no man can do this correctly. \
ave no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so
remarkable in some clever men, for instance, Huxley. I am
therefore a poor critic: a paper or book, when first read, gene-
rally excites my admiration, and it is only after considerable
reflection that 1 perceive the weak points. My power to follow
a long and purely abstract train of thought is very limited;
- and therefore I could never have succeeded with metaphysics or
mathematics. My memory is extensive, yet hazy: it suffices to
make me cautious by vaguely telling me that I have observed or
read something opposed to the conclusion which I am drawing,
or on the other hand in favour of it; and after a time I can
rally recollect where to search for my authority. So poor
in one sense is my memory, that I have never been able to
remember for more than a few days a single date or a line of
ws Spd rE 2
RS DTN
52 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cx. IL.
Some of my critics have said, “Oh, he is a good observer,
but he has no power of reasoning!” I do not think that this
can be true, for the Origin of Species is one long argument from
the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able
men. No one could have written it without having some power
of reasoning. I have a fair share of invention, and of common
sense or judgment, such as every fairly successful lawyer or
doctor must have, but not, I believe, in any higher degree.
On the favourable side of the balance, I think that I am
superior to the common run of men in noticing things which
easily escape attention, and in observing them carefully. My
industry has been nearly as great as it could have been in the ob-
servation and collection of facts. What is far more important,
my love of natural science has been steady and ardent.
This pure love has, however, been much aided by the
ambition to be esteemed by my fellow naturalists. From my
early youth I have had the strongest desire to understand
or explain whatever I observed,—that is, to group all facts
under some general laws. These causes combined have given
me the patience to reflect or ponder for any number of years
over any unexplained problem. As far as I can judge, I am not
apt to follow blindly the lead of other men. I have steadily
endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypo-
thesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one
on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to
it. Indeed, I have had no choice but to act in this manner, for
with the exception of the Coral Reefs, I cannot remember a
single first-formed hypothesis which had not after a time to be
given up or greatly modified. This has naturally led me to
distrust greatly, deductive reasoning in the mixed sciences. On
the other hand, I am not very sceptical,—a frame of mind which
I believe to be injurious to the progress of science. A good
deal of scepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid
much loss of time, [but] I have met with not a few men, who,
I feel sure, have often thus been deterred from experiment or
observations, which would have proved directly or indirectly
serviceable.
In illustration, I will give the oddest case which I haye
known. <A gentleman (who, as I afterwards heard, is a good
local botanist) wrote to me from the Eastern counties that the
seeds or beans of the common field-bean had this year every-
where grown on the wrong side of the pod. I wrote back,
asking for further information, as I did not understand what
was meant; but I did not receive any answer for a very long
time. I then saw in two newspapers, one published in Kent
Cu. II.J CURIOSITIES. 53
and the other in Yorkshire, paragraphs stating that it was a
most remarkable fact that ‘‘ the beans this year had all grown
on the wrong side.” §o I thought there must be some founda-
tion for so general a statement. Accordingly, I went to my
gardener, an old Kentish man, and asked him whether he had
heard anything about it, and he answered, “ Oh, no, sir, it must
bea mistake, for the beans grow on the wrong side only on leap-
year.” I then asked him how they grew in common years and
how on leap-years, but soon found that he knew absolutely
nothing of how they grew at any time, but he stuck to his
belief.
After a time I heard from my first informant, who, with many
apologies, said that he should not have written to me had he
not heard the statement from several intelligent farmers; but
that he had since spoken again to every one of them, and not
one knew in the least what he had himself meant. So that here
a belief—if indeed a statement with no definite idea attached to
it can be called a belief—had spread over almost the whole of
England without any vestige of evidence.
I have known in the course of my life only three intention-
ally falsified statements, and one of these may have been a.
hoax (and there have been several scientific hoaxes) which,
however, took in an American Agricultural Journal. It related
to the formation in Holland of a new breed of oxen by the
crossing of distinct species of Bos (some of which I happen to
know are sterile together), and the author had the impudence
to state that he had corresponded with me, and that I had been
deeply impressed with the importance of his result. The
article was sent to me by the editor of an English Agricultural
Journal, asking for my opinion before republishing it.
A second case was an account of several varieties, raised by
the author from several species of Primula, which had spon-
taneously yielded a full complement of seed, although the
parent plants had been carefully protected from the access of
insects. This account was published before I had discovered
the meaning of heterostylism, and thg whole statement must
have been fraudulent, or there was neglect in excluding insects
so gross as to be scarcely credible.
The third case was more curious: Mr. Huth published in his
book on ‘ Consanguineous Marriage’ some long extracts from a
Belgian author, who stated that he had interbred rabbits in the
closest, manner for very many generations, without the least
injurious effects. The account was published in a most respect-
able Journal, that of the Royal Society of Belgium; but I
could not avoid feeling doubts—I hardly know why, except
ee
54 AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Cu. Il.
that there were no accidents of any kind, and my experience in
breeding animals made me think this improbable.
So with much hesitation I wrote to Professor Van Beneden,
asking him whether the author was a trustworthy man. I soon
heard in answer that the Society had been greatly shocked by
discovering that the whole account was a fraud.* The writer
had been publicly challenged in the journal to say where he
had resided and kept his large stock of rabbits while carrying
on his experiments, which must have consumed several years,
and no answer could be extracted from him.
My habits are methodical, and this has been of not a little
use for my particular line of work. Lastly, I have had ample
leisure from not having to earn my own bread. Even ill-
health, though it has annihilated several years of my life, has
saved me from the distractions of society and amusement.
Therefore, my success as a man of science, whatever this may
have amounted to, has been determined, as far as I can judge,
by complex and diversified mental qualities and conditions. Of
these, the most important have been—the love of science—
unbounded patience in long reflecting over any subject—indus-
try in observing and collecting facts—and a fair share of
invention as well as of common-sense. With such moderate
abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that I should have
influenced to a considerable extent the belief of scientific men
on some important points.
* The falseness of the published statements on which Mr. Huth relied
were pointed out in a slip inserted in all the unsold copies of his book,
The Marriage of near Kin,—¥. D.
( 55 )
OHAPTER III.
RELIGION.
My father in his published works was reticent on the matter
of religion, and what he has left on the subject was not
written with a view to publication.*
I believe that his reticence arose from several causes. He
felt strongly that a man’s religion is an essentially private
matter, and one concerning himself alone. This is indicated
by the following extract from a letter of 1879 :—7
“ What my own views may be is a question of no con-
sequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state
that my judgment often fluctuates .. . In my most extreme
fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of
denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and
more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an
Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state
of mind.” r
He naturally shrank from wounding the sensibilities of
others in religious matters, and he was also influenced by the
consciousness that a man ought not to publish on a subject,
to which he has not given special and continuous thought.
That he felt this caution to apply to himself in the matter of
religion is shown in a letter to Dr. F. E. Abbott, of Cam-
bridge, U.S. (September 6, 1871). After explaining that
the weakness arising from bad health prevented him from
feeling “equal to deep reflection, on the deepest subject
which can fill a man’s mind,” he goes on to say: “ With
respect to my former notes to you, I quite forget their
contents. I have to write many letters, and can reflect but
little on what I write; but I fully believe and hope that
* As an exception, may be mentioned, a few words of concurrence with
Dr. Abbott’s Truths jor the Times, which my father allowed to be
By Mildred % Mx, J. ordyeo, and publiahed by him ia his Aspects of
; to Mr, J. Fo and publi 'y i
Scepticism, 1883. seit
56 RELIGION. (Ox. IIL
I have never written a word, which at the time I did not
think; but I think you will agree with me, that anything
which is to be given to the public ought to be maturely
weighed and cautiously put. It never occurred to me that
you would wish to print any extract from my notes: if it had,
I would have kept a copy. I put ‘private’ from habit, only »
as yet partially acquired, from some hasty notes of mine having
been printed, which were not in the least degree worth printing,
though otherwise unobjectionable. It is simply ridiculous to
suppose that my former note to you would be worth sending
to me, with any part marked which you desire to print; but if
you like to do so, I will at once say whether I should have
any objection. I feel in some degree unwilling to express
myself publicly on religious subjects, as I do not feel that I
have thought deeply enough to justify any publicity.”
What follows is from another letter to Dr. Abbott (No-
vember 16, 1871), in which my father gives more fully his
reasons for not feeling competent to write on religious and
moral subjects :—
“TI can say with entire truth that I feel honoured by your
request that I should become a contributor to the Index, and
am much obliged for the draft. I fully, also, subscribe to the
proposition that it is the duty of every one to spread what he
believes to be the truth; and I honour you for doing so, with
so much devotion and zeal. But I cannot comply with your
request for the following reasons; and excuse me for giving
them in some detail, as I should be very sorry to appear in
your eyes ungracious. My health is very weak: I never pass
24 hours without many hours of discomfort, when I can do
nothing whatever. I have thus, also, lost two whole consecutive
months this season. Owing to this weakness, and my head
being often giddy, I am unable to master new subjects re-
quiring much thought, and can deal only with old materials.
At no time am I a quick thinker or writer: whatever I have
done in science has solely been by long pondering, patience
and industry.
“ Now I have never systematically thought much on religion
in relation to science, or on morals in relation to society; and
without steadily keeping my mind on such subjects for a long
period, I am really incapable of writing anything worth sending
to the Index.” |
He was more than once asked to give his views on religion,
and he had, as a rule, no objection to doing so in a private
| 1873) Thus, in answer to a Dutch student, he wrote (April 2,
Cu. III.) - RELIGION. 57
“JT am sure you will excuse my writing at length, when I
tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now
staying away from my home for rest.
“Tt is impossible to answer your question briefly ; and I am
not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at somo length.
But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this
d and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose
through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the
existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real
value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if
we admit a First Cause,the mind still craves to know whence |‘
it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty
from the immeé h the world. I “&<
am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment
of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but
here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest
conclusion seems to me that the whole subject-i ©
scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.” ~~
Again in-1879-he-was applied to by a German student, in a
similar manner. The letter was answered by a member of my
father’s family, who wrote :—
“ Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters,
that he cannot answer them all.
“He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite com-
patible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember
that different persons have different definitions of what they
mean by God.”
This. however, did not satisfy the German youth, who
= wrote to my father, and received from him the following
reply -—
“TI am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and
I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully,—nor ~
4
indeed can they be answered. Science has nothing to do with
Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes
@ man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not
believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a
future life, every man must judge for himself between con-
flicting vague probabilities.”
The passages which here follow are extracts, somewhat
abbreviated, from a part of the Autobiography, written in
1876, in which my father gives the history of his religious
views :—
“During these two years* I was led to think much about
; - ™ October 1836 to January 1839.
58 RELIGION. (Ca. TH.
religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox,
and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the
officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible
as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I
suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them.
But I had gradually come by this time, t.e: 1836 to 1839, to
see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the
sacred books ofthe Hindoos. -"The-question then continually
rose before my mind and would not be banished,—is it credible
that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he
would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu,
Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament?
This appeared to me utterly incredible. _—
“ By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be
requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by
which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know
of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible-do miracles-—
“become,—that the men at that time were ignorantand credulous >
to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels ~
cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the ,
4
events,—that they differ in _mainy-important_details, far too
important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual
inaceuracies of eye-witnesses ;—by such reflections as these,
which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they
influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity
as a divine revelation. The fact that many false re '
have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had
some weight with me.
“But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I fool
sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing
day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and
manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which
confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in
the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free
scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would
suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very
slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that ~
I felt no distress.
“ Although I did not think much about the existence of a,
4
personal God until a considerably later period of my life, E._
will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been-~
driven. ‘The old argument from design in Nature, as given
by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so- conclusive, fails,
<1 sey that the law of_natural selection has been discovered,
We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge
Cu. IIL] RELIGION. 59
of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being,
like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more
design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of ,
natural selection, than-in-the~course which thé~wind~blows. _
BiutI have discussed this subject at the end of my book on.
the Variation of Domesticated Animals and Plants,* and the
argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been
answered.
“But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which
we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the gene-
rally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for?
Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount
of suffering in the world, that they doubt, if we look to all
sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happi- -
ness; whether the world as a whole is a good or a bad one.
According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though
this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this
conclusion be granted, it harmonizes well with the effects which
we might expect from-natural selection.._If all the individuals
of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree,
they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no
reason to believe that this has ever, or at least often occurred.
Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all
sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general _
rule, happiness. oe :
“ Every one who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and
mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous
nor disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been
developed through natural selection, or the survival of the
fittest, together with use or habit, will admit that these organs
have been formed so that their possessors may compete success-
fully with other beings, and thus increase in number. Now
_ @n animal may be led to pursue that course of action which
_ is most beneficial to the species by suffering, such as pain,
_ _hunger, -thirst;-and fear;-or—by pleasure, as in eating and
* My father asks whether we are to believe that the forms are pre-
_ ordained of the broken fragments of rock which are fitted together by
man to build his houses. If not, why should we believe that the
_ variations of domestic animals or plants are preordained for the sake of
_ the breeder? “But if we give up the principle in one case, . . '
no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations
"" alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been
- the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most
_ perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally
mao Variation of Animals and Plants, lst Edit. vol, ii,
p- wis
\y
o>
60 RELIGION. (Cx. IIL
drinking, and in the propagation of the species, &c.; or by
both means combined, as in the search for food. But pain or
suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression and
lessens the power of action, yet is well adapted to make a
creature guard itself against any great or sudden evil. Plea-
surable sensations, on the other hand, may be long continued
without any depressing effect ; on the contrary, they stimulate
the whole system to increased action. (Hence it has come to
pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed in
such a manner, through natural selection, that pleasurable
sensations serve as their habitual guides.| We see this in the
pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion
of the body or mind,—in the pleasure of our daily meals, and
especially in the pleasure derived from_sociability, and from 7
loving our families. The sum of such pleasures as these,
which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can
hardly doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness
over misery, although many occasionally suffer much. Such —
suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selec-
tion, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render
each species as successful as possible in the battle for life
:
f
with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing ~
circumstances.
“That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes
Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by
imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the
number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that
of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly with-
»out any moral improvement. This veryold-argument~fro
i
=
m
the existence of suffering against the existence of.an intelligent
First Cause seems to me a strong oné; whereas, as vom re-
markéd, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the
view that all organic beings have been developed through
variation and natural selection.
) © At the present day the most usual argument for the existence
of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction
~+ and feelings which are experienced by most persons.
“ Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred ©
to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was
ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the
existence of God and of the immortality of the soul. In my
Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the
grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an
adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and
devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember
Cu, III.) RELIGION. 61
my conviction that there is more in-man than the mere breath
of his body; but now the grandest scenes would not cause any
such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be
truly said that I am ‘who has become colour-blind,
and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness
makes my present loss of perception of not the least value
as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of
all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one
God ; but we know that this is very far from being the case.
Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings
are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state
of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which
was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially
~ differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity ;
and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this
sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the
existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague
and similar feelings excited by music.
“ With respect to immortality, nothing, shows me [so clearly]
how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is as the considera-
tion of the view now held by most physicists, namely, that the
sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life,
unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus
ives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant
aba will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is
an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are
doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued
slow progress. ‘To those who fully admit the immortality of
the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so
dreadful.
«“ Another source of conviction in the existence.of God, con- -
nected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me
as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme
difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense
and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of
looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of
blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel com-
pelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in
some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be
called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind
about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the
Origin of Species, and it is since that time that it has very
gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then
arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully
believe, been developed from s mind as low as that possessed
62 RELIGION. (On. IIt.
by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand
conclusions ?
“T cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse
problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is
insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an
Agnostic.”
The following letters repeat to some extent what is given
above from the Autobiography. The first one refers to The
Boundaries of Science: a Dialogue, published in Macmillan’s
Magazine, for July 1861.
C. D. to Miss Julia Wedgwood, July 11 [1861].
Some one has sent us Macmillan, and I must tell you how
much I admire your Article, though at the same time I must
confess that I could not clearly follow you in some parts, which
probably is in main part due to my not being at all accustomed
to metaphysical trains of thought. I think that you understand
my book* perfectly, and that I find a very rare event with my
critics. The ideas in the last page have several times vaguely
crossed my mind. Owing to several correspondents, I have
been led lately to think, or rather to try to think, over some of
the chief points discussed by you. But the result has been
with me a maze—something like thinking on the origin of
evil, to which you allude. The mind refuses to look at this
universe, being what it is, without having been designed; yet,
where one would most expect design, viz. in the structure of a
. sentient being, the moré I think on the subject,thetess I can
see proof of design: Asa Gray and some others look at each
variation, or at least at each beneficial variation (which A. Gray
would compare with the raindropst which do not fall on the
sea, but on to the land to fertilise it) as having been pro-
videntially designed. Yet when I ask him whether he looks
at each variation in the rock-pigeon, by which man has made
by accumulation a pouter or fantail pigeon, as providentially
designed for man’s amusement, he does not know what to
* The Origin of Species.
+ Dr. Gray’s rain-drop metaphor occurs in the Essay, Darwin and his ©
Reviewers (Darwiniana, p. 157): “The whole animate life of a country
depends absolutely upon the vegetation, the vegetation upon the rain,
The moisture is furnished by the ocean, is raised by the sun’s heat from
the ocean’s surface, and is wafted inland by the winds. But what
multitudes of rain-drops fall back into the ocean—are as much without a
final cause as the incipient varieties which come to nothing! Does it
therefore follow that the rains which are bestowed upon the soil with
such rule and average regularity were not designed to support vegetable
and animal life?”
, -\peoe
Cu, IIL.) RELIGION. 63
answer; and if he, or any one, admits [that] these variations
are accidental, as far as purpose is concerned (ct course not
accidental as to their cause or origin), then I can see no
reason why he should rank the accumulated variations by
which the beautifully-adapted woodpecker has been formed as
providentially designed. For it would be easy to imagine the
enlarged crop of the pouter, or tail of the fantail, as of some
use to birds, in a state of nature, having peculiar habits of
life. These are the considerations which perplex me about
design; but whether you will care to hear them, I know not.
On the subject of design, he wrote (July 1860) to Dr.
Gray :
«One word more on ‘designed laws’ and ‘ undesigned
results.’ I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and
kill it, I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands
under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you
believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly
killed this man? Many or most persons do believe this; I
can’t and don’t. If you believe so, do you believe that when
a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that par-
ticular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that
icular instant? ~I-believe that the man and_the-gnat-are
in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor
gnat is designed, I see no good reason to believe that their
jirst birth or production should be necessarily designed.”
C. D. to W. Graham. Down, July 8rd, 1881.
Dear Sir,—I hope that you will not think it intrusive on
my part to thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have
derived from reading your admirably-written Creed of Science,
though I have not yet quite finished it, as now that I am old I
read very slowly. It is a very long time since any other
book has interested me so much. The work must have cost
you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for
work. You would not probably expect any one fully to agree
with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some
points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is
that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. \.
I cannot see this. Not to méition that many expect that
the~several” great laws will some day be found to follow
inevitably from some one_single law, yet taking the laws as
we now know them, and loo @ moon, where the law of
gravitation—and no doubt of the conservation of energy—of
the atomic theory, &c., &c., hold good, and I cannot see that
ee
ne ne
eo
64 RELIGION. (Cu. IIL
there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be
purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of conscious-
ness, existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in
abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless
you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more
vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe
is not the result of chance.* But then with me the horrid
doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind,
which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals,
are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust
in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any con-
victions in such a mind? Secondly, I think that I could
make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance
which you attribute to our greatest men; I have been
accustomed to think second, third, and fourth-rate men of
very high importance, at least in the case of Science. Lastly,
I could show fight on natural selection having done and
doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem
inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe
ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the
Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more
civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish
hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world
‘at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower
races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races
throughout the world. But I will write no more, and not
even mention the many points in your work which have
much interested me. I have indeed cause to apologise for
troubling you with my impressions, and my sole excuse is
the excitement in my mind which your book has aroused.
I beg leave to remain, dear sir,
Yours faithfully and obliged.
Darwin spoke little on these subjects, and I can contribute
nothing from my own recollection of his conversation which
* The Duke of Argyll (Good Words, April 1885, p. 244) has recorded a
few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his |
life. “. .. in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with
reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of
Orchids, and upon The EHarthworms, and various other observations he
made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said
it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect
and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer.
He looked at me very hard and said, ‘ Well, that often comes over me
with overwhelming force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head
vaguely, adding, ‘it seems to go away.’”
—— — SO lh LF ee
Cu. III.) RELIGION. 65
can add to the impression here given of his attitude towards
Religion.* Some further idea of his views may, however, be
gathered from occasional remarks in his letters.
* Dr. Aveling has published an account of a conversation with my father.
I think that the of this hlet (The Religious Views of Charles
Darwin, Free Thought Publishing’ mpany, 1883) may be misled into
seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my
father and Dr. Aveling: and I say this in spite of my conviction that
Dr. pveling Le uite fairly his impressions of my father’s views. Dr.
Aveling to show that the terms “ Agnostic” and “ Atheist” are
practically equivalent—that an atheist is one who, without denying the
existence of is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced ef the
existence of a Deity. My father’s replies implied his preference for the
po ay attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (p, 5) to regard
the absence of aggressiveness in my father’s views as distinguishing them
in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is
isely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely
se the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs.
THE STUDY AT DOWN.*
CHAPTER IV.
REMINISCENCES OF MY FATHER’S EVERYDAY LIFE.
Ir is my wish in the present chapter to give some idea of my
father’s everyday life. It has seemed to me that I might carry
out this object in the form of a rough sketch of a day’s life at
Down, interspersed with such recollections as are called up by
the record. Many of these recollections, which have a meaning ©
for those who knew my father, will seem colourless or trifling
to strangers. Nevertheless, I give them in the hope that Rey
may help to preserve that impression of his personality whic
remains on the minds of those who knew and loved him—an
impression at once so vivid and so untranslatable into words.
* From the Century Magazine, January 1883,
Cu. IV.] REMINISCENCES. 67
Of his personal appearance (in these days of multiplied
photographs) it is hardly necessary to say much. He was
about six feet in height, but scarcely looked so tall, as he
stooped a good deal; in later days he yielded to the stoop;
but I can remember seeing him long ago swinging back his
arms to open out his chest, and holding himself upright with
a jerk. He gave one the idea that he had been active rather
than strong; his shoulders were not broad for his height,
though certainly not narrow. As a young man he must have
had much endurance, for on one of the shore excursions from
the Beagle, when all were suffering from want of water, he was
one of the two who were better able than the rest to struggle
on in search of it. Asa boy he was active, and could jump
a bar placed at the height of the “ Adam’s apple” in his
neck,
He walked with a swinging action, using a stick heavily
shod with iron, which he struck loudly against the ground,
producing as he went round the “Sand-walk” at Down,.a
rhythmical click which is with all of us a very distinct re-
membrance. As he returned from the midday walk, often
carrying the waterproof or cloak which had proved too hot,
one could see that the swinging step was kept up by some-
thing of an effort. Indoors his step was often slow and
laboured, and as he went upstairs in the afternoon he might be
heard mounting the stairs with a heavy footfall, as if each step
were an effort. When interested in his work he moved about
quickly and easily enough, and often in the midst of dictating
he went eagerly into the hall to get a pinch of snuff, leaving
the study door open, and calling out the last words of his
sentence as he left the room.
In spite of his activity, he had, I think, no natural grace or
neatness of movement. He was awkward with his hands, and
was unable to draw at all well.* This he always regretted,
and he frequently urged the paramount necessity to a young
naturalist of making himself a good draughtsman.
He could dissect well under the simple microscope, but I
think it was by dint of his great patience and carefulness. It was
characteristic of him that he thought any little bit of skilful
dissection something almost superhuman. He used to speak with
admiration of the skill with which he saw Newport dissect a
humble bee, getting out the nervous system with a few cuts of a
pair of fine scissors. He used to consider cutting microscopic
sections a great feat, and in the last year of his life, with
* The figure in Insectivorous Plants representing the aggregated cell-
contents was drawn by him, 3
F
68 REMINISCENCES. (Oa. IV.
wonderful energy, took the pains to learn to cut sections of
roots and leaves. His hand was not steady enongh to hold the
object to be cut, and he employed a common microtome, in
which the pith for holding the object was clamped, and the razor
slid on a glass surface. He used to laugh at himself, and at
his own skill in section-cutting, at which he would say he
was “speechless with admiration.” On the other hand, he
must have had accuracy of eye and power of co-ordinating his
movements, since he was a good shot with a gun as a young
man, and as a boy was skilful in throwing. He once killed a
hare sitting in the flower-garden at Shrewsbury by throwing a
marble at it, and, as a man, he killed a cross-beak with a stone.
He was so unhappy at having uselessly killed the cross-beak
that he did not mention it for years, and then explained that he
should never have thrown at it if he had not felt sure that his
old skill had gone from him.
His beard was full and almost untrimmed, the hair being
grey and white, fine rather than coarse, and wavy or frizzled.
His moustache was somewhat disfigured by being cut short and
square across. He became very bald, having only a fringe of
dark hair behind.
His face was ruddy in colour, and this perhaps made people
think him less of an invalid than he was. He wrote to Sir
Joseph Hooker (June 13, 1849), “Every one tells me that I
look quite blooming and beautiful; and most think I am
shamming, but you have never been one of those.” And it
must be remembered that at this time he was miserably ill, far
worse than in later years. His eyes were bluish grey under
deep overhanging brows, with thick, bushy projecting eye-
brows. His high forehead was deeply wrinkled, but otherwise
his face was not much marked or lined. His expression showed
no signs of the continual discomfort he suffered.
When he was excited with pleasant talk his whole manner
was wonderfully bright and animated, and his face shared to
the full in the general animation. His laugh was a free and
sounding peal, like that of a man who gives himself sympa-
thetically and with enjoyment to the person and the thing
which have amused him. He often used some sort of gesture
with his laugh, lifting up his hands or bringing one down with
aslap. I think, generally speaking, he was given to gesture,
and often used his hands in explaining anything (e.g. the
fertilisation of a flower) in a way that seemed rather an aid
to himself than to the listener. He did this on occasions
when most people would illustrate their explanations by means
of a rough pencil sketch.
On. IV] REMINISCENCES. 69
He wore dark clothes, of a loose and easy fit. Of late years
he gave up the tall hat even in London, and wore a soft black
one in winter, and a big straw hatin summer. His usual out-
of-doors dress was the short cloak in which Elliot and Fry’s
photograph* represents him, leaning against the pillar of the
verandah. ‘'T'wo peculiarities of his indoor dress were that he
almost always wore a shawl over his shoulders, and that he had
great loose cloth boots lined with fur which he could slip on
over his indoor shoes.
He rose early, and took a short turn before breakfast, a
habit which began when he went for the first time to a water-
cure establishment, and was preserved till almost the end of
his life. I used, as a little boy, to like going out with him,
and I have a vague sense of the red of the winter sunrise, and
a recollection of the pleasant companionship, and a certain
honour and glory in it. He used to delight me as a boy by
telling me how, in still earlier walks, on dark winter mornings,
he had once or twice met foxes trotting home at the dawning.
After breakfasting alone about 7.45, he went to work at
once, considering the 14 hour between 8 and 9.30 one of his
best working times. At 9.30 he came in to the drawing-room
for his letters—rejoicing if the post was a light one and being
sometimes much worried if it was not. He would then hear any
family letters read aloud as he lay on the sofa.
The reading aloud, which also included part of a novel,
lasted till about half-past ten, when he went back to work till
twelve or a quarter past. By this time he considered his day’s
work over, and would often say, in a satisfied voice, “* I’ve done
a good day’s work.” He then went out of doors whether it was
wet or fine; Polly, his white terrier, went with him in fair
weather, but in rain she refused or might be seen hesitating in
the verandah, with a mixed expression of disgust and shame at
her own want of courage; generally, however, her conscience
carried the day, and as soon as he was evidently gone she could
not bear to stay behind.
My father was always fond of dogs, and as a young man had
the power of stealing away the affections of his sister’s pets ;
at Cambridge, he won the love of his cousin W. D. Fox’s dog,
and this may perhaps have been the little beast which used to
creep down inside his bed and sleep at the foot every night.
My father had a surly dog, who was devoted to him, but
unfriendly to every one else, and when he came back from the
Beagle voyage, the dog remembered him, but in a curious way,
which my father was fond of telling. He went into the yard
* Life and Letters, vol. iii. frontispieve,
70 REMINISCENCES. [Cu. IV
and shouted in his old manner; the dog rushed out and set
off with him on his walk, showing no more emotion or excite-
ment than if the same thing had happened the day before,
instead of five years ago. This story is made use of in the
Descent of Man, 2nd Edit. p. 74.
In my memory there were only two dogs which had much
connection with my father. One was a large black and white
half-bred retriever, called Bob, to which we, as children, were
much devoted. He was the dog of whom the story of the
“ hot-house face ” is told in the Expression of the Emotions.
But the dog most closely associated with my father was the
above-mentioned Polly, a rough, white fox-terrier. She was a
sharp-witted, affectionate dog; when her master was going
away on a journey, she always discovered the fact by the signs
of packing’ going on in the study, and became low-spirited
accordingly. She began, too, to be excited by seeing the study
prepared for his return home. She was a cunning little
creature, and used to tremble or put on an air of misery when
my father passed, while she was waiting for dinner, just as if
she knew that he would say (as he did often say) that “she
was famishing.” My father used to make her catch biscuits
off her nose, and had an affectionate and mock-solemn way of
explaining to her before-hand that she must “ be a very good
girl.” She had a mark on her back where she had been burnt,
and where the hair had re-grown red instead of white, and my
father used to commend her for this tuft of hair as being in
accordance with his theory of pangenesis; her father had been
a red bull-terrier, thus the red hair appearing aften the burn
showed the presence of latent red gemmules. He was delight-
fully tender to Polly, and never showed any impatience at the
attentions she required, such as to be let in at the door, or out
at the verandah window, to bark at “ naughty people,” a self-
imposed duty she much enjoyed. She died, or rather had to be
killed, a few days after his death.*
My father’s mid-day walk generally began by a call at the
greenhouse, where he looked at any germinating seeds or
experimental plants which required a casual examination, but
he hardly ever did any serious observing at this time. Then
he went on for his constitutional—either round the “Sand-
walk,” or outside his own grounds in the immediate neighbour-
hood of the house. The “ Sand-walk” was a narrow strip of
land 14 acre in extent, with a gravel-walk round it. On one
* The basket in which she usually lay curled up near the fire in his
study is faithfully represented in Mr. Parson’s drawing given at the head
of the chapter.
Ox. IV.5 REMINISCENCES. 71
side of it was a broad old shaw with fair-sized oaks in it,
which made a sheltered shady walk; the other side was
separated from a neighbouring grass field by a low quickset
hedge, over which you could look at what view there was, a
quiet little valley losing itself in the upland country towards
the edge of the Westerham hill, with hazel coppice and larch
plantation, the remnants of what was once a large wood,
stretching away to the Westerham high road. I have heard
my father say that the charm of this simple little valley was
a decided factor in his choice of a home.
The Sand-walk was planted by my father with a variety of
trees, such as hazel, alder, lime, hornbeam, birch, privet, and
dogwood, and with a long line of hollies all down the exposed
side. In earlier times he took a certain number of turns every
day, and used to count them by means of a heap of flints, one
of which he kicked out on the path each time he passed. Of
late years I think he did not keep to any fixed number of
turns, but took as many as he felt strength for. The Sand-
walk was our play-ground as children, and here we continually
saw my father as he walked round. He liked to see what we
were doing, and was ever ready to sympathize in any fun that
was going on. Itis curious to think how, with regard to the
Sand-walk in connection with my father, my earliest recol-
lections coincide with my latest ; it shows the unvarying
character of his habits.
Sometimes when alone he stood still or walked stealthily to
observe birds or beasts. . It was on one of these occasions that
some young squirrels ran up his back and legs, while their
mother barked at them in an agony from the tree. He always
found birds’ nests even up to the last years of his life, and we,
as children, considered that he had a special genius in this
direction. In his quiet prowls he came across the less
common birds, but I fancy he used to conceal it from me as a
little boy, because he observed the agony of mind which I
endured at not having seen the siskin or goldfinch, or some
other of the less common birds. He used to tell us how, when
he was creeping noiselessly along in the “ Big-Woods,”’ he
came upon a fox asleep in the daytime, which was so much
astonished that it took a good stare at him before it ran off.
A Spitz dog which accompanied him showed no sign of
excitement at the fox, and he used to end the story by
wondering how the dog could have been so faint-hearted.
Another favourite place was “ Orchis Bank,” above the quiet
Cudham valley, where fly- and musk-orchis grew among the
junipers, and Cephalanthera and Neottia under the beech
72 REMINISCENCES (On. IV.
boughs; the little wood “ Hangrove,” just above this, he was
also fond of, and here I remember his collecting grasses, when
he took a fancy to make out the names of all the common
kinds. He was fond of quoting the saying of one of his little
boys, who, having found a grass that his father had not seen
before, had it laid by his own plate during dinner, remarking,
*“ £ are an extraordinary grass-finder !”
My father much enjoyed wandering idly in the garden
with my mother or some of his children, or making one of
a party, sitting on a bench on the lawn; he generally sat,
however, on the grass,and I remember him often lying under
one of the big lime-trees, with his head on the green mound at
its foot. In dry summer weather, when we often sat out, the
fly-wheel of the well was commonly heard spinning round, and
so the sound became associated with those pleasant days. He
used to like to watch us playing at lawn-tennis, and often
knocked up a stray ball for us with the curved handle of his
stick.
Though he took no personal share in the management of
the garden, he had great delight in the beauty of flowers—for
instance, in the mass of Azaleas which generally stood in
the drawing-room, I think he sometimes fused together his
admiration of the structure of a flower and of its intrinsic
beauty ; for instance, in the case of the big pendulous pink
and white flowers of Diclytra. In the same way he had an
affection, half-artistic, half-botanical, for the little blue Lobelia.
In admiring flowers, he would often laugh at the dingy high-
art colours, and contrast them with the bright tints of nature,
I used to like to hear him admire the beauty of a flower; it
was a kind of gratitude to the flower itself, and a personal love
for its delicate form and colour. I seem to remember him
gently touching a flower he delighted in; it was the same
simple admiration that a child might have.
He could not help personifying natural things. This feeling
came out in abuse as well as in praise—e.g. of some seedlings
— The little beggars are doing just what I don’t want them
to.” He would speak in a half-provoked, half-admiring way
of the ingenuity of the leaf of a Sensitive Plant in screwing
itself out of a basin of water in which he had tried to fix it.
One might see the same spirit in his way of speaking of
Sundew, earthworms, &c.*
* Cf. Leslie Stephen’s Swift, 1882, p. 200, where Swift’s inspection of
the manners and customs of servants are compared to my father’s observa-
tions on worms, “ The difference is,” says Mr. Stephen, “ that Darwin had
none but kindly feelings for worms,”
Cu. IV.] REMINISCENCES. 78
Within my memory, his only outdoor recreation, besides
walking, was riding; this was taken up at the recommendation
of Dr. Bence Jones, and we had the luck to find for him the
easiest and quietest cob in the world, named “Tommy.” He
enjoyed these rides extremely, and devised a series of short
rounds which brought him home in time for lunch. Our
country is good for this purpose, owing to the number of small
valleys which give a variety to what in a flat country would
be a dull loop of road. I think he felt surprised at himself,
when he remembered how bold a rider he had been, and how
utterly old age and bad health had taken away his nerve. He
would say that riding prevented him thinking much more
effectually than walking—that having to attend to the horse
gave him occupation sufficient to prevent any really hard
thinking. And the change of scene which it gave him was
good for spirits and health.
If I go beyond my own experience, and recall what I have
heard him say of his love for sport, &c., I can think of a good
deal, but much of it would be a repetition of what is con-
tained in his Recollections. He was fond of his gun as quite a
boy, and became a good shot; he used to tell how in South
America he killed twenty-three snipe in twenty-four shots. In
telling the story he was careful to add that he thought they
were not quite so wild as English snipe.
Luncheon at Down camo after his mid-day walk; and
here I may say a word or two about his meals generally.
He had a boy-like love of sweets, unluckily for himself, since
he was constantly forbidden to take them. He was not
particularly successful in keeping the “ vows,” as he called
them, which he made against eating sweets, and never con-
sidered them binding unless he made them aloud.
He drank very little wine, but enjoyed and was revived
by the little he did drink. He had a horror of drinking,
and constantly warned his boys that any one might be led
into drinking too much. I remember, in my innocence as a
small boy, asking him if he had been ever tipsy; and he
answered very gravely that he was ashamed to say he had
once drunk too much at Cambridge. I was much impressed,
so that I know now the place where the question was asked.
After his lunch he read the newspaper, lying on the sofa
in the drawing-room. I think the paper was the only non-
scientific matter which he read to himself. Everything else,
novels, travels, history, was read aloud to him. He took so
wide an interest in life, that there was much to occupy him
in newspapers, though he laughed at the wordiness of the
74 REMINISCENCES. (Cu. IV.
debates, reading them, I think, only in abstract. His interest
in politics was considerable, but his opinion on these matters
was formed rather by the way than with any serious amount
of thought.
After he had read his paper, came his time for writing
letters. These, as well as the MS. of his books, were written
by him as he sat in a huge horse-hair chair by the fire, his
paper supported on a board resting on the arms of the chair.
When he had many or long letters to write, he would dictate
them from a rough copy; these rougk copies were written on
the backs of manuscript or of proof-sheets, and were almost
illegible, sometimes even to himself. He made a rule of
keeping all letters that he received ; this was a habit which
he learnt from his father, and which he said had been of
great use to him.
Many letters were addressed to him by foolish, unscrupulous
people, and all of these received replies. He used to say that
if he did not answer them, he had it on his conscience after-
wards, and no doubt it was in great measure the courtesy with
which he answered every one which produced the widespread
sense of his kindness of nature which was so evident on his
death.
He was considerate to his correspondents in other and lesser
things—for instance, when dictating a letter to a foreigner, he
hardly ever failed to say to me, “ You'd better try and write
well, as it’s to a foreigner.” His letters were generally written
on the assumption that they would be carelessly read; thus,
when he was dictating, he was careful to tell me to make an
important clause begin with an obvious paragraph, “ to catch
his eye,” as he often said. How much he thought of the trouble
he gave others by asking questions, will be well enough shown
by his letters.
He had a printed form to be used in replying to troublesome
correspondents, but he hardly ever used it; I suppose he never
found an occasion that seemed exactly suitable. I remember
an occasion on which it might have been used with advantage.
He received a letter from a stranger stating that the writer:
had undertaken to uphold Evolution at a debating society,
and that being a busy young man, without time for reading,
he wished to have a sketch of my father’s views. Even
this wonderful young man got a civil answer, though I
think he did not get much material for his speech. His
rule was to thank the donors of books, but not of pamphlets.
He sometimes expressed surprise that so few thanked him
for his books which he gave away liberally; the letters that
Ou. IV.] REMINISCENCES. 75
he did receive gave him much pleasure, because he habitually
formed so humble an estimate of the value of all his works,
that <4 was genuinely surprised at the interest which they
excited.
In money and business matters he was remarkably careful
and exact. He kept accounts with great care, classifying
them, and balancing at the end of the year like a merchant.
I remember the quick way in which he would reach out for
his account-book to enter each cheque paid, as though he were
in a hurry to get it entered before he had forgotten it. His
father must have allowed him to believe that he would be
poorer than he really was, for some of the difficulty experi-
enced over finding a house in the country must have arisen
from the modest sum he felt prepared to give. Yet he knew,
of course, that he would be in easy circumstances, for in his
Recollections he mentions this as one of the reasons for his
not having worked at medicine with so much zeal as he
would have done if he had been obliged to gain his living.
He had a pet economy in paper, but it was rather a hobby
than a real economy. All the blank sheets of letters received
were kept in a portfolio to be used in making notes; it was
his respect for paper that made him write so much on the
backs of his old MS., and in this way, unfortunately, he de-
stroyed large parts of the original MS. of his books. His
feeling about paper extended to waste paper, and he objected,
half in fun, to the habit of throwing a spill into the fire after
it had been used for lighting a candle.
He had a great respect for pure business capacity, and
often spoke with admiration of a relative who had doubled
his fortune. And of himself would often say in fun that
what he really was proud of was the money he had saved.
He also felt satisfaction in the money he made by his books.
His anxiety to save came in great measure from his fears
that his children would not have health enough to earn their
own livings, a foreboding which fairly haunted him for many
years. And I have a dim recollection of his saying, “Thank
God, you'll have bread and cheese,” when I was so young that
I was inclined to take it literally.
When letters were finished, about three in the afternoon, he
rested in his bedroom, lying on the sofa, smoking a cigarette,
and listening to a novel or other book not scientific. He
only smoked when resting, whereas snuff was a stimulant,
and was taken during working hours. He took snuff for
many years of his life, having learnt the habit at Edinburgh
as a student. He had a nice silver snuff-box given him by
76 REMINISCENCES. (Cu. IV.
Mrs. Wedgwood, of Maer, which he valued much—but he
rarely carried it, because it tempted him to take too many
pinches. In one of his early letters he speaks of having
given up snuff for a month, and describes himself as feeling
“ most lethargic; stupid, and melancholy.” Our former neigh-
bour and clergyman, Mr. Brodie Innes, tells me that at one
time my father made a resolve not to take snuff, except away
from home, “a most satisfactory arrangement for me,” he adds,
“as I kept a box in my study, to which there was access from
the garden without summoning servants, and I had more
frequently, than might have been otherwise the case, the
privilege of a few minutes’ conversation with my dear friend.”
He generally took snuff from a jar on the hall-table, because
having to go this distance for a pinch was a slight check; the
clink of the lid of the snuff-jar was a very familiar sound,
Sometimes when he was in the drawing-room, it would occur
to him that the study fire must be burning low, and when
one of us offered to see after it, it would turn out that he also
wished to get a pinch of snuff.
Smoking he only took to permanently of late years, though
on his Pampas rides he learned to smoke with the Gauchos,
and I have heard him speak of the great comfort of a cup of
maté and a cigarette when he halted after a long ride and
was unable to get food for some time.
He came down at four o’clock to dress for his walk, and
he was so regular that one might be quite certain it was
within a few minutes of four when his descending steps were
heard.
From about half-past four to half-past five he worked; then
he came to the drawing-room, and was idle till it was time
(about six) to go up for another rest with novel-reading and a
cigarette.
Latterly he gave up late dinner, and had a simple tea at
half-past seven (while we had dinner), with an egg or a small
piece of meat. After dinner he never stayed in the room,
and used to apologise by saying he was an old woman who.
must be allowed to leave with the ladies. This was one of
the many signs and results of his constant weakness and ill-
health. Half an hour more or less conversation would make
to him the difference of a sleepless night and of the loss
perhaps of half the next day’s work.
After dinner he played backgammon with my mother, two
games being played every night. For many years a score of
the games which each won was kept, and in this score he took
the greatest interest. He became extremely animated over
On. IV] REMINISCENCES. a7
these games, bitterly lamenting his bad luck and exploding
with exaggerated mock-anger at my mother’s good fortune.
After playing backgammon he read some scientific book to
himself, either in the drawing-room, or, if much talking was
going on, in the study.
In the evening—that is, after he had read as much as his
strength would allow, and before the reading aloud began—
he would often lie on the sofa and listen to my mother playing
the piano. He had not a good ear, yet in spite of this he had
a true love of fine music. He used to lament that his enjoy-
ment of music had become dulled with age, yet within my
recollection his love of a good tune wasstrong. I never heard
him hum more than one tune, the Welsh song “ Ar hyd y nos,”
which he went through correctly; he used also, I believe, to
hum a little Otaheitan song. From his want of ear he was
unable to recognise a tune when he heard it again, but he
remained constant to what he liked, and would often say,
when an old favourite was played, “ 'That’s a fine thing; what
is it?” He liked especially parts ot Beethoven’s symphonies
and bits of Handel. He was sensitive to differences in style,
and enjoyed the late Mrs. Vernon Lushington’s playing
intensely, and in June 1881, when Hans Richter paid a visit
at Down, he was roused to strong enthusiasm by his magni-
ficent performance on the piano. He enjoyed good singing,
and was moved almost to tears by grand or pathetic songs
His niece Lady Farrer’s singing of Sullivan’s “ Will he come”
was a never-failing enjoyment to him. He was humble in the
extreme about his own taste, and correspondingly pleased when
he found that others agreed with him.
He became much tired in the evenings, especially of late
years, and left the drawing-room about ten, going to bed at
half-past ten. His nights were generally bad, and he often
lay awake or sat up in bed for hours, suffering much dis-
comfort. He was troubled at night by the activity of his
thoughts, and would become exhausted by his mind working
at some problem which he would willingly have dismissed.
At night, too, anything which had vexed or troubled him
in the day would haunt him, and I think it was then that
he suffered if he had not answered some troublesome corre-
spondent.
The regular readings, which I have mentioned, continued
for so many years, enabled him to get through a great
deal of the lighter kinds of literature. He was extremely
fond of novels, and I remember well the way in which
he would anticipate the pleasure of having a novel read
78 REMINISCENCES. (Cx. TV.
to him as he lay down or lighted his cigarette. He took
a vivid interest both in plot and characters, and would on no
account know beforehand how a story finished ; he considered —
looking at the end of a novel as a feminine vice. He could -
not enjoy any story with a tragical end; for this reason he
did not keenly appreciate George Eliot, though he often spoke,
warmly in praise of Silas Marner. Walter Scott, Miss Austen,
and Mrs. Gaskell were read and re-read till they could be read
no more. He had two or three books in hand at the same
time—a novel and perhaps a biography and a book of travels.
He did not often read out-of-the-way or old standard books,
but generally kept to the books of the day obtained from a
circulating library.
a ee a
His literary tastes and opinions were not on a level with the —
rest of his mind. He himself, though he was clear as to what —
he thought good, considered that in matters of literary tastes —
he was quite outside the pale, and often spoke of what those —
within it liked or disliked, as if they formed a class to which —
he had no claim to belong.
In all matters of art he was inclined to laugh at professed
critics and say that their opinions were formed by fashion.
Thus in painting, he would say how in his day every one
admired masters who are now neglected. His love of pictures
ag a young man is almost a proof that he must have had an
appreciation of a portrait as a work of art, not as a likeness.
Yet he often talked laughingly of the small worth of portraits,
and said that a photograph was worth any number of
pictures, as if he were blind to the artistic quality in a painted
portrait. But this was generally said in his attempts to
persuade us to give up the idea of having his portrait painted,
an operation very irksome to him.
This way of looking at himself as an ignoramus in all —
matters of art, was strengthened by the absence of pretence, —
which was part of his character. With regard to questions of —
taste, as well as to more serious things he had the courage ~
of his opinions. I remember, however, an instance that —
sounds like a contradiction to this: when he was looking at —
the Turners in Mr. Ruskin’s bedroom, he did not confess, —
as he did afterwards, that he could make out absolutely —
nothing of what Mr. Ruskin saw in them. But this little —
pretence was not for his own sake, but for the sake of courtesy —
to his host. He was esa and amused when peek |
Mr. Ruskin brought him some photographs of pictures (
think Vandyke portraits), and courteously seemed to value m
father’s opinion about them. “i
Cu. IV.] REMINISCENCES. 79
Much of his scientific reading was in German, and this was
a serious labour to him; in reading a book after him, I was
often struck at seeing, from the pencil-marks made each day
where he left off, how little he could read ata time. He used
to call German the “ Verdammte,” pronounced as if in
English. He was especially indignant with Germans, because
he was convinced that they could write simply if they chose,
and often praised Professor Hildebrand of Freiburg for writing
German which was as clear as French. He sometimes gave a
German sentence to a friend, a patriotic German lady, and
used to laugh at her if she did not translate it fluently. He
himself learnt German simply by hammering away with a
dictionary ; he would say that his only way was to read a
sentence a great many times over, and at last the meaning
occurred to him. When he began German long ago, he boasted
of the fact (as he used to tell) to Sir J. Hooker, who replied,
“Ah, my dear fellow, that’s nothing; I’ve begun it many
times.”
In spite of his want of grammar, he managed to get on
wonderfully with German, and the sentences that he failed to
make out were generally difficult ones. He never attempted
to speak German correctly, but pronounced the words as
though they were English; and this made it not a little
difficult to help him, when he read out a German sentence
and asked for a translation. He certainly had a bad ear for
vocal sounds, so that he found it impossible to perceive small
differences in pronunciation.
His wide interest in branches of science that were not
specially his own was remarkable. In the biological sciences
his doctrines make themselves felt so widely that there was
something interesting to him in most departments. He read a
good deal of many quite special works, and large parts of text
books, such as Huxley’s Invertebrate Anatomy, or such a book
as Balfour’s Embryology, where the detail, at any rate, was not
specially in his own line. And in the case of elaborate books
of the monograph type, though he did not make a study of
them, yet he felt the strongest admiration for them.
In the non-biological sciences he felt keen sympathy with
work of which he could not really judge. For instance, he
used to read nearly the whole of Nature, though so much of
it deals with mathematics and physics. I have often heard
him say that he got a kind of satisfaction in reading articles
which (according to himself) he could not understand. I wish
I could reproduce the manner in which he would laugh at
himself for it,
80 REMINISCENCES. (Cu. IV
It was remarkable, too, how he kept up his interest in
subjects at which he had formerly worked. This was strik-
ingly the case with geology. In one of his letters to Mr. Judd
he begs him to pay him a visit, saying that since Lyell’s death
he hardly ever gets a geological talk. His observations,
made only a few years before his death, on the upright
pebbles in the drift at Southampton, and discussed in a letter
to Sir A. Geikie, afford another instance. Again, in his letters
to Dr. Dohrn, he shows how his interest in barnacles remained
alive. I think it was all due to the vitality and persistence of
his mind—a quality I have heard him speak of as if he felt
that he was strongly gifted in that respect. Not that he used
any such phrases as these about himself, but he would say
that he had the power of keeping a subject or question more
or less before him for a great many years. The extent to
which he possessed this power appears when we consider the
number of different problems which he solved, and the early
period at which some of them began to occupy him.
It was a sure sign that he was not well when he was idle
at any times other than his regular resting hours; for, as long
as he remained moderately well, there was no break in the
regularity of his life. Week-days and Sundays passed by
alike, each with their stated intervals of work and rest. It
is almost impossible, except for those who watched his daily
life, to realise how essential to his well-being was the regular
routine that I have sketched: and with what pain and diffi-
culty anything beyond it was attempted. Any public ap-
pearance, even of the most modest kind, was an effort to him.
In 1871 he went to the little village church for the wedding
of his elder daughter, but he could hardly bear the fatigue of
being present through the short service. The same may be
said of the few other occasions on which he was present at
similar ceremonies.
I remember him many years ago at a christening; a
memory which has remained with me, because to us children
his being at church was an extraordinary occurrence. I re-
member his look most distinctly at his brother Hrasmus’s
funeral, as he stood in the scattering of snow, wrapped in a
long black funeral cloak, with a grave look of sad reverie.
When, after an absence of many years, he attended a
meeting of the Linnean Society, it was felt to be, and was in
fact, a serious undertaking; one not to be determined on
without much sinking of heart, and hardly to be carried into
effect without paying a penalty of subsequent suffering. In
the same way a breakfast-party at Sir James Paget's, with
Co IV] | REMINISCENCES. 81
some of the distinguished visitors to the Medical Congress
(1881), was to him a severe exertion.
The early morning was the only time at which he could
make any effort of the kind, with comparative impunity.
Thus it came about that the visits he paid to his scientific
friends in London were by preference made as early as ten in
the morning. For the same reason he started on his journeys
by the earliest possible train, and used to arrive at the houses
of relatives in London when they were beginning their day.
He kept an accurate journal of the days on which he worked
and those on which his ill health prevented him from working,
so that it would be possible to tell how many were idle days
in any given year. In this journal—a little yellow Letts’s
Diary, which lay open on his mantel-piece, piled on the diaries
of previous years—he also entered the day on which he
started for a holiday and that of his return.
The most frequent holidays were visits of a week to
London, either to his brother’s house (6 Queen Anne Street),
or to his daughter’s (4 Bryanston Street). He was generally
persuaded by my mother to take these short holidays, when
it became clear from the frequency of “bad days,” or from
the swimming of his head, that he was being overworked.
He went unwillingly, and tried to drive hard bargains, stipu-
lating, for instance, that he should come home in five days
instead of six. The discomfort of a journey to him was, at
least latterly, chiefly in the anticipation, and in the miserable
sinking feeling from which he suffered immediately before the
start; even a fairly long journey, such as that to Coniston,
tired him wonderfully little, considering how much an invalid
he was ; and he certainly enjoyed it in an almost boyish way,
and to a curious degree.
Although, as he has said, some of his ssthetic tastes had
suffered a gradual decay, his love of scenery remained fresh
and strong. Every walk at Coniston was a fresh delight, and
he was never tired of praising the beauty of the broken hilly
country at the head of the lake.
Besides these longer holidays, there were shorter visits
to various relatives—to his brother-in-law’s house, close to
Leith Hill, and to his son near Southampton. He always par-
ticularly enjoyed rambling over rough open country, such as
the commons near Leith Hill and Southampton, the heath-
covered wastes of Ashdown Forest, or the delightful “ Rough ”
near the house of his friend Sir Thomas Farrer. .He never
was quite idle even on these holidays, and found things to
obserye. At Hartfield he watched Drosera catching insects,
@
82 REMINISCENCES. (Cu. IV.
&c.; at Torquay he observed the fertilisation of an orchid
(Spiranthes), and also made out the relations of the sexes in
Thyme.
He rejoiced at his return home after his holidays, and
greatly enjoyed the welcome he got from his dog Polly,
who would get wild with excitement, panting, squeaking,
rushing round the room, and jumping on and off the chairs;
and he used to stoop down, pressing her face to his, letting
her lick him, and speaking to her with a peculiarly tender,
caressing voice.
My father had the power of giving to these summer
holidays a charm which was strongly felt by all his family.
The pressure of his work at home kept him at the utmost
stretch of his powers of endurance, and when released from
it, he entered on a holiday with a youthfulness of enjoyment
that made his companionship delightful; we felt that we saw
more of him in a week’s holiday than in a month at home,
Besides the holidays which I have mentioned, there were his
visits to water-cure establishments. In 1849, when very ill,
suffering from constant sickness, he was urged by a friend
to try the water-cure, and at last agreed to go to Dr. Gully’s
establishment at Malvern. His letters to Mr. Fox show how
much good the treatment did him; he seems to have thought
that he had found a cure for his troubles, but, like all other
remedies, it had only a transient effect on him. However, he
found it, at first, so good for him, that when he came home he
built himself a douche-bath, and the butler learnt to be his
bathman.
He was too, a frequent patient at Dr. Lane’s water-cure
establishment, Moor Park, near Aldershot, visits to which he
always looked back with pleasure.
Some idea of his relation to his family and his friends may
be gathered from what has gone before; it would be impossible
to attempt a complete account of these relationships, but a
slightly fuller outline may not be out of place. Of his
married life I cannot speak, save in the briefest manner. In
his relationship towards my mother, his tender and sympathetic
nature was shown in its most beautiful aspect. In her presence
he found his happiness, and through her, his life—which
might have been overshadowed by gloom—became one of
content and quiet gladness.
The Expression of the Emotions shows how closely he watched
his children ; it was characteristic of him that (as I have heard
him tell), although he was so anxious to observe accurately the
expression of a crying child, his sympathy with the grief spoiled
Cu. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 83
iis observation. His note-book, in which are recorded sayings
of his young children, shows his pleasure in them. He seemed
to retain a sort of regretful memory of the childhoods which
had faded away, and thus he wrote in his Recollections :—
“ When you were very young it was my delight to play with
you all, and I think with a sigh that such days can never
return.”
I quote, as showing the tenderness of his nature, some
sentences from an account of his little daughter Annie, written
a few days after her death :—
“Our poor child, Annie, was born in Gower Street, on
March 2, 1841, and expired at Malvern at mid-day on the
23rd of April, 1851.
“T write these few pages, as I think in after years, if we
live, the impressions now put down will recall more vividly her
chief characteristics. From whatever point I look back at her,
the main feature in her disposition which at once rises before
me, is her buoyant joyousness, tempered by two other charac-
teristics, namely, her sensitiveness, which might easily have
been overlooked by a stranger, and her strong affection. Her
joyousness and animal spirits radiated from her whole counte-
nance, and rendered every movement elastic and full of life
and vigour. It was delightful and cheerful to behold her.
Her dear face now rises before me, as she used sometimes to
come running downstairs with a stolen pinch of snuff for me,
her whole form radiant with the pleasure of giving pleasure,
Even when playing with her cousins, when her joyousness
almost passed into boisterousness, a single glance of my eye,
not of displeasure (for I thank God I hardly ever cast one on
her), but of want of sympathy, would for some minutes alter
her whole countenance.
“The other point in her character, which made her joyous-
ness and spirits so delightful, was her strong affection, which
was of a most clinging, fondling nature. When quite a baby,
this showed itself in never being easy without touching her
mother, when in bed with her; and quite lately she would,
when poorly, fondle for any length of time one of her mother’s
arms. When very unwell, her mother lying down beside her,
seemed to soothe her in a manner quite different from what it
would have done to any of our other children. So, again, she
would at almost any time spend half-an-hour in arranging my
hair, ‘ making it,’ as she called it, ‘ beautiful,’ or in smoothing,
the poor dear darling, my collar or cuffs—in short, in fondling
me.
“Besides her joyousness thus tempered, she was an her
G
84 REMINISCENCES. (Cx. IV,
manners remarkably cordial, frank, open, straightforward,
natural, and without any shade of reserve. Her whole mind
was pure and transparent. One felt one knew her thoroughly
and could trust her. I always thought, that come what might,
we should have had, in our old age, at least one loving soul,
which nothing could have changed. All her movements were
vigorous, active, and usually graceful. When going round the
Sand-walk with me, although I walked fast, yet she often used
to go before, pirouetting in the most elegant way, her dear face
bright all the time with the sweetest smiles. Occasionally she
had a pretty coquettish manner towards me, the memory of
which is clmrming. She often used exaggerated language, and
when I quizzed her by exaggerating what she had said, how
clearly can I now see the little toss of the head, and exclamation
of ‘ Oh, papa, what a shame of you!’ In the last short illness,
her conduct in simple truth was angelic. She never once
complained ; never became fretful; was ever considerate of
others, and was thankful in the most gentle, pathetic manner
for everything done for her. When so exhausted that she
could hardly speak, she praised everything that was given her,
and said some tea ‘ was beautifully good. When I gave her
some water, she said, ‘I quite thank you ;’ and these, I believe,
were the last precious words ever addressed by her dear lips
to me.
“ We have lost the joy of the household, and the solace of
our old age. She must have known how we loved her. Oh,
that she could now know how deeply, how tenderly, we do still
and shall ever love her dear joyous face! Blessings on her! *
* April 30, 1851.”
We, his children, all took especial pleasure in the games he
played at with us, and in his stories, which, partly on account
of their rarity, were considered specially delightful.
The way he brought us up is shown by a little story about
my brother Leonard, which my father was fond of telling. He
came into the drawing-room and found Leonard dancing about
on the sofa, to the peril of the springs, and said, “ Oh, Lenny,
Lenny, that’s against all rules,” and received for answer, “ Then
I think you'd better go out of the room.” I do not believe he
ever spoke an angry word to any of his children in his life ;
but I am certain that it never entered our heads to disobey
him. I well remember one occasion when my father reproved
me for a piece of carelessness; and I can still recall the
feeling of depression which came over me, and the care which
* 'The words, “ A good and dear child,” form the descriptive part of
the inscription on her gravestone, See the Atheneum, Noy. 26, 1887.
Cu. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 85
he took to disperse it by speaking to me soon afterwards with
ial kindness. He kept up his delightful, affectionate
manner towards us all his life. I sometimes wonder that he
- gould do so, with such an undemonstrative race as we are; but
I hope he knew how much we delighted in his loving words
and manner. He allowed his grown-up children to laugh with
and at him, and was generally speaking on terms of perfect
equality with us.
He was always full of interest about each one’s plans or
successes. We used to laugh at him, and say he would not
believe in his sons, because, for instance, he would be a little
doubtful about their taking some bit of work for which he did
not feel sure that they had knowledge enough. On the other
hand, he was only too much inclined to take a favourable
view of our work. When I thought he had set too high a
value on anything that I had done, he used to be indignant
and inclined to explode in mock anger. His doubts were
part of his humility concerning what was in any way con-
nected with himself; his too favourable view of our work
was due to his sympathetic nature, which made him lenient
to every one.
He kept up towards his children his delightful manner of
expressing his thanks; and I never wrote a letter, or read a
page aloud to him, without receiving a few kind words of re-
cognition. His love and goodness towards his little grandson
Bernard were great; and he often spoke of the pleasure it was
to him to see “his little face opposite to him” at luncheon.
He and Bernard used to compare their tastes; e.g., in liking
brown sugar better than white, &c.; the result being, “ We
always agree, don’t we ?”
My sister writes :—
“‘ My first remembrances of my father are of the delights of
his playing with us. He was passionately attached to his
own children, although he was not an indiscriminate child-
lover. To all of us he was the most delightful play-fellow,
and the most perfect sympathiser. Indeed it is impossible
adequately to describe how delightful a relation his was to his
family, whether as children or in their later life.
“Tt is a proof of the terms on which we were, and also of
how much he was valued as a play-fellow, that one of his sons
when about four years old tried to bribe him with sixpence to
come and play in working hours.
“He must have been the most patient and delightful of
nurses. I remember the haven of peace and comfort it
seemed to me when I was unwell, to be tucked up on the
i ai
86 REMINISCENCES. [Cx. IV.
study sofa, idly considering the old geological map hung on
the wall. This must have been in his working hours, for I
always picture him sitting in the horse hair arm chair by the
corner of the fire.
“ Another mark of his unbounded patience was the way in
which we were suffered to make raids into the study when we
had an absolute need of sticking plaster, string, pins, scissors,
stamps, foot rule, or hammer. These and other such neces-
saries were always to be found in the study, and it was the
only place where this was a certainty. We used to feel it
wrong to go in during work time; still, when the necessity was
great, we did so. I remember his patient look when he said
once, ‘ Don’t you think you could not come in again, I have
been interrupted very often.’ We used to dread going in for
sticking plaster, because he disliked to see that we had cut
ourselves, both for our sakes and on account of his acute
sensitiveness to the sight of blood. I well remember lurking
about the passage till he was safe away, and then stealing
in for the plaster.
“ Life seems to me, as I look back upon it, to have been very
regular in those early days, and except relations (and a few
intimate friends), I do not think any one came to the house.
After lessons, we were always free to go where we would, and
that was chiefly in the drawing-room and about the garden,
so that we were very much with both my father and mother.
We used to think if most delightful when he told us any
stories about the Beagle, or about early Shrewsbury days—
little bits about school life and his boyish tastes.
“ He cared for all our pursuits and interests, and lived our
lives with us in a way that very few fathers do. But I am
certain that none of us felt that this intimacy interfered the
least with our respect and obedience. Whatever he said was
absolute truth and law to us. He always put his whole mind
into answering any of our questions. One trifling instance
makes me feel how he cared for what we cared for. He had
no special taste for cats, but yet he knew and remembered the
individualities of my many cats, and would talk about the
habits and characters of the more remarkable ones years after
they had died.
“‘ Another characteristic of his treatment of his children was
his respect for their liberty, and for their personality. Even as
quite a little girl, I remember rejoicing in this sense of free-
dom. Our father and mother would not even wish to know
what we were doing or thinking unless we wished to tell. He
always made us feel that we were each of us creatures whose
On. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 87
opinions and thoughts were valuable to him, so that whatever
there was best in us came out in the sunshine of his presence.
“T do not think his exa ted sense of our good qualities,
intellectual or moral, e us conceited, as might perhaps
have been expected, but rather more humble and grateful to
him. The reason being no doubt that the influence of his
character, of his sincerity and greatness of nature, had a
much deeper and more lasting effect than any small exalta-
tion which his praises or admiration may have caused to our
vanity.”*
As head of a household he was much loved and respected ;
he always spoke to servants with politeness, using the expres-
sion, “ would you be so good,” in asking for anything. He
was hardly ever angry with his servants ; it shows how seldom
this occurred, that when, as a small boy, I overheard a servant
being scolded, and my father speaking angrily, it impressed
me as an appalling cireumstance, and I remember running up
stairs out of a general sense of awe. He did not trouble
himself about the management of the garden, cows, &c. He
considered the horses so little his concern, that he used to
ask doubtfully whether he might have a horse and cart to
send to Keston for Sundew, or to the Westerham nurseries for
plants, or the like.
As a host my father had a peculiar charm: the presence of
‘visitors excited him, and made him appear to his best advan-
tage. At Shrewsbury, he used to say, it was his father’s wish
that the guests should be attended to constantly, and in one of
the letters to Fox he speaks of the impossibility of writing a
letter while the house was full of company. I think he always
felt uneasy at not doing more for the entertainment of his
guests, but the result was successful ; and, to make up for any
loss, there was the gain that the guests felt perfectly free to do
as they liked. The most usual visitors were those who stayed
from Saturday till Monday ; those who remained longer were
generally relatives, and were considered to be rather more my
mother’s affair than his.
Besides these visitors, there were foreigners and other
strangers, who came down for luncheon and went away in the
afternoon. He used conscientiously to represent to them the
enormous distance of Down from London, and the labour it
would be to come there, unconsciously taking for granted that
they would find the journey as toilsome as he did himself. If,
* Some pleasant recollections of my father’s life at Down, hoor ena a
our friend and former neighbour, Mrs. Wallis Nash, have been pub
in the Overland Monthly (San Francisco), October 1890,
88 REMINISCENCES. (Cm. IV.
however, they were not deterred, he used to arrange their
journeys for them, telling them when to come, and pee:
when to go. It was pleasant to see the way in which he shoo
hands with a guest who was being welcomed for the first time ;
his hand used to shoot out in a way that gave one the ry
that it was hastening to meet the guest's hands. With ol
friends his hand came down with a hearty swing into the
other hand in a way I always had satisfaction in seeing. His
good-bye was chiefly characterised by the pleasant way in
which he thanked his guests, as he stood at the hall-door, for
having come to see him.
These luncheons were successful entertainments, there was
no drag or flagging about them, my father was bright and
excited throughout the whole visit. Professor De Candolle
has described a visit to Down, in his admirable and sympathetic
sketch of my father.* He speaks of his manner as resembling
that of a “savant” of Oxford or Cambridge. This does not
strike me as quite a good comparison ; in his ease and natural-
ness there was more of the manner of some soldiers ; a manner
arising from total absence of pretence or affectation. It was
this absence of pose, and the natural and simple way in which
he began talking to his guests, so as to get them on their own
lines, which made him so charming a host to a stranger. His
happy choice of matter for talk seemed to flow out of his
tice alain nature, and humble, vivid interest in other people's
work.
To some, I think, he caused actual pain by his modesty ; I
have seen the late Francis Balfour quite discomposed by having
knowledge ascribed to himself on a point about which my
father claimed to be utterly ignorant.
It is difficult to seize on the characteristics of my father’s
conversation.
He had more dread than have most people of repeating his
stories, and continually said, “ You must have heard me tell,”
or “I daresay I’ve told you.” One peculiarity he had, which
gave a curious effect to his conversation. The first few words
of a sentence would often remind him of some exception to, or
some reason against, what he was going to say; and this again
brought up some other point, so that the sentence would
become a system of parenthesis within parenthesis, and it was
often impossible to understand the drift of what he was saying
until he came to the end of his sentence. He used to say of
himself that he was not quick enough to hold an argument
1882) 7" considéré au point de vue des causes de son succés (Geneva,
4
Ox. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 89
with any one, and I think this was true. Unless it was a
subject on which he was just then at work, he could not get
the train of argument into working order quickly enough.
This is shown even in his letters; thus, in the case of two
letters to Professor Semper about the effect of isolation, he did
not recall the series of facts he wanted until some days after
the first letter had been sent off.
When puzzled in talking, he had a peculiar stammer on the
first word of a sentence. I only recall this occurring with
words beginning with w ; ibly he had a special difficulty
with this letter, for I have ere § him say that as a boy he
could not pronounce w, and that sixpence was offered him if
he could say “ white wine,” which he pronounced “ rite rine.”
Possibly he may have inherited this tendency from Erasmus
Darwin who stammered.*
He sometimes combined his metaphors in a curious way,
using such a phrase as “holding on like life,’—a mixture of
“ holding on for his life,” and “ holding on like grim death.”
It came from his eager way of putting emphasis into what
he was saying. This sometimes gave an air of exaggeration
where it was not intended; but it gave, too, a noble air of
strong and generous conviction ; as, for instance, when he gave
his evidence before the Royal Commission on vivisection, and
came out with his words about cruelty, “ It deserves detestation
and abhorrence.” When he felt strongly about any similar
question, he could hardly trust himself to speak, as he then
easily became angry, a thing which he disliked excessively.
He was conscious his anger had a tendency to multiply
itself in the utterance, and for this reason dreaded (for
example) having to reprove a servant.
It was a proof of the modesty of his manner of talking, that
when, for instance, a number of visitors came over from Sir
John Lubbock’s for a Sunday afternoon call, he never seemed
to be preaching or lecturing, although he had so much of
the talk to himself. He was particularly charming when
‘ chaffing ” any one, and in high spirits over it. His manner
at such times was light-hearted and boyish, and his refinement
of nature came out most strongly. So, when he was talking to
a lady who pleased and amused him, the combination of
raillery and deference in his manner was delightful to see.
There was a personal dignity about him, which the most
* My father related a Johnsonian answer of Erasmus Darwin’s: “ Don’t
td find it very inconvenient stammering, Dr. Darwin?” “No, Sir,
use I have time to think before I speak, and don’t ask impertinent
90 REMINISCENCES. [Cux. IV.
familiar intercourse did not diminish. One felt that he was
the last person with whom anyone would wish to take a liberty,
nor do I remember an instance of such a thing occurring to
When my father had several guests he managed them well,
getting a talk with each, or bringing two or three together
round his chair. In these conversations there was always a
good deal of fun, and, speaking generally, there was either a
humorous turn in his talk, or a sunny geniality which served
instead. Perhaps my recollection of a pervading element of
humour is the more vivid, because the best talks were with
Mr. Huxley, in whom there is the aptness which is akin to
humour, even when humour itself is not there. My father
enjoyed Mr. Huxley’s humour exceedingly, and would often
say, “ What splendid fun Huxley is!” I think he probably
had more scientific argument (of the nature of a fight) with
Lyell and Sir Joseph Hooker. .
He used to say that it grieved him to find that for the
friends of his later life he had not the warm affection of his
youth. Certainly in his early letters from Cambridge he gives
proofs of strong friendship for Herbert and Fox; but no
one except himself would have said that his affection for his
friends was not, throughout life, of the warmest possible kind.
In serving a friend he would not spare himself, and precious
time and strength were willingly given. He undoubtedly had,
to an unusual degree, the power of attaching his friends to him.
He had many warm friendships, but to Sir Joseph Hooker he
was bound by ties of affection stronger than we often see among
men. He wrote in his Recollections, “I have known hardly
any man more lovable than Hooker.”
| His relationship to the village people was a pleasant one;
\ | he treated them, one and all, with courtesy, when he came in
contact with them, and took an interest in all relating to their
welfare, | Some time after he came to live at Down he helped
to found a Friendly Club, and served as treasurer for thirty
years. He took much trouble about the club, keeping its
accounts with minute and scrupulous exactness, and taki
pleasure in its prosperous condition. Every Whit-Monday the
club marched round with band and banner and paraded on the
lawn in front of the house. There he met them, and explained
to them their financial position in a little speech seasoned with
a few well-worn jokes. He was often unwell enough to make
even this little ceremony an exertion, but I think he never
failed to meet them.
He was also treasurer of the Coal Club, which gave him a
Ou. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 91
certain amount of work, and he acted for some years as a
County Magistrate.
With regard to my father’s interest in the affairs of the
village, Mr. Brodie Innes has been so good as to give me his
recollections :—
“On my becoming Vicar of Down in 1846, we became
friends, and so continued till his death. His conduct towards
me and my family was one of unvarying kindness, and we
repaid it by warm affection.
“Tn all parish matters he was an active assistant ; in matters
connected with the schools, charities, and other business, his
liberal contribution was ever ready, and in the differences
which at times occurred in that, as in other parishes, I was
always sure of his support. He held that where there was
really no important objection, his assistance should be given
to the clergyman, who ought to know the circumstances best,
and was chiefly responsible.”
His intercourse with strangers was marked with scrupulous
and rather formal politeness, but in fact he had few oppor-
tunities of meeting strangers, and the quiet life he led at Down
made him feel confused in a large gathering ; for instance, at the
Royal Society’s soirées he felt oppressed by the numbers. The
feeling that he ought to know people, and the difficulty he had
in remembering faces in his latter years, also added to his
discomfort on such occasions. He did not realise that he
would be recognised from his photographs, and I remember
his being uneasy at being obviously recognised by a stranger
at the Crystal Palace Aquarium.
I must say something of his manner of working: a striking
characteristic was his respect for time; he never forgot how
precious it was. This was shown, for instance, in the way
in which he tried to curtail his holidays; also, and more
clearly, with respect to shorter periods. He would often say,
that saving the minutes was the way to get work done; he
showed this love of saving the minutes in the difference he felt
between a quarter of an hour and ten minutes’ work ; he never
wasted a few spare minutes from thinking that it was not
worth while to set to work. I was often struck by his way
of working up to the very limit of his strength, so that he
suddenly stopped in dictating, with the words, “I believe I
mustn’t do any more.” The same eager desire not to lose
time was seen in his quick movements when at work. I
particularly remember noticing this when he was making an
experiment on the roots of beans, which required some care
in manipulation; fastening the little bits of card upon the
92 REMINISCENCES. (Cx. IV.
roots was done carefully and necessarily slowly, but the inter-
mediate movements were all quick; taking a fresh bean, seeing
that the root was healthy, impaling it on a pin, fixing it on a
cork, and seeing that it was vertical, &c.; all these processes
were performed with a kind of restrained eagerness. He gave
one the impression of working with pleasure, and not with
any drag. I have an image, too, of him as he recorded the
result of some experiment, looking eagerly at each root, &c.,
and then writing with equal eagerness. I remember the quick
movement of his head up and down as he looked from the
object to the notes.
He saved a great deal of time through not having to do
things twice. Although he would patiently go on repeating
experiments where there was any good to be gained, he could
not endure having to repeat an experiment which ought, if
complete care had been taken, to have told its story at first—
and this gave him a continual anxiety that the experiment
should not be wasted; he felt the experiment to be sacred,
however slight a one it was. He wished to learn as much as
possible from an experiment, so that he did not confine himself
to observing the single point to which the experiment was
directed, and his power of seeing a number of other things was
wonderful. Ido not think he cared for preliminary or rough
observations intended to serve as guides and to be repeated.
Any experiment done was to be of some use, and in this con-
nection I remember how strongly he urged the necessity of
keeping the notes of experiments which failed, and to this rule
he always adhered.
In the literary part of his work he had the same horror of
losing time, and the same zeal in what he was doing at the
moment, and this made him careful not to be obliged unneces-
sarily to read anything a second time.
His natural tendency was to use simple methods and few
instruments. The use of the compound microscope has much
increased since his youth, and this at the expense of the simple
one. It strikes us nowadays as extraordinary that he should
have had no compound microscope when he went his Beagle
voyage; but in this he followed the advice of Robert Brown,
who was an authority in such matters. He always had a great
liking for the simple microscope, and maintained that now-
adays it was too much neglected, and that one ought always to
see as much as possible with the simple before taking to the
compound microscope. In one of his letters he speaks on this
point, and remarks that he suspects the work of a man who
never uses the simple microscope.
Cu. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 93
His dissecting table was a thick board, let into a window of
the study; it was lower than an ordinary table, so that he
could not have worked at it standing; but this, from wishing
to save his strength, he would not have done in any case. He
sat at his dissecting-table on a curious low stool which had
belonged to his father, with a seat revolving on a vertical
spindle, and mounted on large castors, so that he could turn
easily from side to side. His ordinary tools, &c., were lying
about on the table, but besides these a number of odds and
ends were kept in a round table full of radiating drawers, and
turning on a vertical axis, which stood close by his left side,
as he sat at his microscope-table. The drawers were labelled,
“best tools,” “rough tools,” “specimens,” “ preparations for
specimens,” &c. The most marked peculiarity of the contents
of these drawers was the care with, which little scraps and
almost useless things were preserved ; he held the well-known
belief, that if you threw a thing away you were sure to want it
directly—and so things accumulated.
If any one had looked at his tools, &c., lying on the table,
he would have been struck by an air of simpleness, make-shift,
and oddity.
At his right hand were shelves, with a number of other odds
and ends, glasses, saucers, tin biscuit boxes for germinating
seeds, zinc labels, saucers full of sand, &., &c. Considering
how tidy and methodical he was in essential things, it is
curious that he bore with so many make-shifts: for instance,
instead of having a box made of a desired shape, and stained
black inside, he would hunt up something like what he wanted
and get it darkened inside with shoe-blacking ; he did not care
to have glass covers made for tumblers in which he germinated
seeds, but used broken bits of irregular shape, with perhaps a
narrow. angle sticking uselessly out on one side. But so much
of his experimenting was of a simple kind, that he had no need
for any elaboration, and I think his habit in this respect was
in great measure due to his desire to husband his strength, and
not waste it on inessential things.
His way of marking objects may here be mentioned. If he
_had a number of things to distinguish, such as leaves, flowers,
&e., he tied threads of different colours round them. In
particular he used this method when he had only two classes of
objects to distinguish ; thus in the case of crossed and self-
fertilised flowers, one set would be marked with black and one
with white thread, tied round the stalk of the flower. I
remember well the look of two sets of capsules, gathered and
waiting to be weighed, counted, &c., with pieces of black and
94 REMINISCENCES. (Cu. IV.
of white thread to distinguish the trays in which they lay.
When he had to compare two sets of seedlings, sowed in the
same pot, he separated them by a partition of zinc-plate; and
the zinc-label, which gave the necessary details about the
experiment, was always placed on a certain side, so that it
became instinctive with him to know without reading the label
which were the “ crossed” and which the “ self-fertilised.”
His love of each particular experiment, and his eager zeal
not to lose the fruit of it, came out markedly in these crossing
experiments—in the elaborate care he took not to make any
confusion in putting capsules into wrong trays, &. &e. I
can recall his appearance as he counted seeds under the simple
microscope with an alertness not usually characterising such
mechanical work as counting. I think he personified each
seed as a small demon trying to elude him by getting into the
wrong heap, or jumping away altogether; and this gave to the
work the excitement of a game. He had great faith in instru-
ments, and I do not think it naturally occurred to him to doubt
the accuracy of a scale, a measuring glass, &c. He was
astonished when we found that one of his micrometers differed
from the other. He did not require any great accuracy in
most of his measurements, and had not good scales; he had an
old three-foot rule, which was the common property of the
household, and was constantly being borrowed, because it was
the only one which was certain to be in its place—unless,
indeed, the last borrower had forgotten to put it back. For
measuring the height of plants, he had a seven-foot deal rod,
graduated by the village carpenter. Latterly he took to using
paper scales graduated to millimeters. I do not mean by this
account of his instruments that any of his experiments suffered
from want of accuracy in measurement, I give them as
examples of his simple methods and faith in others—faith at
least in instrument-makers, whose whole trade was a mystery
to him.
A few of his mental characteristics, bearing especially on his
mode of working, occur to me. There was one quality of mind —
which seemed to be of special and extreme advantage in leading
him to make discoveries. It was the power of never letting
exceptions pass unnoticed. Everybody notices a fact as an ex-
ception when it is striking or frequent, but he had a special
instinct for arresting an exception. A point apparently slight
and unconnected with his present work is passed over by many
a man almost unconsciously with some half- considered explana-
tion, which is in fact no explanation. It was just these things
that he seized on to make a start from. In a certain sense
Cu. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 95
there is nothing special in this procedure, many discoveries
being made by means of it. I only mention it because, as
I watched him at work, the value of this power to an experi-
menter was so strongly impressed upon me.
Another quality which was shown in his experimental work,
wus his power of sticking to a subject; he used almost to
apologise for his patience, saying that he could not bear to
be beaten, as if this were rather a sign of weakness on his
part. He often quoted the saying, “It's dogged as does it;”
and I think doggedness expresses his frame of mind almost
better than perseverance, Perseverance seems hardly to
express his almost fierce desire to force the truth to reveal
itself. He often said that it was important that a man should
know the right point at which to give up an inquiry. And
I think it was his tendency to pass this point that inclined
him to apologise for his perseverance, and gave the air of
doggedness to his work.
He often said that no one could be a good observer unless
he was an active theoriser. This brings me back to what I
said about his instinct for arresting exceptions: it was as
though he were charged with theorising power ready to flow
into any channel on the slightest disturbance, so that no fact,
however small, could avoid releasing a stream of theory, and
thus the fact became magnified into importance. In this way
it naturally happened that many untenable theories occurred
to him; but fortunately his richness of imagination was
equalled by his power of jodging and condemning the thoughts
that occurred to him. He was just to his theories, and did
not condemn them unheard; and so it happened that he
was willing to test what would seem to most people not at
all worth testing. These rather wild trials he called “fool’s
experiments,” and enjoyed extremely. As an example I may
mention that finding the seed-leaves of a kind of sensitive plant,
to be highly sensitive to vibrations of the table, he fancied that
they might perceive the vibrations of sound, and therefore made
me play my bassoon close to a plant.*
The love of experiment was very strong in him, and I can
remember the way he would say, “I shan’t be easy till I have
tried it,” as if an outside force were driving him. He enjoyed
experimenting much more than work which only entailed
reasoning, and when he was engaged on one of his books
which required argument and the marshalling of facts, he
felt experimental work to be a rest or holiday. Thus, while
* This is not so much an example of superabundant theorising from a
small cause as of his wish to test the most improbable ideas, ;
96 REMINISCENCES. (Cx. IV.
working upon the Variations of Animals and Plants in 1860-61,
he made out the fertilisation of Orchids, and thought himself
idle for giving so much time to them. It is interesting to
think that so important a piece of research should have been
undertaken and largely worked out as a pastime in place of
more serious work. The letters to Hooker of this period con-
tain expressions such as, “ God forgive me for being so idle; I
am quite sillily interested in the work.” The intense pleasure
he took in understanding the adaptations for fertilisation is
strongly shown in these letters. He speaks in one of his
letters of his intention of working at Sundew as a rest from
the Descent of Man. He has described in his Recollections the
strong satisfaction he felt in solving the problem of hetero-
stylism.* And I have heard him mention that the Geology of
South America gave him almost more pleasure than anything
else. It was perhaps this delight in work requiring keen
observation that made him value praise given to his observing
powers almost more than appreciation of his other qualities.
For books he had no respect, but merely considered them
as tools to be worked with. Thus he did not bind them,
and even when a paper book fell to pieces from use, as hap-
pened to Miiller’s Befruchtung, he preserved it from complete
dissolution by putting a metal clip over its back. In the same
way he would cut a heavy book in half, to make it more con-
venient to hold. He used to boast that he had made Lyell
publish the second edition of one of his books in two volumes,
instead of in one, by telling him how he had been obliged to
cut it in half. Pamphlets were often treated even more
severely than books, for he would tear out, for the sake of
saving room, all the pages except the one that interested him.
The consequence of all this was, that his library was not
ornamental, but was striking from being so evidently a working
collection of books.
He was methodical in his manner of reading books and
pamphlets bearing on his own work. He had one shelf on
which were piled up the books he had not yet read, and
another to which they were transferred after having been
read, and before being catalogued. He would often groan
over his unread books, because there were so many which he
knew he should never read. Many a book was at once trans-
ferred to the other heap, marked with a cypher at the end,
to show that it contained no passages for reference, or in-
scribed, perhaps, “not read,” or “only skimmed.” The books
* That is to gay, the sexual relations in such plants as the cowslip.
On. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 97
accumulated in the “read” heap until the shelves overflowed,
and then, with much lamenting, a day was given up to the
cataloguing. He disliked this work, and as the necessity of
undertaking the work became imperative, would often say, in a
voice of despair, “‘ We really must do these books soon.”
In each book, as he read it, he marked es bearing on
his work. In reading a book or pamphlet, &c., he made
pencil-lines at the side of the page, often adding short
remarks, and at the end made a list of the pages marked.
When it was to be catalogued and put away, the marked
pages were looked at, and so a rough abstract of the book
was made. This abstract would perhaps be written under
three or four headings on different sheets, the facts being
sorted out and added to the previously collected facts in the
different subjects. He had other sets of abstracts arranged,
not according to subject, but according to the periodicals from
which they were taken. When collecting facts on a large
scale, in earlier years, he used to read through, and make
abstracts, in this way, of whole series of journals.
In some of his early letters he speaks of filling several
note-books with facts for his book on species; but it was
certainly early that he adopted his plan of using portfolios, as
described in the Recollections.* My father and M. de Candolle
were mutually pleased to discover that they had adopted the
same plan of classifying facts. De Candolle describes the method
in his Phytologie, and in his sketch of my father mentions the
satisfaction he felt in seeing it in action at Down.
Besides these portfolios, of which there are some dozens
full of notes, there are large bundles of MS. marked “ used”
and put away. He felt the value of his notes, and had a
horror of their destruction by fire. I remember, when some
alarm of fire had happened, his begging me to be especially
careful, adding very earnestly, that the rest of his life would
be miserable if his notes and books were destroyed.
He shows the same feeling in writing about the loss of a
manuscript, the purport of his words being, “I have a copy,
or the loss would have killed me.” In writing a book he
would spend much time and labour in making a skeleton or
plan of the whole, and in enlarging and sub-classing each
heading, as described in his Recollections. I think this careful
arrangement of the plan was not at all essential to the building
up of his argument, but for its presentment, and for the
* The racks in which the portfolios were placed are shown in the illus-
tration at the head of the chapter, in the recess at the right-hand side of
the fire-place,
H
98 REMINISCENCES. (Cu. IV.
arrangement of his facts. In his Life of Erasmus Darwin, as
it was first printed in slips, the growth of the book from a
skeleton was plainly visible. The arrangement was altered
afterwards, because it was too formal and categorical, and
seemed to give the character of his grandfather rather by
means of a list of qualities than as a complete picture.
It was only within the last few years that he adopted a plan
of writing which he was convinced suited him best, and which
is described in the Recollections; namely, writing a rougl:
copy straight off without the slightest attention to style. It
was characteristic of him that he felt unable to write with
sufficient want of care if he used his best paper, and thus it
was that he wrote on the backs of old proofs or manuscript,
The rough copy was then reconsidered, and a fair copy was
made. For this purpose he had foolscap paper ruled at wide
intervals, the lines being needed to prevent him writing so
closely that correction became difficult. The fair copy was
then corrected, and was recopied before being sent to the
printers. The copying was done by Mr. E. Norman, who
began this work many years ago when village schoolmaster at
Down. My father became so used to Mr. Norman’s hand-
writing, that he could not correct manuscript, even when
clearly written out by one of his children, until it had been
recopied by Mr. Norman. The MS., on returning from Mr.
Norman, was once more corrected, and then sent off to the
printers. Then came the work of revising and correcting the
proofs, which my father found especially wearisome.
When the book was passing through the “slip” stage he
was glad to have corrections and suggestions from others.
Thus my mother looked over the proofs of the Origin. In
some of the later works my sister, Mrs. Litchfield, did much
of the correction. After my sister’s marriage perhaps most
of the work fell to my share.
My sister, Mrs. Litchfield, writes :—
“This work was very interesting in itself, and it was
inexpressibly exhilarating to work for him. He was so
ready to be convinced that any suggesied alteration was an
improvement, and so full of gratitude for the trouble taken.
I do not think that he ever forgot to tell me what improye-
ment he thought, I had made, and he used almost to excuse
himself if he did not agree with any correction. I think
I felt the singular modesty and graciousness of his nature
through thus working for him in a way I never should
otherwise have done.”
Perhaps the commonest corrections needed were of obscuri-
Ox. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 99
ties due to the omission of a necessary link in the reasoning,
evidently omitted through familiarity with the subject. Not
that there was any fault in the sequence of the thoughts, but
that from familiarity with his argument he did not notice
when the words failed to reproduce his thought. He also
frequently put too much matter into one sentence, so that it
had to be cut up into two.
On the whole, I think the pains which my father took over
the literary part of the work was very remarkable. He often
laughed or grumbled at himself for the difficulty which he
found in writing English, saying, for instance, that if a bad
arrangement of a sentence was possible, he should be sure to
adopt it. He once got much amusement and satisfaction out
of the difficulty which one of the family found in writing a
short circular, He had the pleasure of correcting and laughing
at obscurities, involyed sentences, and other defects, and thus
took his revenge for all the criticism he had himself to bear
with. He would quote with astonishment Miss Martineau’s
advice to young authors, to write straight off and send the
MS. to the printer without correction. But in some cases ho
acted in a somewhat similar manner. When a sentence
became hopelessly involved, he would ask himself, “now what
do you want to say?” and his answer written down, would
often disentangle the confusion.
His style has been much praised; on the other hand, at
least one good judge has remarked to me that it is not a good
style. It is, above all things, direct and clear; and it is
characteristic of himself in its simplicity bordering on naiveté,
and in its absence of pretence. He had the strongest disbelief
in the common idea that a classical scholar must write good
English ; indeed, he thought that the contrary was the case.
In writing, he sometimes showed the same tendency to stron
expressions that he did in conversation. Thus in the Origin,
p. 440, there is a description of a larval cirripede, “with six
pairs of beautifully constructed natatory legs, a pair of magni-
ficent compound eyes, and extremely complex antennz.” We
used to laugh at him for this sentence, which we compared to an
advertisement. This tendency to give himself up to the
enthusiastic turn of his thought, without fear of being ludicrous
appears elsewhere in his writings.
His courteous and conciliatory tone towards his reader is
remarkable, and it must be partly this quality which revealed
his personal sweetness of character to so many who had never
seen him. I have always felt it to be a curious fact, that
he who has altered the face of Biological Science, and is in
H 2
100 REMINISCENCES. (Cu. IV.
this respect the chief of the moderns, should have written and
worked in so essentially a non-modern spirit and manner. In
reading his books one is reminded of the older naturalists
rather than of any modern school of writers. He was a
Naturalist in the old sense of the word, that is, a man who
works at many branches of science, not merely a specialist in
one. Thus it is, that, though he founded whole new divisions
of special subjects—such as the fertilisation of flowers,
insectivorous plants, &c.—yet even in treating these very
subjects he does not strike the reader as a specialist. The
reader feels like a friend who is being talked to by a courteous
gentleman, not like a pupil being lectured by a professor.
The tone of such a book as the Origin is charming, and almost
pathetic ; it is the tone of a man who, convinced of the truth
of his own views, hardly expects to convince others; it is
just the reverse of the style of a fanatic, who tries to force
belief on his readers. The reader is never scorned for any
amount of doubt which he may be imagined to feel, and his
scepticism is treated with patient respect. A sceptical reader,
or perhaps even an unreasonable reader, seems to have been
generally present to his thoughts. It was in consequence of
this feeling, perhaps, that he took much trouble over points
which he imagined would strike the reader, or save him
trouble, and so tempt him to read.
For the same reason he took much interest in the illus-
trations of his books, and I think rated rather too highly
their value. The illustrations for his earlier books were
drawn by professional artists. This was the case in Animals
and Plants, the Descent of Man, and the Expression of the
Emotions. On the other hand, Climbing Plants, Insectivorous
Planis, the Movements of Plants, and Forms of Flowers, were,
to a large extent, illustrated by some of his children—my
brother George having drawn by far the most. It was de-
lightful to draw for him, as he was enthusiastic in his praise
of very moderate performances. I remember well his charm-
ing manner of receiving the drawings of one of his daughters-
in-law, and how he would finish his words of praise by saying,
“Tell A——, Michael Angelo is nothing to it.” Though he
praised so generously, he always looked closely at the drawing,
and easily detected mistakes or carelessness.
He had a horror of being lengthy, and seems to have been
really much annoyed and distressed when he found how the
Variations of Animals and Plants was growing under his hands,
I remember his cordially agrecing with ‘ Tristram Shandy’s’
words, “ Let no man say, ‘Come, I'll write a duodecimo.’”
Ou. IV.] REMINISCENCES. 101
His consideration for other authors was as marked a cha-
racteristic as his tone towards his reader. He speaks of all
other authors as persons deserving of respect. In cases
where, as in the case of "8 experiments on Drosera, he
thought lightly of the author, he speaks of him in such a way
that no one would suspect it. In other cases he treats the
confused writings of ignorant persons as though the fault lay
with himself for not appreciating or understanding them.
Besides this general tone of respect, he had a pleasant way of
expressing his opinion on the value of a quoted work, or his
obligation for LS ye: of private information.
His respectful feeling was not only admirable, but was I
think of practical use in making him ready to consider the
ideas and observations of all manner of people. He used
almost to apologise for this, and would say that he was at
first inclined t to rate everything too highly.
It was a great merit in his mind that, in spite of having so
strong a respectful feeling towards what he read, he had the
keenest of instincts as to whether a man was trustworthy or
not. He seemed to form a very definite opinion as to the
accuracy of the men whose books he read; and employed
this judgment in his choice of facts for use in argument or
as illustrations. I gained the impression that he felt this
— of judging of a man’s trustworthiness to be of much
ue.
He had a keen feeling of the sense of honour that ought to
reign among authors, and had a horror of any kind of laxness
in quoting. He had a contempt for the love of honour and
glory, and in his letters often blames himself for the pleasure
he took in the success of his books, as though he were depart-
ing from his ideal—a love of truth and carelessness about
fame. Often, when writing to Sir J. Hooker what he calls a
boasting letter, he laughs at himself for his conceit and want
of modesty. A wonderfully interesting letter is given in
Chapter X. bequeathing to my mother, in case of his death,
the care of publishing the manuscript of his first essay
on evolution. This letter seems to me full of an intense
desire that his theory should succeed as a contribution to
knowledge, and apart from any desire for personal fame. He
certainly had the healthy desire for success which a man of
strong feelings ought to have. But at the time of the
publication of the Origin it is evident that he was over-
whelmingly satisfied with the adherence of such men as Lyell,
Hooker, Huxley, and Asa Gray, and did not dream of or
desire any such general fame as that to which he attained.
102 REMINISCENCES. (Cu. IV.
Connected with his contempt for the undue love of fame,
was an equally strong dislike of all questions of priority. The
letters to Lyell, at the time of the Origin, show the anger he
felt with himself for not being able to repress a feeling of
disappointment at what he thought was Mr. Wallace’s fore-
stalling of all his years of work. His sense of literary honour
comes out strongly in these letters; and his feeling about
priority is again shown in the admiration expressed in his
Recollections of Mr. Wallace’s self-annihilation.
His feeling about reclamations, including answers to attacks
and all kinds of discussions, was strong. It is simply ex-
pressed in a letter to Falconer (1863): “If I ever felt angry
towards you, for whom I have a sincere friendship, I should
begin to suspect that I was a little mad. I was very sorry
about your reclamation, as I think it is in every case a mistake
and should be left to others. Whether I should so act myself
under provocation is a different question.” It was a feeling
partly dictated by instinctive delicacy, and partly by a strong
sense of the waste of time, energy, and temper thus caused.
He said that he owed his determination not to get into dis-
cussions * to the advice of Lyell,—advice which he trans-
mitted to those among his friends who were given to paper
warfare.
If the character of my father’s working life is to be under-
stood, the conditions of ill-health, under which he worked,
must be constantly borne in mind. He bore his illness with
such uncomplaining patience, that even his children can
hardly, I believe, realise the extent of his habitual suffering.
In their case the difficulty is heightened by the fact that,
from the days of their earliest recollections, they saw him in
constant ill-health,—and saw him, in spite of it, full of
pleasure in what pleased them. Thus, in later life, their
perception of what he endured had to be disentangled from the
impression produced in childhood by constant genial kindness
under conditions of unrecognised difficulty. No one indeed,
except my mother, knows the full amount of suffering he endured,
or the full amount of his wonderful patience. For all the latter
years of his life she never left him for a night; and her
* He departed from his rule in his “Note on the Habits of the
Pampas Woodpecker, Colaptes campestris,” Proc. Zool. Soc., 1870, p. 705:
also in a letter published in the Atheneum (1863, p. 554), in which case
ke afterwards regretted that he had not remained silent. His replies to
criticisms, in the latter editions of the Origin, can hardly be classed as
infractions of his rule,
On. IV.) REMINISCENCES. 103
days were so planned that all his resting hours might be shared
with her. She shielded him from every avoidable annoyance,
and omitted nothing that might save him trouble, or prevent
him becoming overtired, or that might alleviate the many
discomforts of his ill-health. I hesitate to speak thus freely
of a thing so sacred as the life-long devotion which prompted
all this constant and tender care. But it is, I repeat, a prin-
cipal feature of his life, that for nearly forty years he never
knew one day of the health of ordinary men, and that thus his
life was one long struggle against the weariness and strain of
sickness. And this cannot be told without speaking of the
one condition which enabled him to bear the strain and fight
out the struggle to the end,
( 104 )
CHAPTER V.
CAMBRIDGE LIFE.—THE APPOINTMENT TO THE ‘ BEAGLE.’
My father’s Cambridge life comprises the time between the
Lent Term, 1828, when he came up to Christ’s College as a
Freshman, and the end of the May Term, 1831, when he took
his degree * and left the University.
He “kept” for a term or two in lodgings, over Bacon f the
tobacconist’s; not, however, over the shop in the Market
Place, so well known to Cambridge men, but in Sydney Street.
For the rest of his time he had pleasant rooms on the south
side of the first court of Christ’s.f
What determined the choice of this college for his brother
Erasmus and himself I have no means of knowing. Erasmus
the elder, their grandfather, had been at St. John’s, and this
college might have been reasonably selected for them, being
connected with Shrewsbury School. But the life of an under-
graduate at St. John’s seems, in those days, to have been a
troubled one, if I may judge from the fact that a relative
of mine migrated thence to Christ’s to escape the harassing
discipline of the place.
Darwin seems to have found no difficulty in living at peace
with all men in and out of office at Lady Margaret’s elder
foundation. The impression of a contemporary of my father’s
is that Christ’s in their day was a pleasant, fairly quiet college,
with some tendency towards “ horsiness” ; many of the men
made a custom of going to Newmarket during the races,
though betting was not a regular practice. In this they were
by no means discouraged by the Senior Tutor, Mr. Shaw,
* “On Tuesday last Charles Darwin, of Christ’s College, was admitted
B.A.”—Cambridge Chronicle, Friday, April 29th, 1831.
+ Readers of Calverley (another Christ’s man) will remember his
tobacco poem ending “ Here’s to thee, Bacon.”
+ The rooms are on the first floor, on the west side of the middle
staircase. A medallion (given by my brother) has recently been let into
the wall of the sitting-room.
Cx. V.) 1828—1831. 105
who was himself generally to be seen on the Heath on these
occasions.
Nor were the ecclesiastical authorities of the College over
strict. I have heard my father tell how at evening chapel the
Dean used to read alternate verses of the Psalms, without
making even a pretence of waiting for the congregation to take
their share. And when the Lesson was a lengthy one, he
would rise and go on with the Oanticles after the scholar had
read fifteen or twenty verses.
It is curious that my father often spoke of his Cambridge
life as if it had been so much time wasted,* forgetting that,
although the set studies of the place were barren enough for
him, he yet gained in the highest degree the best advantages
of a University life—the contact with men and an opportunity
for mental growth. It is true that he valued at its highest the
advantages which he gained from associating with Professor
Henslow and some others, but he seemed to consider this as a
chance outcome of his life at Cambridge, not an advantage for
which Alma Mater could claim any credit. One of my father’s
Cambridge friends was the late Mr. J. M. Herbert, County
Court Judge for South Wales, from whom I was fortunate
enough to obtain some notes which help us to gain an idea of
how my father impressed his contemporaries. Mr. Herbert
writes :—
“Tt would be idle for me to speak of his vast intellectual
powers... but I cannot end this cursory and rambling sketch
without testifying, and I doubt not all his surviving college
friends would concur with me, that he was the most genial,
warm-hearted, generous, and affectionate of friends; that his
sympathies were with all that was good and true ; and that he
had a cordial hatred for everything false, or vile, or cruel, or
mean, or dishonourable. He was not only great, but pre-
eminently good, and just, and lovable.”
Two anecdotes told by Mr. Herbert show that my father’s
feeling for suffering, whether of man or beast, was as strong in
him as a young man as it was in later years: “ Before he left
Cambridge he told me that he had made up his mind not to
shoot any more; that he had had two days’ shooting at his
friend’s, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse; and that on the second day,
when going over some of the ground they had beaten on the
- day before, he picked up a bird not quite dead, but lingering
* For instance in a letter to Hooker (1847) :—“ Many thanks for your
welcome note from Cambridge, and Iam glad you like my Alma Mater,
which I despise heartily as a place of education, but love from many
most pleasant recollections.”
106 CAMBRIDGE. (On. V.
from a shot it had received on the previous day; and that it
had made and left such. a painful impression on his mind,
that he could not reconcile it to his conscience to continue
to derive. Pleasure from a sport which inflicted such eruel
suffering.”
To realise the strength of the feeling that led to this resolve,
we must remember how passionate was his love of sport. We
must recall the boy shooting his first snipe,* and trembling
with excitement so that he could hardly reload his gun, Or
think of such a sentence as, ‘‘ Upon my soul, it is only about a
fortnight to the ‘ First, then if there is a bliss on earth that
is it.”
His old college friends agree in speaking with affectionate
warmth of his pleasant, genial temper as a young man. From
what they have been able to tell me, I gain the impression of
@ young man overflowing with animal spirits—leading a varied
healthy life—not over-industrious in the set studies of the
place, but full of other pursuits, which were followed with a
rejoicing enthusiasm. Entomology, viding, shooting in the
fens, suppers and card-playing, music at King’s Chapel, en-
gravings at the Fitzwilliam Museum, walks with Professor
Henslow—all combined to fill up a happy life. He seems to
have infected others with his enthusiasm. Mr. Herbert relates
how, while on a reading-party at Barmouth, he was pressed into
the service of “ the science ”—as my father called collecting
beetles :—
“ He armed me with a bottle of alcohol, in which I had to
drop any beetle which struck me as not of a common kind. I
performed this duty with some diligence in my constitutional
walks ; but, alas! my powers of discrimination seldom enabled
me to secure a prize—the usual result, on his examining the
contents of my bottle, being an exclamation,‘ Well, old
Cherbury’{ (the nickname he gave me, and by which he
usually addressed me), ‘none of these will do.’” Again, the
Rey. T. Butler, who was one of the Barmouth reading-party in
1828, says: “ He inoculated me with a taste for Botany which
has stuck by me all my life.”
Archdeacon Watkins, another old college friend of my
father’s, remembered him unearthing beetles in the willows
between Cambridge and Grantchester, and speaks of a certain
beetle the remembrance of whose name is “ Crux major.” §
* Autobiograph 10.
+ From a letter te W. D. Fox.
+ No doubt in allusion to the title of Lord Herbert of Cherbury.
§ Panageus crux-major.
On. V.) 1828—1831. 107
How enthusiastically must my father have exulted over this
beetle to have impressed its name on a companion so that he
remembers it after half a century !
He became intimate with Henslow, the Professor of Botany,
and through him with some other older members of the
University. “ But,” Mr. Herbert writes, “he always kept up
the closest connection with the friends of his own standing ;
and at our frequent social gatherings—at breakfast, wine or
supper parties—he was ever one of the most cheerful, the most
popular, and the most welcome.”
y father formed one of a club for dining once a week,
called the Glutton Club, the members, besides himself and Mr.
Herbert (from whom I quote), being Whitley of St. John’s,
now Honorary Canon of Durham ;* Heaviside of Sydney, now
Canon of Norwich; Lovett Cameron of Trinity, sometime vicar
of Shoreham; R. Blane of Trinity,t who held a high post
during the Crimean war , H. Lowe t¢ Spar t Sherbrooke)
of Trinity Hall; and F. Watkins of Emmanuel, afterwards
Archdeacon of York. The origin of the club’s name seems
already to have become involved in obscurity; it certainly
implied no unusual luxury in the weekly gatherings.
At any rate, the meetings seemed to have been successful,
and to have ended with “‘a game of mild vingt-et-un.”
Mr. Herbert speaks strongly of my father’s love of music,
and adds, “ What gave him the greatest delight was some
grand symphony or overture of Mozart’s or Beethoven’s, with
their full harmonies.” On one occasion Herbert remembers
“accompanying him to the afternoon service at King’s, when
we heard a very beautiful anthem. At the end of one of the
parts, which was exceedingly impressive,jhe turned round to me
and said, with a deep sigh, ‘ How’s your backbone ?’” He often
spoke in later years of a feeling of coldness or shivering in his
back on hearing beautiful music.
-Besides a love of music, he had certainly at this time a
love of fine literature; and Mr. Cameron tells me that my
father took much pleasure in Shakespeare readings carried
on in his rooms at Christ’s. He also speaks of Darwin’s
“ great liking for first-class line engravings, especially those
of Raphael Morghen and Miller; and he spent hours in
* Formerly Reader in Natural Philosophy at Durham University.
+ Blane was afterwards, I believe, in the Life Guards; he was in
the Crimean War, and afterwards Military Attaché at St. Petersburg,
I am indebted to Mr. Hamilton for information about some of my father’s
contemporaries.
$ Brother of Lord Sherbrooke,
108 CAMBRIDGE. [Cu. V.
the Fitzwilliam Museum in looking over the prints in that
collection.”
My father’s letters to Fox show how sorely oppressed he
felt by the reading for an examination. His despair over
mathematics must have been profound, when he expresses a
hope that Fox’s silence is due to “your being ten fathoms
deep in the Mathematics; and if you are, God help you, for so
am I, only with this difference, I stick fast in the mud at the
bottom, and there I shall remain.” Mr. Herbert says: “He
had, I imagine, no natural turn for mathematics, and he gave
up his mathematical reading before he had mastered the first
part of algebra, having had a special quarrel with Surds and
the Binomial Theorem.”
We get some evidence from my father’s letters to Fox of his
intention of going into the Church. “Iam glad,” he writes,*
“to hear that you are reading divinity. I should like to
know what books you are reading, and your opinions about
them; you need not be afraid of preaching to me pre-
maturely.” Mr. Herbert’s sketch shows how doubts arose in
my father’s mind as to the possibility of his taking Orders.
He writes, “ We had an earnest conversation about going into
Holy Orders ; and I remember his asking me, with reference
to the question pww by the Bishop in the Ordination Service,
‘Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy
Spirit, &c.,’ whether I could answer in the affirmative, and on
my saying I could not, he said, ‘ Neither can I, and therefore
I cannot take orders.’” This conversation appears to have
taken place in 1829, and if so, the doubts here expressed must
have been quieted, for in May 1830, he speaks of having some
thoughts of reading divinity with Henslow.
The greater number of his Cambridge letters are addressed
by my father to his cousin, William Darwin Fox. My father’s
letters show clearly enough how genuine the friendship was.
In after years, distance, large families, and ill-health on both
sides, checked the intercourse; but a warm feeling of friend-
ship remained. The correspondence was never quite dropped —
and continued till Mr. Fox’s death in 1880. Mr. Fox took
orders, and worked as a country clergyman until forced by
ill-health to leave his living in Delamere Forest. His love
of natural history was strong, and he became a skilled
fancier of many kinds of birds, &c. The index to Animals and
Plants, and my father’s later correspondence, show how much
help he received from his old College friend.
* March 18, 1829,
Cu. V.] 1828—1831. 109
0. D. to J. M. Herbert. September 14, 1828. *
My par oLp Currsury,—I am about to fulfil my promise of
writing to you, but I am sorry to add there is a very selfish
motive at the bottom. Iam going to ask you a great favour,
and you cannot imagine how much you will oblige me by
procuring some more specimens of some insects which I
dare say I can describe. In the first place, I must inform you
that I have taken some of the rarest of the British Insects, and
their being found near Barmouth, is quite unknown to the
Entomological world: I think I shall write and inform some
of the crack entomologists.
But now for business. Several more specimens, if you can
procure them without much trouble, of the following insects :—
The violet-black coloured beetle, found on Craig Storm,t
under stones, also a large smooth black one very like it; a
bluish metallic-coloured dung-beetle, which is very common on
the hill-sides; also, if you would be so very kind as to cross
the ferry, and you will find a great number under the stones on
the waste land of a long, smooth, jet-black beetle (a great many
of these) ; also, in the same situation, a very small pinkish insect,
with black spots, with a curved thorax projecting beyond the
head ; also, upon the marshy land over the ferry, near the sea,
under old sea weed, stones, &c., you will find a small yellowish
nt beetle, with two or four blackish marks on the
back. Under these stones there are two sorts, one much
darker than the other; the lighter coloured is that which I
want. These last two insects are excessively rare, and you will
really extremely oblige me by taking all this trouble pretty
soon. Remember me most kindly to Butler,{ tell him of my
success, and I dare say both of you will easily recognise these
insects. I hope his caterpillars go on well. I think many of
the Chrysalises are well worth keeping. I really am quite
ashamed [of] so long a letter all about my own concerns; but
do return good for evil, and send me a long account of all your
proceedings.
In the first week I killed seventy-five head of game—a very
contemptible number—but there are very few birds. I killed,
however, a brace of black game. Since then I have been
* The postmark being Derby seems to show that the letter was written
from his cousin, W. D. Fox’s house, Osmaston, near Derby.
¢ The top of the hill immediately behind Barmouth was called Craig-
Storm, a hybrid Cambro-English word.
“* T. Butler, a son of the former head master of Shrewsbury
00. ‘ ~
110 CAMBRIDGE. (Cu. V.
staying at the Fox’s, near Derby; it is a very pleasant house,
and the music meeting went off very well. I want to hear how
Yates likes his gun, and what use he has made of it.
If the bottle is not large you can buy another for me, and
when you pass through Shrewsbury you can leave these
treasures, and I hope, if you possibly can, you will stay a day
or two with me, as I hope I need not say how glad I shall be
to see you again. Fox remarked what deuced good natured
fellows your friends at Barmouth must be; and if I did not
know that you and Butler were so, I would not think of giving
you so much trouble.
In the following January we find him looking forward with
pleasure to the beginning of another year of his Cambridge
life: he writes to Fox, who had passed his examination :—
“I do so wish I were now in Cambridge (a very selfish wish,
however, as I was not with you in all your troubles and
misery), to join in all the glory and happiness, which dangers
gone by can give. How we would talk, walk, and entomolo-
gise! Sappho should be the best of bitches, and Dash, of
dogs; then should be ‘ peace on earth, good will to men,—
which, by the way, I always think the most perfect description
of happiness that words can give.”
Later on in the Lent term he writes to Fox :—
“Tam leading a quiet everyday sort of a life; a little of
Gibbon’s History in the morning, and a good deal of Van John
in the evening; this, with an occasional ride with Simcox and
constitutional with Whitley, makes up the regular routine of
my days. I see a good deal both of Herbert and Whitley, and
the more I see of them increases every day the respect I haye
for their excellent understandings and dispositions. They
have been giving some very gay parties, nearly sixty men there
both evenings.”
C. D. to W. D. Fou. Christ's College, April 1 [1829].
My prar Fox—In your letter to Holden you are pleased to’
observe “ that of all the blackguards you ever met with I am
the greatest.” Upon this observation I shall make no remarks,
excepting that I must give you all due credit for acting on it
most rigidly. And now I should like to know in what one
particular are you less of a blackguard than Iam? You idle
old wretch, why have you not answered my last letter, which
I am sure I forwarded to Clifton nearly three weeks ago?
If I was not really very anxious to hear what you are doing,
On. V.) 1828—1831. 11]
I should have allowed you to remain till you thought it worth
while to treat me like a gentleman. And now having vented
my spleen in scolding you, and having told you, what you must
know, how very much and how anxiously I want to hear how
you and your family are nom Jee at Clifton, the purport of
this letter is finished. if you did but know how often I think
of you, and how often I regret your absence, I am sure I should
have heard from you long enough ago.
I find Cambridge rather stupid, and as I know scarcely any
one that walks, and this joined with my lips not being quite
so well, has reduced me to a sort of hybernation... I have
caught Mr, Harbour * letting have the first pick of the
beetles; accordingly we have made our final adieus, my part
in the affecting scene consisted in telling him he was a d—d
rascal, and signifying I should kick him down the stairs if
ever he appeared in my rooms again. It seemed altogether
mightily to surprise the young gentleman. I have no news to
tell you; indeed, when a correspondence has been broken off
like ours has been, it is difficult to make the first start again.
Last night there was a terrible fire at Linton, eleven miles
from Cambridge. Seeing the reflection so plainly in the
sky, Hall, Woodyeare, Turner, and myself thought we would
ride and see it. We set out at half-past nine, and rode like
incarnate devils there, and did not return till two in the
morning. Altogether it was a most awful sight. I cannot
conclude without telling you, that of all the blackguards I ever
met with, you are the greatest and the best.
In July 1829 he had written to Fox :—
“ T must read for my Little-go. Graham smiled and bowed
so very civilly, when he told me that he was one of the six
appointed to make the examination stricter, and that they were
determined this would make it a very different thing from any
previous examination, that from all this I am sure it will be
the very devil to pay amongst all idle men and entomologists.”
But things were not so bad as he feared, and in March 1830,
he could write to the same correspondent :—
“T am through my Little-go!!! Iam too much exalted to
humble myself by apologising for not having written before.
But I assure you before I went in, and when my nerves were
in a shattered and weak condition, your injured person often
rose before my eyes and taunted me with my idleness. But I
am through, through, through. I could write the whole sheet
full with this delightful word. I went in yesterday, and have
* No doubt a paid collector.
112 CAMBRIDGE. (Ox. V.
just heard the joyful news. I shall not know for a week
which class [am in. The whole examination is carried on in
a different system. It has one grand advantage—being over
in one day. They are rather strict, and ask a wonderful
number of questions.
And now I want to know something about your plans; of
course you intend coming up here: what fun we will have
together ; what beetles we will catch; it will do my heart
good to go once more together to some of our old haunts. I
have two very promising pupils in Entomology, and we will
make regular campaigns into the Fens. Heaven protect the
beetles and Mr. Jenyns, for we won’t leave him a pair in the
whole country. My new Cabinet is come down, and a gay
little affair it is.”
In August he was diligently amusing himself in North
Wales, finding no time to write to Fox, because :—
“ This is literally the first idle day I have had to myself;
for on the rainy days I go fishing, on the good ones entomolo-
gising.”
November found him preparing for his degree, of which
process he writes dolefully :—
“T have so little time at present, and am so disgusted by
reading, that I have not the heart to write to anybody. I have
only written once home since I came up. This must excuse
me for not having answered your three letters, for which I am
really very much obliged....
“T have not stuck an insect this term, and scarcély opened
a case. If I had time I would have sent you the insects
which I have so long promised; but really I haye not spirits
or time to do anything. Reading makes me quite desperate ;
the plague of getting up all my subjects is next thing to
intolerable. Henslow is my tutor, and a most admirable one
he makes; the hour with him is the pleasantest in the whole
day. I think he is quite the most perfect man I ever met
with. I have been to some very pleasant parties there this
term. His good-nature is unbounded.” :
The new year brought relief, and on January 23, 1831, he
wrote to tell Fox that he was through his examination.
“T do not know why the degree should make one so
miserable, both before and afterwards. I recollect you were
sufficiently wretched before, and I can assure [you], Iam now;
and what makes it the more ridiculous is, 1 know not what
about. I believe it is a beautiful provision of nature to make one
regret the less leaving so pleasant a place as Cambridge; and
amongst all its pleasures—I say it for once and for all—none
Ou. V.) 1828—-1831. 113
so great as my friendship with you. I sent you a newspaper
esterday, in which you will see what a good place—tenth—I
eee got in the Poll. As for Christ’s, did you ever see such a
college for producing Captains and Apostles? * There are
no men either at Emmanuel or Christ’s plucked. Cameron is
gulfed,t together with other three Trinity scholars! My plans
are not at all settled. Ithink I shall keep this term, and then
go and economise at Shrewsbury, return and take my degree.
« A man may be excused for writing so much about himself
when he has just passed the examination ; so you must excuse
[me]. And onthe same principle do you write a letter brimful
of yourself and plans.”
THE APPOINTMENT TO THE ‘ BEAGLE.’
In a letter addressed to Captain Fitz-Roy, before the Beagle
sailed, my father wrote, “What a glorious day the 4th of
peer will be to me—my second life will then commence,
and it be as a birthday for the rest of my life.”
Foremost in the chain of circumstances which led to his
appointment to the Beagle, was his friendship with Professor
Henslow, of which the autobiography gives a suflicient
account.§
An extract from a pocket-book, in which Darwin briefly
recorded the chief events of his life, gives the history of his
introduction to that science which was so soon to be his chief
occupation—geology.
* 1831. Christmas.—Passed my examination for B.A. degree
and kept the two following terms. During these months lived
much with Professor Henslow, often dining with him and
walking with him; became slightly acquainted with several
of the learned men in Cambridge, which much quickened
the zeal which dinner parties and hunting had not destroyed.
In the spring Henslow persuaded me to think of Geology,
and introduced me to Sedgwick. During Midsummer geolo-
gized a little in Shropshire.”
This geological work was doubtless of importance as giving
* The “ Captain” is at the head of the “ Poll”: the “ Apostles” aro
the last twelve in the Mathematicai Tripos.
t+ For an lanation of the] word “ gulfed ” or “ gulphed,” see Mr. W.
W. Rouse Balls’ interesting History of the Study of Mathematics at
Cambridge (1889), p. 160.
t The Beagle should have started on Noy. 4, but was delayed until
Dec. 27.
§ See, too, a sketch by my father of his old master, in the Rey. L.
Blomefield’s Memoir of Professor Henslow.
I
114 APPOINTMENT TO THE BEAGLE. (Ox. V.
him some practical experience, and perhaps of more import-
ance in helping to give him some confidence in himself. In
July of the same year, 1831, he was “ working like a tiger”
at Geology, and trying to make a map of Shropshire, but not
finding it “as easy as I expected.”
In writing to Henslow about the same time, he gives some
account of his work :—
“T have been working at so many things that I have not
got on much with geology. I suspect the first expedition I
take, clinometer and hammer in hand, will send me back ve
little wiser and a good deal more puzzled than when I s
As yet I have only indulged in hypotheses, but they are such
powerful ones that I suppose, if they were put into action but
for one day, the world would come to an end.”
He was evidently most keen to get to work with Sedgwick,
who had promised to take him on a geological tour in North
Wales, for he wrote to Henslow: “I have not heard from
Professor Sedgwick, so I am afraid he will not pay the Severn
formations a visit. I hope and trust you did your best to
urge him.”
My father has given in his Recollections some account of
this Tour; there too we read of the projected excursion to the
Canaries.
In April 1831, he writes to Fox: “ At present I talk, think,
and dream of a scheme I have almost hatched of going to the
Canary Islands. I have long had a wish of seeing tropical
scenery and vegetation, and, according to Humboldt, Teneriffe
is a very pretty specimen.” And again in May: “ As for my
Canary scheme, it is rash of you to ask questions; my other
friends most sincerely wish me there, I plague them so with
talking about tropical scenery, &c. Eyton will go next
summer, and I am learning Spanish.”
Later on in the summer the scheme took more definite
form, and the date seems to have been fixed for June 1882.
He got information in London about passage-money, and in
July was working at Spanish and calling Fox “un grandisimo |
lebron,” in proof of his knowledge of the language. But even
then he seems to have had some doubts about his companions’
zeal, for he writes to Henslow (July 27, 1831): “I hope you
continue to fan your Canary ardour. I read and re-read
Humboldt; * do you do the same. I am sure nothing will
prevent us seeing the Great Dragon Tree.”
* The copy of Humboldt given by Henslow to my father, which is in
my possession, is a double memento of the two men—the author and the
donor, who so greatly influenced his life.
Cu. V.] 1831. 115
Geological work and Teneriffe dreams carried him through
the summer, till on returning from Barmouth for the sacred
Ist of September, he received the offer of appointment as
Naturalist to the Beagle.
The following extract from the pocket-book will be a help
in reading the letters :—.
Pe Returned to Shrewsbury at end of August. Refused offer
of voyage.
* September.—Went to Maer, returned with Uncle Jos. to
Shrewsbury, thence to Cambridge. London.
“11th—Went with Captain Fitz-Roy in steamer to Ply-
mouth to see the Beagle.
: HY pcnspciitene yp to Shrewsbury, passing through Cam-
ridge.
“ October 2nd.—Took leave of my home. Stayed in London,
« 24th.—Reached Plymouth.
“ October and November.—These months very miserable.
* December 10th.—Sailed, but were obliged to put back.
* 21st.—Put to sea again, and were driven back.
“ 27th.—Sailed from England on our Circumnavigation.”
George Peacock * to J. S. Henslow [1831].
My prar Henstow—Captain Fitz-Roy is going out to survey
the southern coast of Tierra del Fuego, and afterwards to visit
many of the South Sea Islands, and to return by the Indian
Archipelago. The vessel is fitted out expressly for scientific
purposes, combined with the survey ; it will furnish, therefore,
a rare opportunity for a naturalist, and it would be a great
misfortune that it should be lost.
An offer has been made to me to recommend a proper
person to go out as a naturalist with this expedition; he will
be treated with every consideration. The Captain is a young
man of very pleasing manners (a nephew of the Duke of
Grafton), of great zeal in his profession, and who is very
highly spoken of ; if Leonard Jenyns could go, what treasures
he might bring home with him, as the ship would be placed
at his disposal whenever his inquiries made it necessary or
desirable. In the absence of so accomplished a naturalist, is
there any person whom you could strongly recommend? he
must be such a person as would do credit to our recommenda-
tion. Do think of this subject; it would be a serious loss to
* Formerly Dean of Ely, and Lowndean Professor of Astronomy af
) 2
I
116 APPOINTMENT TO THE BEAGLE. (Ca. V.
the cause of natural science if this fine opportunity was
lost.
The contents of the foregoing letter were communicated to
Darwin by Henslow (August 24th, 1831) :—
“1 have been asked by Peacock, who will read and forward
this to you from London, to recommend him a Naturalist as
companion to Captain Fitz-Roy, employed by Government to
survey the southern extremity of America. I have stated that
I consider you to be the best qualified person I know of who
is likely to undertake such a situation. I state this not in the
supposition of your being a finished naturalist, but as amply
qualified for collecting, observing, and noting anything worthy
to be noted in Natural History. Peacock has the appointment
at his disposal, and if he cannot find a man willing to take the
office, the opportunity will probably be lost. Captain Fitz-
Roy wants a man (I understand) more as a companion than a
mere collector, and would not take any one, however good
a naturalist, who was not recommended to him likewise as a
gentleman. Particulars of salary, &c., I know nothing. The
voyage is to last two years, and if you take plenty of books
with you, anything you please may be done. You will have
ample opportunities at-.eommand. In short, I suppose there
never was a finer chance for a man of zeal and spirit; Captain
Fitz-Roy is a young man. What I wish you to do is instantly
to come and consult with Peacock (at No. 7 Suffolk Street,
Pall Mall East, or else at the University Club), and learn
further particulars. Don’t put on any modest doubts or fears
about your disqualifications, for I assure you I think you are
the very man they are in search of; so conceive yourself to be
tapped on the shoulder by your bum-bailiff and affectionate
friend, J. 8. Hexstow.”
On the strength of Henslow’s recommendation, Peacock
offered the post to Darwin, who wrote from Shrewsbury to
Henslow (August 30, 1831):
“ Mr. Peacock’s letter arrived on Saturday, and I received it
late yesterday evening. As far as my own mind is concerned,
I should, I think certainly, most gladly have accepted the
opportunity which you so kindly have offered me. But my
father, although he does not decidedly refuse me, gives such
strong advice against going, that I should not be comfortable
if I did not follow it.
‘“‘ My father’s objections are these: the unfitting me to settle
down as a Clergyman, my little habit of seafaring, the shortness
et “7
Cu. V.) 1831. 117
of the time, and the chance of my not suiting Captain Fitz-Roy.
It is certainly a very serious objection, the very short time for
all my preparations, as not only body but mind wants making
up for such an undertaking. But if it had not been for my
father I would have taken all risks. What was the reason that
a Naturalist was not long ago fixed upon? I am very much
obliged for the trouble you have had about it; there certainly
could not have been a better opportunity ....
“ Even if I was to go, my father disliking would take away
all energy, and I should want a good stock of that. Again I
must thank you, itadds a little to the heavy but pleasant load of
gratitude which I owe to you.”
The following letter was written by Darwin from Maer, the
house of his uncle Josiah Wedgwood the younger. It is plain
that at first he intended to await a written reply from Dr.
Darwin, and that the expedition to Shrewsbury, mentioned
in the Autobiography, was an afterthought.
[Maer] August 31 [1831].
My pear Fatner—lI am afraid I am going to make you again
very uncomfortable. But, upon consideration, I think you will
excuse me once again stating my opinions on tho offer of the
voyage. My excuse and reason is the different way all the
Wedgwoods view the subject from what you and my sisters do.
I have given Uncle Jos* what I fervently trust is an accurate
and full list of your objections, and he is kind enough to give
his opinions on all. The list and his answers will be enclosed.
But may I beg of you one favour, it will be doing me the
greatest kindness, if you will send me a decided answer, yes or
no? If the latter, I should be most ungrateful if I did not
implicitly yield to your better judgment, and to the kindest
indulgence you have shown me all through my life; and you
may rely upon it I will never mention the subject again. If
your answer should be yes; I will go directly to Henslow and
consult deliberately with him, and then come to Shrewsbury.
The danger appears to me and all the Wedgwoods not
great. The expense can not be serious, and the time I do not
think, anyhow, would be more thrown away than if I stayed at
home. But pray do not consider that I am so bent on going
that I would for one single moment hesitate, if you thought
that after a short period you should continue uncomfortable.
I must again state I cannot think it would unfit me here-
after for a steady life. I do hope this letter will not give you
* Josiah Wedgwood.
118 APPOINTMENT TO THE BEAGLE. (Os. ¥.
much uneasiness. I send it by the car to-morrow morning;
if you make up your mind directly will you send me an
answer on the following day by the same means? If this
letter should not find you at home, I hope you will answer as
soon as you conveniently can.
I do not know what to say about Uncle Jos’ kindness; I
never can forget how he interests himself about me.
Believe me, my dear father, your affectionate son,
CuarLes Darwin.
Here follow the objections above referred to :—
“(1.) Disreputable to my character as a Clergyman here-
after
“ (2,.) A wild scheme.
2 33 That they must have offered to many others before me
the place of Naturalist.
“(4,) And from its not being accepted there must be some
serious objection to the vessel or expedition.
“(5.) That I should never settle down to a steady life here-
after
“ (6.) That my accommodations would be most uncomfort-
able
“(7.) That you [i.e. Dr. Darwin] should consider it as again
changing my profession.
“(8.) That it would be a useless undertaking.”
Josiah Wedgwood having demolished this curious array of
argument, and the Doctor having been converted, Darwin
left home for Cambridge. On his arrival at the Red Lion
he sent a messenger to Henslow with the following note
(September 2nd) :—
“TIT am just arrived; you will guess the reason. My
father has changed his mind. I trust the place is not given
away.
“ T am very much fatigued, and am going to bed.
“ ] dare say you have not yet got my second letter.
“ How soon shall I come to you in the morning? Send a
verbal answer.”
C. D. to Miss Susan Darwin. Cambridge [September 4, 1831].
».... The whole of yesterday I spent with Henslow,
thinking of what is to be done, and that I find is a great deal.
By great good luck I know a man of the name of Wood,
nephew of Lord Londonderry. He is a great friend of
Captain Fitz-Roy, and has written to him about me. I heard
On. V.) 1831, 119
a part of Captain Fitz-Roy’s letter, dated some time ago, in
which he says: ‘I have a right good set of officers, and most
of my men have been there before.’ It seems he has been
there for the last few years; he was then second in command
with the same vessel that he has now chosen. He is only
twenty-three years old, but {has} seen a deal of service, and
won the gold medal at Portsmouth. The Admiralty say his
maps are ee Ene He had choice of two vessels, and he
chose the est. Henslow will give me letters to all
travellers in town whom he thinks may assist me.
deees I write as if it was settled, but Henslow tells me by
no means tomake up my mind till I have had long conversations
with Captains Beaufort and Fitz-Roy. Good-bye. You will
hear from me constantly. Direct 17 Spring Gardens. Tell
nobody in Shropshire yet. Be sure not.
I was so tired that evening I was in Shrewsbury that I
thanked none of you for your kindness half so much as I felt.
Love to my father.
The reason I don’t want people told in Shropshire: in case
I should not go, it will make it more flat.
At this stage of the transaction, a hitch occurred. Captain
Fitz-Roy, it seems, wished to take a friend (Mr. Chester) as
companion on the voyage, and accordingly wrote to Cambridge
in such a discouraging strain, that Darwin gave up hope and
hardly thought it worth his while to go to London (September 5).
Fortunately, however, he did go, and found that Mr. Chester
could not leave England. When the physiognomical, or nose-
difficulty (Autobiography, p. 26.) occurred, I have no means of
knowing : for at this interview Fitz~-Roy was evidently well-
dis towards him.
My father wrote :—
“ He offers me to go shares in everything in his cabin if I
like to come, and every sort of accommodation I can have, but
they will not be numerous. He says nothing would be so
miserable for him as having me with him if I was uncomfort-
able, as in a small vessel we must be thrown together, and
thought it his duty to state everything in the worst point of
ening I think I shall go on Sunday to Plymouth to see the
ve
* There is something most extremely attractive in his manners
and way of coming straight to the point. If I live with him,
he says I must live poorly—no wine, and the plainest dinners.
The scheme is not certainly so good as Peacock describes.
Captain Fitz-Roy advises me not [to] make up my mind quite
120 APPOINTMENT TO THE BEAGLE. (Cx. V.
yet, but that, seriously, he thinks it will have much more
pleasure than pain forme... .
“The want of room is decidedly the most serious objection ;
but Captain Fitz-Roy (probably owing to Wood’s letter) seems
determined to make me [as] comfortable as he possibly can. I
like his manner of proceeding. He asked me at once, ‘ Shall
you bear being told that I want the cabin to myself—when I
want to be alone? If we treat each other this way, I hope we
shall suit; if not, probably we should wish each other at the
de M4 tig ”?
C. D, to Miss Susan Darwin. London [September 6, 1831].
My prar Susan—Again I am going to trouble you. I suspect,
if I keep on at this rate, you will sincerely wish me at Tierra del
Fuego, or any other Terra, but England. First, I will give my
commissions. Tell Nancy to make me some twelve instead of
eight shirts. Tell Edward to send me up in my carpet-bag
(he can slip the key in the bag tied to some string), my
slippers, a pair of lightish walking-shoes, my Spanish books,
my new microscope (about six inches long and three or four
deep), which must have cotton stuffed inside; my geological
compass ; my father knows that; a little book, if I have got it
in ‘my bed room—Taaidermy. Ask my father if he thinks
there would be any objection to my taking arsenic for a little
time, as my hands are not quite well, and I have always ~
observed that if I once get them well, and change my manner
of living about the same time, they will generally remain well.
What is the dose? Tell Edward my gun is dirty. What is
Erasmus’s direction? Tell me if you think there is time to
write and to receive an answer before I start, as I should like
particularly to know what he thinks about it. I suppose you
do not know Sir J. Mackintosh’s direction ?
I write all this as if it was settled, but it is not more than
it was, excepting that from Captain Fitz-Roy wishing me so
much to go, and, from his kindness, I feel a predestinationI »
shall start. I spent a very pleasant evening with him yester-
day. He must be more than twenty-three years old; he is of
a slight figure, and a dark but handsome edition of Mr.
Kynaston, and, according to my notions, pre-eminently good
manners. He is all for economy, excepting on one point—yviz.,
fire-arms. He recommends me strongly to get a case of pistols
like his, which cost £60!! and never to go on shore anywhere
without loaded ones, and he is doubting about a rifle; he says
I cannot appreciate the luxury of fresh meat here. Of course
On. V.] 18381. 121
I shall buy nothing till ey age is settled; but I work all
day long at my lists, putting in and striking outarticles. This
is the really cheerful day I have spent since I received
the letter, and it all is owing to the sort of involuntary confidence
I place in my beau ideal of a Captain.
We stop at Teneriffe. His object is to stop at as many
places as possible. He takes out twenty chronometers, and it
will be a “sin” not to settle the longitude. He tells me to
get it down in writing at the Admiralty that I have the free
choice to leave as soon and whenever I like. I daresay you
expect I shall turn back at the Madeira; if I have a morsel of
stomach left, I won’t give up. Excuse my so often troubling
and writing: the one is of great utility, the other a great amuse-
ment tome. Most likely I shall write to-morrow. Answer by
return of post. Love to my father, dearest Susan.
C. D. to J. S. Henslow. Devonport [November 15, 1831].
My par Henstow—The orders are come down from the
Admiralty, and everything is finally settled. We positively
sail the last day of this month, and I think before that time
the vessel will be ready. She looks most beautiful, even a
Jandsman must admire her. We all think her the most perfect
vessel ever turned out of the Dockyard. One thing is certain,
no vessel has been fitted out so expensively, and with so much
care. Everything that can be made so is of mahogany, and
nothing can exceed the neatness and beauty of all the ac-
commodations. The instructions are very general, and leave
a great deal to the Captain’s discretion and judgment, paying a
substantial as well as a verbal compliment to him.....
No vessel ever left England with such a set of Chrono-
meters, viz. twenty-four, all very good ones. In short, every-
thing is well, and I have only now to pray for the sickness to
moderate its fierceness, and I shall do very well. Yet I should
not call it one of the very best opportunities for natural history
that has ever occurred. The absolute want of room is an evil
that nothing can surmount. I think L. Jenyns did very wisely
in not coming, that is judging from my own feelings, for I
am sure if I had left college!some'few years, or been those years
older I never could have endured it. The officers (excepting
the Captain) are like the freshest freshmen, that is in their
manners, in everything else widely different. Remember me
most kindly to him, and tell him if ever he dreams in the
night of palm-trees, he may in the morning comfort himself
with the assurance that the voyage would not have suited him.
122 APPOINTMENT TO THE BEAGLE. (Cu. V.
I am much obliged for your advice, de Mathematicis. I
suspect when I am struggling with a triangle, I shall often
wish myself in your room, and as for those wicked sulky surds,
I do not know what I shall do without you to conjure them.
My time passes away very pleasantly. I know one or two
pleasant people, foremost of whom is Mr. Thunder-and-light-
ning Harris,* whom I dare say you have heard of. My chief
employment is to go on board the Beagle, and try to look as
much like a sailor as I can. I have no evidence of having
taken in man, woman or child.
I am going to ask you to do one more commission, and I
trust it will be the last. When I was in Cambridge, I wrote
to Mr. Ash, asking him to send my College account to my
father, after having subtracted about £30 for my furniture.
This he has forgotten to do, and my father has paid the
bill, and I want to have the furniture-money transmitted to
my father. Perhaps you would be kind enough to speak to
Mr. Ash. I have cost my father so much money, I am quite
ashamed of myself.
I will write once again before sailing, and perhaps you will
write to me before then.
Believe me, yours affectionately,
C. D. to J. S. Henslow. Devonport [December 3, 1831].
My pEAR HensLow—It is now late in the evening, and to-night
Iam going to sleep on board. On Monday we most certainly
il,so you may guess in what a desperate state of confusion
we are allin. If you were to hear the various exclamations of
the officers, you would suppose we had scarcely had a week’s
notice. I am just in the same way taken all aback, and in
such a bustle I hardly know what to do. The number of things
to be done is infinite. I look forward even to sea-sickness
with something like satisfaction, anything must be better than
this state of anxiety. JI am very much obliged for your last
kind and affectionate letter. I always like advice from you, |
and no one whom I have the luck to know is more capable of
giving it than yourself. Recollect, when you write, that I am
a sort of protégé of yours, and that it is your bounden duty to
lecture me.
I will now give you my direction: it is at first, Rio; but
if you will send me a letter on the first Tuesday (when the
packet sails) in February, directed to Monte Video, it will give
* William Snow Harris, the Electrician.
Cu. V.] » 23881. 123
me very t pleasure: I shall so much enjoy hearing a little
Oaivhetine eee Poor dear old Alma Mater! I am a very
worthy son in as far as affection goes. I have little more
to write about . . . I cannot end this without telling you how
cordially I feel grateful for the kindness you have shown
me during my Cambridge life. Much of the pleasure and
utility which I may have derived from it is owing to you. I
long for the time when we shall again meet, and till then
believe me, my dear Henslow,
Your affectionate and obliged friend,
Cu. Darwin.
THE ‘BEAGLE’ LAID ASHORE, RIVER SANTA CRUZ
CHAPTER VI.
THE VOYAGE.
“There is a natural good-humoured energy in his letters just like
himself.”—From a letter of Dr. R. W. Darwin’s to Professor Henslow.
Tux object of the Beagle voyage is briefly described in my
father’s Journal of Researches, p. 1, as being “to complete
the Survey of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, commenced
under Captain King in 1826 to 1830; to survey the shores of
Chile, Peru, and some islands in the Pacific; and to carry a
chain of chronometrical measurements round the world.”
The Beagle is described * as a well-built little vessel, of 235
tons, rigged as a barque, and carrying six guns. She belonged
to the old class of ten-gun brigs, which were nicknamed
“ coffins,” from their liability to go down in severe weather.
"They were very “ deep-waisted,” that is, their bulwarks were
high in proportion to their size, so that a heavy sea breaking
over them might be highly dangerous. Nevertheless, she had
* Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, vol. i. introduction xii. The
illustration at the head of the chapter is from vol. ii. of the same work.
Ou. VI) 1831—1836. 125
already lived through five aris work, in the most stormy
regions in the world, under Commanders Stokes and Fitz-Roy
without a serious accident. When re-commissioned in 1831
for her second voyage, she was found (as I learned from the
late Admiral Sir Siaces Sulivan) to be so rotten that she had
ractically to be rebuilt, and it was this that caused the
To delay in yng
She was fitted out for the expedition with all possible care:
to quote my father’s description, written from Devonport,
November 17, 1831: “Everybody, who can judge, says it is
one of the grandest voyages that has almost ever been sent out.
Everything is on a grand scale.... In short, everything is as
prosperous as human means can make it.” The twenty-four
chronometers and the mahogany fittings seem to have been
especially admired, and are more than once alluded to.
Owing to the smallness of the vessel, every one on board was
cramped for room, and my father’s accommodation seems to have
been narrow enough.
Yet of this confined space he wrote enthusiastically,
September 17, 1831 :—* When I wrote last, I was in great
alarm about my cabin. The cabins were not then marked
out, but when I left they were, and mine is a capital one,
certainly next best to the Captain’s and remarkably light.
My companion most luckily, I think, will turn out to be the
officer whom I shall like best. Captain Fitz-Roy says he will
take care that one corner is so fitted up that I shall be com-
fortable in it and shall consider it my home, but that also I
shall have the run of his. My cabin is the drawing one; and
in the middle is a large table, on which we two sleep in
hammocks. But for the first two months there will be no
drawing to be done, so that it will be quite a luxurious room,
and a good deal larger than the Captain’s cabin.”
My father used to say that it was the absolute necessity of
tidiness in the cramped space on the Beagle that helped “ to
give him his methodical habits of working.” On the Beagle,
too, he would say, that he learned what he considered the
golden rule for saving time; t.e., taking care of the minutes.
In a letter to his sister (July 1832), he writes contentedly of
his manner of life at sea :—“I do not think I have ever given
you an account of how the day passes. We breakfast at eight
o'clock. The invariable maxim is to throw away all politeness
—that is, never to wait for each other, and bolt off the minute
one has done eating, &c. At sea, when the weather is calm,
I work at marine animals, with which the whole ocean abounds.
If there is any sea up I am either sick or contrive to read
126 THE VOYAGE. (Cu. VE
some voyage or travels. At one we dine. You shore-going
people are lamentably mistaken about the manner of living on
board. We have never yet (nor shall we) dined off salt meat.
Rice and peas and calavanses are excellent vegetables, and,
with good bread, who could want more? Judge Alderson
could not be more temperate, as nothing but water comes on
the table. At five we have tea.”
The crew of the Beagle consisted of Captain Fitz-Roy,
“Commander and Surveyor,” two lieutenants, one of whom
(the first lieutenant) was the late Captain Wickham, Governor
of Queensland; the late Admiral Sir James Sulivan, K.O.B.,
was the second lieutenant. Besides the master and two mates,
there was an assistant-surveyor, the late Admiral Lort
Stokes. There were also a surgeon, assistant-surgeon, two
midshipmen, master’s mate, a volunteer (1st class), purser,
carpenter, clerk, boatswain, eight marines, thirty-four seamen,
and six boys.
There are not now (1892) many survivors of my father’s
old ship-mates. Admiral Mellersh, and Mr. Philip King, of
the Legislative Council of Sydney, are among the number.
Admiral Johnson died almost at the same time as my father.
My father retained to the last a most pleasant recollection of
the voyage of the Beagle, and of the friends he made on board
her. To his children their names were familiar, from his many
stories of the voyage, and we caught his feeling of friendship
for many who were to us nothing more than names.
It is pleasant to know how affectionately his old companions
remember him.
Sir James Sulivan remained, throughout my father’s life-
time, one of his best and truest friends. He writes:—“I can
confidently express my belief that during the five years in the
Beagle, he was never known to be out of temper, or to say one
unkind or hasty word of or to any one. You will therefore
readily understand how this, combined with the admiration of
his energy and ability, led to our giving him the name of ‘ the
dear old Philosopher.” * Admiral Mellersh writes to me :—
“ Your father is as vividly in my mind’s eye as if it was only a
week ago that I was in the Beagle with him; his genial smile
and conversation can never be forgotten by any who saw them
and heard them. I was sent on two or three occasions away in
a boat with him on some of his scientific excursions, and always
* His other nickname was “ The Flycatcher.” Ihave heard my father
tell how he overheard the boatswain of the Beagle showing another
boatswain over the ship, and pointing out the officers: “ That’s our first
lieutenant; that’s our doctor; that’s our flycatcher.”
Cu, VI.) 1831—1836. 127
looked forward to these trips with great pleasure, an anticipa-
tion that, unlike many others, was always realised. I think he
was the only man I ever knew against whom I never heard a
word said ; and as people when shut up in a ship for five years
os apt to get cross with each other, that is saying a good
Admiral Stokes, Mr. King, Mr. Usborne, and Mr. Hamond,
all speak of their friendship with him in the same warm-
hearted way.
Captain Fitz-Roy was a strict officer, and made himself
thoroughly respected both by officers and men. The occasional
severity of his manner was borne with because every one on
board knew that his first thought was his duty, and that he
would sacrifice anything to the real welfare of the ship. My
father writes, July 1834: “ We all jog on very well together,
there is no quarrelling on board, which is something to
say. The Captain keeps all smooth by rowing every one in
turn ”
My father speaks of the officers as a fine determined set of
men, and especially of Wickham, the first lieutenant, as a
“ glorious fellow.” The latter being responsible for the smart-
ness and appearance of the ship strongly objected to Darwin
littering the decks, and spoke of specimens as “ d—d beastly
devilment,” and used to add, “If I were skipper, I would soon
have you and all your d—d mess out of the place.”
A sort of halo of sanctity was given to my father by the fact
of his dining in the Captain’s cabin, so that the midshipmen
used at first to call him “ Sir,” a formality, however, which did
not prevent his becoming fast friends with the younger officers,
He wrote about the year 1861 or 1862 to Mr. P. G. King,
M.1L.C., Sydney, who, as before stated, was a midshipman on
board the Beagle :—*'The remembrance of old days, when we
used to sit and talk on the booms of the Beagle, will always, to
the day of my death, make me glad to hear of your happiness
and prosperity.” Mr. King describes the pleasure my father
seemed to take “in pointing out to me as a youngster the
delights of the tropical nights, with their balmy breezes
eddying out of the sails above us, and the sea lightéd up by
the passage of the ship through the never-ending streams of
phosphorescent animalcule,”
It has been assumed that his ill-health in later years was
due to his having suffered so much from sea-sickness. This
he did not himself believe, but rather ascribed his bad health
to the hereditary fault which took shape as gout in some of the
past generations. I am not quite clear as to how much he
128 THE VOYAGE. (Cx. VI.
actually suffered from sea-sickness ; my impression is distinct
that, according to his own memory, he was not actually ill
after the first three weeks, but constantly uncomfortable when
the vessel pitched at all heavily. But, judging from his
letters, and from the evidence of some of the officers, it would
seem that in later years he forgot the extent of the discomfort.
Writing June 3, 1836, from the Cape of Good Hope, he says:
“It isa lucky thing for me that the voyage is drawing to its
close, for I positively suffer more from sea-sickness now than
three years ago.”
C. D. to BR. W. Darwin. Bahia, or San Salvador, Brazil.
[February 8, 1832.]
I find after the first page I have been writing
to my sisters.
My pear Fatuer—I am writing this on the 8th of February,
one day’s sail past St. Jago (Cape de Verd), and intend taking
the chance of meeting with a homeward-bound vessel some-
where about the equator. The date, however, will tell this
whenever the opportunity occurs. I will now begin from the
day of leaving England, and give a short account of our
progress. We sailed, as you know, on the 27th of December,
and have been fortunate enough to have had from that time to
the present a fair and moderate breeze. It afterwards proved
that we had escaped a heavy galein the Channel, another
at Madeira, and another oat Tih) Coast of Africa. But in
escaping the gale, we felt its consequence—a heavy sea. In
the Bay of Biscay there was a long and continuous swell, and
the misery I endured from sea-sickness is far beyond what I
ever guessed at. I believe you are curious about it. I will
give you all my dear-bought experience. Nobody who has
only been to sea for twenty-four hours has a right to say that
sea-sickness is even uncomfortable. The real misery only
begins when you are so exhausted that a little exertion makes
a feeling of faintness come on. I found nothing but lying in
my hammock did me any good. I must especially except
your receipt of raisins, which is the only food that the stomach
will bear.
On the 4th of January we were not many miles from Madeira,
but as there was a heavy sea running, and the island lay to
windward, it was not thought worth while to beat up to it. It
afterwards has turned out it was lucky we saved ourselves the
trouble. Iwas much too sick even to get up to see the distant
outline. On the 6th, in the evening, we sailed into the
Cu. VI.J 1831—1836. 129
harbour of Santa Cruz. I now first felt even moderately well,
and I was picturing to myself all the delights of fresh fruit
growing in beautiful valleys, and reading Humboldt’s descrip-
tion of the island’s glorious views, when perhaps you may
nearly guess at our disappointment, when a small pale man
informed us we must perform a strict quarantine of twelve
days. ‘There was a death-like stillness in the ship till the
Captain cried “ up jib,” and we left this long wished-for place.
e were becalmed for a day between Teneriffe and the
Grand Canary, and here I first experienced any enjoyment.
The view was glorious. The Peak of Teneriffe was seen
“ee the clouds like another world. Our only drawback
was the extreme wish of visiting this glorious island. From
Teneriffe to St. Jago the voyage was extremely pleasant. I had
a net astern the vessel which caught great numbers of curious
animals, and fully occupied my time in my cabin, and on deck
the weather was so delightful and clear, that the sky and water
together made a picture. On the 16th we arrived at Port
Praya, the capital of the Cape de Verds, and there we remained
Plas ey days, viz. till yesterday, the 7th of February. The
time flown away most delightfully, indeed nothing can be
pleasanter ; exceedingly busy, and that business both a duty
and a t delight. I do not believe I have spent one half-
hour idly since leaving Teneriffe. St. Jago has afforded me
an exceedingly rich harvest in several branches‘of Natural
History. I find the descriptions scarcely worth anything of
many of the commoner animals that inhabit the Tropics. I
allude, of course, to those of the lower classes.
Geologising in a volcanic country is most delightful ;
besides the interest attached to itself, it leads you into most
beautiful and retired spots. Nobody but a person fond of
Natural History can imagine the pleasure of strolling under
cocoa-nuts in a thicket of bananas and coffee-plants, and an
endless number of wild flowers. And this island, that has
given me so much instruction and delight, is reckoned the
most uninteresting place that we perhaps shall touch at during
our voyage. It certainly is generally very barren, but the
valleys are more ‘exquisitely beautiful, from the very contrast.
It is utterly useless to say anything about the scenery; it
would be as profitable to explain to a blind man colours, as
to a person who has not been out of Europe, the total dis-
similarity of a tropical view. Whenever I enjoy anything, I
always either look forward to writing it down, either in my
log-book (which increases in bulk), or in a letter; so you must
excuse raptures, and those raptures badly expressed. I find
K
130 THE VOYAGE. (Cu. VI.
my collections are increasing wonderfully, and from Rio I
think I shall be obliged to send a cargo home.
All the endless delays which we experienced at Plymouth
have been most fortunate, as I verily believe no person ever
went out better provided for collecting and observing in the
different branches of Natural History. In a multitude of coun-
sellors I certainly found good. I find to my great surprise
that a ship is singularly comfortable for all sorts of work.
Everything is so close at hand, and being cramped makes one
so methodical, that in the end I have been a gainer. I already
have got to look at going to sea as a regular quiet place, like
going back to home after staying away from it. In short, I
find a ship a very comfortable house, with everything you want,
and if it was not for sea-sickness the whole world would be
sailors. I donot think there ismuch danger of Erasmus setti
the example, but in case there should be, he may rely upon it
he does not know one-tenth of the sufferings of sea-sickness.
I like the officers much more than I did at first, especially
Wickham, and young King and Stokes, and indeed all of them.
The Captain continues steadily very kind, and does everything
in his power to assist me. We see very little of each other
when in harbour, our pursuits lead us in such different tracks.
I never in my life met with a man who could endure nearly so
great a share of fatigue. He works incessantly, and when
apparently not employed, he is thinking. If he does not kill
himself, he will during this voyage do a wonderful quantity of
work....
February 26th.—About 280 miles from Bahia. We have been
singularly unlucky in not meeting with any homeward-bound
vessels, but I suppose [at] Bahia we certainly shall be able to
write to England. Since writing the first part of [this] letter
nothing has occurred except crossing the Equator, and being
shaved. ‘This most disagreeable operation, consists in having
your face rubbed with paint and tar, which forms a lather for a
saw which represents the razor, and then being half drowned in
a sail filled with salt water. About 50 miles north of the line ©
we touched at the rocks of St. Paul; this little speck (about
+ of a mile across) in the Atlantic has seldom been visited. It
is totally barren, butis covered by hosts of birds; they were so
unused to men that we found we could kill plenty with stones
and sticks. After remaining some hours on the island, we
returned on board with the boat loaded with our prey.* From
* “There was such a scene here. Wickham (ist Lieutenant) and I
were the only two who landed with guns and geological hammers, &c.
The birds by myriads were too close to shoot; we then tried stones, but
Ox. VI.) 1831—1836. 131
this we went to Fernando Noronha, a small island where the
[Brazilians] send their exiles. The landing there was attended
with so much difficulty owing [to] a heavy surf that the Cap-
tain determined to sail the next day after arriving. My one
day on shore was exceedingly interesting, the whole island is
one single wood so matted together by creepers that it is very
difficult to move out of the beaten path. I find the Natural
History of all these unfrequented spots most exceedingly
interesting, especially the geology. I have written this much
in order to save time at Bahia.
Decidedly the most striking thing in the Tropics is the
novelty of the vegetable forms. Cocoa-nuts could well be
imagined from drawings, if you add to them a graceful light-
ness which no European tree partakes of. Bananas and plan-
tains are exactly the same as those in hothouses, the acacias or
tamarinds are striking from the blueness of their foliage; buf
of the glorious orange trees, no description, no drawings, will
give any just idea; instead of the sickly green of our oranges,
the native ones exceed the Portugal laurel in the darkness of
their tint, and infinitely exceed it in beauty of form. Cocoa-
nuts, papaws, the light-green bananas, and oranges, loaded with
fruit, generally surround the more luxuriant villages. Whilst
viewing such scenes, one feels the impossibility that any
Pac ig should come near the mark, much less be over-
wn.
March 1st—— Bahia, or San Salvador. I arrived at this place
on the 28th of February, and am now writing this letter after
having in real earnest strolled in the forests of the new world.
No person could oy anything so beautiful as the ancient
town of Bahia, it is fairly embosomed in a luxuriant wood of
beautiful trees, and situated on a steep bank, and overlooks the
calm waters of the great bay of All Saints. The houses are
white and lofty, and, from the windows being narrow and long,
have a very light and elegant appearance. Convents, porticos,
and public buildings, vary the uniformity of the houses; the
bay 1s scattered over with large ships; in short, and what can
be said more, it is one of the finest views in the Brazils. But
the exquisite glorious pleasure of walking amongst such
flowers, and such trees, cannot be comprehended but by those
at last, proh pudor ! my geological hammer was the instrument of death.
We soon loaded the boat with birds and eggs. Whilst we were so
engaged, the men in the boat were fairly fighting with the sharks for
su ificent fish as you could not see in the London market. Our
boat have made a fine subject for Snyders, such a medley of game
if contained.”—-From a letter to Herbert. :
K
132 THE VOYAGE. (Ox. VI.
who have experienced it.* Although in so low a latitude the
locality is not disagreeably hot, but at present it is very damp,
for it is the rainy season. I find the climate as yet agrees
admirably with me; it makes me long to live quietly for some
time in such a country. If you really want to have [an idea]
of tropical countries, study Humboldt. Skip the scientific
parts, and commence after leaving Teneriffe. My feelings
amount to admiration the more I read him... .
This letter will go on the 5th, and I am afraid will be some
time before it reaches you; it must be a warning how in other
parts of the world you may be a long time without hearing.
A year might by accident thus pass. About the 12th we start
for Rio, but we remain some time on the way in sounding the
Albrolhos shoals... .
We have beat all the ships in manceuvring, so much so that
the commanding officer says we need not follow his example ;
because we do everything better than his great ship. I begin
to take great interest in naval points, more especially now, as
I find they all say we are the No.1 in South America. I
suppose the Captain is a most excellent officer. It was quite
glorious to-day how we beat the Samarang in furling sails.
It is quite a new thing for a “sounding ship ” to beat a regular
man-of-war ; and yet the Beagle is not at all a particular ship.
Erasmus will clearly perceive it when he hears that in the
night I have actually sat down in the sacred precincts of the
quarter deck. You must excuse these queer letters, and
recollect they are generally written in the evening after my
day’s work. I take more pains over my log-book, so that
eventually you will have a good account of all the places I
visit. Hitherto the voyage has answered admirably to me, and
yet I am now more fully aware of your wisdom in throwing
cold water on the whole scheme; the chances are so numerous
of [its] turning out quite the reverse; to such an extent do I feel
this, that if my advice was asked by any person on a similar
occasion, I should be very cautious in encouraging him. I
have not time to write to anybody else, so send to Maer to let
them know, that in the midst of the glorious tropical scenery,
I do not forget how instrumental they were in placing me
there. I will not rapturise again, but I give myself great
credit in not being crazy out of pure delight.
Give my love to every soul at home, and to the Owens.
I think one’s affections, like other good things, flourish and
increase in these tropical regions.
* “My mind has been, since leaving England, in a perfect hurricane of
delight and astonishment.”—O, D. to Fox, ica 1832, Botofogo Bay,
Cx. VI.J 1831—1836. 133
The conviction that I am walking in the New World is even
yet marvellous in my own eyes, and I daresay it is little less
so to you, the receiving a letter from a son of yours in such a
quarter.
Believe me, my dear father, your most affectionate son.
The Beagle letters give ample proof of his strong love of
home, and all connected with it, from his father down to
Nancy, his old nurse, to whom he sometimes sends his love.
His delight in home-letters is shown in such passages as :—
“ But if you knew the glowing, unspeakable delight, which I
felt at being certain that my father and all of you were well,
only four months ago, you would not grudge the labour lost in
keeping up the regular series of letters.”
* You would be rised to know how entirely the pleasure
in arriving at a new depends on letters.”
“T saw the other daya vessel sail for England ; it was quite
dangerous to know how easily I might turn deserter. As for
an English lady, I have almost forgotten what she is—some-
thing very angelic and good.”
*« | have just received a bundle more letters. I do not know
how to thank you all sufficiently. One from Catherine, Feb-
ruary 8th, another from Susan, March 3rd, together with notes
from Caroline and from my father; give my best love to my
father. I almost cried for pleasure at receiving it; it was very
kind thinking of writing tome. My letters are both few, short,
and stupid in return for all yours; but I always ease my
conscience by considering the Journal as a long letter.”
Or again—his longing to return in words like these :—* It
is too delightful to think that I shall see the leaves fall and
hear the robin sing next autumn at Shrewsbury. My feelings
are those of a school-boy to the smallest point ; I doubt whether
ever boy longed for his holidays as much as I do to see you all
again. I am at present, although nearly half the world is
between me and home, beginning to arrange what I shall do,
where I shall go during the first week.”
** No schoolboys ever sung the half-sentimental and half-
jovial strain of ‘dulce domum’ with more fervour than we all
feel inclined todo. But the whole subject of ‘ dulce domum,’
and the delight of seeing one’s friends, is most dangerous, it
must infallibly make one very prosy or very boisterous. Oh,
the degree to which I long to be once again living quietly
with not one single novel object near me! No one can
imagine it till he has been whirled round the world during
five long years in a ten-gun brig.”
134 THE VOYAGE. (Ox. VI.
The following extracts may serve to give an idea of the im-
pressions now crowding on him, as well as of the vigorous
delight with which he plunged into scientific work.
May 18, 1832, to Henslow :—
“ Here [Rio], I first saw a tropical forest in all its sublime
grandeur—nothing but the reality can give any idea how
wonderful, how magnificent the scene is. If I was to specify
any one thing I should give the pre-eminence to the host of
parasitical plants. Your engraving is exactly true, but under-
rates rather than exaggerates the luxuriance. I never ex-
perienced such intense delight. I formerly admired Hum-
boldt, I now almost adore him; he alone gives any notion of
the feelings which are raised in the mind on first entering the
Tropics. I am now collecting fresh-water and land animals;
if what was told me in London is true, viz., that there are no
small insects in the collections from the Tropics, I tell En-
tomologists to look out and have their pens ready for des-
cribing. I have taken as minute (if not more so) as in
England, Hydropori, Hygroti, Hydrobii, Pselaphi, Staphylini,
Curculio, &c. &c. It is exceedingly interesting observing the
difference of genera and species from those which I know ; it is
however much less than I had expected. I am at present red-hot
with spiders; they are very interesting, and if I am not mis-
taken I have already taken some new genera. I shall have a
large box to send very soon to Cambridge, and with that I will
mention some more natural history particulars.”
“ One great source of perplexity to me is an utter ignorance
whether I note the right facts, and whether they are of suffi-
cient importance to interest others. In the one thing collecting
I cannot go wrong.”
“ Geology carries the day: it is like the pleasure of gambling.
Speculating, on first arriving, what the rocks may be, I often
mentally cry out 3 to 1 tertiary against primitive; but the
latter have hitherto won all the bets. So much for the grand
end of my voyage: in other respects things are equally flourish-
ing. My life, when at sea, is so quiet, that to a person who
can employ himself, nothing can be pleasanter; the beauty
of the sky and brilliancy of the ocean together make a picture.
But when on shore, and wandering in the sublime forests,
surrounded by views more gorgeous than even Claude ever
imagined, I enjoy a delight which none but those who have
experienced it can understand. At our ancient snug break-
fasts, at Cambridge, I little thought that the wide Atlantic
would ever separate us; but it is a mere privilege that with
On. VL] 1831—1836. 135
the body, the feelings and memory are not divided. On the
contrary, the Lar ag scenes in my life, many of which
haye been in Cambridge, rise from the contrast of the present,
the more vividly in my imagination. Do you think any
diamond beetle will ever give me so much pleasure as our
old friend crua-major? .... It is one of my most constant
amusements to draw pictures of the pet and in them I
often see you and poor little Fan. Oh, Lord, and then old
Dash poor thing! Do you recollect how you all tormented
me about his beautiful tail?”—{From a letter to Fox. |
To his sister, June 1833 :—
“Tam quite delighted to find the hide of the Megatherium
has given you all some little interest in my employments.
These feguests are not, however, by any means the most
valuable of the geological relics. I trust and believe that the
time spent in this voyage, if thrown away for all other
respects, will produce its full worth in Natural History; and
it appears to me the doing what little we can to increase the
general stock of knowledge is as respectable an object of life
as one can in any likelihood pursue. It is more the result of
such reflections (as I have already said) than much immediate
pleasure which now makes me continue the voyage, together
with the glorious prospect of the future, when ing the
Straits of we have in truth the world before us.”
To Fox, July 1835 :—
“Tam glad to hear you have some thoughts of beginning
Geology. I hope you will; there is so much larger a field for
thought than in the other branches of Natural History. I am
become a zealous disciple of Mr. Lyell’s views, as known in
his admirable book. Geologising in South America, I am
paren to carry parts to a greater extent even than he does.
Geology is a capital science to begin, as it requires nothing
but a little reading, thinking, and hammering. I have a
considerable body of notes together; but it is a constant
subject of perplexity to me, whether they are of sufficient
value for all the time I have spent about them, or whether
animals would not have been of more certain value.”
In the following letter to his sister Susan he gives an
account,—adapted to the non-geological mind,—of his South
American work :—
. Valparaiso, April 23, 1835.
My prar Susan—lI received, a few days since, your letter of
November ; the three letters which I before mentioned are yet
missing, but I do not doubt they will come to life. I returned
136 THE VOYAGE. (Cx. VI.
a week ago from my excursion across the Andes to Mendoza.
Since leaving England I have never made so successful a
journey ; it has, however, been very expensive. I am sure
my father would not regret it, if he could know how deeply
I have enjoyed it: it was something more than enjoyment; [
cannot express the delight which I felt at such a famous
winding-up of all my geology in South America. I literally
could hardly sleep at nights for thinking over my day’s work.
The scenery was so new, and so majestic; everything at an
elevation of 12,000 feet bears so different an aspect from that
in a lower country. I have seen many views more beautiful,
but none with so strongly marked a character. To a geologist,
also, there are such manifest proofs of excessive violence; the
strata of the highest pinnacles are tossed about like the crust
of a broken pie.
I do not suppose any of you can be much interested in
geological details, but I will just mention my principal
results :—Besides understanding to a certain extent the
description and manner of the force which has elevated this
great. in e 0: mor r ai ns, tL can cl onstrate that one
eh ee ai | is
Pines ee
line 1s ‘
e
| - 4 .
at LLY C€ PILLOTL
Tre
ANUS <
~ v4 pS
5
ent line, which is the true chain of the Andes,
describe the sort and order of the rocks which compose
it, These are chiefly remarkable by containing a bed of
gypsum nearly 2000 feet thick—a quantity of this substance I
should think unparalleled in the world. What is of much
greater consequence, I have procured fossil shells (from an
elevation of 12,000 feet), Ithink an examination of these will
give an approximate age to these mountains, as compared to
the strata of Europe. In the other line of the Cordilleras
there is a strong presumption (in my own mind, conviction)
that the enormous mass of mountains, the peaks of which rise
to 18,000 and 14,000 feet, are so very modern as to be con-
Anyty oleae ‘ eet
Another feature in his letters is the surprise and delight
with which he hears of his collections and observations being
* The importance of these results has been fully recognized by
geologists.
On. V1.) 1831—1836. 137
of some use. It seems only to have gradually occurred to him
that he would ever be more than a collector of specimens and
facts, of which the great men were to make use. And even as
to the value of his collections he seems to have had much
doubt, for he wrote to Henslow in 1834: “I really began to
think that my collections were so poor that you were puzzled
what to say; the case is now quite on the opposite tack, for
you are guilty of exciting all my vain feelings to a most com-
fortable pitch ; if hard work will atone for these thoughts, I vow
it shall not be spared.”
Again, to his sister Susan in August, 1836 :—
« Both your letters were full of good news; especially the
expressions which you tell me Professor Sedgwick* used about
my collections. I confess they are deeply gratifying—I trust
one part at least will turn out true, and that I shall act as I
now think—as a man who dares to waste one hour of time has
not discovered the value of life. Professor Sedgwick men:
tioning my name at all gives me hopes that he will assist me
with his advice, of which, in my geological questions, I stand
much in need.”
Occasional allusions to slavery show us that his feeling on
this subject was at this time as strong as in later life} :—
“ The Captain does si! Se in his power to assist me, and
we get on Very well, but I thank my better fortune he has not
made me a renegade to Whig principles. I would not bea
* Sedgwick wrote (November 7, 1835) to Dr. Butler, the head master of
Shrewsbury School :—* He is doing admirable “Work in South America,
and has already sent home a collection above all price. It was the best
thing in the world for him that he went out on the voyage of discovery.
There was some risk of his turning out an idle man, but his character
will now be fixed, and if God spares his life he will have a great name
among the naturalists of Europe. . .’—I am indebted to my friend
Mr. J. W. Clark, the biographer of Sedgwick, for the above extract.
+ Compare the following passage from a letter (Aug. 25, 1845) addressed
to Lyell, who had touched on slavery in his Travels in North America.
“T was delighted with your letter in which you touch on Slavery; I wish
the same feelings had been apparent in your published discussion. But I
will not write on this subject, I should perhaps annoy you, and most
mae myself. I have exhaled myself with a paragraph or two in my
Jo on the sin of Brazilian slavery ; you perhaps will think that it is
in answer to you; but such is not the case. p= remarked on nothing
which I did not hear on the coast of South America. My few sentences,
however, are merely an explosion of feeling. How could you relate so
placidly that atrocious sentiment about separating children from their
atmos: and in the next page speak of being distressed at the whites not
ving p ; I assure you the contrast made me exclaim out. But
I have broken my intention, and so no more on this odious deadly
subject.” It is fair to add that the “atrocious sentiments” were not
Lyell’s but those of a planter. my
138 | THE VOYAGE. (Ox. VI.
Tory, if it was merely on account of their cold hearts about
Ya
A a
‘Sat elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud
\\_ thing for England if she is the first European nation which
* utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that
altered ; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much
higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a
negro and not feel kindly towards him ; such cheerful, open,
honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw
any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous coun-
tenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example
of Hayti ; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black
population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does
not take place. There is at Rio a man (I know not his title)
who has a large salary to prevent (I believe) the landing of
slaves; he lives at Botofogo, and yet that was the bay where,
during my residence, the greater number of smuggled slaves
were landed. Some of the Anti-Slavery people ought to
question about his office; it was the subject of conversation at
Rio amongst the lower English ... .”
C. D. to J. 8. Henslow. Sydney (January, 1836}.
My prar Henstow—This is the last opportunity of communi-
cating with you before that joyful day when I shall reach Cam-
bridge. I have very little to say: but I must write if it is
only to express my joy that the last year is concluded, and that
the present one, in which the Beagle will return, is gliding
onward. We have all been disappointed here in not findin
even a single letter ; we are, indeed, rather before our epee
time, otherwise I dare say, I should have seen your hand-
writing. I must feed upon the future, and it is beyond
bounds delightful to feel the certainty that within eight months
I shall be residing once again most quietly in Cambridge.
Certainly, I never was intended for a traveller; my thoughts
are always rambling over past or future scenes; I cannot
enjoy the present happiness for anticipating the future, which
is about as foolish as the dog who dropped the real bone for its
shadow. .....
I must return to my old resource and think of the future, but
that I may not become more prosy, I will say farewell till the
day arrives, when I shall see my Master in Natural History,
Cu. VI.) 1831—1836. 139
and can tell him how grateful I feel for his kindness and
friendship.
Believe me, dear Henslow, ever yours most faithfully.
C. D. to J. 8. Henslow. Shrewsbury (October, 6 1836].
My pvrar HensLow—I am sure you will congratulate me on
the delight of once again being home. The Beagle arrived at
Falmouth on Sunday evening, and I reached Shrewsbury
yesterday morning. I am exceedingly anxious to see you, and
as it will be necessary in four or five days to return to London
to get my goods and chattels out of the Beagle, it appears to
me my best plan to pass through Cambridge. I want your
advice on many points ; indeed I am in the clouds, and neither
know what to do or where to go. My chief puzzle is about
the geological specimens—who will have the charity to help
me in describing their mineralogical nature? Will you be
kind enough to write to me one line by return of post, saying
whether you are now at Cambridge? I am doubtful till I hear
from Captain Fitz-Roy whether I shall not be obliged to start
before the answer can arrive, but pray try the chance. My
dear Henslow, I do long to see you; you have been the kindest
friend to me that ever man possessed. I can write no more,
for I am giddy with joy and confusion.
Farewell for the present,
Yours most truly obliged.
After his return and settlement in London, he began to
realise the value of what he had done, and wrote to Captain
Fitz-Roy—* However others may look back to the Beagle’s
voyage, now that the small disagreeable parts are well-nigh
forgotten, I think it far the most fortunate circumstance
in my life that the chance afforded by your offer of taking
a Naturalist fell on me. I often have the most vivid and
delightful pictures of what I saw on board the Beagle* pass
before my eyes. ‘These recollections, and what I learnt on
Natural History, I would not exchange for twice ten thousand
a year.”
* According to the Japan Weekly Mail, as quoted in Nature, March 8,
1888, the Beagle is in use as a training ship at Yokosuka, in Japan. Part
of the old ship is, [am glad to think, in my possession, in the form of a
box (which I owe to the kindness of Admiral Mellersh) made out of her
main cross-tree.
( 140 )
CHAPTER VII.
LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE.
1836-1842.
Tux period illustrated in the present chapter includes the
years between Darwin’s return from the voyage of the Beagle
and his settling at Down. It is marked by the gradual
appearance of that weakness of health which ultimately forced
him to leave London and take up his abode for the rest of his
life in a quiet country house.
There is no evidence of any intention of entering a pro-
fession after his return from the voyage, and early in 1840
he wrote to Fitz-Roy: “I have nothing to wish for, excepting
stronger health to go on with the subjects to which I have
joyfully determined to devote my life.”
These two conditions—permanent ill-health and a passionate
love of scientific work for its own sake—determined thus early
in his career, the character of his whole future life. They
impelled him to lead a retired life of constant labour, carried
on to the utmost limits of his physical power, a life which
signally falsified his melancholy prophecy :—“ It has been a
bitter mortification for me to digest the conclusion that the
‘race is for the strong,’ and that I shall probably do little
more, but be content to admire the strides others make in
science.”
The end of the last chapter saw my father safely arrived at
Shrewsbury on October 4, 1836, “ after an absence of five years
and two days.” He wrote to Fox: “You cannot imagine
how gloriously delightful my first visit was at home; it was
worth the banishment.” But it was a pleasure that he could
not long enjoy, for in the last days of October he was at Green-
wich unpacking specimens from the Beagle. As to the destina-
tion of the collections he writes, somewhat despondingly, to
Henslow :—
“JT have not made much progress with the great men. I
find, as you told me, that they are all overwhelmed with their
own business. Mr. Lyell has entered, in the most good-
Cu. VII.) 1836—1842. 14}
natured manner, and almost without being asked, into all my
plans. He tells me, however, the same story, that I must do
all myself. Mr. Owen seems anxious to dissect some of the
animals in spirits, and, besides these two, I have scarcely met
any one who seems to wish to possess any of my specimens. I
must except Dr. Grant, who is willing to examine some of the
corallines. I see it is quite unreasonable to hope for a minute
that any man will undertake the examination of a whole order.
It is clear the collectors so much outnumber the real naturalists
that the latter have no time to spare.
“1 do not even find that the Collections care for receiving
the unnamed specimens. The Zoological Museum * is nearly
full, and upwards of a thousand specimens remain unmounted.
I dare say the British Museum would receive them, but I
cannot feel, from all I hear, any great respect even for the
present state of that establishment. Your plan will be not
only the best, but the only one, namely, to come down to
Cambridge, arrange and group together the different families,
and then wait till people, who are already working in different
branches, may want specimens... .
“T have forgotten to mention Mr. Lonsdale,t who gave me
a most cordial reception, and with whom I had much most
interesting conversation. If I was not much more inclined for
Geology than the other branches of Natural History, I am sure
. Lyell’s and Lonsdale’s kindness ought to fix me. You
cannot conceive anything more thoroughly good-natured than
the heart-and-soul manner in which he put himself in my place
and thought what would be best to do.”
A few days later he writes more cheerfully: “I became
acquainted with Mr. Bell,t who, to my surprise, expressed a
good deal of interest about my crustacea and reptiles, and
seems willing to work at them. I also heard that Mr. Broderip
would be glad to look over the South American shells, so that
things flourish well with me.”
Again, on November 6 :—
* All my affairs, indeed, are most prosperous; I find there
* The Museum of the Zoological Society, then at 33 Bruton Street.
The collection was some years later broken up and dispersed.
¢ William Lonsdale, b. 1794, d. 1871, was originally in the army, and
served at the battles of Salamanca and Waterloo. After the war he left
the service and gave himself up to science. He acted as assistant-secre-
to Lay Geological Society from 1829-42, when he resigned, owing to
> Be A Bell, F.R.S., formerly Professor of Zoology in King’s College,
London, and sometime secretary to the Royal Society. He afterwards
described the reptiles for the Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle.
142 LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE. (Cu. VIL.
are plenty who will undertake the description of whole tribes
of animals, of which I know nothing.”
As to his Geological Collection he was soon able to write :
“JT [(have] disposed of the most important part [of] my
collections, by giving all the fossil bones to the College
of Surgeons, casts of them will be distributed, and descrip-
tions published. They are very curious and valuable; one
head belonged to some gnawing animal, but of the size of
. Hippopotamus! Another to an ant-eater of the size of a
orse |”
My father’s specimens included (besides the above-mentioned
Toxodon and Scelidotherium) the remains of Mylodon, Glosso-
therium, another gigantic animal allied to the ant-eater, and
Macrauchenia. His discovery of these remains is a matter of
interest in itself, but it has a special importance as a point
in his own life, his speculation on the extinction of these
extraordinary creatures * and on their relationship to living
forms having formed one of the chief starting-points of his
views on the origin of species. ‘This is shown in the followi
extract from his Pocket Book for this year (1837): “In July
opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species. Had
been greatly struck from about the month of previous March
on character of South American fossils, and species on
Galapagos Archipelago. _These facts (especially latter), origin
of all my views.”
His affairs being thus so far prosperously managed he was
able to put into execution his plan of living at Cambridge,
where he settled on December 10th, 1836.
“ Cambridge,” he writes, “ yet continues a very pleasant,
but not half so merry a place as before. To walk through the
courts of Christ’s College, and not know an inhabitant of a
single room, gave one a feeling half melancholy. The only
evil I found in Cambridge was its being too pleasant: there
was some agreeable party or another every evening, and one
cannot say one is engaged with so much impunity there as in
this great city.” f |
Karly in the spring of 1837 he left Cambridge for London,
and a week later he was settled in lodgings at 36 Great
* T have often heard him speak of the despair with which he had to
break off the projecting extremity of a huge, partly excavated bone, when
the boat waiting for him would wait no longer.
+ A trifling record of my father’s presence in Cambridge occurs in the
book kept in Christ’s College Combination-room, in which fines and bets
are recorded, the earlier entries giving a curious impression of the after-
dinner frame of mind of the Fellows. The bets are not allowed to be
Cu. VII.) 1836—1842. 143
Marlborough Street ; and except for a “ short visit to Shrews-
bury” in June, he worked on till September, being almost
entirely employed on his Journal, of which he wrote (March) :—
“Tn your last letter you urge me to get ready the book. I
am now hard at work and give up everything else for it. Our
plan is as follows: Capt. Fitz-Roy writes two volumes out of
the materials a duri e last voyage under Capt.
King to Tierra del Fuego, and during our circumnavigation.
I am to have the third volume, in which I intend giving a kind
of journal of a naturalist, not following, however, always the
order of time, but rather the order of position.”
A letter to Fox (July) gives an account of the progress of
his work :— |
“T gave myself a holiday and a visit to Shrewsbury [in
June}, as I had finished my Journal. I shall now be very
busy in filling up gaps and getting it quite ready for the press
by the first of August. I shall always feel respect for every
one who has written a book, let it be what it may, for I had no
idea of the trouble which trying to write common English
could cost one. And, alas, there yet remains the worst part
of all, correcting the press. As soon as ever that is done I
must put my shoulder to the wheel and commence at the
Geology. I have read some short papers to the Geological
Society, and they were favourably received by the great guns,
and this gives me much confidence, and I hope not a very
great deal of vanity, though I confess I feel too often like a
admiring his tail. I never expected that my Geology
would ever have been worth the consideration of such men as
Lyell, who has been to me, since my return, a most active
friend. My life is a very busy one at present, and I hope may
ever remain so; though Heaven knows there are many serious
drawbacks to such a life, and chief amongst them is the little
time it allows one for seeing one’s natural friends. For the
last three years, I have been longing and longing to be living
at Shrewsbury, and after all now in the course of several
months, I see my good dear people at Shrewsbury for a week.
Susan and Catherine have, however, been staying with my
made in money, but are, like the fines, paid in wine. The bet which
my father made and lost is thus recorded :—
“ Feb. 23, 1837.—Mr. Darwin v. Mr. Baines, that the combination-room
measures from the ceiling to the floor more than = feet.
“1 Bottle paid same day.”
The bets are usually recorded in such a way as not to preclude future
peice on a subject which has proved itself capable of supplying a
iscussion (and a bottle) to the Room, hence the x in the above quotation.
144 LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE. (Cu. VII.
brother here for some weeks, but they had returned home
before my visit.”
In August he writes to Henslow to announce the success of
the scheme for the publication of the Zovlogy of the Voyage of
the Beagle, through the promise of a grant of £1000 from the
Treasury: “I had an interview with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.* He appointed to see me this morning, and I had
a long conversation with him, Mr. Peacock being present.
Nothing could be more thoroughly obliging and kind than his
whole manner. He made no sort of restriction, but only told
me to make the most of the money, which of course I am right
willing to do.
“T expected rather an awful interview, but I never found
anything less so in my life. It will be my fault if I do not
make a good work ; but I sometimes take an awful fright that
I have not materials enough. It will be excessively satisfac-
tory at the end of some two years to find all materials made the
most they were capable of.”
Later in the autumn he wrote to Henslow: “I have not been
very well of late, with an uncomfortable palpitation of the
heart, and my doctors urge me strongly to knock off all work,
and go and live in the country for a few weeks.” He accord-
ingly took a holiday of about a month at Shrewsbury and
Maer, and paid Fox a visit in the Isle of Wight. It was, I
believe, during this visit, at Mr. Wedgwood’s house at Maer,
that he made his first observations on the work done by earth-
worms, and late in the autumn he read a paper on the subject
at the Geological Society.
Here he was already beginning to make his mark. Lyell
wrote to Sedgwick (April 21, 1837) :—
“ Darwin is a glorious addition to any society of geologists,
and is working hard and making way both in his book and in
our discussions. I really never saw that bore Dr. Mitchell so
successfully silenced, or such a bucket of cold water so dex-
terously poured down his back, as when Darwin answered some
impertinent and irrelevant questions about South America.
We. escaped fifteen minutes of Dr. M.’s vulgar harangue in
consequence ....”
Early in the following year (1838), he was, much against
his will, elected Secretary of the Geological Society, an office
he held for three years. A chief motive for his hesitation in
accepting the post was the condition of his health, the doctors
having urged “me to give up entirely all writing and even —
* Spring Rice,
Cu. VII.J 1836—1842. 145
correcting press for some weeks. Of late anything which
flurries me completely knocks me up afterwards, and brings on
a violent palpitation of the heart.”
In the summer of 1838 he started on his expedition to Glen
Roy, where he spent “eight good days” over the Parallel
Roads. His Essay on this subject was written out during the
same summer, and published by the Royal Society.* He wrote
in his Pocket Book: “ | gone 6 se Finished the
paper on ‘Glen Roy,’ one of the most difficult and instructive
tasks I was ever engaged on.” It will be remembered that
in his Autobiography he speaks of this paper as a failure, of
which he was ashamed.
C. D. to Lyell. [August 9th, 1838.]
36 Great Marlborough Street.
My pear Lrerx—I did not write to you at Norwich, for I
thought I should have more to say, if I waited a few more
days. Very many thanks for the present of your Elemenis,
which I received (and I believe the very first copy distributed)
together with your note. I have read it through every word,
and am full of admiration of it, and, as I now see no geologist,
I must talk to you about it. There is no pleasure in reading
a book if one cannot have a good talk over it; I repeat, I am
full of admiration of it, it is as clear as daylight, in fact I felt
in many parts some mortification at thinking how geologists
have laboured and struggled at proving what seems, as you
have put it, so evidently probable. I read with much interest
your sketch of the secondary deposits ; you have contrived to
make it quite “juicy,” as we used to say as children of a good
story. There was also much new to me, and I have to copy out
some fifty notes and references. It must do good, the heretics
against common-sense must yield, ... By the way, do you
recollect my telling you how much I disliked the manner X.
* Phil. Trans., 1839, pp. 39-82.
+ Sir Archibald Geikie has been so good as to allow me to quotea
passage from a letter addressed to me (Nov. 19, 1884) :—“ Had the idea
. of transient barriers of glacier-ice occurred to him, he would have found
the difficulties vanish from the lake-theory which he opposed, and he
would not have been unconsciously led to minimise the altogether over-
whelming objections to the supposition that the terraces are of marine
ori
+ may be added that the idea of the barriers being formed by glaciers
could hardly have occurred to him, considering the state of knowledge
at the time, and bearing in mind his want of opportunities of observing
glacial action on a large scale.
L
146 LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE. (Ox. VIL.
referred to his other works, as much as to say, “ You must,
ought, and shall buy everything I have written.” To my
mind, you have somehow quite avoided this; -your refer-
ences only seem to say, “ I can’t tell you all in this work, else
I would, so you must go to the Principles ; and many a one,
I trust, you will send there, and make them, like me, adorers
of the good science of rock-breaking.* You will see lamina
fit of enthusiasm, and good cause I have to be, when I find
you have made such infinitely more use of my Journal than I
could have anticipated. I will say no more about the book,
for it is all praise. I must, however, admire the elaborate
honesty with which you quote the words of all living and
dead geologists.
My Scotch expedition answered brilliantly ; my trip in the
steam-packet was absolutely pleasant, and I enjoyed the
tacle, wretch that I am, of two ladies, and some small chil
quite sea-sick, I being well. Moreover, on my return from
Glasgow to Liverpool, I triumphed in a similar manner over
some full-grown men. I stayed one whole day in Edinburgh,
or more truly on Salisbury Craigs; I want to hear some day
what you think about that classical ground,—the structure
was to me new and rather curious,—that is, if I understand it
right. I crossed from Edinburgh in gigs and carts (and carts
without springs, as I never shall forget) to Loch Leven. I
was disappointed in the scenery, and reached Glen Roy on
Saturday evening, one week after leaving Marlborough Street.
Here I enjoyed five [?] days of the most beautiful weather with
gorgeous sunsets, and all nature looking as happy as I felt. I
wandered over the mountains in all directions, and examined
that most extraordinary district. I think, without any excep-
tions, not even the first volcanic island, the first elevated
beach, or the passage of the Cordillera, was so interesting to
me as this week. It is far the most remarkable area I ever
examined. I have fully convinced myself (after some doubt-
ing at first) that the shelves are sea-beaches, although I could
not find a trace of a shell; and I think I can explain away ©
most, if not all, the difficulties. I found a piece of a road in
another valley, not hitherto observed, which is important; and
* In a letter of Sept. 13 he wrote:—“It will be a curious point to
geologists hereafter to note how long a man’s name will su a
so completely exposed as that of Beaumont has been by you; you
ay you ‘begin to hope that the great principles there insi on will
stand the test of time.’ Begin to hope: why, the possibility of a doubt
has never crossed my mind for many a day. This may be very unphilo-
sophical, but my geological salvation is staked on it,”
Cu. VII.) 1836—1842. 147
I have some curious facts about erratic blocks, one of which
was ed up on a peak 2200 feet above the sea. I am now
employed in writing a paper on the subject, which I find very
amusing work, excepting that I cannot anyhow condense it
into reasonable limits. At some future day I hope to talk
over some of the conclusions with you, which the examina-
tion of Glen Roy has led me to. Now I have had my talk
out, I am much easier, for I can assure you Glen Roy has
astonished me.
I am living very quietly, and therefore pleasantly, and am
crawling on slowly but steadily with my work. I have come
to one conclusion, which you will think proves me to be a very
sensible man, namely, that whatever you say proves right; and
as a proof of this, I am coming into your way of only working
about two hours at a spell; I then go out and do my business
in the streets, return and set to work again, and thus make
two separate days out of one. The new plan answers capitally ;
gtiee the doula half day is finished o and dine at the
Atheneum like a gentleman, or rather like a lord, for I am
sure the first evening I sat in that great drawing-room, all on
a sofa by myself, I felt just like a duke. I am full of admira-
tion at the Athenwum, one meets so many people there that
one likes to see... .
I haye heard from more than one quarter that quarrelling is
expected at Newcastle *; I am sorry to hear it. I met old
—— this evening at the Athenswum, and he muttered some-
thing about writing to you or some one on the subject; I am
however all in the dark. I suppose, however, I shall be
eee pe Oe with bin in'e few de 8, as
my inventive powers failed in making any excuse. A friend
of mine dined with him the other day,a party of four, and
they finished ten bottles of wine—a pleasant prospect for me;
but I am determined not even to taste his wine, partly for the
fun of seeing his infinite disgust and surprise... .
I pity you the infliction of this most unmerciful letter.
Pray remember me most kindly to Mrs. Lyell when you arrive
at Kinnordy. Tell Mrs. Lyell to read the second series of
‘Mr. Slick of Slickville’s Sayings.’. . .He almost beats
‘ Samivel,’ that prince of heroes. Good night, my dear Lyell ;
you will think I have been drinking some strong drink to
write so much nonsense, but I did not even taste Minerva’s
small beer to-day... .
A record of what he wrote during the year 1838 would not
* At the meeting of the British Association. 3
L
148 LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE. (Cu. VIL.
give a true index of the most important work that was in
progress—the laying of the foundation-stones of what was to
be the achievement of his life. This is shown in the following
passages from a letter to Lyell (September), and from a letter
to Fox, written in June :—
“TI wish with all my heart that my Geological book was
out. I have every motive to work hard, and will, following
your steps, work just that degree of hardness to keep well. I
should like my volume to be out before your new edition of
the Principles appears. Besides the Coral theory, the volcanic
chapters will, I think, contain some new facts. I have lately
been sadly tempted to be idle—that is, as far as pure geology
is concerned—by the delightful number of new views which
have been coming in thickly and steadily—on the classifi-
cation and affinities and instincts of animals—bearing on the
question of species. Note-book after note-book been
filled with facts which begin to group themselves clearly
under sub-laws.”
“T am delighted to hear you are such a good man as not to
have forgotten my questions about the crossing of animals,
It is my prime hobby, and I really think some day I shall be
able to do something in that most intricate subject, species
and varieties.”
In the winter of 1839 (Jan. 29) my father was married to
his cousin, Emma Wedgwood.* ‘The house in which they
lived for the first few years of their married life, No. 12 Upper
Gower Street, was a small common-place London house, with
a drawing-room in front, and a small room behind, in which
they lived for the sake of quietness. In later years my father
used to laugh over the surpassing ugliness of the furniture,
carpets, &c., of the Gower Street house. The only redeeming
feature was a better garden than most London houses have, a
strip as wide as the house, and thirty yards long. Even this
small space of dingy grass made their London house more
tolerable to its two country-bred inhabitants.
Of his life in London he writes to Fox (October 1839):
“ We are living a life of extreme quietness; Delamere itself,
which you describe as so secluded a spot, is, I will answer for
it, quite dissipated compared with Gower Street. We have
given up all parties, for they agree with neither of us; and if
one is quiet in London, there is nothing like its quietness—
there is a grandeur about its smoky fogs, and the dull distant
sounds of cabs and coaches; in fact you may perceive I am
* Daughter of Josiah Wedgwood of Maer, and grand-daughter of the
founder of the Etruria Pottery Works.
Ox. VIL.) 1836—1842. 149
becoming a thorough-paced Cockney, and I glory in the thought
that I shall be here for the next six months.”
The entries of ill health in the Diary increase in number
during these years, and as a consequence the holidays become
longer and more frequent.
he entry under August 1839 is: “ Read a little, was much
unwell and scandalously idle. I have derived this much good,
that notheng is so intolerable as idleness.”
At the end of 1839 his first child was born, and it was
then that he began his observations ultimately published in
the Hapression of the Emotions. His book on this subject, and
the short paper published in Mind,* show how closely he
observed his child. He seems to have been surprised at his
own feeling for a young baby, for he wrote to Fox (July
1840): “ He [i.e. the baby] is so charming that I cannot
pretend to any modesty. I defy anybody to flatter us on our
baby, for I defy anyone to say anything in its praise of which
we are not fully conscious. . . . 1 had not the smallest con-
ception there was so much in a five-month baby. You will
perceive by this that I have a fine degree of paternal fervour.”
In 1841 some improvement in his health became apparent ;
he wrote in September :—
“T have steadily been gaining ground, and really believe
now I shall some day be quite strong. I write daily for a
couple of hours on my Coral volume, and take a little walk or
ride every day. I grow very tired in the evenings, and am
not able to go out at that time, or hardly to receive my nearest
relations; but my life ceases to be burdensome now that I can
do something.”
The manuscript of Coral Reefs was at last sent to the
printers in January 1842, and the last proof corrected in May.
He thus writes of the work in his diary :—
* T commenced this work three years and seven months ago.
Out of this period about twenty months (besides work during
Beagle’s voyage) has been spent on it, and besides it, I have
only compiled the Bird part of Zoology ; Appendix to Journal,
paper on Boulders, and corrected papers on Glen Roy and
earthquakes, reading on species, and rest all lost by illness.”
The latter part of this year belongs to the period including
the settlement at Down, and is therefore dealt with in another
chapter.
* July 1877.
( 150 )
CHAPTER VIII.
LIFE AT DOWN.
1842-1854,
“My life goes on like clockwork, and I am fixed on the spot where I
shall end it,”
Letter to Captain Fitz-Roy, October, 1846.
Certain letters which, chronologically considered, belong to
the period 1845-54 have been utilised in a later chapter where
the growth of the Origin of Species is descri In the
present chapter we only get occasional hints of the growth of
my father’s views, and we may suppose ourselves to be seeing
his life, as it might have appeared to those who had no know-
ledge of the quiet development of his theory of evolution
during this period.
On Sept. 14, 1842, my father left London with his family
and settled at Down.* In the Autobiographical chapter, his
motives for moving into the country are briefly given. He
speaks of the attendance at scientific societies and ordinary
social duties as suiting his health so “ badly that we resolved
to live in the country, which we both preferred and have
never repented of.” His intention of keeping up with scientific
life in London is expressed in a letter to Fox (Dec., 1842) :—
“JT hope by going up to town for a night every fortnight or
three weeks, to keep up my communication with scientific men
as my own zeal, and so not to turn into a complete Kentish
og.”
Visits to London of this kind were kept up for some years
at the cost of much exertion on his part. Ihave often heard
him speak of the wearisome drives of ten miles to or from
Croydon or Sydenham—the nearest stations—with an old
gardener acting as coachman, who drove with great caution
and slowness up and down the many hills. In later years,
* I must not omit to mention a member of the household who
accompanied him. This was his butler, Joseph Parslow, who remained
in the family, a valued friend and servant, for forty years, and became, as
Sir Joseph Hooker once remarked to me, “ an integral part of the family,
and felt to be such by all visitors at the house,”
Ox. VIIL) 1842—1854. 151
regular scientific intercourse with London became, as before
mentioned, an impossibility.
The choice of Down was rather the result of despair than of
actual preference: my father and mother were weary of house-
hunting, and the attractive points about the place thus seemed
to them to counterbalance its somewhat more obvious faults.
It had at least one desideratum, namely, quietness. Indeed it
would have been difficult to find a more retired place so near
to London. In 1842 a coach drive of some twenty miles was
the usual means of access to Down ; and even now that railways
have crept closer to it, it is singularly out of the world, with
nothing to suggest the neighbourhood of London, unless it be
the dull haze of smoke that sometimes clouds the sky. The
village stands in an angle between two of the larger high-roads
of the country, one leading to Tunbridge and the other to
Westerham and Edenbridge. It is cut off from the Weald by
a line of steep chalk hills on the south, and an abrupt hill,
now neiellins down by a cutting and embankment, must
formerly have been something of a barrier against encroach-
ments from the side of London. In such a situation, a village,
communicating with the main lines of traffic, only by stony
tortuous lanes, may well have preserved its retired charac-
ter. Nor is it hard to believe in the smugglers and their
strings of pack-horses making their way up from the law-
less old vibeave of the Weald, of which the memory still
existed when my father settled in Down. The village stands
on solitary upland country, 500 to 600 feet above the sea—a
country with little natural beauty, but possessing a certain
charm in the shaws, or straggling strips of wood, capping the
chalky banks and looking down upon the quiet ploughed
lands of the valleys. The village, of three or four hundred
inhabitants, consists of three small streets of cottages meeting
in front of the little flint-built church. It is a place where
new-comers are seldom seen, and the names occurring far back
in the old church registers are still known in the village.
The smock-frock is not yet quite extinct, though chiefly used
as a ceremonial dress by the “ bearers” at funerals; but as a
boy I remember the purple or green smocks of the men at
church.
The house stands a quarter of a mile from the village, and
is built, like so many houses of the last century, as near as
ible to the road—a narrow lane winding away to the
esterham high-road. In 1842, it was dull and unattractive
enough: a square brick building of three storeys, covered
with shabby whitewash, and hanging tiles. The garden had
152 DOWN. (Ca. VIII.
none of the shrubberies or walls that now give shelter; it was
overlooked from the lane, and was open, bleak, and desolate.
One of my father’s first undertakings was to lower the lane by
about two feet, and to build a flint wall along that part of it
which bordered the garden. The earth thus excavated was
used in making banks and mounds round the lawn: these were
planted with evergreens, which now give to the garden its
retired and sheltered character.
The house was made to look neater by being covered with
stucco, but the chief improvement effected was the building of
a large bow extending up through three storeys. This bow
became covered with a tangle of creepers, and pleasan
varied the south side of the house. The drawing-room, with
its verandah opening into the garden, as well as the study in
which my father worked during the later years of his life,
were added at subsequent dates.
Highteen acres of land were sold with, the house, of which
twelve acres on the south side of the house form a pleasant
field, scattered with fair-sized oaks and ashes. From this
field a strip was cut off and converted into a kitchen garden, in
which the experimental plot of ground was situated, and where
the greenhouses were ultimately put up.
During the whole of 1843 he was occupied with geological
work, the result of which was published in the spring of the
following year. It was entitled Geological Observations on the
Volcanic Islands, visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle,
together with some brief notices on the geology of Australia and
the Cape of Good Hope; it formed the second part of the
Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, published “with the
Approval of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s
Treasury.” The volume on Coral Reefs forms Part I. of the
series, and was published, as we have seen, in 1842. For the
sake of the non-geological reader, I may here quote Sir A.
Geikie’s words * on these two volumes—which were up to this
time my father’s chief geological works. Speaking of the
Coral Reefs, he says (p. 17): “ This well-known treatise, the
most original of all its author’s geological memoirs, has
become one of the classics of geological literature. The origin
of those remarkable rings of coral-rock in mid-ocean has given
rise to much speculation, but no satisfactory solution of the
problem had been proposed. After visiting many of them,
and examining also coral reefs that fringe islands and con-
tinents, he offered a theory which for simplicity and grandeur,
“* Charles Darwin, Nature Series, 1882.
Cu. VIIL.) 1842—1854. 153
strikes every reader with astonishment. It is pleasant, after
the lapse of many years, to recall the delight with which one
first read the Coral Reefs, how one watched the facts being
marshalled into their places, nothing being ignored or passed
lightly over ; and how, step by step, one was led to the grand
conclusion of wide oceanic subsidence. No more admirable
example of scientific method was ever given to the world, and
even if he had written nothing else, the treatise alone would
have placed Darwin in the very front of investigators of
nature.”
It is interesting to see in the following extract from one
of Lyell’s letters * how warmly and readily he embraced the
theory. The extract also gives incidentally some idea of the
theory itself.
“ T am very full of Darwin’s new theory of Coral Islands,
and have urged Whewell to make him read it at our next
meeting. I must give up my volcanic crater theory for ever,
though it cost me a pang at first, for it accounted for so much,
the annular form, the central lagoon, the sudden rising of an
isolated mountain in a deep sea; all went so well with the
notion of submerged, crateriform, and conical volcanoes, .. .
and then the fact that in the South Pacific we had scarcely any
rocks in the regions of coral islands, save two kinds, coral
limestone and volcanic! Yet in spite of all this, the whole
theory is knocked on the head, and the annular shape and
central lagoon have nothing to do with volcanoes, nor even
with a crateriform bottom. Perhaps Darwin told you when at
the Cape what he considers the true cause? Let any mountain
be submerged gradually, and coral grow in the sea in which it
is sinking, and there will be a ring of coral, and finally only a
lagoon in the centre. . . . Coral islands are the last efforts of
drowning continents to lift their heads above water. Regions
of elevation and subsidence in the ocean may be traced by the
state of the coral reefs.”
The second part of the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle,
t.e. the volume on Volcanic Islands, which specially concerns
us now, cannot be better described than by again quoting from
Sir A. Geikie (p. 18) :—
“Full of detailed observations, this work still remains the
best authority on the general geological structure of most of
the regions it describes. At the time it was written the
‘erater of elevation theory,’ though opposed by Constant
Prévost, Scrope, and Lyell, was generally accepted, at least on
* To Sir John Herschel, May 24, 1837. Life of Sir Charles Lyell,
vol. ii. p. 12, ‘sh,
154 DOWN. (Cu. VIIL.
the Continent. Darwin, however, could not receive it as a
valid explanation of the facts; and though he did not share
the view of its chief opponents, but ventured to propose a
hypothesis of his own, the observations impartially made and
described by him in this volume must be regarded as having
contributed towards the final solution of the difficulty.” Geikie
continues (p. 21): “He is one of the earliest writers to recog-
nize the magnitude of the denudation to which even recent
geological accumulations have been subjected. One of the
most impressive lessons to be learnt from his account of
‘ Volcanic Islands’ is the prodigious extent to which they have
been denuded. . . . He was disposed to attribute more of this
work to the sea than most geologists would now admit; but he
lived himself to modify his original views, and on this subject
his latest utterances are quite abreast of the time.”
An extract from a letter of my father’s to Lyell shows his
estimate of his own work. “You have pleased me much by
saying that you intend looking through my Volcanic Islands :
it cost me eighteen months!!! and I have heard of very few
who have read it.* Now I shall feel, whatever little (and little
it is) there is confirmatory of old work, or new, will work its
effect and not be lost.”
The second edition of the Journal of Researches + was com-
pleted in 1845. It was published by Mr. Murray in the Colonial
and Home Library, and in this more accessible form soon had a
large sale. |
C. D. to Lyell, Down (July, 1845).
My par Lystt—I send you the first part{ of the new
edition, which I so entirely owe to you. You will see that I
have ventured to dedicate it to you, and I trust that this
cannot be disagreeable. I have long wished, not so much for
your sake, as for my own feelings of honesty, to acknowledge
* He wrote to Herbert :—“I have long discovered that geologists
never read each other’s works, and that the only object in writing a
is a proof of earnestness, and that you do not form your opinions without
undergoing labour of some kind. Geology is at present very oral, and
what I here say is to a great extent quite true.” And to Fitz-Roy, on the
same subject, he wrote: “I have sent my South American to
Dover Street, and you will get it, no doubt, in the course of time. You
do not know what you threaten when you propose to read it—it is purely
geological. I said to my brother, ‘You will of course read it,” and his
answer was, ‘ Upon my life, I would sooner even buy it.’”
+ The first edition was published in 1839, as vol. iii. of the Voyages of
the ‘ Adventure’ and‘ Beagle,’
t No doubt proof-sheets.
Ox, VIII] 1842—1854. 155
more plainly than by mere reference, how much I geologically
owe you. Those authors, however, who, like you, educate
pot minds as well as teach them special facts, can never,
should think, have full justice done them except by posterity,
for the mind thus insensibly improved can hardly perceive its
own upward ascent. I had intended putting in the present
acknowledgment in the third part of my Geology, but its sale
is so paper AY small that I should not have had the satis-
faction of thinking that as far as lay in my power I had owned,
though imperfectly, my debt. Pray do not think that I am so
silly, as to suppose that my dedication can any ways gratify
you, except so far as I trust you will receive it, as a most
sincere mark of my gratitude and friendship. I think I have
improved this edition, especially the second part, which I have
just finished. I have added a good deal about the Fuegians,
and cut down into half the mercilessly long discussion on
climate and glaciers, &c. I do not recollect anything added
to the first part, long enough to call your attention to; there
is a page of description of a very curious breed of oxen in
Banda Oriental. I should like you to read the few last pages ;
there is a little discussion on extinction, which will not perhaps
strike you as new, though it has so struck me, and has placed
in my mind all the difficulties with respect to the causes of
extinction, in the same class with other difficulties which are
generally quite overlooked and undervalued by naturalists; I
ought, however, to have made my discussion longer and shown
by facts, as I easily could, how steadily every species must be
checked in its numbers. |
A pleasant notice of the Journal occurs in a letter from
Humboldt to Mrs. Austin, dated June 7, 1844 * :—
“ Alas! you have got some one in England whom you do
not read—young Darwin, who went with the expedition to the
Straits of Magellan. He has succeeded far better than myself
with the subject I took up. There are admirable descriptions
of tropical nature in his journal, which you do not read because
the author is a zoologist, which you imagine to be synonymous
with bore. Mr. Darwin has another merit, a very rare one in
your country—he has praised me.”
Ociober 1846 to October 1854.
The time between October 1846, and October 1854, was
practically given up to working at the Cirripedia (Barnacles) ;
the results were published in two volumes by the Ray Society
_* Three Generations of Englishwomen, by Janet Ross (1888), vol. i. p. 195.
156 DOWN. (Cx. VILL
in 1851 and 1854. His volumes on the Fossil Cirripedes were
published by the Palwontographical Society in 1851 and 1854.
Writing to Sir J. D. Hooker in 1845, my father says: “I
hope this next summer to finish my South American Geology,*
then to get out a little Zoology, and hurrah for my species
work...” This passage serves to show that he had at this
time no intention of making an exhaustive study of the Cirri-
pedes. Indeed it would seem that his original intention was,
as I learn from Sir J. D. Hooker, merely to work out one
special problem. This is quite in keeping with the following
passage in the Autobiography : “ When on the coast of Chile,
I found a most curious form, which burrowed into the shells
of Concholepas, and which differed so much from all other
Cirripedes that I had to form a new sub-order for its sole
reception. . . . To understand the structure of my new Oirri-
pede I had to examine and dissect many of the common forms ;
and this gradually led me on to take up the whole group.”
In later years he seems to have felt some doubt as to the value
of these eight years of work—for instance when he wrote in
his Autobiography—* My work was of considerable use to me,
when I had to discuss in the Origin of Species the principles
of a natural classification. Nevertheless I doubt whether the
work was worth the consumption of so much time.” Yet I
learn from Sir J. D. Hooker that he certainly recognised at
the time its value to himself as systematic training. Sir
Joseph writes to me: “ Your father recognised three stages in
his career as a biologist: the mere collector at Cambridge; the
collector and observer in the Beagle, and for some years
afterwards; and the trained naturalist after, and only after the
Cirripede work. That he was a thinker all along is true
enough, and there is a vast deal in his writings previous to
the Cirripedes that a trained naturalist could but emulate. .. .
He often alluded to it as a valued discipline, and added that
even the ‘hateful’ work of digging out synonyms, and of
describing, not only improved his methods but opened his
eyes to the difficulties and merits of the works of the dullest
of cataloguers. One result was that he would never allow a
* This refers to the third and last of his geological books,
Observation on South America, which was published in 1846. A sentence
from a letter of Dec. 11, 1860, may be quoted here—‘ David Forbes
has been carefully working the Geology of Chile, and as I value
for accurate observation far higher than for any other quality, forgive =
you can) the insufferable vanity of my copying the last sentence in his
note: ‘I regard your Monograph on hile as, without exception, one of
the creep 2p of Geological inquiry.’ I feel inclined to strut like a
turkey id
Ou. VIL.) 1842—1854. 157
depreciatory remark to pass unchallenged on the poorest class
of scientific workers, provided that their work was honest, and
good of its kind. I have always regarded it as one of the
finest traits of his character,—this generous appreciation of
the hod-men of science, and of their labours . . . and it was
monographing the Barnacles that brought it about.”
Mr. Huxley allows me to quote his opinion as to the value
of the eight years given to the Cirripedes :—
“In my opinion your sagacious father never did a wiser
thing than when he devoted himself to the years of patient
toil which the Cirripede-book cost him.
“ Like the rest of us, he had no proper training in biological
science, and it has always struck me as a remarkable instance
of his scientific insight, that he saw the necessity of giving
himself such training, and of his courage, that he did not shirk
the labour of obtaining it.
“The great danger which besets all men of large specula-
tive faculty, is the temptation to deal with the accepted state-
ments of fact in natural science, as if they were not only
correct, but exhaustive; as if they might be dealt with
deductively, in the same way as propositions in Euclid may
be dealt with. In reality, every such statement, however true
it may be, is true only relatively to the means of observation
and the point of view of those who have enunciated it. So far
it may be depended upon. But whether it will bear every
speculative conclusion that may be logically deduced from it,
is quite another question.
“Your father was building a vast superstructure upon the
foundations furnished by the recognised facts of geological
and biological science, In Physical Geography, in Geology
proper, in Geographical Distribution, and in Paleontology, he
had acquired an extensive practical training during the voyage
of the Beagle. He knew of his own knowledge the way in
which the raw materials of these branches of science are
acquired, and was therefore a most competent judge of the
speculative strain they would bear. That which he needed,
after his return to England, was a corresponding acquaintance
with Anatomy and Development, and their relation to Taxo-
nomy—and he acquired this by his Cirripede work.”
Though he became excessively weary of the work before the
end of the ent years, he had much keen enjoyment in the
course of it. us he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (1847?) :—
“As you say, there is an extraordinary pleasure in pure
observation ; not but what I suspect the pleasure in this case
is rather derived from comparisons forming in one’s mind with
158 DOWN. (Cu. VIII-
allied structures. After having been so long employed in
writing my old geological observations, it is delightful to use
one’s eyes and fingers again.” It was, in fact, a return to the
work which occupied so much of his time when at sea during
his voyage. Most of his work was done with the simple
dissecting microscope—and it was the need which he found for
higher powers that induced him, in 1846, to buy a compound
microscope. He wrote to Hooker :—“ When I was drawing
with L., I was so delighted with the appearance of the objects,
especially with their perspective, as seen through the weak
powers of a good compound microscope, that I am going to
order one; indeed, I often have structures in which the ;\; is
not power enough.”
During part of the time covered by the present chapter, my
father suffered perhaps more from ill-health than at any other
period of his life. He felt severely the depressing influence of
these long years of illness; thus as early as 1840 he wrote to
Fox: “I am grown a dull, old, spiritless dog to what I used
to be. One gets stupider as one grows older I think.” I¢ is
not wonderful that he should so have written, it is rather to be
wondered at that his spirit withstood so great and constant a
strain. He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker in 1845: “ You are
very kind in your inquiries about my health; I have nothing
to say about it, being always much the same, some days better
and some worse. I believe I have not had one whole day, or
rather night, without my stomach haying been greatly dis-
ordered, during the last three years, and most days great
prostration of strength: thank you for your kindness; many
of my friends, I believe, think me a hypochondriac.”
During the whole of the period now under consideration, he
was in constant correspondence with Sir Joseph Hooker. The
following characteristic letter on Sigillaria (a gigantic fossil
plant found in the Coal Measures) was afterwards characterised
by himself as not being “ reasoning, or even speculation, but
simply as mental rioting.”
[Down, 1847 ?]
“«,..tI am delighted to hear that Brongniart thought
Sigillaria aquatic, and that Binney considers coal a sort of
submarine peat. I would bet 5 to 1 that in twenty years this
will be generally admitted ; * and I do not care for whatever
the botanical difficulties or impossibilities may be. If I
could but persuade myself that Sigillaria and Co. had a good
range of depth, i.e. could live from 5 to 10 fathoms under
* An unfulfilled prophecy.
Ox. VIII} 1842—1854, 159
water, all difficulties of nearly all kinds would be removed
(for the simple fact of muddy ordinary shallow sea implies
proximity of land). [N.B.—I am chuckling to think how you
are sneering all this time.] It is not much of a difficulty,
there not being shells with the coal, considering how unfavour-
able deep mud is for most Mollusca, and that shells would
probably decay from the humic acid, as seems to take place
in peat and in the black moulds (as Lyell tells >) of
the Mississippi. So coal question settled—Q. E. D. Sneer
away!”
The two following extracts give the continuation and con-
clusion of the coal battle.
“ By the way, as submarine coal made you so wrath, I
thought I would experimentise on Falconer and Bunbury *
together, and it made [them] even more savage ; ‘ such infernal
nonsense ought to be thrashed out of me.’ Bunbury was more
polite and contemptuous. So I now know how to stir up
and show off any Botanist. I wonder whether Zoologists and
Geologists have got their tender points; I wish I could find
out.”
“T cannot resist thanking you for your most kind note.
Pray do not think that I was annoyed by your letter: I
perceived that you had been thinking with animation, and
accordingly expressed yourself strongly, and so I understood
it. Forfend me from a man who weighs every expression with
Scotch prudence. I heartily wish you all success in your
noble problem, and I shall be very curious to have some talk
with you and hear your ultimatum.”
He also corresponded with the late Hugh Strickland,—a
well-known ornithologist, on the need of reform in the
principle of nomenclature. The following extract (1849)
ives an idea of my father’s view :—
“I feel sure as long as species-mongers have their vanity
tickled by seeing their own names appended to a species,
because they miserably described it in two or three lines, we
shall have the same vast amount of bad work as at present,
and which is enough to dishearten any man who is willing to
work out any branch with care and time. I find every genus
of Cirripedia has half-a-dozen names, and not one careful
description of any one species in any one genus. I do not
believe that this would have been the case if each man knew
that the memory of his own name depended on his doing his
work well, and not upon merely appending a name with a few
* The late Sir C. Bunbury, well known as a paleobotanist,
160 DOWN. (Cn. VIIL
wretched lines indicating only a few prominent external
characters.”
In 1848 Dr. R. W. Darwin died, and Charles Darwin wrote
to Hooker, from Malvern :—
* On the 13th of November, my poor dear father died, and no
one who did not know him would believe that a man above
eighty-three years old could have retained so tender and
affectionate a disposition, with all his sagacity unclouded to
the last. I was at the time so unwell, that 1 was unable to
travel, which added to my misery.
“ All this winter I have been bad enough . . . and my nervous
system began to be affected, so that my hands trembled, and
head was often swimming. I was not able to do anything one
day out of three, and was altogether too dispirited to write to
you, or to do anything but what I was compelled. I thought I
was rapidly going the way of all flesh. Having heard, acci-
dentally, of two persons who had received much benefit from
the water-cure, I got Dr. Gully’s book, and made further
inquiries, and at last started here, with wife, children, and all
our servants. We have taken a house for two months, and
have been here a fortnight. Iam already a little stronger...
Dr. Gully feels pretty sure he can do me good, which most
certainly the regular doctors could not. ..... I feel certain
that the water-cure is no quackery.
* How I shall enjoy getting back to Down with renovated
health, if such is to be my good fortune, and resuming the
beloved Barnacles. Now I hope that you will forgive me for
my negligence in not having sooner answered your letter. I
was uncommonly interested by the sketch you give of your
intended grand expedition, from which I suppose you will
soon be returning. How ore I hope that it may prove
in every way successful. .
C. D. to W. D. Fox. (March 7, 1852.]
Our long silence occurred to me a few weeks since, and I
had then thought of writing, but was idle. I congratulate
and condole with you on your tenth child; but please to
observe when I have a tenth, send only condolences to me.
We have now seven children, all well, thank God, as well as
their mother; of these seven, five are boys; and my father
used to say that it was certain that a boy gave as much trouble
as three girls; so that bond fide we have seventeen children.
It makes me sick whenever I think of professions; all seem
hopelessly bad, and as yet I cannot seo a ray of light. I
Cu. VIII.) 1842—1854. 161
should very much like to talk over this (by the way, my three
bugbears are Californian and Australian gold, beggaring me
by making my money on mortgage worth nothing; the
French coming by the Westerham and Sevenoaks roads, and
therefore enclosing Down; and thirdly, professions for my
boys), and I should like to talk about education, on which you
ask me what we are doing. No one can more truly despise the
old stereotyped stupid classical education than I do; but yet I
have not had courage to break through the trammels. After
many doubts we have just sent our eldest boy to Rugby, where
for his age he has been very well placed. . . I honour, admire,
and envy you for educating your boys at home. What on
earth shall you do with your boys? Very many thanks for
your most kind and large invitation to Delamere, but I fear
we can hardly compass it. I dread going anywhere, on account
of my stomach so easily failing under any excitement. I
rarely even now go to London, not that I am at all worse,
perhaps rather better, and lead a very comfortable life with my
three hours of daily work, but it is the life of a hermit. My
nights are always bad, and that stops my becoming vigorous.
You ask about water-cure. I take at intervals of two or three
months, five or six weeks of moderately severe treatment, and
always with good effect. Do you come here, I pray and beg
whenever you can find time; you cannot tell how much
leasure it would give me and E. What pleasant times we
had in drinking coffee in your rooms at Christ’s College, and
think of the glories of Crux-major.* Ah, in those days there
were no professions for sons, no ill-health to fear for them, no
Californian gold, no French invasions. How paramount the
future is to the present when one is surrounded by children.
My dread is hereditary ill-health. Even death is better for
them.
My dear Fox, your sincere friend.
P.S.—Susan ¢ has lately been working in a way which I
think truly heroic about the scandalous violation of the Act
against children climbing chimneys. We have set up a little
Society in Shrewsbury to prosecute those who break the law.
It is all Susan’s doing. She has had very nice letters from
Lord Shaftesbury and the Duke of Sutherland, but the brutal
Shropshire squires are as hard as stones to move. The Act
out of London seems most commonly violated. It makes one
shudder to fancy one of one’s own children at seven years old
being forced up a chimney—to say nothing of the consequent
* The beetle Panagzus crux-major. t His sister.
M
162 DOWN. (Ox. VIII.
loathsome disease and ulcerated limbs, and utter moral degra-
dation. If you think strongly on this subject, do make some
enquiries ; add to your many good works, this other one, and
try to stir up the magistrates. ...
The following letter refers to the Royal Medal, which was
awarded to him in November, 1853 :
C. D. to J. D. Hooker, Down [November 1853].
My pear Hooxer—Amongst my letters received this morn-
ing, I opened first one from Colonel Sabine ; the contents cer-
tainly surprised me very much, but, though the letter was a
very kind one, somehow, I cared very little indeed for the
announcement it contained. I then opened yours, and such is
the effect of warmth, friendship, and kindness from one that is
loved, that the very same fact, told as you told it, made me
glow with pleasure till my very heart throbbed. Believe me, I
shall not soon forget the pleasure of your letter. Such hearty,
affectionate sympathy is worth more than all the medals that
ever were or will be coined. Again, my dear Hooker, I thank
you. I hope Lindley* will never hear that he was a com-
petitor against me ; for really it is almost ridiculous (of course
you would never repeat that I said this, for it would be thought
by others, though not, I believe by you, to be affectation) his
not having the medal long before me; I must feel sure that
you did quite right to propose him; and what a good, dear,
kind fellow you are, nevertheless, to rejoice in this honour
being bestowed on me.
What pleasure I have felt on the occasion, I owe almost
entirely to you.
Farewell, my dear Hooker, yours affectionately.
The following series of extracts, must, for want of space,
* John Lindley (b. 1799, d. 1865) was the son of a nurseryman near
Norwich, through whose failure in business he was thrown at the age of
twenty on his own resources. He was befriended by Sir W. Hooker, and »
employed as assistant librarian by Sir J. Banks. He seems to have had
enormous capacity for work, and is said to have translated Richard’s
Analyse du Fruit at one sitting of two days and three nights. He became
Assistant-Secretary to the Horticultural Society, and in 1829 was
appointed Professor of Botany at University College, a post which he
held for upwards of thirty years. His writings are numerous; the best
known being perhaps his Vegetable Kingdom, published in 1846.
+ Shortly afterwards he received a fresh mark of esteem from his
warm-hearted friend: “ Hooker’s book (Himalayan Journal) is out, and
most beautifully got up. He has honoured me beyond measure by
dedicating it to me!”
Cu. VILL.) 1842—1854 163
serve as a sketch of his feeling with regard to his seven years’
work at Barnacles* :—
September 1849.—* It makes me Pays to think that pro-
bably I shall never again have tho exquisite pleasure of
making out some new district, of evolving geological light out
of some troubled dark region. So I must make the best of my
Cirripedia. . . .”
October 1849.—* I have of late been at work at mere species
describing, which is much more difficult than I expected, and
has much the same sort of interest as a puzzle has; but I
confess I often feel wearied with the work, and cannot help
sometimes asking myself what is the good of spending a
week or fortnight in ascertaining that certain just perceptible
differences blend together and constitute varieties and not
species. As long as I am on anatomy I never feel myself in
that disgusting, horrid, eui bono, inquiring, humour. What
miserable work, again, it is searching for priority of names. I
have just finished two species, which possess seven generic,
and twenty-four specific names! My chief comfort is, that the
work must be sometime done, and I may as well do it, as any
one else.”
October 1852.—“ 1 am at work at the second volume of the
Cirripedia, of which creatures [ am wonderfully tired. I hate
a Barnacle as no man ever did before, not even a sailor in
a slow-sailing ship. My first volume is out; the only part
worth looking at is on the sexes of Ibla@nd Scalpellum. I
hope by next summer to have done with my tedious work.”
July 1853.—* I am extremely glad to hear that you approved
of my cirripedial volume. I have spent an almost ridiculous
amount of labour on the subject, and certainly would never
have undertaken it had I foreseen what a job it was.”
In September, 1854, his Cirripede work was practically
finished, and he wrote to Sir J. Hooker:
“T have been frittering away my timo for the last several
* In 1860 he wrote to Lyell: “Is not Krohn a good fellow? I have
long meant to write to him. He has been working at Cirripedes, and has
detected two or three gigantic blunders, about which, I thank Heayen, I
spoke rather doubtfully.. Such difficult dissection that even Huxley
failed. Itis chiefly the interpretation which I put on parts that is so
wrong, and not the parts which I describe. But they were gigantic
blunders, and why I say all this is because Krohn, instead of crowing at
all, pointed out my errors with the utmost gentleness and pleasantness.”’
e are two papers by Aug. Krohn, one on the Cement Glands,
and the other on the development of Cirripedes, Weigmann’s Archiv. xxv.
and xxvyi. See Autobiography, p. 39, where my father remarks, “I
blundered dreadfully about the cement glands.”
m 2
164 DOWN. (Ca. VIII.
weeks in a wearisome manner, partly idleness, and odds and
ends, and sending ten thousand Barnacles* out of the house all
over the world. But I shall now in a day or two begin to look
over my old notes on species. What a deal I shall have to
discuss with you; I shall have to look sharp that I do not
progress’ into one of the greatest bores in life, to the few like
you with lots of knowledge.”
* The duplicate type-specimens of my father’s Cirripedes are in the
Liverpool Free Public Museum, as I learn from the Rey. H. H. Higgins.
( 165 )
CHAPTER IX.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE ‘ ORIGIN OF SPECIES.’
To give an account of the development of the chief work of my
father’s life—the Origin of Species, it will be necessary to return
to an earlier date, and to weave into the story letters and
other material, purposely omitted from the chapters dealing
with the voyage and with his life at Down.
To be able to estimate the greatness of the work, we must
know something of the state of knowledge on the species
question at the time when the germs of the Darwinian theory
were forming in my father’s mind.
For the brief sketch which I can here insert, I am largely
indebted to vol. ii. chapter v. of the Life and Letters—
a discussion on the Reception of the Origin of Species which
Mr. Huxley was good enough to write for me, also to the
masterly obituary essay on my father, which the same writer
contributed to the Proceedings of the Royal Society.*
Mr. Huxley has well saidy :
“To any one who studies the signs of the times, the emer-
gence of the philosophy of Evolution, in the attitude of claimant
to the throne of the world of thought, from the limbo of hated
and, as many hoped, forgotten things, is the most portentous
event of the nineteenth century.”
In the autobiographical chapter, my father has given an
account of his share in this great work: the present chapter
does little more than expand that story.
Two questions naturally occur to one: (1)—When and how
did Darwin become convinced that species are mutable? How
that is to say) did he begin to believe in evolution. And
2)—When and how did he conceive the manner in which
species are modified ; when did he begin to believe in Natural
Selection ?
the two to answer.
: a seemed to be explicable
* Vol. xliv. No. 26
x
: = oP te
4 i age
166 FOUNDATIONS OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. IX.
only on the “ supposition that species gradually become modi-
fied.” He goes on to say that the subject “ haunted him”; and
I think it is especially worthy of note that this “ haunting,”—
this unsatisfied dwelling on the subject was connected with the
desire to explain how species can be modified. It was charac-
teristic of him to feel, as he did, that it was “ almost useless ”
to endeavour to prove the general truth of evolution, unless
the cause of change could be discovered. I think that through-
out his life the questions 1 and 2 were intimately,—perhaps
unduly so, connected in his mind. It will be shown, however,
that after the publication of the Origin, when his views were
being weighed in the balance of scientific opinion, it was to
the acceptance of Evolution not of Natural Selection that he
attached importance.
An interesting letter (Feb. 24, 1877) to Dr. Otto Zacharias,*
ives the same impression as the Autobiography :—
“ When I was on board the Beagle I believed in the perma-
nence of species, but as far as I can remember, vague doubts
occasionally flitted across my mind. On my return home in the
autumn of 1836, I immediately began to prepare my Journal
for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the
common descent of species, so that in July, 1837, I opened a
note-book to record any facts which might bear on the question.
But I did not become convinced that species were mutable
until, I think, two or three years had elapsed.”
Two years bring us to 1839, at which date the idea of
natural selection had already occurred to him—a fact which
agrees with what has been said above. How far the idea that
evolution is conceivable came to him from earlier writers it
is not possible to sty. He has recorded in the Autobiography
(. 38) the “silent astonishment with which, about the year
825, he heard Grant expound the Lamarckian philosophy.”
He goes on :—
“T had previously read the Zoonomia of my grandfather, in
which similar views are maintained, but without producing
any effecton me. Nevertheless, it is probable that the hearing
rather early in life such views maintained and praised, may
have favoured my upholding them under a different form in
my Origin of Species. At this time I admired greatly the
Zoonomia ; but on reading it a second time after an interval of
ten or fifteen years, 1 was much disappointed ; the proportion
of speculation being so large to the facts given.”
Mr. Huxley has well said ( Obituary Notice, p.ii.): “ Erasmus
* This letter was unaccountably overlooked in preparing the Life and
Letters for publication.
Cu. IX.) 1831—1844, 167
Darwin, was in fact an anticipator of Lamarck, and not of
Charles Darwin ; there is no trace in his works of the concep-
tion by the addition of which his dson metamorphosed the
theory of evolution as applied to living things, and gave it a
new foundation.”
On the whole it seems to me that the effect on his mind
of the earlier evolutionists was inappreciable, and as far as
concerns the history of the Origin of the Species, it is of no
particular importance, because, as before said, evolution made
no progress in his mind until the cause of modification was
conceivable.
I think Mr, Huxley is right in saying * that “it is hardly
too much to say that Darwin’s greatest work is the outcome of
the unflinching application to biology of the leading idea, and
the method epaliet in the Principles to Geology.” Mr. Huxley
has elsewhere} admirably expressed the bearing of Lyell’s
work in this connection :—
*T cannot but believe that Lyell, for others, as for myself,
was the chief agent in smoothing the road for Darwin. For
consistent uniformitarianism postulates evolution as much in
the organic as in the inorganic world. The origin of a new
species by other than pa, ea agencies would be a vastly
greater ‘ catastrophe’ than any of those which Lyell success-
fully eliminated from sober geological speculation. .. .
“ Lyell,t with perfect right, claims this position for himself.
He speaks of haying ‘advocated a law of continuity even in
the organic world, so far as possible without adopting Lamarck’s
theory of transmutation. ...
“¢ But while I taught,’ Lyell goes on, ‘that as often as
certain forms of animals and plants disappeared, for reasons
quite intelligible to us, others took their place by virtue of
a causation which was beyond our comprehension ; it remained
for Darwin to accumulate proof that there is no break between
the incoming and the outgoing species, that they are the work
of evolution, and not of special creation. ... I had certainly
repared the way in this country, in six editions of my work
eforé the Vestiges of Creation appeared in 1842 [1844], for the
reception of Darwin’s gradual and insensible evolution of
species.’ 2
* Obituary Notice, p. viii.
+ ddfe andl Letters, vol i. p: 190. In Mr. Huxley’s chapter the passage
beginning yell with perfect right ... .” is given as a footnote: it
seen that I have incorporated it with Mr. Huxley’s text.
ae Y Lyell’s Life and Letters, Letter to Haeckel, vol. ii, p. 436. Nov. 23,
168 FOUNDATIONS OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECI#S. (Cu. IX.
Mr. Huxley continues :— |
“Tf one reads any of the earlier editions of the Principles
carefully (especially by the light of the interesting series of
letters recently published by Sir Charles Lyell’s biographer),
it is easy to see that, with all his energetic opposition to
Lamarck, on the one hand, and to the ideal quasi-progressionism
of Agassiz, on the other, Lyell, in his own mind, was strongly
disposed to account for the origination of all past and present
species of living things by natural causes. But he would
have liked, at the same time, to keep the namo of creation
for a natural process which he imagined to be incompre-
hensible.”
The passage above given refers to the influence of Lyell in
preparing men’s minds for belief in the Origin, but I cannot
doubt that it * smoothed the way ” for the author of that work
in his early searchings, as well as for his followers. My father
spoke prophetically when he wrote the dedication to Lyell of
the second edition of the Journal of Researches (1845).
“To Charles Lyell, Esq., F.R.S., this second edition is
dedicated with grateful pleasure—as an acknowledgment that
the chief part of whatever scientific merit this journal and
the other works of the author may possess, has been derived
San studying the well-known and admirable Principles of
Geology.”
Professor Judd, in some reminiscences of my father which
he was so good as to give me, quotes him as saying that, “It
was the reading of the Principles of Geology which did most
towards moulding his mind and causing him to take up the
line of investigation to which his life was devoted.”
The réle that Lyell played as a pioneer makes his own point
of view as to evolution all the more remarkable. As the late
H. C. Watson wrote to my father (December 21, 1859) :—
Now these novel views are brought fairly before the
scientific public, it seems truly remarkable how so many of
them could have failed to see their right road sooner. How
could Sir OC. Lyell, for instance, for thirty years read, write,
and think, on the subject of species and their succession, and
yet constantly look down the wrong road !
« A quarter of a century ago, you and I must have been in
something like the same state of mind on the main question.
But you were able to see and work out the quo modo of the
succession, the all-important thing, while I failed to grasp it.”
In his earlier attitude towards evolution, my father was
on a par with his contemporaries. He wrote in the Auto-
biography :—
Cuz. IX.] 1831—1844. 169
*T occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never
happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt
about the permanence of species:” and it will be made
abundantly clear by his letters that in supporting the opposite
view he felt himself a terrible heretic.
Mr. Huxley * writes in the same sense :—
“ Within the ranks of biologists, at that time [1851-58], 1
met with nobody, except Dr. Grant, of University College, who
had a word to say for Evolution—and his advocacy was not
calculated to advance the cause. Outside these ranks, the
only person known to me whose knowledge and capacity com-
ed respect, and who was, at the same time, a thorough-
going evolutionist, was Mr. Herbert Spencer, whose acquaint-
ance I made, I think, in 1852, and then entered into the bonds
of a friendship which, I am happy to think, has known no
interruption. Sexy and prolonged were the battles we fought
on this topic. But even my friend’s rare dialectic skill and
copiousness of apt illustration could not drive me from my
agnostic position. I took my stand upon two grounds: firstly,
that up to that time, the evidence in favour of transmutation
was wholly insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestion
respecting the causes of the transmutation assumed, which
had been made, was in any way adequate to explain the
phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that
time, I really do not see that any other conclusion was
justifiable.”
These two last citations refer of course to a period much
later than the time, 1836-37, at which the Darwinian theory
was growing in my father’s mind. The same thing is however
true of earlier days.
So much for the general problem: the further question as
to the growth of Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a less
complex one, and I need add but little to the history given in
the Autobiography of how he came by that great conception by
the help of which he was able to revivify “the oldest of all
philosophies—that of evolution.”
The first point in the slow journey towards the Origin ¢
Species was the opening of that note-book of 1837 of whic
mention has been already made. The reader who is curious
on the subject will find a series of citations
interesting note-book, in the Life and Letters
papas Pa satis Rs
The two following extracts show that he applied
the theory
* Life and Letters, vol. ii. p. 188.
170 FOUNDATIONS OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, (On. IX.
of evolution to the “ whole organic kingdom” from plants to
man.
“If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our
fellow brethren in pain, disease, death, suffering and famine—
our slaves in the most laborious works, our companions in our
amusements—they may partake [of ] our origin in one common
ancestor—we may be all melted together.”
“The different intellects of man and animals not so great as
between living things without thought (plants), and living
things with thought (animals).”
Speaking of intermediate forms, he remarks :—
* Opponents will say—show them me. I will answer yes,
if ~ will show me every step between bulldog and grey-
hound.”
Here we see that the argument from domestic animals was
already present in his mind as bearing on the production of
natural species, an argument which he afterwards used with
such signal force in the Origin.
A comparison of the two editions of the Naturalists’ Voyage
is instructive, as giving some idea of the development of his
views on evolution. It does not give us a true index of the
mass of conjecture which was taking shape in his mind, but it
shows us that he felt sure enough of the truth of his belief to
allow a stronger tinge of evolution to appear in the second
edition. He has mentioned in the Autobiography (p. 40), that
it was not until he read Malthus that he got a clear view of the
potency of natural selection.’ This was in 1838—a year after
he finished the first edition (it was not published until 1839),
and seven years before the second edition was issued apron
Thus the turning-point in the formation of his theory too
place between the writing of the two editions. Yet the differ-
ence between the two editions is not very marked; it is
another proof of the author’s caution and self-restraint in the
treatment of his ideas. After reading the second edition of
the Voyage we remember with a strong feeling of surprise how
far advanced were his views. when he wrote. it,
These views are given in the manuscript volume of 1844,
mentioned in the Autobiography. I give from my father’s
Pocket-book the entries referring to the preliminary sketch of
this historic essay.
“1842, May 18,—Went to Maer. June 15—to Shrewsbury,
and 18th to Capel Curig. During my stay at Maer and
Shrewsbury. . . . wrote pencil sketch of species theory.” *
* T have discussed in the Life and Letters the statement often made
that the first sketch of his theory was written in 1839,
Cu. IX.) 1831—1844. 171
In 1844, the pencil-sketch was enlarged to one of 230 folio
pages, which is a wonderfully complete presentation of the
arguments familiar to us in the Origin.
e following letter shows in a striking manner the value
my father put on this piece of work.
0. D. to Mrs. Darwin. Down [July 5, 1844).
. . » Lhave just finished my sketch of my species theory.
If, as I believe, my theory in time be accepted even by ono
competent judge, it will be a considerable step in science.
I therefore write this in case of my sudden death, as my
most solemn and last request, which I am sure you will con-
sider the same as if legally entered in my will, that you will
devote £400 to its publication, and further, will yourself, or
through . Hensleigh,* take trouble in promoting it. I wish
that my sketch be given to some competent person, with this
sum to induce him to take trouble in its improvement and
enlargement. I give to him all my books on Natural History,
which are either scored or have references at the end to the
pages, begging him carefully to look over and consider such
passages as actually bearing, or by possibility bearing, on this
subject. I wish you to make a list of all such books as some
temptation to an editor. I also request that you will hand
over [to] him all those scraps roughly divided in eight or ten
brown paper portfolios. The scraps, with copied quotations
from various works, are those which may aid my editor. I
also request that you, or some amanuensis, will aid in decipher-
ing any of the scraps which the editor may think possibly of
use. I leave to the editor’s judgment whether to interpolate
these facts in the text, or as notes, or under appendices. As
the looking over the references and scraps will be a long
labour, and as the correcting and enlarging and altering my
sketch will also take considerable time, I leave this sum of
£400 as some remuneration, and any profits from the work. I
consider that for this the editor is bound to get the sketch
published either ata publisher’s or his own risk. Many of
the seraps in the portfolios contain mere rude suggestions and
early views, now useless, and many of the facts will probably
turn out as having no bearing on my theory. .
With respect to editors, Mr. Lyell would be the best if he
would undertake it; I believe he would find the work pleasant,
and he would learn some facts new to him. As the editor must
* The late Mr, H. Wedgwood.
~~
172 FOUNDATIONS OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. IX.
be a geologist as well as a naturalist, the next best editor
would be Professor Forbes of London. The next best (and
quite best in many respects) would be Professor Henslow. Dr.
Hooker would be very good. The next, Mr. Strickland.* If
none of these would undertake it, I would request you to
consult with Mr. Lyell, or some other capable man for some
editor, a geologist and naturalist. Should one other hundred
pounds make the difference of procuring a good editor, I
request earnestly that you will raise £500.
My remaining collections in Natural History may be given
to any one or any museum where [they] would be accepted....
The following note seems to have formed part of the
original letter, but may have been of later date:
“ Lyell, especially with the aid of Hooker (and of any good
zoological aid), would be best of all. Without an editor will
pledge himself to give up time to it, it would be of no use
paying such a sum.”
“Tf there should be any difficulty in getting an editor who
would go thoroughly into the subject, at think of the bearing
of the passages marked in the books and copied out [on ?] scraps
of paper, then let my sketch be published as it is, stating that
it was done several years agot and from memory without
consulting any works, and with no intention of publication in
its present form.”
The idea that the Sketch of 1844 might remain, in the event
cf his death, as the only record of his work, seems to have
been long in his mind, for in August 1854, when he had
finished with the Cirripedes, and was thinking of beginning
his “species work,” he added on the back of the above letter,
“ Hooker by far best man to edit my species volume. August
1854.”
* After Mr. Strickland’s name comes the following sentence, which
has been erased, but remains legible: “ Professor Owen would be very
good; but I presume he would not undertake such a work.”
+ The words “several- years ago and,” seem to have been added at a
later date.
( 173 )
CHAPTER X.
THE GROWTH OF THE ‘ ORIGIN OF SPECIES,’
1843-1858.
Tue history of the years 1843-1858 is here related in an
extremely abbreviated fashion. It was a period of minute
labour on a variety of subjects, and the letters accordingly
abound in detail. They are in many ways extremely interest-
ing, more especially so to professed naturalists, and the
picture of patient research which they convey is of great value
from a biographical point of view. But such a picture must
either be given in a complete series of unabridged letters, or
omitted altogether. The limits of space compel me to the
latter choice. The reader must imagine my father corre-
sponding on problems in geology, geographical distribution, and
classification ; at the same time collecting facts on such varied
points as the stripes on horses’ legs, the floating of seeds,
the breeding of pigeons, the form of bees’ cells and the innu-
merable other questions to which his gigantic task demanded
answers.
The concluding letter of the last chapter has shown how
strong was his conviction of the value of his work. It is
impressive evidence of the condition of the scientific atmo-
sphere, to discover, as in the following letters to Sir Joseph
Hooker, how small was the amount of encouragement that he
dared to hope for from his brother-naturalists.
(January 11th, 1844,]
. . . I have been now ever since my return engaged in a
very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who
would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the
distribution of the Galapagos organisms, &c. &c., and with the
character of the American fossil mammifers, &c. &c., that I
determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which could
bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of
agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased
collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am
174 GROWTH OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (On. X.
almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with)
that species are not Oo is like confessing a murder) immutable.
Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a “ tendency to
rogression,” “ adaptations from the slow willing of animals,”
c.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different
from his ; though the means of change are wholly so. I think
I have found out (here’s presumption!) the simple way by
which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends.
You will now groan, and think to yourself, “on what a man
have I been wasting my time and writing to.” I should, five
years ago, have thought so... .
And again (1844) :—
“In my most sanguine moments, all I expect, is that I shall
be able to show even to sound Naturalists, that there are two
sides to the question of the immutability of species—that facts
can be viewed and grouped under the notion of allied species
having descended from common stocks. With respect to
books on this subject, I do not know of any systematical ones,
except Lamarck’s which is veritable rubbish: but there are
plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, &c., on the view of the immu-
tability. Agassiz lately has brought the strongest argument
in favour of immutability. Isidore G. St. Hilaire has written
some good Essays, tending towards the mutability-side, in the
Suites « Buffon, entitled Zoolog. Générale. Is it not strange
that the author of such a book as the Animaua sans Vertébres
should have written that insects, which never see their eggs,
should will (and plants, their seeds) to be of particular forms,
so as to become attached to particular objects. The other
common (specially Germanic) notion is hardly less absurd,
viz. that climate, food, &c., should make a Pediculus formed to
climb hair, or a wood-pecker to climb trees. I believe all these
absurd views arise from no one having, as far as I know, ap-
proached the subject on the side of variation under domestica-
tion, and having studied all that is known about domestication.”
*T hate arguments from results, but on my views of descent,
really Natural History becomes a sublimely grand result-
giving subject (now you may quiz me for so foolish an escape
of mouth)... .”
C. D. to L. Jenyns.* Down Oct. 12th [1845].
My pear Junyns—Thanks for your note. I am sorry to
say I have not even the tail-end of a fact in English Zoology
to communicate. I have found that even trifling observations
* Rev. L. Blomefield.
On. X.J -1848—1858. 175
require, in my case, some leisure and energy, [of] both of which
ingredients I have had none to spare, as writing my Geology
thoroughly both. I had always thought that I would
keep a jou and record everything, but in the way I now
live I find I observe nothing to record. Looking after my
a and trees, and occasionally a very little walk in an idle
of my mind, fill up every afternoon in the same
manner. I am surprised that with all your parish affairs, you
have had time to do all that which you have done. I shall be
very glad to see your little work * (and proud should I have
been if I could have added a single fact to it). My work on
the species question has impressed me very forcibly with the
importance of all such works as your intended one, containing
what people are pleased generally to call trifling facts. These
are the facts which make one understand the working or
economy of nature. There is one subject, on which I am very
curious, and which we you may throw some light on, if
you have ever thought on it ; namely, what are the checks and
what the periods of life—by which the increase of any given
species is limited. Just calculate the increase of any bird, if
you assume that only half the young are reared, and these
breed : within the natural (1.e. if free from accidents) life of the
ts the number of individuals will become enormous, and I
ve been much surprised to think how great destruction must
annually or occasionally be falling on every species, yet the
means and period of such destruction are scarcely perceived by us.
I have continued steadily reading and collecting facts on
variation of domestic animals and plants, and on the question
of what are species. I have a grand body of facts, and I
think I can draw some sound conclusions. The general con-
clusions at which I have slowly been driven from a directly
opposite conviction, is that species are mutable, and that allied
species are co-descendants from common stocks. I know how
much I open myself to reproach for such a conclusion, but I
have at least honestly and deliberately come to it. I shall
not publish on this subject for several years.
C. Darwin to L, Jenyns.} Down [1845 ?].
With respect to my far distant work on species, I must have
expressed myself with singular inaccuracy if I led you to
* Mr. Jenyns’ Observations in Natural History. It is prefaced by an
Introduction on “Habits of observing as connected with the study of
Natural History,” and followed by a “Calendar of Periodic Phenomena
in Natural History,” with “ Remarks on the importance of such Registers.”
+ Rev. L. Blomefield.
176 GROWTH OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (On. X.
suppose that I meant to say that my conclusions were
inevitable. They have become so, after years of weighing
puzzles, to myself alone; but in my wildest day-dream,
never expect more than to be able to show that there are two
sides to the question of the immutability of species, i.e. whether
species are directly created or by intermediate laws (as with
the life and death of individuals). I did not approach the
subject on the side of the difficulty in determining what are
species and what are varieties, but (though why I should give
you such a history of my doings it would be hard to say) from
such facts as the relationship between the living and extinct
mammifers in South America, and between those living on the
Continent and on adjoining islands, such as the Galapagos. It
occurred to me that a collection of all such analogous facts
would throw light either for or against the view of related
species being co-descendants from a common stock. A long
searching amongst agricultural and horticultural books and
people makes me believe (I well know how absurdly pre-
sumptuous this must appear) that I see the way in which new
varieties become exquisitely adapted to the external conditions
of life and to other surrounding beings. Iam a bold man to
lay myself open to being thought a complete fool, and a most
deliberate one. From the nature of the grounds which make
me believe that species are mutable in form, these grounds
cannot be restricted to the closest-allied species; but how far
they extend I cannot tell, as my reasons fall away by degrees,
when applied to species more and more remote from each
other. Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that
there are numerous immense difficulties in my notions, but
they appear to me less than on the common view. I have
drawn up a sketch and had it copied (in 200 pages) of my
conclusions ; and if I thought at some future time that you
would think it worth reading, I should, of course, be most
thankful to have the criticism of so competent a critic.
Excuse this very long and egotistical and ill-written letter,
which by your remarks you have led me into.
C. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down [1849-50 ?).
. . - « How painfully (to me) true is your remark, that no
one has hardly a right to examine the question of species who
has not minutely described many. I was, however, pleased to
hear from Owen (who is vehemently opposed to any mutability
in species), that he thought it was a very fair subject, and that
there was a mass of facts to be brought to bear on the question,
On. X.] 1843—1858. 177
not hitherto collected. My only comfort is (as I mean to
attempt the subject), that I have dabbled in several branches
of Natural History, and seen good specific men work out my
species, and know something of geology (an indispensablo
union); and though I shall get more kicks half-pennies,
I will, life serving, attempt my work. Lamarck is the only
exception, that I can think of, of an accurate describer of species
at least in the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has disbelieved in
permanent species, but he in his absurd though clever work has
done the subject harm, as has Mr. Vestiges, and, as (some future
loose naturalist attempting the same speculations will perhaps
say) has Mr. D....
0. D. io J. D. Hooker. September 25th (1853).
In my own Cirripedial work (by the way, thank you for the
dose of soft solder; it does one—or at least me—a great deal
of good)—in my own work I have not felt conscious that dis-
believing in the mere permanence of species has made much
difference one way or the other ; in some few cases (if publish-
ing avowedly on the doctrine of non-permanence), I should not
have affixed names, and in some few cases should have aflixed
names to remarkable varieties. Certainly I have felt it
humiliating, discussing and doubting, and examining over and
over again, when in my own mind the only doubt has been
whether the form varied to-day or yesterday (not to put too fine
@ point on it, as Snagsby* would say). After describing a set
of forms as distinct species, tearing up my MS.,and making
them one species, tearing that up and making them separate,
and then making them one again (which has happened to me),
I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I
had committed to be so punished. But I must confess that
perhaps nearly the same thing would have happened to me on
any scheme of work.
C. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down, March 26th [1854].
My pzar Hooxer—I had hoped that you would have had a
little breathing-time after your Journal,} but this seems to be
very far from the case ; and I am the more obliged (and some-
what contrite) for the long letter received this morning, most
juicy with news and most interesting to me in many ways. I
am very glad indeed to hear of the reforms, &c., in the Royal
* In Bleak House.
¢ Sir Joseph Hooker’s Himalayan Journal,
Bu
178 GROWTH OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (On. X.
Society. With respect to the Club,* I am deeply interested ;
only two or three days ago, I was regretting to my wife, how I
was letting drop and being dropped by nearly all my acquaint-
ances, and that I would endeavour to go oftener to London; I
was not then thinking of the Club, which, as far as one thin
goes, would answer my exact object in keeping up old an
making some new acquaintances. I will therefore come up to
London for every (with rare exceptions) Club-day, and then my
head, I think, will allow me on an average to go to every other
meeting. But it is grievous how often any change knocks me
up. I will further pledge myself, as I told Lyell, to resi
after a year, if I did not attend pretty often, so that I should
at worst encumber the Club temporarily. If you can get me
elected, I certainly shall be very much pleased.... Iam
particularly obliged to you for sending me Asa Gray’s letter ;
how very pleasantly he writes. To see his and your caution on
the species-question ought to overwhelm me in confusion and
shame; it does make me feel deuced uncomfortable. ... 1
was pleased and surprised to see A. Gray’s remarks on crossing
obliterating varieties, on which, as you know, I have been
collecting facts for these dozen years. How awfully flat 1
shall feel, if, when I get my notes together on species, &e. &e.,
the whole thing explodes like an empty puff-ball. Do not work
yourself to death.
Ever yours most truly,
T'o work out the problem of the Geographical Distribution of
animals and plants on evolutionary principles, Darwin had to
study the means by which seeds, eggs, &c., can be transported
across wide spaces of ocean. It was this need which gaye an
interest to the class of experiment to which the following
letters refer.
* The Philosophical Club, to which my father was elected (as Professor
Bonney is good enough to inform me) on April 24, 1854. He resigned
his membership in 1864. The Club was founded in 1847. The number
of members being limited to 47, it was proposed to christen it “the
Club of 47,” but the name was never adopted. The nature of the Club
may be gathered from its first rule: “The purpose of the Club is to
promote as much as possible the scientific objects of the Royal Society ;
to facilitate intercourse between those Fellows who are actively engaged
in cultivating the various branches of Natural Science, and who have
contributed to its progress; to increase the attendance at the evening
meetings, and to encourage the contribution and discussion of papers.
The Club met for dinner at 6, and the chair was to be — at 8.15, it
being expected that members would go to the Royal Society. Of late
years the dinner has been at 6.30, the Society meeting in the afternoon.
Cu. X.] 1843—1858. 179
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. April 18th [1855}.
. . » I have had ono experiment some little time in progress
which will, I think, be interesting, namely, seeds in salt water,
immersed in water of 32°-33°, which I have and shall long
have, as I filled a great tank with snow. When I wrote last I
was going to triumph over you, for my experiment had in a
slight degree su ed; but this, with infinite baseness, I did
not tell, in hopes that you would say that you would eat all the
plants which puter raise after immersion. It is very aggrava-
ting that I cannot in the least remember what you did formerly
say that made me think you scoffed at the experiments vastly ;
for you now seem to view the experiment like a good Christian.
I have in small bottles out of doors, exposed to variation of
temperature, cress, radish, cabbages, lettuces, carrots, and celery,
and onion seed. ‘These, after immersion for exactly one week,
have all a, which I did not in the least expect (and
thought how you would sneer at me); for the water of nearly
all, and of the cress especially, smelt very badly, and the cress
seed emitted a wonderful quantity of mucus (the Vestiges* would
have expected them to turn into tadpoles), so as to adhere in a
mass; but these seeds germinated and grew splendidly. The
germination of all (especially cress and lettuces) has been
accelerated, except the cabbages, which have come up very
irregularly, and a good many, 1 think, dead. One would have
thought, from their native habitat, that the cabbage would have
stood well. The Umbelliferm and onions seem to stand the
salt well. I wash the seed before planting them. I have
written to the Gardeners’ Chronicle,} though I doubt whether it
was worth while. If my success seems to make it worth while,
I will send a seed list, to get you to mark some different classes
of seeds. To-day I replant the same seeds as above after
fourteen days’ immersion. As many sea-currents go a mile an
hour, even in a week they might be transported 168 miles; the
Gulf Stream is said to go fifty and sixty miles a day. So
much and too much on this head; but my geese are always
swans. ...
* The Vestiges of Creation, by R. Chambers.
+ A few words asking for information. The resulés were published in
the Gardeners’ Chronicle, May 26, Nov. 24, 1855. In the same year
(p. 789) he sent a postscript to his former paper, correcting a misprint
and adding a few words on the seeds of the Leguminossz. A fuller paper
on the ye el seeds after treatment in salt water, appeared in the
Linnean Soc. Jo 1857, p. 130. 2
N
180 GROWTH OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (On. X.
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. [April 14th, 1855.]
. . » You are a good man to confess that you expected the
cress would be killed in a week, for this gives me a nice little
triumph. ‘The children at first were tremendously eager, and
asked me often, “‘ whether I should beat Dr. Hooker!” The
cress and lettuce have just vegetated well after twenty-one
days’ immersion. But 1 will write no more, which is a great
virtue in me; for it is to me a very great pleasure telling you
everything I do.
. . - If you knew some of the experiments (if they may be
so called) which I am trying, you would have a good right to
sneer, for they are so absurd even in my opinion that I dare not
tell you.
Have not some men a nice notion of experimentising? I
have had a letter telling me that seeds must have great power of
resisting salt water, for otherwise how could they get to islands ?
This is the true way to solve a problem ?
Experiments on the transportal of seeds through the agency
of animals, also gave him much labour. He wrote to Fox
a
¢s nature is perverse and will not do as I wish it; and
just at present I wish I had my old barnacles to work at, and
nothing new.”
And to Hooker :—
‘“‘ Everything has been going wrong with me lately: the fish
at the Zoolog. Soc. ate up lots of soaked seeds, and in imagina-
tion they had in my mind been swallowed, fish and all, by a
heron, had been carried a hundred miles, been voided on the
banks of some other lake and germinated splendidly, when lo
and behold, the fish ejected vehemently, and with disgust equal
to my own, all the seeds from their mouths.”
THE UNFINISHED BOOK.
In his Autobiographical sketch (p. 41) my father wrote :—
“Barly in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty
fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale three or four
times as extensive as that which was afterwards followed in —
my Origin of Species; yet it was only an abstract of the
materials which I had collected.” The remainder of the
present chapter is chiefly concerned with the preparation
of this unfinished book.
The work was begun on May 14th, and steadily continued up
to June 1858, when it was interrupted by the arrival of Mr,
Cu. X.] 1843—1858. 181
Wallace’s MS. During the two years which we ate now con-
sidering, he wrote ten chapters (that is about one-half) of the
projected book. ;
C. D. to J. D, Hooker. May 9th [1856}.
. . » I very much want advice and truthful consolation if
you can give it. I had a good talk with Lyell about my species
work, and he urges me strongly to publish something. I am
fixed against any periodical or Journal, as I positively will not
expose myself to an Editor or a Council allowing a publication
for which they might be abused. If I publish anything it
must be a very thin and little volume, giving a sketch of my
views and difficulties; but it is really dreadfully unphilo-
sophical to give a réswmé, without exact references, of an
unpublished work. But Lyell seemed to think I might do
this, at the suggestion of friends, and on the ground, which I
I might state, that I had been at work for eighteen* years,
and yet could not publish for several years, and especially as
I could point out difficulties which seemed to me to require
especial investigation. Now what think you? I should be
really grateful for advice. I thought of giving up a couple of
months and writing such a sketch, and trying to keep my
judgment open whether or no to publish it when completed.
It will be simply oy gore for me to give exact references ;
anything important I should state on the authority of the
author generally ; and instead of giving all the facts on which
I ground my opinion, I could give by memory only one or
two. In the Preface I would state that the work could not
be considered strictly scientific, but a mere sketch or outline
of a future work in which full references, &c., should be
given. Eheu, eheu, I believe I should sneer at any one else
doing this, and my only comfort is, that I truly never dreamed
of it, till Lyell suggested it, and seems deliberately to think
it advisable.
I am in a peck of troubles, and do pray forgive me for
troubling you.
Yours affectionately.
He made an attempt at a sketch of his views, but as he wrote
to Fox in October 1856 :—
“JT found it such unsatisfactory work that I have desisted,
* The interval of eighteen years, from 1837 when he began fo collect
facts, would bring the date of this letter to 1855, not 1856, nevertheless
the latter seems the more probable date.
182 GROWTH OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Ou. &.
and am now drawing up my work as perfect as my materials
of nineteen years’ collecting suffice, but do not intend to stop
to perfect any line of investigation beyond current work.”
And in November he wrote to Sir Charles Lyell :—
“ T am working very steadily at my big book; I have found
it quite impossible to publish any preliminary essay or sketch ;
but am doing my work as completely as my present materials
allow without waiting to perfect them. And this much ac-
celeration I owe to you.”
Again to Mr. Fox, in February, 1857 :—
“] am got most deeply interested in my subject; though I
wish I could set less value on the bauble fame, either present
or posthumous, than I do, but not I think, to any extreme
degree: yet, if I know myself, I would work just as hard,
though with less gusto, if I knew that my book would be
published for ever anonymously.”
CO. D, to A. R. Wallace, Moor Park, May Ist, 1857.
My prar Sirr—I am much obliged for your letter of
October 10th, from Celebes, received a few days ago; in a
laborious undertaking, sympathy is a valuable and real en-
couragement. By your letter and even still more by your
paper* in the Annals, a year or more ago, I can plainly see
that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent have
come to similar conclusions. In regard to the Paper in the
Annals, I agree to the truth of almost every word of your
paper; and I dare say that you will agree with me that it is
very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty closely with any
theoretical paper; for it is lamentable how each man draws
his own different conclusions from the very same facts. This
summer will make the 20th year (!) since I opened my first
note-book, on the question how and in what way do species
and varieties differ from each other. I am now preparing my
work for publication, but I find the subject so very large, that
though I have written many chapters, I do not suppose I shall
go to press for two years. I have never heard how long you
intend staying in the Malay Archipelago; I wish I might
profit by the publication of your Travels there before my work
appears, for no doubt you will reap a large harvest of facts. I
have acted already in accordance with your advice of keeping
domestic varieties, and those appearing ina state of nature,
* “On the Law that has regulated the Introduction of New Species.”
—Ann. Nat, Hist., 1855,
Cx. X.J 1848—1858. 183
distinct ; but I have sometimes doubted of the wisdom of this,
and therefore I am glad to be by your opini
OL tne no
te ty : ey treo nee a of
ere better
hybrid animals than you seem to
: and gard f ants the collection of carefully
recorded facts by Kélreuter and Gaertner (and Herbert) is
enormous. I most entirely agree with you on the little effects
of “ climatal conditions,” which one sees referred to ad nauseam
in all books: I suppose some very little effect must be attri-
buted to such influences, but I fully believe that they are very
slight. It is really impossible to explain my views (in the
eompass of a letter), on the causes and means of variation in a
state of nature; but I have slowly adopted a distinct and
tangible idea,—whether true or false others must judge; for
the firmest conviction of the truth of a doctrine by its author,
seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee of truth! ...
In December 1857 he wrote to the same correspondent :—
“You ask whether I shall discuss‘man. I think I shall
avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices;
though I fully admit that it is the highest and most interesting
problem for the naturalist. My work, on which I have now
been at work more or less for twenty years, will not fix or
settle anything; but I hope it will aid by giving a large col-
lection of facts, with one definite end. I get on very slowly,
partly from ill-health; partly from being a very slow worker.
Ihave got about half written; but I do not suppose I shall
publish under a couple of years. I have now been three whole
months on one chapter on Hybridism !
“T am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three
or four years more. What a wonderful deal you will have
seen, and what interesting areas—the grand Malay Archipelago
and the richest parts of South America! I infinitely admire
and honour your zeal and courage in the good cause of Natural
Science; and you have my very sincere and cordial good
wishes for success of all kinds, and may all your theories
succeed, except that on Oceanic Islands, on which subject I
will do battle to the death.”
And to Fox in February 1858 ;—
*T am working very hard at my book, perhaps too hard.
It will be very big, and I am become most deeply interested
in the way facts fall into groups. I am like Croesus over-
whelmed with my riches in facts, and I mean to make my book
~
184 GROWTH OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. &.
as perfect as ever I can. I shall not go to press at soonest
for a couple of years.”
The letter which follows, written from his favourite resting
place, the Water-Cure Establishment at Moor Park, comes in
like a lull before the storm,—the upset of all his plans by the
arrival of Mr. Wallace’s manuscript, a phase in the history of
his life to which the next chapter is devoted.
C. D. to Mrs. Darwin. Moor Park, April [1858}.
The weather is quite delicious. Yesterday, after writing to
you, I strolled a little beyond the glade for an hour and a half,
and enjoyed myself—the fresh yet dark green of the grand
Scotch firs, the brown of the catkins of the old birches, with
their white stems, and a fringe of distant green from the
larches, made an excessively pretty view. At last I fell fast
asleep on the grass, and awoke with a chorus of birds singing
around me, and squirrels running up the trees, and some wood-
peckers laughing, and it was as pleasant and rural a scene as
ever I saw, and I did not care one penny how any of the
beasts or birds had been formed. I sat in the drawing-room
till after eight, and then went and read the Chief Justice’s
summing up, and thought Bernard * guilty, and then read a
bit of my novel, which is feminine, virtuous, clerical, philan-
thropical, and all that sort of thing, but very decidedly flat. I
say feminine, for the author is ignorant about money matters,
and not much of a lady—for she makes her men say, “ My
Lady.” Ilike Miss Craik very much, though we have some
battles, and differ on every subject. I like also the Hun-
garian ; a thorough gentleman, formerly attaché at Paris, and
then in the Austrian cavalry, and now a pardoned exile, with
broken health. He does not seem to like Kossuth, but says,
he is certain [he “ a sincere patriot, most clever and eloquent,
but weak, with no determination of character. ...
* Simon Bernard was tried in April 1858 as an accessory to Orsini’s
pare on the life of the Emperor of the French. The verdict was “ not
y.
( 185 )
CHAPTER XI.
THE WRITING OF THE ‘ ORIGIN OF SPECIES.’
“T have done my best. If you had all my material I am sure you would
have made a splendid book.”—From a letter to Lyell, June 21, 1859.
yung 18, 1858, ro yovemBerr 1859.-
C. D. to ©. Lyell. Down, 18th [June 1858].
My puar Lyerr—Some year or so ago you recommended
me to read a paper by Wallace in the Annals,* which had
interested you, and as I was writing to him, I knew this would
please him much, soI told him. He has to-day sent me the
enclosed, and asked me to forward it to you. It seems to
me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a
vengeance—that I should be forestalled. You said this, when
I explained to you here very briefly my views of ‘ Natural
Selection’ depending on the struggle for existence. I never
saw a more striking coincidence; if Wallace had my MS.
sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better
short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my
chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say
he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write
and offer to send to any journal. So all my originality, what-
ever it may amount to, will be smashed, though my book, if it
will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the
labour consists in the application of the theory.
I hope you will approve of Wallace’s sketch, that I may tell
him what you say.
My dear Lyell, yours most truly.
0. D. to C. Lyell. Down [June 25, 1858}.
My pear Lyzti—I am very sorry to trouble you, busy as
you are, in so merely personal an affair; but if you will give
me your deliberate opinion, you will do me as great a service
* Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist., 1855.
Pd
“-
186 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. ([OCn. XL
as ever man did, for I have entire confidence in your judgment
and honour. ...
There is nothing in Wallace’s sketch which is not written
out much fuller in my sketch, copied out in 1844, and read by
- Hooker some dozen years ago. About a year ago I sent a
short sketch, of which I have a copy, of my views (owing to
correspondence on several points) to Asa Gray, so that I could
most truly say and prove that I take nothing from Wallace.
I should be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my
general views in about a dozen pages or so; but I cannot
persuade myself that I can do so honourably. Wallace says
nothing about publication, and I enclose his letter. But as I
had not intended to publish any sketch, can I do so honourably,
because Wallace has sent me an outline of his doctrine? I
, would far rather burn my whole book, than that he or any
other man should think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit.
Do you not think his having sent me this sketch ties my
hands? .... If 1 could honourably publish, I would state
that I was induced now to publish a sketch (and I should be
very glad to be permitted to say, to follow your advice long
ago given) from Wallace having sent me an outline of my
general conclusions. We differ only, [in] that I was led to my
views from what artificial selection has done for domestic
animals. I would send Wallace a copy of my letter to Asa
Gray, to show him that I had not stolen his doctrine. But I
cannot tell whether to publish now would not be base and
paltry. This was my first’ impression, and I should have
certainly acted on it had it not been for your letter.
This is a trumpery affair to trouble you with, but you cannot
tell how much obliged I should be for your advice,
By the way, would you object to send this and your answer
to Hooker to be forwarded to me? for then I shall have the
opinion of my two best and kindest friends. This letter is
miserably written, and I write it now, that I may for a time
banish the whole subject; and I am worn out with musing. ...
My good dear friend, forgive me. This is a trumpery letter,
influenced by trumpery feelings.
Yours most truly.
I will never trouble you or Hooker on the subject again.
C.D. to O. Lyell. Down, 26th [June 1858}.
My par Lynti1—Forgive me for adding a P.S. to make the
case as strong as possible against myself,
Wallace might say, “ You did not intend publishing aa |
Cu. XI.) 1858—1859. 187
abstract of your views till you received my communication,
Is it fair to take advantage of my having freely, though un-
asked, communicated to you my ideas, and thus prevent me
forestalling you?” The advantage which I should take being
that I am induced to publish from privately knowing that
Wallace is in the field. It seems hard on me that I should be
thus compelled to lose my priority of many years’ standing,
but I cannot feel at all sure that this alters the justice of the
case. First impressions are generally right, and I at first
thought it would be dishonourable in me now to publish.
Yours most truly.
P.S.—I have always thought you would make a first-rate
Lord Chancellor; and I now appeal to you as a Lord
Chancellor.
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. Tuesday night [June 29, 1858}.
My prar Hooxer—I have just read your letter, and see
you want the papers at once. I am quite prostrated,* and
can do nothing, but I send Wallace, and the abstract | of my
letter to Asa Gray, which gives most imperfectly only the
means of change, and does not touch on reasons for believing
that species do change. I dare say all is too late. I hardly
care about it. But you are too generous to sacrifice so much
time and kindnefs. It is most generous, most kind. I send
my sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own
handwriting that you did read it. I really cannot bear to
look at it. Do not waste much time. It is miserable in me
to care at all about priority.
The table of contents will show what it is.
I would make a similar, but shorter and more accurate
sketch for the Linnean Journal.
I will do anything. God bless you, my dear kind friend.
I can write no more. I send this by my servant to Kew.
The joint paper { of Mr. Wallace and my father was read
at the Linnean Society on the evening of July Ist. Mr.
* After the death, from scarlet fever, of his infant child.
t+ “Abstract” is here used in the sense of “extract;” in this senso
also it occurs in the Linnean Journal, where the sources of my father’s
‘are described.
t “On the tendency of Species to form Varieties and on the Perpetua.
tion of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.”—Linnean
Society's Journal, iii. p. 58,
188 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (On. XL
Wallace’s Essay bore the title, “On the Tendency of Varieties
to depart indefinitely from the Original Type.”
My father’s contribution to the paper consisted of (1) Ex-
tracts from the sketch of 1844; (2) part of a letter addressed
to Dr. Asa Gray, dated September 5, 1857. The paper was
“ communicated ” to the Society by Sir Charles Lyell and Sir
Joseph Hooker, in whose prefatory letter a clear account of
the circumstances of the case is given.
Referring to Mr. Wallace’s Essay, they wrote :—
“So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate the value of the
views therein set forth, that he proposed, in a letter to Sir
Charles Lyell, to obtain Mr. Wallace’s consent to allow the
Essay to be published as soon as possible. Of this step we
highly approved, provided Mr. Darwin did not withhold from
the public, as he was strongly inclined to do (in favour of
Mr. Wallace), the memoir which he had himself written on
the same subject, and which, as before stated, one of us had
perused in 1844, and the contents of which we had both of us
been privy to for many years. On representing this to Mr.
Darwin, he gave us permission to make what use we thought
proper of his memoir, &c.; and in adopting our present course,
of presenting it to the Linnean Society, we have explained to
him that we are not solely considering the relative claims to
priority of himself and his friend, but the interests of science
generally.”
Sir Charles Lyell and Sir J. D. Hooker were present at the
reading of the paper, and both, I believe, made a few remarks,
chiefly with a view of impressing on those present the
necessity of giving the most careful consideration to what
they had heard. There was, however, no semblance of a
discussion. Sir Joseph Hooker writes to me: “ The interest
excited was intense, but the subject was too novel and too
ominous for the old school to enter the lists, before armouring.
After the meeting it was talked over with bated breath:
Lyell’s approval and perhaps in a small way mine, as his
lieutenant in the affair, rather overawed the Fellows, who
would otherwise have flown out against the doctrine. We
had, too, the vantage ground of being familiar with the authors
and their theme.”
Mr. Wallace has, at my request, been so good as to allow me
to publish the following letter. Professor Newton, to whom
the letter is addressed, had submitted to Mr. Wallace his re-
collections of what the latter had related to him many years
before, and had asked Mr. Wallace for a fuller version of the
Cu. XI.) 1858—1859. 189
story. Hence the few corrections in Mr. Wallaco’s letter, for
instance bed for hammock,
A. RB. Wallace to A. Newton. Frith Hill, Godalming,
Dee, 3rd, 1887.
My pear Newron—I had hardly heard of Darwin before
going to the East, except as connected with the voyage of the
Beagle, which I think I had read. I saw him once for a few
minutes in the British Museum before I sailed. Through
Stevens, my agent, I heard that he wanted curious varieties
which he was studying. I think I wrote to him about some
varieties of ducks I had sent, and he must have written once to
me. I find on looking at his “ Life” that his first letter to mo
is given in vol. ii. p. 95, and another at p. 109, both after the
publication of my first paper. I must have heard from some
notices in the Athenzeum, I think (which I had sent me),
that he was studying varieties and species, and as I was con-
tinually thinking of the subject, I wrote to him giving some of
my notions, and making some suggestions. But at that time
I had not the remotest notion that he had already arrived at a
definite theory—still less that it was the same as occurred to
me, suddenly, in Ternate in 1858. The most interesting co-
incidence in the matter, I think, is, that I, as well as Darwin,
was led to the theory itself through Malthus—in my ease it was
his elaborate-account of the action of “ preventive checks” in
keeping the. population of savage races to a tolerably
xed butscanty number. This had strongly impressed me, and
it suddenly
thus Kept. do
flashed d upon me that all animals are necessaril
n—* ae agate for existence ”—while deri
on which I was always thinking, must necessarily often
be beneficial, and would then cause those varieties to increase
rile the injurious variations diminished.* You are quite at
liberty to mention the circumstances, but I think you have
coloured them a little highly, and introduced some slight
errors. I was lying on my bed (no hammocks in the Hast) in
the hot fit of intermittent fever, when the idea suddenly came
tome. I thought it almost all out before the fit was over, and
* This passage was published as a footnote in a review of the Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin which appeared in the Quarterly Review,
Jan. 1888. In the new edition (1891) of Natural Selection and Tropical
Nature (p. 20), Mr. Wallace has given the facts above narrated. There
is a slight and quite unimportant discrepancy between the two accounts,
viz. that in the narrative of 1891 Mr. Wallace speaks of the “ cold fit”
instead of the “ hot fit” of his aguo attack.
190 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Ou. XI.
the moment I got up began to write it down, and I believe
finished the first draft the next day.
I had no idea whatever of “dying,”--as it was not a serious
illness,—but I had the idea of working it out, so far as I was
able, when I returned home, not at all expecting that Darwin
had so long anticipated me. I can truly say now, as I said
many years ago, that Iam glad it was so; for I have not the
love of work, experiment and detail that was so pre-eminent in
Darwin, and without which anything I could have written
would never have convinced the world. If you do refer to me
at any length, can you send me a proof and I will return it to
you at once ?
Yours faithfully
Atrrep R. WALLACE.
0. D.to J. D. Hooker. Miss Wedgwood’s, Hartfield, Tunbridge
Wells (July 13th, 1858}.
My pxar Hooxer—Your letter to Wallace seems to me
perfect, quite clear and most courteous. I do not think it
could possibly be improved, and I have to-day forwarded it
with a letter of my own. I always thought it very possible
that I might be forestalled, but I fancied that I had a grand
enough soul not to care; but I found myself mistaken and
punished ; I had, however, quite resigned myself, and had
written half a letter to Wallace to give up all priority to him,
and should certainly not have changed had it not been for
Lyell’s and your quite extraordinary kindness. I assure you
I feel it, and shall not forget it. I am more than satisfied at
what took place at the Linnean Society. I had thought that
your letter and mine to Asa Gray were to be only an appendix
to Wallace’s paper. .
We go from here in a few days to the sea-side, probably to
the Isle of Wight, and on my return (after a battle with
pigeon skeletons) I will set to work at the abstract, though
how on earth I shall make anything of an abstract in thirty
pages of the Journal, I know not, but will try my best... .
I must try and see you before your journey; but do not
think I am fishing to ask you to come to Down, for you will
have no time for that.
You cannot imagine how pleased I am that the notion of
Natural Selection has acted as a purgative on your bowels
of immutability. Whenever naturalists can look at species
changing as certain, what a magnificent field will be open,—
Cu. XI.) 1858—1859. 191
on all the laws of variation—on the genealogy of all living
beings,—on their lines of migration, &. &. Pray thank
Mrs. Hooker for her very kind litile note, and pray say how
truly obliged I am, and in truth ashamed to think that she
should have had the trouble of copying my ugly MS. It was
extraordinarily kind in her. Farewell, my dear kind friend.
Yours affectionately,
P.S.—I have had some fun here in watching a slave-making
ant; for I could not help rather doubting the wonderful
stories, but I have now seen a defeated marauding party, and
I have seen a migration from one nest to another of the slave-
makers, carrying their slaves (who are house, and not field
niggers) in their mouths!
0. D. to C. Iyell. King’s Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of
Wight. July 18th (1858).
. « « We are established here for ten days, and then go on to
Shanklin, which seems more amusing to one, like myself, who
cannot walk. We hope much that the sea may do H. and L.
good, And if it does, our expedition will answer, but not
otherwise.
I have never half thanked you for all the extraordinary
trouble and kindness you showed me about Wallace’s affair.
Hooker told me what was done at the Linnean Society, and I
am far more than satisfied, and I do not think that Wallace
can think my conduct unfair in allowing you and Hooker to do
whatever you thought fair. I certainly was a little annoyed
to lose all priority, but had resigned myself to my fate. -I am
going to prepare a longer abstract ; but it is really impossible
to do justice to the subject, except by giving the facts on
which each conclusion is grounded, and that will, of course, be
absolutely impossible. Your name and Hooker’s name ap-
pearing as in any way the least interested in my work will, I
am certain, have the most important bearing in leading people
to consider the subject without prejudice. I look at this as so
very important, that I am almost glad of Wallace’s paper for
having led to this.
My dear Lyell, yours most gratefully.
The following letter refers to the proof-sheets of the
Linnean paper. The ‘introduction’ means the prefatory
letter signed by Sir C. Lyell and Sir J. D. Hooker.
192 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. ([On. XL.
C. D. to J. D. Hooker. King’s Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of
Wight. July 21st [1858].
My pear Hooxer—lI received only yesterday the proof-
sheets, which I now return. I think your introduction cannot
be improved.
I am disgusted with my bad writing. I could not improve
it, without rewriting all, which would not be fair or worth
while, as I have begun on a better abstract for the Linnean
Society. My excuse is that it never was intended for publi-
cation. I have made only a few corrections in the style;
but I cannot make it decent, but I hope moderately intelligible.
I suppose some one will correct the revise. (Shall I ?)
Could I have a clean proof to send to Wallace ?
I have not yet fully considered your remarks on big genera
(but your general concurrence is of the highest possible interest
to me); nor shall I be able till I re-read my MS.; but you
may rely on it that you never make a remark to me which is
lost from inattention. I am particularly glad you do not object
to my stating your objections in a modified form, for ws
always struck me as very important, and as haying muc
inherent value, whether or no they were fatal to my notions.
I will consider and reconsider all your remarks. . . .
I am very glad at what you say about my Abstract, but you
may rely on it that I will condense to the utmost. I would
aid in money if it is too long.* In how many ways you haye
aided me!
Yours affectionately.
The “ Abstract” mentioned in the last sentence of the pre-
ceding letter was in fact the Origin of Species, on which he
now set to work. In his Autobiography (p. 41) he speaks of
beginning to write in September, but in his Diary he wrote,
“ July 20 to Aug. 12, at Sandown, began Abstract of Species
book.” ‘Sep. 16, Recommenced Abstract.” The book was
begun with the idea that it would be published as a paper, or
series of papers, by the Linnean Society, and it was only in
the late autumn that it became clear that it must take the form
of an independent volume.
* That is to say, he would help to pay for the printing, if it should
prove too long for the Linnean Society.
On. XI] 1858—1859. 193
CO. D. to J. D. Hooker. Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of
Wight. [August 1858.]
My par Hooxer,—I write merely to say that the MS.
came safely two or three days ago. I am much obliged for
the correction of style: I find it unutterably difficult to write
clearly. When we meet I must talk over a few points on the
subject.
You speak of going to the sea-side somewhere; we think
this the nicest sea-side place which we have ever seen, and we
like Shanklin better than other spots on the south coast of the
island, though many are charming and prettier, so that I
would suggest your thinking of this place. We are on the
actual coast ; but tastes differ so much about places.
If you go to Broadstairs, when there is a strong wind from
the coast of France and in fine, dry, warm weather, look out
and you will probably (!) see thistle-seeds blown across the
Channel. The other day I saw one blown right inland, and
then in a few minutes a second one and then a third; and I
said to myself, God bless me, how many thistles there must be
in France; and I wrote a letter in imagination to you. But I
then looked at the low clouds, and noticed that they were not
ing inland, so I feared a screw was loose, I then walked
beyond a headland and found the wind parallel to the coast,
and on this very headland a noble bed of thistles, which by
every wide eddy were blown far out to sea, and then came
right in at right angles to the shore! One day such a number
of insects were washed up by the tide, and I brought to life
thirteen species of Coleoptera ; not that I suppose these came
from France. But do you watch for thistle-seed as you saunter
along the coast....
C. D. to J. D. Hooker. [Down] Oct. 6th, 1858.
..- Tf you have or can make leisure, I should very much
like to hear news of Mrs. Hooker, yourself, and the children.
Where did you go, and what did you do and aredoing? There
is a comprehensive text.
You cannot tell how I enjoyed your little visit here, I¢
did me much good. If Harvey* is still with you, pray
remember me very kindly to him.
... I am working most steadily at my Abstract [Origin of
Species], but it grows to an inordinate length; yet fully to
* W. H. Harvey, born 1811, died 1866: a well-known botanist.
o
194 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cn. XL
make my view clear (and never giving briefly more than a fact
or two, and slurring over difficulties), I cannot make it shorter.
It will yet take me three or four months; so slow do I work,
though never idle. You cannot imagine what a service you
have done me in making me make this Abstract; for though I
thought I had got all clear, it has clarified my brains very_
much, by making me weigh the relative importance of the
several elements.
He was not so fully occupied but that he could find time to
help his boys in their collecting. He sent a short notice to
the Entomologists’ Weekly Intelligencer, June 25th, 1859,
recording the capture of Licinus silphoides, Clytus mysticus,
Panageus 4-pustulatus. The notice begins with the words,
“We three very young collectors having lately taken in the
parish of Down,” &c., and is signed by three of his boys, but
was clearly not written by them. I have a vivid recollection
of the pleasure of turning out my bottle of dead beetles for m
father to name, and the excitement, in which he fully hase
when any of them proved to be uncommon ones, The following
letter to Mr. Fox (Nov. 13th, 1858), illustrates this point :—
“T am reminded of old days by my third boy having just
begun collecting beetles, and he caught the other day Brachinus
crepitans, of immortal Whittlesea Mere memory. My blood
boiled with old ardour when he caught a Licinus—a prize
unknown to me.”
And again to Sir John Lubbock :—
“T feel like an old war-horse at the sound of the trumpet
when I read about the capturing of rare beetles—is not this a
magnanimous simile for a decayed entomologist ?—It really
almost makes me long to begin collecting again. Adios.
“< Floreat Entomologia ’!—to which toast at Cambridge I
have drunk many a glass of wine. So again, ‘ Floreat Ento-
mologia.’—N.B. I have not now been drinking any glasses full
of wine.”
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down, Jan. 23rd, 1859.
. » . L enclose letters to you and me from Wallace. I ad-
mire extremely the spirit in which they are written. I never
felt very sure what he would say. He must be an amiable
man. Please return that to me, and Lyell ought to be told
how well satisfied he is. These letters have vividly brought
before me how much I owe to your and Lyell’s most kind and
generous conduct in all this affair.
. . » How glad I shall be when the Abstract is finished, and
I can rest! ...
4
¢
=
On. XI.) 1858—1859. 195
C. D. to A. R. Wallace. Down, Jan. 25th [1859).
My pzar Sir,—I was extremely much pleased at receiving
three days ago your letter to me and that to Dr. Hooker.
Permit me to say how heartily I admire the spirit in which
they are written. Though I had absolutely nothing whatever
to do in leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought a fair
course of action, yet I naturally could not but feel anxious to
hear what your impression would be. I owe indirectly much
to you and them; for I almost think that Lyell would have
proved right, and I should never have completed my larger
work, for I have found my Abstract [Origin of Species| hard
enough with my poor health, but now, thank God, Iam in my
last chapter but one, My Abstract will make a small volume
of 400 or 500 pages. Whenever published, I will, of course,
send you a copy, and then you will see what I mean about the
part which I believe selection has played with domestic pro-
ductions. It is a very different part, as you suppose, from
that played by “ Natural Selection.” I sent off, by the same
address as this note,a copy of the Journal of the Linnean
Society, and subsequently I have sent some half-dozen copies
of the paper. I have many other copies at your disposal... .
I am glad to hear that you have been attending to birds’
nests. I have done so, though almost exclusively under one
point of view, viz. to show that instincts vary, so that selection
could work on and improve them. Few other instincts, so to
speak, can be preserved in a Museum.
Many thanks for your offer to look after horses’ stripes ; if
there are any donkeys, pray add them. I am delighted to hear
that you have collected bees’ combs. .... This is an especial
hobby of mine, and I think I can throw a light on the subject.
If you can collect duplicates at no very great expense, I
should be glad of some specimens for myself with some bees of
each kind. Young, growing, and irregular combs, and those
which have not had pups, are most valuable for measurements
and examination, Their edges should be well protected against
abrasion.
Eyery one whom I have seen has thought your paper very
well written and interesting. It puts my extracts (written in
1839,* now just twenty years ago!), which I must say in
apology were never for an instant intended for publication,
into the shade.
196 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIBS. (On. XL
You ask about Lyell’s frame of mind. I think he is some-
what staggered, but does not give in, and speaks with horror,
often to me, of what a thing it would be, and what a job it
would be for the next edition of The Principles, if he were
“ perverted.” But he is most candid and honest, and I think
will end by being perverted. Dr. Hooker has become almost
as heterodox as you or I, and I look at Hooker as by far the
most capable judge in Europe.
Most cordially do I wish you health and entire success in
all your pursuits, and, God knows, if admirable zeal and
energy deserve success, most amply do you deserve it. I look
at my own career as nearly run out. If I can publish my
Abstract and perhaps my greater work on the same subject,
I shall look at my course as done.
Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely.
In March 1859 the work was telling heavily on him. He
wrote to Fox :—
“T can see daylight through my work, and am now finall
correcting my chapters for the press; and I hope in a mon
or six weeks to have proof-sheets. I am weary of my work.
It is a very odd thing that I have no sensation that I overwork
my brain; but facts compel me to conclude that my brain was
never formed for much thinking. We are resolved to go for
two or three months, when I have finished, to Ilkley, or some
such place, to see if I can anyhow give my health a good start,
for it certainly has been wretched of late, and has incapacitated
me for everything. You do me injustice when you think that
I work for fame; I value it to a certain extent; but, if I know
myself, I work from a sort of instinct to try to make out
trath.”
O. D. to O. Lyell. Down, March 28th (1859).
My prar Lyrt1i,—If I keep decently well, I hope to be able
to go to press with my volume early in May. This being so,
I want much to beg a little advice from you. From an ex-
pression in Lady Lyell’s note, I fancy that you have spoken to ©
Murray. Is it so? And is he willing to publish my Ab-
stract?* If you will tell me whether anything, and what has
passed, I will then write to him. Does he know ait all of the
subject of the book? Secondly, can you advise me whether I
had better state what terms of publication I should prefer, or
* The Origin of Species.
~~ Se
Ou. XI) 1858—1859. 197
first ask him to propose terms? And what do you think woulé
be fair terms for an edition? Share profits, or what ?
Lastly, will you be so very kind as to look at the enclosed
title and give me your opinion and any criticisms ; you must
remember that, if I have health, and it appears worth doing, I
a a much larger and full book on the same subject nearly
y:
My Abstract will be about five hundred pages of the size
of your first edition of the Elements of Geology.
Pray forgive me troubling you with the above queries ; and
you shall have no more trouble on the subject. I hope the
world goes well with you, and that you are getting on with
your various works.
I am working very hard for me, and long to finish and be
free and try to recover some health.
My dear Lyell, ever yours.
P.S.—Would you advise me to tell Murray that my book is
not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That
I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in
any discussion about Genesis, &c. &c., and only give facts, and
such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.
Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he
cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not
a than any Geological Treatise which runs slap counter to
enesis.
Enclosure.
AN ABSTRACT OF AN ESSAY
ON THE
ORIGIN
or
SPECIES AND VARIETIES
THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION
BY
CHar.tes Darwin, M.A,
BELLOW OF THE ROYAL, GEOLOGICAL, AND LINNEAN SOCTETIFS,
LONDON :,
&e, &e. &e, &o.
1859.
198 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, (Cu. XE.
C. D. to C. Lyell. Down, March 30th [1859].
My pear Lyztt,—You have been uncommonly kind in all
you have done. You not only have saved me much trouble
and some anxiety, but have done all incomparably better thanI —
could have done it. I am much pleased at all you say about
Murray. I will write either to-day or to-morrow to him, and
will send shortly a large bundle of MS., but unfortunately I
cannot for a week, as the first three chapters are in the
copyists’ hands.
I am sorry about Murray objecting to the term Abstract, as
I look at it as the only possible apology for not giving refer-
ences and facts in full, but I will defer to him and you. I am
also sorry about the term “natural selection.” I hope to
retain it with explanation somewhat as thus :-—
“ Through natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races.”
Why I like the term is that it is constantly used in all works
on breeding, and I am surprised that it is not familiar to
Murray ; but I have so long studied such works that I have
ceased to be a competent judge.
I again most truly and cordially thank you for your really
valuable assistance.
Yours most truly.
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down, April 2nd (1859),
...I wrote to him [Mr. Murray] and gave him the
headings of the chapters, and told him he could not have the
MS. for ten days or so; and this morning I received a letter,
offering me handsome terms, and agreeing to publish without
seeing the MS.! So he is eager enough; I think I should
haye been cautious, anyhow, but, owing to your letter, I told
him most explicitly that I accept his offer solely on condition
that, after he has seen part or all the MS. he has full power
of retracting. You will think me presumptuous, but I think
my book will be popular to a certain extent (enough to ensure
[against] heavy loss) amongst scientific and semi-scientifie
men; why I think so is, because I have found in conversation
so great and surprising an interest amongst such men, and
some 0-scientifie [non-scientific] men on this subject, and all
my chapters are not nearly so dry and dull as that which you
have read on geographical distribution. Anyhow, M
ought to be the best judge, and if he chooses to publish it, I
Cu. XI] 1858—1859. 199
think I may wash my hands of all responsibility. Iam sure
my friends, é.e. Lyell and you, have been extraordinarily kind
in troubling yourselves on the matter.
I shall be delighted to see you the day before Good Friday ;
there would be one advantage for you in any other day—as
I believe both my boys come home on that day—and it would
be almost impossible that I could send the carriage for you.
There will, I believe, be some relations in the house—but I
hope you will not care for that, as we shall easily get as much
talking as my imbecile state allows. I shall deeply enjoy
seeing you.
. . - Lam tired, so no more.
P.S.—Please to send, well tied up with strong string, my
Geographical MS. towards the latter half of next week—i.e.
7th or 8th—that I may send it with more to Murray ; and God
help him if he tries to read it.
. . - L cannot help a little doubting whether Lyell would
take much pains to induce Murray to publish my book; this
was not done at my request, and it rather grates against my
ride.
. I know that Lyell has been infinitely kind about my affair,
but your dashed [7.e. underlined] “ induce” gives the idea that
Lyell had unfairly urged Murray.
0. D. to J. Murray. Down, April 5th (1859).
My prar §1r,—I send by this post, the Title (with some
remarks on a separate page), and the first three chapters. If
you have patience to read all Chapter I., I honestly think you
will have a fair notion of the interest of the whole book. It
may be conceit, but I believe the subject will interest the
public, and I am sure that the views are original. If you
think otherwise, I must repeat my request that you will freely
reject my work ; and though I shall be a little disappointed, I
shall be in no way injured.
If you choose to read Chapters II. and III., you will have a
dull and rather abstruse chapter, anda plain and interesting
one, in my opinion.
As soon as you have done with the MS., please to send it
by careful messenger, and plainly directed, to Miss G. Tollett,* *
14, Queen Anne Street, Cavendish Square.
This lady, being an excellent judge of style, is going to look
out for errors for me.
* Miss Tollett was an old friend of the family.
200 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. [On. XI.
You must take your own time, but the sooner you finish, the
sooner she will, and the sooner I shall get to press, which I so
earnestly wish.
I presume you will wish to see Chapter IV.,* the key-stone
of my arch, and Chapters X. and XI., but please to inform me
on this head.
My dear Sir, yours sincerely.
On April 11th he wrote to Hooker :—
“JT write one line to say that I heard from Murray yester-
day, and he says he has read the first three chapters of
[my] MS. (and this includes a very dull one), and he abides by
his offer. Hence he does not want more MS., and you can
send my Geographical chapter when it pleases you.”
' Part of the MS. seems to have been lost on its way back to
my father. He wrote (April 14) to Sir J. D. Hooker :—
“ T have the old MS., otherwise the loss would have killed
me! ‘The worst is now that it will cause delay in getting to
press, and far worst of all, I lose all advantage of your havin
looked over my chapter, except the third part returned.
am very sorry Mrs. Hooker took the trouble of copying the
two pages.”
C. D. to J. D. Hooker. [April or May, 1859.}
. - - Please do not say to any one that I thought my book on
species would be fairly popular, and have a fairly remunerative
sale (which was the height of my ambition), for if it prove a
dead failure, it would make me the more ridiculous,
I enclose a criticism, a taste of the future—
Rev. S. Haughton’s Address to the Geological Society, Dublin.t
“ This speculation of Messrs. Darwin and Wallace would
not be worthy of notice were it not for the weight of authority
of the names (i.e. Lyell’s and yours), under whose auspices it
has been brought forward. If it means what it says, it is a
truism ; if it means anything more, it is contrary to CnD
* In the first edition Chapter iv. was on Natural Selection.
+t The following characteristic acknowledgment of the help he received -
occurs in a letter to Hooker, of about this time: “I never did pick any
one’s pocket, but whilst writing my present chapter I keep on feeling
(even when differing most from you) just as if I were stealing from jou
so much do I owe to your writings and conversation, so much more than
mere acknowledgments show.”
t Feb. 9th, 1858.
Cu. XI] 1858—1859. 201
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down, May 11th [1859}.
My prar Hooxer,—Thank you for telling me about
obscurity of style. But on my life no nigger with lash over
him could have worked harder at clearness than I have done.
But the very difficulty to me, of itself leads to the probability
that I fail. Yet one lady who has read all my MS. has found
only two or three obscure sentences ; but Mrs. Hooker having
so found it, makes me tremble. I will do my best in proofs.
You are a good man to take the trouble to write about it.
With respect to our mutual muddle,* I never for a moment
thought we could not make our ideas clear to each other by
talk, or if either of us had time to write in extenso.
I imagine from some expressions (but if you ask me what,
I could not answer) that you look at variability as some
necessary contingency with organisms, and further that there
is some necessary tendency in the variability to go on diverging
in character or degree. If you do,I do not agree. *
, it is of no signification fo us. It was on such points
ancied that we perhaps started differently.
I fear that my book will not deserve at all the pleasant
things you say about it, and Good Lord, how I do long to have
done with it!
Since the above was written, I have received and have been
much interested by A. Gray. I am delighted at his note about
my and Wallace’s paper. He will go round, for it is futile to
give up very many species, and stop at an arbitrary line at
others. It is what my father called Unitarianism, “a feather-
bed to catch a falling Christian.”. . .
0. D. to J. Murray. Down, June 14th [1859].
My pzar S1r,—The diagram will do very well, and I will
send it shortly to Mr. West to have a few trifling corrections
made.
. I get on very slowly with proofs. I remember writing to
you that I thought there would be not much correction. I
* “When I go over the chapter I will see what I can do, but I hardly
know how I am obscure, and I think we are somehow in a mutual
muddle with respect to each other, from starting from some fundamentally
different notions.”—Letter of May 6th, 1859,
202 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XI.
honestly wrote what I thought, but was most grievously
mistaken. I find the style incredibly bad, and most difficult
to make clear and smooth. I am extremely sorry to. say, on
account of expense, and loss of time for me, that the corrections
are very heavy, as heavy as possible. But from casual glances,
I still hope that later chapters are not so badly written. How
I could haye written so badly is quite inconceivable, but I
suppose it was owing to my whole attention being fixed on the
general line of argument, and not on details. All I can say is,
that I am very sorry.
Yours very sincerely.
C. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down [Sept-] 11th [1859).
My pear Hooxer,—I corrected the last proof yesterday,
and I have now my revises, index, &c, which will take me
near to the end of the month, So that the neck of my work,
thank God, is broken.
I write now to say that I am uneasy in my conscience about
hesitating to look over your proofs,* but I was feeling
miserably unwell and shattered when I wrote. I do not
suppose I could be of hardly any use, but if I could, pray
seni me any proofs. I should be (and fear I was) the most
ungrateful man to hesitate to do anything for you after some
fifteen or more years’ help from you.
As soon as ever I have fairly finished I shall be off to Ikley,
or some other Hydropathic establishment. But I shall be
some time yet, as my proofs have been so utterly obscured
with corrections, that I have to correct heavily on revises.
Murray proposes to publish the first week in November.
Oh, good heavens, the relief to my head and body to banish
the whole subject from my mind!
I hope you do not think me a brute about your. proof-
sheets.
Farewell, yours affectionately.
Tho following letter is interesting as showing with what a
very moderate amount of recognition he was satisfied,—and
more than satisfied.
Sir Charles Lyell was President of the Geological section at
the meeting of the British Association at Aberdeen in 1859.
In his address he said :—“ On this difficult and mysterious
subject [Evolution] a work will very shortly appear by Mr.
* Of Hooker’s Flora of Australia.
On. XL] 1858—1859. 203
Charles Darwin, the result of twenty years of observations and
experiments in Zoology, Botany, and Geology, by which he
. * . . id Ae
el . Sa. sy
¢ af * . a hats ee |
succeeded by his investigations and reasonings in throwing a
flood of light on many classes of phenomena connected with
the affinities, geographical distribution, and geological suc-
cession of organic beings, for which no other hypothesis has
been able, or has even attempted to account.”
My father wrote :—
“ You once gave me intense pleasure, or rather delight, by
the way you were interested, in a manner I never expected,
in my Coral Reef notions, and now you have again given me
similar pleasure by the manner you have noticed my species
work. Nothing could be more satisfactory to me, and I thank
you for myself, and even more for the subject's sake, as I
know well that the sentence will make many fairly consider
the subject, instead of ridiculing it.”
And again, a few days later :—
“ T do thank you for your eulogy at Aberdeen. I have been
so wearied pent exhausted of late that I have for months
doubted whether I have not been throwing away time and
labour for nothing. But nowI care not what the universal
world says; I have always found you right, and certainly on
this occasion I am not going to doubt for the first time.
Whether you go far, or but a very short way with me and others
who believe as I do, I am contented, for my work cannot be
in vain. You would laugh if you knew how often I have read
your paragraph, and it has acted like a little dram.”
0. D. to O. Lyell. Down, Sept. 30th [1859].
My pear Lyxzt1,—I sent off this morning the last sheets,
but without index, which is notin type. I look at you as my
Lord High Chancellor in Natural Science, and therefore I
request you, after you have finished, just to re-run over the
heads in the recapitulation-part of the last chapter. I shall be
deeply anxious to hear what you decide (if you are able to
decide) on the balance of the pros and contras given in my
volume, and of such other pros and contras as may occur to
you. I hope that you will think that I have given the
difficulties fairly. I feel an entire conviction that if you are
204 WRITING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XL
now staggered to any moderate extent, you will come more
and more round, the longer you keep the subject at all before
your mind. I remember well how many long years it was
before I could look into the face of some of the difficulties
and not feel quite abashed. I fairly struck my colours before
the case of neuter insects.*
problems were than to solve them, so far as I have succeeded
in doing, and this seems to me rather curious. Well, good or
bad, my work, thank God, is over; and hard work, I can
assure you, I have had, and much work which has never borne
fruit. You can see, by the way I am scribbling, that I have
an idle and rainy afternoon. I was not able to start for Ikley
yesterday as I was too unwell; but I hope to get there on
Tuesday or Wednesday. Do, I beg you, when you have
finished my book and thought a little over it, let me hear from
you. Nevermind and pitch into me, if you think it requisite ;
some future day, in London possibly, you may give me a few
criticisms in detail, that is, if you have scribbled any remarks
on the margin, for the chance of a second edition.
Murray has printed 1250 copies, which seems to me rather
too large an edition, but I hope he will not lose.
I make as much fuss about my book as if it were my first.
Forgive me, and believe me, my dear Lyell,
Yours most sincerely.
The book was at last finished and printed, and he wrote to
Mr. Murray :—
f Ilkley, Yorkshire [1859].
My par §1r,—I have received your kind note and the
copy ; I am infinitely pleased and proud at the appearance of
my child.
* Origin of Species, 6th edition, vol. ii. p. 357. “But with the
working ant we have an insect differing greatly from its parents, yet
absolutely sterile, so that it could neyer have transmitted successively
acquired modifications of structure or instinct to its progeny. It may
well be asked how is it possible to reconcile this case with the theory of
natural selection?”
Cu. XI.) 1858—1859. 205
I quite agree to all you propose about price. But you are
really too generous about the, to me, scandalously heavy
corrections. Are you not acting unfairly towards yourself?
Would it not be better at least to share the £72 8s.? I shall
be fully satisfied, for I had no business to send, though quite
unintentionally and unexpectedly, such badly composed MS. to
the printers.
Thank you for your kind offer to distribute the copies to my
friends and assisters as soon as possible. Do not trouble
yourself much about the foreigners, as Messrs. Williams and
Norgate have most kindly offered to do their best, and they are
accustomed to send to all parts of the world.
I will pay for my copies whenever you like. I am so glad
that you were so good as to undertake the publication of my
book.
My dear Sir, yours very sincerely,
Caries Darwin.
The further history of the book is given in the next
chapter.
( 206 ) Z
CHAPTER XII.
THE PUBLICATION OF THE ‘ ORIGIN OF SPECIES,’
“Remember that your verdict will probably have more infiuence than
my book in deciding whether such views as I hold will be admitted or
rejected at present; in the future I cannot doubt about their admittance,
and our seri will marvel as much about the current belief as we do
about fossil shells haying been thought to have been created as we now
see them.”—From a letier to Lyell, Sept. 1859.
ooTOBER Srp, 1859, To pecumBER 3l1st, 1859.
Unprr the date of October Ist, 1859, in my father’s Diary
occurs the entry :—“ Finished proofs (thirteen months and ten
days) of Abstract on Origin of Species ; 1250 copies printed.
The first edition was published on November 24th, and all
copies sold first day.”
In October he was, as we have seen in the last chapter, at
Tikley, near Leeds: there he remained with his family until
December, and on the 9th of that month he was again at
Down. The only other entry in the Diary for this year is as
follows :—“ During end of November and beginning of
December, employed in correcting for second edition of 3000
copies ; multitude of letters.”
The first and a few of the subsequent letters refer to proof-
sheets, and to early copies of the Origin which were sent to
friends before the book was published. |
C. Lyell io C. Darwin. October 3rd, 1859.
My par Darwin,—lI have just finished your volume, and
right glad I am that I did my best with Hooker to persuade
you to publish it without waiting for a time which probably
could never have arrived, though you lived till the age of a |
hundred, when you had prepared all your facts on which you
ground so many grand generalizations.
It is a splendid case of close reasoning, and long substantial
argument throughout so many pages; the condensation im-
mense, too great perhaps for the uninitiated, but an effective and
Cu. XII] OCTOBER 1859, TO DECEMBER, 1859. 207
importattt preliminary statement, which will admit, even before
your detailed proofs appear, of some occasional useful exempli-
fication, such as your pigeons and cirripedes, of which you
make such excellent use.
I mean that, when, as I fully expect, a new edition is soon
called for, you may here and there insert an actual case to relieve
the vast number of abstract propositions. So far as I am
concerned, I am so well prepared to take your statements of
facts for granted, that I do not think the “ piéces justificatives ”
when published will make much difference, and I have long
seen most clearly that if any concession is made, all that you
claim in your concluding pages will follow. It is this which
has made me so long hesitate, always feeling that the case of
Man and his races, and of other animals, and that of plants is
one and the same, and that if a “ vera causa” be admitted for
one, instead of a purely unknown and imaginary one, such as
the word “ Creation,” all the consequences must follow.
t fear I have not time to-day, as I am just leaving this
place to indulge in a variety of comments, and to say how
much I was delighted with Oceanic Islands—Rudimentary
Organs—Embryology—the genealogical key to the Natural
System, Geographical Distribution, and if I went on I should
be copying the heads of all your chapters. But I will say a
word of the Recapitulation, in case some slight alteration, or,
at least, omission of a word or two be still possible in that.
In the first place, at p. 480, it cannot surely be said that
the most eminent naturalists have rejected the view of the
mutability of species? You do not mean to ignore G. St.
Hilaire and Lamarck. As to the latter, you may say, that in
regard to animals you substitute natural selection for volition
to a certain considerable extent, but in his theory of the
changes of plants he could not introduce volition ; he may, no
doubt, have laid an undue comparative stress on changes in
physical conditions, and too little on those of contending
organisms. He at least was for the universal mutability of
species and for a genealogical link between the first and the
present. The men of his school also appealed to domesticated
varieties, (Do you mean living naturalists ?) *
The first page of this most important summary gives the
adversary an advantage, by putting forth so abruptly and
crudely such a startling objection as the formation of “ the
* In his next letter to Lyell my father writes: “The omission of
‘living’ before ‘eminent’ naturalists was a dreadful blunder.” In the
first edition, as published, the blunder is corrected by the addition of the
word “ living.”
208 PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPEOIES. (Ou. XII.
eye,” * not by means analogous to man’s reason, or rather by
some power immeasurably superior to human reason, but by
superinduced variation like those of which a cattle-breeder
avails himself. Pages would be required thus to state an
objection and remove it. It would be better, as you wish to
persuade, to say nothing. Leave out several sentences, and in
a future edition bring it out more fully.
. . - But these are small matters, mere spots on the sun.
Your comparison -of the letters retained in words, when no
longer wanted for the sound, to rudimentary organs is excellent,
as both are truly genealogical. ...
You enclose your sheets in old MS.,so the Post Office very
properly charge them, as letters, 2d. extra. I wish all their
fines on MS. were worth as much. I paid 4s. 6d. for such wash
the other day from Paris, from a man who can prove 800
deluges in the valley of Seine.
With my hearty congratulations to you on your grand work,
believe me,
Ever very affectionately yours.
C. D. to L. Agassiz.t Down, November 11th [1859].
My puar Sir,—I have ventured to send you a copy of my
book (as yet only an abstract) on the Origin of Species. As
the conclusions at which I have arrived on several points differ
so widely from yours, I have thought (should you at any time
read my volume) that you might think that I had sent it to
you out of a spirit of defiance or bravado; but I assure you
that I act under a wholly different frame of mind. I hope that
* Darwin wrote to Asa Gray tn 1860:—“ The eye to this day gives
me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my
reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.”
+ Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz, born at Mortier, on the lake of Morat
in Switzerland, on May 28th, 1807, He emigrated to America in 1846,
where he spent the rest of his life, and died Dee. 14th, 1873. His Life,
written by his widow, was published in 1885. The following extract
from a letter to Agassiz (1850) is worth giving, as showing how my
father regarded him, and it may be added that his cordial feeling
towards the great American naturalist remained strong to the end of his
life :—
“TI have seldom been more deeply gratified than by receiving your
most kind present of Lake 5 eed I had heard of it, and had much
wished to read it, but I confess that it was the very great honour of
haying in my possession a work with your autograph as a presentation
copy, that has given me such lively and sincere pleasure. I cordia
thank you for it. I have begun to read it with uncommon inte
which I see will increase as I go on,”
On. XII] OCTOBER 1859, TO DECEMBER 1859. 209
you will at least give me credit, however erroneous you
may think my conclusions, for having earnestly endeavoured
to arrive at the truth. With sincere respect, I beg leave to
remain,
Yours very faithfully.
He sent copies of the Origin, accompanied by letters similar
to the last, to M. De Candolle, Dr. Asa Gray, Falconer and
Mr. Jenyns (Blomefield).
To Henslow he wrote (Nov. 11th, 1859) :—
“ T have told Murray to send a copy of my book on Species
to you, my dear old master in Natural History; I fear, how-
ever, that you will not approve of your pupil in this case. The
book in its present state does not show the amount of labour
which I have bestowed on the subject.
“Tf you have time to read it carefully, and would take the
trouble to point out what parts seem weakest to you and what
best, it would be a most material aid to me in writing my bigger
book, which I hope to commence in a few months. You know
also how highly I value your judgment. But I am not so un-
reasonable as to wish or expect you to write detailed and
lengthy criticisms, but merely a few general remarks, pointing
out the weakest parts.
“Tf you are in ever so slight a degree staggered (which I
hardly expect ) on the immutability of species, then I am
convinced with further reflection you will become more and
more staggered, for this has been the process through which
my mind has gone.”
0. D. to A. R. Wallace. Ilkley, November 13th, 1859.
My pear S1r,—I have told Murray to send you by post (if
possible) a copy of my book, and I hope that you will receive
it at nearly the same time with this note. (N.B. I have got a
bad finger, which makes me write extra badly.) If you are so
inclined, I should very much like to hear your general im-
pression of the book, as you have thought so profoundly on the
subject, and in so nearly the same channel with myself. I
hope there will be some little new to you, but I fear not much.
Remember it is only an abstract, and very much condensed.
God knows what the public will think. No one has read it,
except Lyell, with whom I have had much correspondence.
Hooker thinks him a complete convert, but he does not seem
so in his letters to me; but is evidently deeply interested in
the subject. I do not think your share in the theory will be
P
210 PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XI.
overlooked by the real judges, as Hooker, Lyell, Asa Gray, &e.
I have- heard from Mr. Sclater that your paper on the Malay
chipelago has been read at the Linnean Society, and that
e was extremely much interested by it.
I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months, owing
to the state of my health, and therefore I really have no news
to tell you. Iam writing this at Ilkley Wells, where I have
been with my family for the last six weeks, and shall stay for
some few weeks longer. As yet I have profited very little,
God knows when I shall have strength for my bigger book.
I sincerely hope that you keep your health; I suppose that
you will be thinking of returning * soon with your magni-
ficent collections, and still grander mental materials. You
will be puzzled how to publish, The Royal Society fund will
be worth your consideration. With every good wish, pray
believe me,
Yours very sincerely,
P.S.—I think that I told you before that Hooker is a
complete convert. If I can convert Huxley I shall be
content.
0. Darwin to W. B. Carpenter. November 19th [1859].
... . If, after reading my book, you are able to come to a con-
clusion in any degree definite, will you think me very unreason-
able in asking you to let me hear from you? I do not ask for
a long discussion, but merely for a brief idea of your general
impression. From your widely extended knowledge, habit of
investigating the truth, and abilities, I should value your
opinion in the very highest rank. Though I, of course,
believe in the truth of my own doctrine, I suspect that no
belief is vivid until shared by others. As yet I know only
one believer, but I look at him as of the greatest authority, —
viz. Hooker. When I think of the many cases of men who ~
have studied one subject for years, and have persuaded them-
selves of the truth of the foolishest doctrines, I feel sometimes
a little frightened, whether I may not be one of these
monomariacs.
Again pray excuse this, I fear, unreasonable request. A
short note would suffice, and I could bear a hostile verdict, and
shall have to bear many a one.
Yours very sincerely.
* Mr. Wallace was in the Malay Archipelago.
Cx. XII] OOTOBER 1859, TO DECEMBER 1859. 211
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. bt , Yorkshire. [November,
9.
My par Hooxrr,—lI have just read a review on my book
in the Athenzeum,* and it excites my curiosity much who is the
author. If you should hear who writes in the Atheneum I
wish you would tell me. It seems to me well done, but the
reviewer gives no new objections, and, being hostile, passes
over every single argument in favour of the doctrine... . I
fear, from the tone of the review, that I have written in a
conceited and cocksure style,t which shames me a little.
There is another review of which I should like to know the
author, viz. of H. C. Watson in the Gardeners’ Chronicle.t
Some of the remarks are like yours, and he does deserve
punishment ; but surely the review is too severe. Don’t you
think so?...
I have heard from Carpenter, who, I think, is likely to be a
convert. Also from Quatrefages, who is inclined to go a long
way with us. He says that he exhibited in his lecture
a diagram closely like mine!
J. D. Hooker to 0. Darwin. Monday [Nov. 21, 1859].
My prar Darwiy,—I am a sinner not to have written you
ere this, if only to thank you for your glorious book—what a
mass of close reasoning on curious facts and fresh phenomena
—it is capitally written, and will be very successful. I say
this on the strength of two or three plunges into as many
chapters, for I have not yet attempted to read it. Lyell, with
whom we are staying, is perfectly enchanted, and is absolutely
gloating over it. I must accept your compliment to me, and
acknowledgment of supposed assistance § from me, as the warm
tribute of affection from an honest (though deluded) man, and
furthermore accept it as very pleasing to my vanity; but, my
dear fellow, neither my name nor my judgment nor my
assistance deserved any such compliments, and if I am dis-
honest enough to be pleased with what I don’t deserve, it must
* Noy. 19, 1859.
+ The Reviewer of the author’s “ evident self-satisfaction,” and
of his disposing of all difficulties “ more or less confidently.”
¢ A review of the fourth volume of Watson’s Cybele Britannica, Gard.
Chron., 1859, p. 911.
§ See the in, first edition, p. 3, where Sir J. D. Hooker’s help is
conspicuously wledged. .
212 PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XIl.
just pass. How different the book reads from the MS. I see
I shall have much to talk over with you. Those lazy
printers have not finished my luckless Essay: which, beside
your book, will look like a ragged handkerchief beside a Royal
Standard. ...
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. [November, 1859.]
My prar Hooxer,—lI cannot help it, I must thank you for
your affectionate and most kind note. My head will be turned.
By Jove, I must try and get a bit modest. I was a little
chagrined by the review.* I hope it was not ——. As
advocate, he might think himself justified in giving the
argument only on one side. But the manner in which he
drags in immortality, and sets the priests at me, and leaves
me to their mercies, is base. He would, on no account, burn
me, but he will get the wood ready, and tell the black beasts
how to catch me.... It would be unspeakably grand if
Huxley were to lecture on the subject, but I can see this is a
mere chance; Faraday might think it too unorthodox.
... IT had a letter from Nesp 0 with such tremendous
praise of my book, that modesty (as I am trying to cultivate
that difficult herb) prevents me sending it to you, which I
should have liked to have done, as he is very modest about
himself.
You have cockered me up to that extent, that I now feel I
can face a score of savage reviewers. I suppose you are still
with the Lyells. Give my kindest remembrance to them, I
triumph to hear that he continues to approve.
Believe me, your would-be modest friend.
The following passage from a letter to Lyell shows how
strongly he felt on the subject of Lyell’s adherence :—*I
rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of
modification in your new edition ; + nothing, I am convinced,
could be more important for its success. I honour you most
sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master,
* This refers to the review in the Athenzum, Nov. 19th, 1859, where
the reviewer, after touching on the theological aspects of the book, leaves
the author to “the mercies of the Divinity Hall, the College, the Lecture
Room, and the Museum.”
+ It appears from Sir Charles Lyell’s published letters that he
intended to admit the doctrine of evolution in a new edition of the
Manual, but this was not age ag till 1865. He was, however, at work
on the Antiquity of Man in 1860, and had already determined to discuss
the Origin at the end of the book,
Ca. XIL] OCTOBER 1859, TO DECEMBER 1859. 213
one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately
give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the
records of science offer a parallel, or myself, also I rejoice
profoundly ; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing
an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run
through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have
devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally
impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker,
can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace.”
T. H. Hualey* to OC. Darwin. Jermyn Street, W. November
23rd, 1859.
My pmar Darwiy,—I finished your book yesterday, a lucky
examination having furnished me with a few hours of con-
tinuous leisure.
Since I read Von Biir’s f essays, nine years ago, no work
on Natural History Science I have met with has made so
great an impression upon me, and I do most heartily thank
you for the great store of new views you have given me.
Nothing, I think, can be better than the tone of the book, it
impresses those who know nothing about the subject. As for
your doctrine, I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite, in
support of Chapter IX.,f and most parts of Chapters X., XI.,
XII. ; and Chapter XITI. contains much that is most admirable,
but on one or two points I enter a caveat until I can see
further into all sides of the question.
As to the first four chapters, I agree thoroughly and fully
* In a letter written in October, my father had said, “I am intensely
curious to hear Huxley’s opinion of my book. I fear my long discussion
on classification will disgust him, for it is much opposed to what he
once said to me.” He may have remembered the following incident told
by Mr. Huxley in his chapter of the Life and Letters, ii. p. 196 :—“I
remember, in the course of my first interview with Mr. Darwin, expressin
my belief in the sharpness of the lines of demarcation between natura
groups and in the absence of transitional forms, with all the confidence of
outh and imperfect knowledge. I was not aware, at that time, that he
ad then been many years brooding over the species question; and the
humorous smile which accompanied his gentle answer, that such was not
altogether his view, long haunted and puzzled me.”
+ Karl Ernst von Baer, b. 1792, d. at Dorpat 1876—one of the most
distinguished biologists of the century. He practically founded the
modern science of embryology.
¢ In the first edition of the Origin, Chap. IX. is on the ‘ Imperfection of
the Geological Record;’ Chap. X., on the ‘Geological Succession of
Organic Beings ;’ Chaps. XI. and XII., on ‘ Geographical Distribution ;’
Chap. XIII., on ‘Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings; Morphology ;
Embryology; Rudimentary Organs.’
214 PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XIL
with all the principles laid down in them. I think you havo.
demonstrated a true cause for the production of species, and
have thrown the onus probandt, that species did not arise in the
way you suppose, on your adversaries.
But I feel that I have not yet by any means fully realized
the bearings of those most remarkable and original Chapters
IIL, IV. and V., and I will write no more about them just
now.
The only objections that have occurred to me are, Ist that
you have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in
adopting Natura non facit salitwm so unreservedly. ... And
2nd, it is not clear to me why, if continual physical conditions
are of so little moment as you suppose, variation should occur
at all.
However, I must read the book two or three times more
before I presume to begin picking holes.
I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way dis-
gusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse and misrepresen-
tation which, unless I greatly mistake, is in store for you.
Depend upon it you have earned the lasting gratitude of all
thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark and
yelp, you must recollect that some of your friends, at any rate,
are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though
you have often and justly rebuked it) may stand you in good
stead.
I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness.
Looking back over my letter, it really expresses so feebly
all I think about you and your noble book that I am half
ashamed of it; but you will understand that, like the parrot in
the story, “I think the more.”
Ever yours faithfully.
O. D. to T. H. Hualey. Ilkley, Nov. 25 [1859].
My prar Hovxusy,—Your letter has been forwarded to me
from Down. Like a good Catholic who has received extreme
unction, I can now sing “ nunc dimittis.”’ I should have been
more than contented with one quarter of what you have said.
Exactly fifteen months ago, when I put pen to paper for this
volume, I had awful misgivings; and thought perhaps I had
deluded myself, like so many have done, and I then fixed in
my mind three judges, on whose decision I determined mentall
to abide. The judges were Lyell, Hooker, and yourself,
was this which made me so excessively anxious for your verdict.
I am now contented, and can sing my “ nunc dimittis.” What
Cx. XIL] OOTOBER 1859, TO DECEMBER 1859. 215
a joke it would be if I pat you on the back when you attack
some immovable creationists! You have most cleverly hit on
one point, which has greatly troubled me ; if, as I must think,
external conditions produce little direct effect, what the devil
determines each particular variation? What makes a tuft of
feathers come on a cock’s head, or moss on a moss-rose? I
shall much like to talk over this with you... .
My dear Huxley, I thank you cordially for your letter.
Yours very sincerely.
Erasmus Darwin * to C. Darwin. November 23rd [1859).
Dear CuHartes,—I am so much weaker in the head, that I
hardly know if I can write, but at all events I will jot down a
few things that the Dr.t has said. He has not read much
above half, so, as he says, he can give no definite conclusion, and
keeps stating that he is not tied down to either view, and that
he has always left an escape by the way he has spoken of
varieties. I happened to speak of the eye before he had read
that part, and it took away his breath—utterly impossible—
structure—function, &c., &c., &e., but when he had read it he
hummed and hawed, and perhaps it was partly conceivable,
and then he fell back on the bones of the ear, which were
beyond all probability or conceivability. He mentioned a
slight blot, which I also observed, that in speaking of the
slave-ants carrying one another, you change the species with-
out giving notice first, and it makes one turn back. .
. For myself I really think it is the most ‘interesting
book I ever read, and can only compare it to the first knowledge
of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind the
scenes. To me the geographical distribution, I mean the
relation of islands to continents is the most convincing of the
proofs, and the relation of the oldest forms to the existing
species. I dare say I don’t feel enough the absence of
varieties, but then I don’t in the least know if everything
now living were fossilized whether the palwontologists could
distinguish them. In fact the @ priori reasoning is so entirely
satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much
the worse for the facts is my feeling. My ague has left me in
such a state of torpidity that I wish I had gone through the
process of natural selection.
Yours affectionately.
* His brother.
¢ Dr., afterwards Sir Henry, Holland.
my
216 PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XIL.
A. Sedgwick * to C. Darwin. [November 1859.]
My pzar Darwin,—I write to thank you for your work on
the Origin of Species. It came, I think, in the latter part of
last week ; but it may have come a few days sooner, and been
overlooked among my book-parcels, which often remain un-
opened when I am lazy or busy with any work before me. So
soon as I opened it I began to read it, and I finished it, after
many interruptions,on Tuesday. Yesterday I was employed—
1st, in preparing for my lecture; 2ndly, in attending a meeting
of my brother Fellows to discuss the final propositions of the
Parliamentary Commissioners ; 3rdly, in lecturing; 4thly, in
hearing the conclusion of the discussion and the College reply,
whereby, in conformity with my own wishes, we accepted the
scheme of the Commissioners; 5thly, in dining with an old
friend at Clare College; 6thly, in adjourning to the weekly
meeting of the Ray Club, from which I returned at 10 p.m.,
dog-tired, and hardly able to climb my staircase. Lastly, in
looking through the Times to see what was going on in the busy
world.
I do not state this to fill space (though I believe that Nature
does abhor a vacuum), but to prove that my reply and my thanks
are sent to you by the earliest leisure I have, though that is but
a very contracted opportunity. If I did not think you a good-
tempered and truth-loving man, I should not tell you that
(spite of the great knowledge, store of facts, capital views of
the correlation of the various parts of organic nature, admirable
hints about the diffusion, through wide regions, of many related
organic beings, &c. &c.) I have read your book with more pain
than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed
at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with
absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and
grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in
that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method
of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as
Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the
moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon
assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why
then express them in the language and arrangement of philo-
sophical induction? As to your grand principle—natural
selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed,
or known, primary facts? Development is a better word,
* Rey. Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian Professor of Geology in the
University of Cambridge. Born 1785, died 18738.
Cu. XIL] OCTOBER 1859, TO DECEMBER 1859. 217
because more close to the cause of the fact? For you do not
deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of
God ; and I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures.
He also acts by laws which we can study and comprehend.
Acting by law, and under what is called final causes, compre-
hends, I think, your whole principle. You write of “natural
selection ” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.
"Tis but a consequence of the pre-supposed development, and
the subsequent battle for life. This view of nature you have
stated admirably, though admitted by all naturalists and denied
by no one of common-sense. We all admit development as a
fact of history: but how came it about? Here, in language,
and still more in logic, we are point-blank at issue. There is
a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical.
A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. ’Tis the
crown and glory of organic science that it does through final
cause, link material and moral; and yet does not allow us to
mingle them in our first conception of laws, and our classifica-
tion of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or the
other. You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake
your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant
cases to break it. Were it possible (which, thank God, it is
not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage
that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower
grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its
written records tell us of its history. Take the case of the bee-
cells. If your development produced the successive modifica-
tion of the bee and its cells (which no mortal can prove), final
cause would stand good as the directing cause under which the
successive generations acted and gradually improved. Passages
in your book, like that to which I have alluded (and there are
others almost as bad), greatly shocked my moral taste. I
think, in speculating on organic descent, you over-state the
evidence of geology; and that you wnder-state it while you
are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree: but
my paper is nearly done, and I must go to my lecture-room.
Lastly, then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter—not as
a summary, for in that light it appears good—but I dislike it
from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to
the rising generation (in a tone I condemned in the author of
the Vestiges) and prophesy of things not yet in the womb of
time, nor (if we are to trust the accumulated experience of
human sense and the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be
found anywhere but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.
And now to say a word about a son of a monkey and an old
218 PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XII.
friend of yours: I am better, far better, than I was last year.
I have been lecturing three days a week (formerly I gave six
a week) without much fatigue, but I find by the loss of activity
and memory, and of all productive powers, that my bodily
frame is sinking slowly towards the earth. But I have visions
of the future. They are as much a part of myself as my
stomach and my heart, and these visions are to have their anti-
type in solid fruition of what is best and greatest. But on one
condition only—that I humbly accept God’s revelation of Him-
self both in His works and in His word, and do my best to act
in conformity with that knowledge which He only can give me,
and He only can sustain me in doing. If you and I do all this,
we shall meet in heaven.
I have written in a hurry, and in a spirit of brotherly love,
therefore forgive any sentence you happen to dislike; and
believe me, spite of any disagreement in some points of the
deepest moral interest, your true-hearted old friend,
A. Sepe@wiox.
The following extract from a note to Lyell (Nov. 24
gives an idea of the conditions under which the secon
edition was prepared: “ This morning I heard from Murray
that he sold the whole edition * the first day to the trade.
He wants a new edition instantly, and this utterly confounds
me. Now, under water-cure, with all nervous power directed
to the skin, I cannot possibly do head-work, and I must
make only actually necessary corrections. But I will, as
far as I can without my manuscript, take advantage of your
suggestions: I must not attempt much. Will you send
me one line to say whether I must strike out about the
secondary whale,} it goes to my heart. About the rattle-snake,
look to my Journal, under Trigonocephalus, and you will see
the probable origin of the rattle, and generally in transitions
it is the premier pas qui coite.
Here follows a hint of the coming storm (from a letter to
Lyell, Dec. 2) :—
“Do what I could, I fear I shall be greatly abused. In
answer to Sedgwick’s remark that my book would be
‘ mischievous,’ I asked him whether truth can be known except
by being victorious over all attacks. Butit isno use. H.C.
- Watson tells me that one zoologist says he will read my book,
‘but I will never believe it.’ What a spirit to read any book
* First edition, 1250 copies.
+ The passage was omitted in the second edition.
Ox. XIL) OOTOBER 1859, TO DECEMBER 1859. 219
in! Orawford * writes to me that his notice will be hostile,
but that ‘ he will not calumniate the author.’ He says he has
read my book, ‘at least such parts as he could understand.’ +
He sent me some notes and suggestions (quite unimportant), and
they show me that I have unavoidably done harm to the subject,
by publishing an abstract . . . . I have had several notes from
——, very civil and less decided. Says he shall not pronounce
against me without much reflection, perhaps will say nothing on
the subject. X. says he will go to that part of hell, which
Dante tells us is appointed for those who are neither on God’s
side nor on that of the devil.”
But his friends were preparing to fight for him. Huxley
gave, in Macmillan’s Magazine for December, an analysis of the
Origin, together with the substance of his Royal Institution
lecture, delivered before the publication of the book.
Carpenter was preparing an essay for the National Review,
and negotiating for a notice in the Edinburgh free from any
taint of odiwm theologicum,
O. D. to O, Lyell. Down [December 12th, 1859].
» . . I had very long interviews with , which perhaps
you would like to hear about....I infer from several
expressions that, at bottom, he goes an immense way with
us. 7, ©
He said to the effect that my explanation was the best ever
published of the manner of formation of species. I said I was
very glad to hear it. He took me up short: “ You must not
at all suppose that I agree with you in all respects.” I said I
thought it no more likely that I should be right in nearly all
points, than that I should toss up a penny and get heads
twenty times running. I asked him what he thought the
* John Crawford, orientalist, ethnologist, &., b. 1783, d. 1868. The
review appeared in the Hwzaminer, and, though hostile, is free from
bigotry, as the following citation will show: “ We cannot help saying
that piety must be fastidious indeed that objects to a theory the
tendency of which is to a me all Paper beings, man Be are
in a perpetual gress of amelioration. an t is expoun in the
reverential eae which we have quoted.” ei
+ A letter of Dec. 14, gives a good example of the manner in which
some naturalists received and understood it. “Old J. E. Gray of the
British Museum attacked me in fine style: ‘You have just reproduced
_ Lamarck’s doctrine, and nothing else, and here Lyell and others have
’ been attacking him for twenty years, and because you (with a sneer and
laugh) say the very same thing, they are all coming round; it is the most
iculous inconsistency, &c. &c.’”
220 PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (On. XII.
weakest part. He said he had no particular objection to any
part. He added :—
“Tf I must criticise, I should say, we do not want to know
what Darwin believes and is convinced of, but what he can
prove.” I agreed most fully and truly that I have probably
greatly sinned in this line, and defended my general line of
argument of inventing a theory and seeing how many classes
of facts the theory would explain. I added that I would en-
deavour to modify the “ believes ” and “ convinceds.” He took
me up short: “ You will then spoil your book, the charm of it
is that it is Darwin himself.” He added another objection, that
the book was too teres atque rotundus—that it explained every-
thing, and that it was improbable in the highest degree that I
should succeed in this. I quite agree with this rather queer
objection, and it comes to this that my book must be very bad
or very good. ...
I have heard, by a roundabout channel, that Herschel says
my book “is the law of higgledy-piggledy.” What this exactly
means I do not know, but it is evidently very contemptuous. If
true this is a great blow and discouragement.
J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin. Kew [1859].
Dear Darwin,—You have, I know, been drenched with
letters since the publication of your book, and I have hence
forborne to add my mite.* I hope now that you are well
through Edition II.,and I have heard that you were flourishing
in London. I have not yet got half-through the book, not from
want of will, but of time—for it is the very hardest book to
read, to full profits, that I ever tried—it is so cram-full of
matter and reasoning.| Iam all the more glad that you have
published in this form, for the three volumes, unprefaced by
this, would have choked any Naturalist of the nineteenth
century, and certainly have softened my brain in the operation
of assimilating their contents. I am perfectly tired of marvel-
ling at the wonderful amount of facts you have brought to bear,
and your skill in marshalling them and throwing them on the
enemy; it is also extremely clear as far as I have gone, but
very hard to fully appreciate. Somehow it reads very different
from the MS., and I often fancy that I must have been very
* See, however, p. 211.
+ Mr. Huxley has made a similar remark :—“ Long occupation with
the work has led the present writer to believe that the Origin of
Species is one of the hardest of books to master.”—Obituary Notice,
Proce. R. Soc. No. 269, p. xvii.
Cu. XII] OOTOBER 1859, TO DECEMBER 1859. 221
stupid not to have more fully followed itin MS. Lyell told
me of his criticisms. I did not appreciate them all, and there
are many little matters I hope one day to talk over with you. I
saw a highly flattering notice in the English Churchman, short and
not at all entering into discussion, but praising you and your
book, and talking patronizingly of the doctrine! . . . Bentham
and Henslow will still shake their heads, I fancy... .
Ever yours affectionately.
0. D. to T. H. Huxley. Down, Dee. 28th [1859].
My prar Huxiey,—Yesterday evening, when I read the
Times of a previous day, I was amazed to find a splendid essay
and review of me. Who can the author be? I am intensely
curious. It included an eulogium of me which quite touched
me, though I am not vain enough to think it all deserved. The
author is a literary man, and German scholar. He has read my
book very attentively ; but, what is very remarkable, it seems
that he is a profound naturalist. He knows my Barnacle-book,
and appreciates it too highly. Lastly, he writes and thinks
with quite uncommon force and clearness; and what is even
still rarer, his writing is seasoned with most pleasant wit. We
all laughed heartily over some of the sentences. . . . Who can it
be? Certainly I should have said that there was only one man
in England who could have written this essay, and that you
were the man. But I suppose I am wrong, and that there is
some hidden genius of great calibre. For how could you
influence Jupiter Olympus and make him give three and a
half columns to pure science? The old fogies will think the |
world will come to an end. Well, whoever the man is, he has
done great service to the cause, far more than by a dozen
reviews in common periodicals, The grand way he soars above
common religious prejudices, and the admission of such views
into the Times, I look at as of the highest importance, quite
independently of the mere question of species. If you should
happen to be acquainted with the author, for Heaven-sake tell
me who he is?
My dear Huxley, yours most sincerely. —
There can be no doubt that this powerful essay, appearing in
the leading daily Journal, must have had a strong influence on
the reading public. Mr. Huxley allows me to quote from a
letter an account of the happy chance that threw into his hands
the opportunity of writing it :—
“The Origin was sent to Mr. Lucas, one of the staff of the
222 PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPEOIES. (Ou. XIL
Times writers at that day, in what I suppose was the ordinary
course of business. Mr. Lucas, though an excellent journalist,
and, at a later period, editor of Once a Week, was as innocent
of any knowledge of science as a babe, and bewailed himself to
an acquaintance on having to deal with such a book. Where-
upon he was recommended to ask me to get him out of his
difficulty, and he applied to me accordingly, explaining, however,
that it would be necessary for him formally to adopt anything
I might be disposed to write, by prefacing it with two or three
paragraphs of his own.
“JT was too anxious to seize upon the opportunity thus
offered of giving the book a fair chance with the multitudinous
readers of the Times to make any difficulty about conditions ;
and being then very full of the subject, I wrote the article
faster, I think, than I ever wrote anything in my life, and sent
it to Mr. Lucas, who duly prefixed his opening sentences.
“ When the article appeared, there was much speculation as
to its authorship. The secret leaked out in time, as all secrets
will, but not by my aid; and then I used to derive a good deal
of innocent amusement from the vehement assertions of some of
my more acute friends, that they knew it was mine from the
first paragraph !
“ As the Times some years since referred to my connection
with the review, I suppose there will be no breach of confidence
in the publication of this little history, if you think it worth
the space it will occupy.”
( 223 )
\
\ CHAPTER XIIL
THE ‘ORIGIN OF SPECIES’—REVIEWS AND CRITICISMS—ADHESIONS
AND ATTACKS,
“You are the greatest revolutionist in natural history of this century,
if not of all centuries.”——-H, ©. Watson to C. Darwin, Nov. 21, 1859,
1860.
Tux second edition, 3000 copies, of the Origin was published
on January 7th; on the 10th, he wrote with regard to it, to
Lyell :—
CO. D. to O. Lyell. Down, January 10th [1860],
. . - It is perfectly true that I owe nearly all the corrections
to you, and several verbal ones to you and others; I am heartily
glad you approve of them, as yet only two things have annoyed
me ; those confounded millions * of years (not that I think it
is probably wrong), and my not having (by inadvertence)
mentioned Wallace towards the close of the book in the sum-
mary, not that any one has noticed this to me. I have now put
in Wallace’s name at p. 484 in a conspicuous place. I shall be
truly glad to read carefully any MS. on man, and give my
opinion. You used to caution me to be cautious about man.
I suspect I shall have to return the caution a hundred fold!
Yours will, no doubt, be a grand discussion ; but it will horrify
the world at first more than my whole volume ; although by the
sentence (p. 489, new edition t) I show that I believe man is
in the same predicament with other animals. It is in fact
impossible to doubt it. I have thought (only vaguely) on man.
* This refers to the passage in the Origin of Species (2nd edit. p. 285)
in which the lapse of time implied by the denudation of the Weald is
discussed. The discussion closes with the sentence: “So that it is not
improbable that a longer period than 300 million years has elapsed since
the latter part of the Secondary period.” This passage is omitted in the
later editions of the Origin, against the advice of some of his friends, as
appears from the pencil notes in my father’s copy of the 2nd edition.
Tn the first edition, the passages occur on p. 488.
~
224 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Ox. XIII.
With respect to the races, one of my best chances of truth has
broken down from the impossibility of getting facts. I have
one good speculative line, but a man must have entire credence
in Natural Selection before he will even listen to it. Psycho-
logically, I have done scarcely anything. Unless, indeed, ex-
pression of countenance can be included, and on that subject
I have collected a good many facts, and speculated, but I do
not suppose I shall ever publish, but it is an uncommonly
curious subject.
A few days later he wrote again to the same correspondent :
“ What a grand immense benefit you conferred on me by
getting Murray to publish my book. I never till to-day
realised that it was getting widely distributed ; for in a letter
from a lady to-day to E., she says she heard a man enquiring
for it at the Railway Station ! ! ! at Waterloo Bridge; and the
bookseller said that he had none till the new edition was out.
The bookseller said he had not read it, but had heard it was a
very remarkable book !!!”
CO. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down, 14th [January, 1860].
ty RSS" I heard from Lyell this morning, and he tells
me a piece of news. You are a good-for-nothing man; here
you are slaying yourself to death with hardly a minute to
spare, and you must write a review on my book! I thought
it * a very good one, and was so much struck with it, that I
sent it to Lyell. But I assumed, as a matter of course, that it
was Lindley’s. Now that I know it is yours, I have re-read it,
and my kind and good friend, it has warmed my heart with all
the honourable and noble things you say of me andit. I was
a good deal surprised at Lindley hitting on some of the
remarks, but I never dreamed of you. I admired it chiefly
as so well adapted to tell on the readers of the Gardeners’
Chronicle ; but now I admire it in another spirit. Farewell,
with hearty thanks. ....
Asa Gray to J. D. Hooker. Cambridge, Mass.,
January 5th, 1860.
My pear Hooxer,—Your last letter, which reached me just
before Christmas, has got mislaid during the upturnings in my
* Gardeners’ Chronicle, 1860. Sir J. D. Hooker took the line of
complete impartiality, so as not to commit the editor, Lindley.
Cu. XIII.] REVIEWS AND ORITICISMS, 1860. 225
study which take place at that season, and has not yet been
discovered. I should be very sorry to lose it, for there were
in it some botanical mems. which I had not secured. . .
The principal part of your letter was high laudation of
Darwin’s book.
Well, the book has reached me, and I finished its careful
perusal four days ago; and I freely say that your laudation is
not out of place.
It is done in a masterly manner. It might well have taken
twenty years to produce it. It is crammed full of most
interesting matter—thoroughly digested—well expressed—
close, cogent, and taken as a system it makes out a better case
than I had supposed possible. . . .
Agassiz, when I saw him last, had read but a part of it.
He says it is poor—very 4 !/ (entre nous). The fact [is]
he is very much annoyed by it, .... and I do not wonder at
it. To bring all ideal systems within the domain of science,
and give good physical or natural explanations of all his
capital points, is as bad as to have Forbes take the glacier
materials ...and give scientific explanation of all tho
phenomena.
Tell Darwin all this. I will write to him when I get a
chance, AsI have promised, he and you shall have fair-pla
here. . . . [ must myself write a review * of Darwin’s book for
Silliman’s Journal (the more so that I suspect Agassiz means
to come out upon it) for the next (March) number, and I am
now setting about it lege I ought to be every moment work-
ing the Expl[oring] Expedition Composite, which I know far
more about). And really it is no easy job as you may well
imagine.
I doubt if I shall please you altogether. I know I shall
not please Agassiz at all. I hear another reprint is in the
Press, and the book will excite much attention here, and some
controversy. ...
0. D. to Asa Gray. Down, January 28th [1860].
My par Gray,—Hooker has forwarded to me your letter to
him; and I cannot express how deeply it has gratified me. To
* On Jan. 23 Gray wrote to Darwin: “It naturally happens that my
review of your book does not exhibit anything like the full force of the
impression the book has made upon me.. Under the circumstances I
suppose I do your theory more good here, by bespeaking for it a fair and
favourable consideration, and by standing non-commitied as to its full
Q
226 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Ox. XIII.
receive the approval of a man whom one has long sincerely
respected, and whose judgment and knowledge are most
universally admitted, is the highest reward an author can
possibly wish for; and I thank you heartily for your most
kind expressions.
I have been absent from home for a few days, and so could
not earlier answer your letter to me of the 10th of January.
You have been extremely kind to take so much trouble and
interest about the edition. It has been a mistake of my
publisher not pore of sending over the sheets. I had
entirely and utterly forgotten your offer of receiving the
sheets as printed off. But I must not blame my publisher, for
had I remembered your most kind offer I feel pretty sure I
should not have taken advantage of it; for I never dreamed of
my book being so successful with general readers: I believe I
should have laughed at the idea of sending the sheets to
America.*
After much consideration, and on the strong advice of Lyell
and others, I have resolved to leave the present book as it is
(excepting correcting errors, or here and there inserting short
sentences), and to use all my strength, which is but little, to
bring out the first part (forming a separate volume, with
index, &c.) of the three volumes which will make my bigger
work; so that I am very unwilling to take up time in making
corrections for an American edition. I enclose a list of a few
corrections in the second reprint, which you will have received
by this time complete, and T could send four or five corrections
or additions of equally small importance, or rather of equal
brevity. I also intend to write a short preface with a brief
history of the subject. These I will set about, as they must
some day be done, and I will send them to you in a short time
—the few corrections first, and the preface afterwards, unless
I hear that you have given up all idea of a separate edition.
You will then be able to judge whether it is worth having
the new edition with your review prefixed. Whatever be the
conclusions, than I should if I announced myself a convert; nor could I
say the latter, with truth. ...
“‘ What seems to me the weakest point in the book is the attempt
to account for the formation of organs, the making of eyes, &c., by natural
selection. Some of this reads quite Lamarckian.”
* In a letter to Mr. Murray, 1860, my father wrote :—‘I am amused
by Asa Gray’s account of the excitement my book has made amongst
naturalists in the U. States. Agassiz has denounced it ina ee
but yet in such terms that it is in fact a fine advertisement!”
seems to refer toa lecture given before the Mercantile Library Association:
Ox. XIIL.] REVIEWS AND ORITICISMS, 1860. 227
nature of your review, I assure you I should feel it a great
honour to have my book thus preceded.....
0. D. to O. Lyell. Down [February 15th, 1860}.
. . » Lam perfectly convinced (having read it this morning)
that the review in the Annals * is by Wollaston ; no one else
in the world would have used so many parentheses. I have
written to him, and told him that the “pestilent” fellow
thanks him for his kind manner of speaking about him. I
have also told him that he would be pleased to hear that the
Bishop of Oxford says it is the most unphilosophical ¢ work
he ever read. The review seems to me clever, and only mis-
interprets me in a few places. Like all hostile men, he passes
over the explanation given of Classification, Morphology,
Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs, &c. I read Wallace’s
paper in MS.,f and thought it admirably good; he does not
know that he been anticipated about the depth of inter-
vening sea determining distribution. . . . The most curious
point in the paper seems to me that about the African character
of the Celebes productions, but I should require further confir-
mation. ...
Henslow is staying here; I have had some talk with him;
he is in much the same state as Bunbury,§ and will go a very
little way with us, but brings up no real argument against going
further. He also shudders at the eye! It is really curious
ra perhaps is an argument in our favour) how differently
ifferent opposers view the subject. Henslow used to rest his
opposition on the imperfection of the Geological Record, but
he now thinks nothing of this, and says I have got well out of
* Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist. third series, vol. vy. p. 182. My father
has obviously taken the expression “pestilent” from the following
ge (p. 138): “ But who is this Nature, we have a right to ask, who
as such tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous
rformances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes, when
one from her wordy lurking-place? Is she ought but a pestilent
abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of an
Intelligent First Cause of all?” The reviewer pays a tribute to my
father’s candour “so manly and outspoken as almost to‘ cover a multitude
of sins.”” The parentheses (to which allusion is made above) are s0
frequent as to give a characteristic appearance to Mr. Wollaston’s pages.
+ Another version of the words is given by Lyell, to whom they were
spoken, viz. “the most illogical book ever written.”—Life and Letters of
Sir C. Lyell, vol. ii. p. 358.
$+ “On the Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago.”—-Linn.
Soc. Journ. 1860.
§ The late Sir Charles Bunbury, well known as a Palxo-botanist.
Q 2
ree
onetime
228 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Ca. XIIL.
it; I wish I could quite agree with him. Baden Powell says
he never read anything so conclusive as my statement about
the eye!! A stranger writes to me about sexual selection,
and regrets that I boggle about such a trifle as the brush of
hair on the male turkey, and so on. As L. Jenyns has a
really philosophical mind, and as you say you like to see
everything, I send an old letter of his. In a later letter to
Henslow, which I have seen, he is more candid than any
opposer I have heard of, for he says, though he cannot go so
far as I do, yet he can give no good reason why he should not.
It is funny how each man draws his own imaginary line at
which to halt. It reminds me so vividly [of] what I was told *
about you when I first commenced geology—to believe a little,
but on no account to believe all.
Ever yours affectionately.
With regard to the attitude of the more liberal representa-
tives of the Church, the following letter from Charles Kingsley
is of interest :
CO. Kingsley to O. Darwin. Eversley Rectory, Winchfield,
November 18th, 1859.
Dear Sir,—I have to thank you for the unexpected honour
of your book. That the Naturalist whom, of all naturalists
living, I most wish to know and to learn from, should haye
sent a scientist like me his book, encourages me at least to
observe more carefully, and think more slowly.
I am so poorly (in brain), that I fear I cannot read your
book just now as I ought. I have seen of it awes me; both
with the heap of facts and the prestige of your name, and also
with the clear intuition, that if you be right, I must give up
much that I have believed and written.
In that I care little. Let God be true, and every man a liar!
\ Let us know what is, and, as old Socrates has it, érecOa1 7G Adyo
—follow up the villainous shifty fox of an argument, into what-
soever unexpected bogs and brakes he may lead us, if we do
but run into him at last.
From two common superstitions, at least, I shall be free
while judging of your book :—
(1.) I have long since, from watching the crossing of
domesticated animals and plants, learnt to disbelieve the
dogma of the permanence of species.
* By Professor Henslow.
Cu. XIIL] REVIEWS AND ORITICISMS, 1860. 229
(2.) I have ually learnt to see that it is just as noble a
conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms
capable of self-development into all forms needful pro tempore
pb}
i
and pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh act of t}
intervention to supply the lacwnas which He Himself had |
made. I question whether the former be not the loftier .
thought.
Be it as it may, I shall prize your book, both for itself, and
as a proof that you are aware of the existence of such a
person as
Your faithful servant,
CO. Kinasiey.
My father’s old friend, the Rev. J. Brodie Innes, of Milton
Brodie, who was for many years Vicar of Down, in some
reminiscences of my father which he was so good as to give
me, writes in the same spirit:
“ We never attacked each other. Before I knew Mr. Darwin
I had adopted, and publicly expressed, the principle that the
study of natural history, geology, and science in general,
should be pursued without reference to the Bible. That the
Book of Nature and Scripture came from the same Divine
source, ran in parallel lines, and when properly understood
would never cross......
“In [a] letter, after I had left Down, he [Darwin] writes,
‘ We often differed, but you are one of those rare mortals from
whom one can differ and yet feel no shade of animosity, and
that is a thing [of] which I should feel very proud if any one
could say [it] of me.’
* On my last visit to Down, Mr. Darwin said, at his dinner-
table, ‘ Innes and I have been fast friends for thirty years, and
we never thoroughly agreed on any subject but once, and then
we stared hard at each other, and thought one of us must be
very ill.’ ”
The following extract from a letter to Lyell, Feb. 23, 1860,
has a certain bearing on the points just touched on:
shown how life arises, and likewise toa certain extent Asa
* With respect to Bronn’s* objection that it cannot be )
Gray’s remark that natural selection is not a vera causa, I was
much interested by finding accidentally in Brewster's Life of
Newton, that Leibnitz objected to the law of gravity because —
Newton could not show what gravity itself is. As it has —
chanced, I have used in letters this very same argument, little |
* The translator of the first German edition of the Origin,
~
230 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (On. XIII.
knowing that any one had really thus objected to the law of
gravity. Newton answers by saying that it is philosophy to
make out the movements of a clock, though you do not know
why the weight descends to the ground. Leibnitz further
objected that the law of gravity was opposed to Natural
Religion! Is this not curious? I really think I shall use
the facts for some introductory remarks for my bigger book.”
\0. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down, March 8rd [1860}.
. . . [think you expect too much in regard to change ot
opinion on the subject of Species. One large class of men,
more especially I suspect of naturalists, never will care about
any general question, of which old Gray, of the British Museum,
may be taken as a type; and secondly, nearly all men past a
moderate age, either in actual years or in mind are, I am fully
convinced, incapable of looking at facts under a new point of
view. Seriously, I am astonished and rejoiced at the progress
which the subject has made ; look at the enclosed memorandum.
says my book will be forgotten in ten years, perhaps so ;
but, with such a list, I feel convinced the subject will not.
[Here follows the memorandum referred to: ]
Geologists. Fe aon oad Phystologists. Botanists.
Lyell. Huxley. Carpenter. Hooker.
Ramsay.* J. Lubbock. Sir. H. Holland | H. C. Watson.
Jukes.t L. Jenyns (to large extent). Asa Gray
H, D. Rogers.} | (to large extent). (to some extent).
Searles Wood.§ Dr. Boott
(to large extent).
Thwaites. ||
* Andrew Ramsay, late Director-General of the Geological Survey.
+ Joseph Beete Jukes, M.A., F.R.S., born 1811, died 1869. He was
educated at Cambridge, and from 1842 to 1846 he acted as naturalist to
H.M.S. Fly, on an exploring expedition in Australia and New Guinea.
He was afterwards appointed Director of the Geological Survey of
Ireland. He was the author of many papers, and of more than one good
handbook of geology.
¢ Professor of Geology in the University of Glasgow. Born in the
United States 1809, died 1866.
§ Searles Valentine Wood, died 1880. Chiefiy known for his work on
the Mollusca of the Crag.
|| Dr. G. H. K. Thwaites, F.R.S., was born in 181], or about that date,
and died in Ceylon, September 11, 1882. He began life as a Notary, but
his passion for Botany and Entomology ultimately led to his taking to
Cu. XUI.] REVIEWS AND ORITICISMS, 1860. 231
0. D. to Asa Gray. Down, April 3 [1860}.
. » + « Lremember well the time when the thought of the eye
made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the
complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often
make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a pea-
cock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick! .. .
You may like to hear about reviews on my book. Sedg-
wick (as I and Lyell feel certain from internal evidence) has
reviewed me vita ant and unfairly in the Spectator.* The
notice includes much abuse, and is hardly fair in several
respects. He would actually lead any one, who was ignorant
of geology, to suppose that I had invented the great gaps
between successive geological formations, instead of its being
an almost universally admitted dogma. But my dear old
friend Sedgwick, with his noble heart, is old, and is rabid with
indignation, ... There has been one prodigy of a review,
namely, an opposed one (by Pictet,f the palmwontologist, in
the Bib. Universelle of Geneva) which is perfectly fair and
just, and I agree to every word he says; our only difference
eing that he attaches less weight to arguments in favour,
and more to arguments opposed, than I do. Of all the
opposed reviews, I think this the only quite fair one, and I
never expected to see one. Please observe that I do not class
your review by any means as opposed, though you think so
yourself! It has done me much too good service ever to appear
in that rank in my eyes. But I fear I shall weary you with
so much about my book. I should rather think there was a
good chance of my becoming the most egotistical man in all
Europe! What a proud pre-eminence! Well, you have
helped to make me so, and therefore you must forgive me if
you can.
My dear Gray, ever yours most gratefully.
Science as a profession. He became lecturer on Botany at the Bristol
School of Medicine, and in 1849 he was appointed Director of the Botanic
Gardens at Peradeniya, which he made “the most beautiful tropical
garden in the world.” He is best known through his important discovery
of conjugation in the Diatomacesw (1847). His Enumeratio Plantarum
Zeylaniz (1858-64) was “the first complete account, on modern lines, of
any definitely circumscribed tropical area.” (From a notice in Nature,
October 26, 1852.)
* Spectator, March 24, 1860. There were favourable notices of the
Origin by Huxley in the Westminster Review, and Carpenter in the
Medico-Chir. Review, both in the April numbers.
t Jules Pictet, in the Archives des Sciences de la Bibliotheque
Uni Mars 1860.
232 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cx. XII.
O. D. to O. Lyell. Down, April 10th [1860}.
I have just read the Edinburgh,* which without doubt is
by ——. It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear will be
very damaging. He is atrociously severe on Huxley’s lecture,
and very bitter against Hooker. So we three enjoyed it
together. Not that I really enjoyed it, for it made me un-
comfortable for one night; but I have got quite over it
to-day. It requires much study to appreciate all the bitter
spite of many of the remarks against me; indeed I did not
discover all myself. It scandalously misrepresents many parts.
He misquotes some passages, altering words within inverted
commas... .
It is painful to be hated in the intense degree with which
hates me.}
Now for a curious thing about my book, and then I have
done. In last Saturday’s Senlaat Chronicle,t a Mr. Patrick
Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on Naval
Timber and Arboriculiure published in 1831, in which he
briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Natural Selec-
tion. I have ordered the book, as some few sages are
rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a complete but not
developed anticipation! Erasmus always said that surely
this would be shown to be the case some day. Anyhow, one
may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on
Naval Timber.
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down [April 13th, 1860}.
My prar Hooxer,—Questions of priority so often lead to
odious quarrels, that I should esteem it a great favour if you
would read the enclosed. { If you think it proper that I should
* Edinburgh Review, April, 1860.
+ April 7, 1860.
$ My father wrote (Gardeners’ Chronicle, April 21, 1860, p. 362): “1
have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in
the number of your paper dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that
Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I
have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection.
I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any
other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew’s views, considering how
briefly they are given, and that they appenty in the appendix to a work
on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer m
apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication.
another edition of my work is called for, I will insert to the foregoing
effect.” In spite of my father’s recognition of his claims, Mr. Matthew
On. XII] REVIEWS AND ORITIOISMS, 1860. 233
send it (and of this there can hardly be any question), and if
you think it full and ample enough, please alter the date to the
day on which you post it, and let that be soon. The case in
the Gardeners’ Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr.
Matthew’s book, for the passages are therein scattered in three
places; but it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that.
If you object to my letter, please return it; but I do not expect
that you will, but I thought that you would not object to run
your eye over it. My dear Hooker, it is a great thing for me
to have so good, true, and old a friend as you. I owe much
for science to my friends.
. .. I have gone over [the Edinburgh] review again, and
compared passages, and I am astonished at the misrepresenta-
tions. But Iam glad I resolved not to answer. Perhaps it is
selfish, but to answer and think more on the subject is too un-
pleasant. I am so sorry that Huxley by my means has been
thus atrociously attacked. I do not suppose you much care
about the gratuitous attack on you.
Lyell in his letter remarked that you seemed to him as if
you were overworked. Do, pray, be cautious, and remember
how many and many a man has done this—who thought it
absurd till too late. I have often thought the same. You
know that you were bad enough before your Indian journey.
O. D. to O. Lyell. Down, April [1860].
. . +I was particularly glad to hear what you thought
about not noticing [the Edinburgh] review. Hooker and
Huxley thought it a sort of duty to point out the alteration of
quoted citations, and there is truth in this remark; but I so
hated the thought that I resolved not to do so. I shall come
up to London on Saturday the 14th, for Sir B. Brodie’s party,
as I have an accumulation of things to do in London, and will
remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the Saturday
Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, 1860, was “scarcely fair in allu to
Mr. Tretia as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published
the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine
ears ago.” It was not until later that he learned that Matthew had also
m forestalled. In October 1865, he wrote Sir J. D. Hooker :—“ Talking
of the Origin, a Yankee has called my attention to a paper attached to
Dr. Wells’ famous Essay on Dew, which was read in 1813 to the Royal
Soc., but not [then] printed, in which he applies most distinctly the
oo of Natural Selection to the races of Man. So poor old Patrick
aithew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put
on his title-pages, ‘ Discoverer of the principle of Natural Selection ’!”
~
234 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cx. XIIL. .
(if I do not hear to the contrary) call about a quarter before ten
on Sunday morning, and sit with you at breakfast, but will not
sit long, and so take up much of your time. I must say one
more word about our quasi-theological controversy about
natural selection, and let me have your opinion when we meet
in London. Do you consider that the successive variations in
the size of the crop of the Pouter Pigeon, which man has accu-
mulated to please his caprice, have been due to “ the creative
and sustaining powers of Brahma?” In the sense that an
omnipotent and omniscient Deity must order and know every-
thing, this must be admitted; yet, in honest truth, I can hardly
admit it. It seems preposterous that a maker of a universe
should care about the crop of a pigeon solely to please man’s
silly fancies. But if you agree with me in thinking such an
interposition of the Deity uncalled for, I can see no reason
whatever for believing in such interpositions in the case of
natural beings, in which strange and admirable peculiarities
have been naturally selected for the creature’s own benefit.
Imagine a Pouter ina state of nature wading into the water
and then, being buoyed up by its inflated crop, sailing about in
search of food. What admiration this would have excited—
adaptation to the laws of hydrostatic pressure, &c. &. For
the life of me, I cannot see any difficulty in natural selection
producing the most exquisite structure, if such structure can be
arrived at by gradation, and I know from experience how hard
it is to name any structure towards which at least some
gradations are not known.
Ever yours.
P.S8.—The conclusion at which I have come, as I have told
Asa Gray, is that such a question, as is touched on in this note,
is beyond the human intellect, like “ predestination and free
will,” or the “ origin of evil.”
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down [May 15th, 1860].
... How paltry it is in such men as X., Y. and Oo,
not reading your essay. It is incredibly paltry. They ma
all attack me to their hearts’ content. Iam got case-harden
As for the old fogies in Cambridge,* it really signifies
nothing. I look at their attacks as a proof that our work is
* This refers to a “savage onslaught” on the Origin by Sedgwick at
the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Henslow defended his old pupi
and maintained that “the subject was a legitimate one for investigation,
mo
Cu. XU] REVIEWS AND CRITICISMS, 1860. 23
worth the doing. It makes me resolve to buckle on my
armour. I see plainly that it will be a long uphill fight. But
think of Lyell’s progress with Geology. One thing I see most
plainly, that without Lyell’s, yours, Huxley’s and Carpenter’s
aid, my book would have been a mere flash in the pan. But if
we all stick to it, we shall surely gain the day. And I now
see that the battle is worth fighting. I deeply hope that you
think so.
0. D. to Asa Gray. Down May 22nd (1860).
My prar Gray,—Again I have to thank you for one of your
very pleasan’ letters of May 7th, enclosing a very pleasant
remittance of £22. I am in simple truth astonished at all
the kind trouble you have taken for me. I return Appletons’
account. For the chance of your wishing for a formal acknow-
ledgment I send one. If you have any further communi-
cation to the Appletons, pray express my acknowledgment for
[their] generosity ; for it is generosity in my opinion. I am
not at all surprised at the sale diminishing; my extreme
surprise is at the tness of the sale. No doubt the public
has been shamefully imposed on! for they bought the book
thinking that it would be nice easy reading. I expect the sale
to stop soon in England, yet Lyell wrote to me the other day
that calling at Murray’s he heard that fifty copies had gone in
the previous forty-eight hours. Iam extremely glad that you
will notice in Silliman the additions in the Origin.* Judging
from letters (and I have just seen one from Thwaites to
Hooker), and from remarks, the most serious omission in my
book was not explaining how it is, as I believe, that all forms
do not necessarily advance, how there can now be simple organ-
isms still existing. . . . I hear there is a very severe review on
me in the North British by a Rev. Mr. Dunns,t a Free Kirk
minister, and dabbler in Natural History. In the Saturday
Review (one of our cleverest periodicals) of May 5th, p. 573,
there is a nice article on [the Edinburgh] review, defending
Huxley, but not Hooker ; and the latter, I think, [the Edinburgh
* “The battle rages furiously in the United States. Gray says he
was pre ing a speech, which would take 14 hours to deliver, and which
he ‘ ondly ho would be a stunner.’ He is fighting splendidly, and
there seem to have been many discussions with Agassiz and others at the
meetings. Agassiz pities me much at being so deluded.”—From a
letter to Hooker, May 30th, 1860.
+ The statement as to authorship was made on the authority of Robert
Chambers.
236 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cz. XIii
reviewer] treats most ungenerously.* But surely you will
get sick unto death of me and my reviewers.
With respect to the theological view of the question. This
is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no inten-
tion to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as
plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of
design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me
too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that
a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created
the Ichneumonids with the express intention of their feeding
within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should
play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the
belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand,
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe,
and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that every-
thing is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at
everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details,
whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may
call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel
most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the
human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind
of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.
Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all
necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a
good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of
natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by
the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason
why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally
produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been
expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every
future event and consequence. But the more I think the more
bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by
this letter.
Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest.
Yours sincerely and cordially.
The meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860
is famous for two pitched battles over the Origin of Species.
Both of them originated in unimportant papers. On Thursday,
* In a letter to Mr. Huxley my father wrote :—‘ Have you seen the
last Saturday Review? Iam very glad of the defence of you and of
myself. I wish the reviewer had noticed Hooker. The reviewer,
whoever he is, is a jolly good fellow, as this review and the last on me
showed. He writes capitally, and understands well his subject. I wish
he had slapped [the Edinburgh reviewer] a little bit harder.”
Cu. XII.) REVIEWS AND CRITICISMS, 1860. 237
June 28th, Dr. Daubeny of Oxford made a communication to
Section D: “On the final causes of the sexuality of plants,
with particular reference to Mr. Darwin’s work on the Origin
of Species.” Mr. Huxley was called on by the President, but
tried (according to the Athenzeum report) to avoid a discussion,
on the ground “that a general audience, in which sentiment
would unduly interfere with intellect, was not the public before
which such a discussion should be carried on.” However, the
subject was not allowed to drop. Sir R. Owen (I quote from
the Athenzum, July 7th, 1860), who-“wished-to~approach~ this
subject in the spirit of the philosopher,” expressed his “ con-
viction that there were facts by which the public could come to
some conclusion with regard to the probabilities of the truth
of Mr. Darwin’s theory.” He went on to say that the brain of
the gorilla “ presented more differences, as compared with the
brain of man, than it did when compared with the brains of
the very lowest and most problematical of the Quadrumana.”
Mr. Huxley replied, and gave these assertions a “ direct and
unqualified contradiction,” pledging himself to “ justify that
unusual procedure elsewhere,” * a pledge which he amply
fulfilled.t On Friday there was peace, but on Saturday 80th,
the battle arose with redoubled fury, at a conjoint meeting of
three Sections, over a paper by Dr. Draper of New York, on
the “Intellectual development of Europe considered with
reference to the views of Mr. Darwin.”
The following account is from an eye-witness of the scene.
“The excitement was tremendous. The Lecture-room, in
which it had been arranged that the discussion should be held,
proved far too small for the audience, and the meeting ad-
journed to the Library of the Museum, which was crammed
to suffocation long before the champions entered the lists. The
numbers were estimated at from 700 to 1000. Had it been
term-time, or had the general public been admitted, it would
have been impossible to have accommodated the rush to hear the
oratory of the bold Bishop.{ Professor Henslow, the President
of Section D, occupied the chair, and wisely announced in limine
that none who had not valid arguments to bring forward on
one side or the other, would be allowed to address the meeting :
a caution that proved necessary, for no fewer than four
combatants had their utterances burked by him, because of their
indulgence in vague declamation.
“The Bishop was up to time, and spoke for full half-an-hour
* Man’s Place in Nature, by T. H. Huxley, 1863, p. 114.
+ See the Nat. Hist. Review, 1861.
¢ It was well known that Bishop Wilberforce was going to speak.
238 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XII
with inimitable spirit, emptiness and unfairness. It was
evident from his handling of the subject that he had been
‘crammed’ up to the throat, and that he knew nothing at first
hand; in fact, he used no argument not to be found in his
Quarterly article.* He ridiculed Darwin badly, and Huxley
savagely, but all in such dulcet tones, so persuasive a manner,
and in such well-turned periods, that I who had been inclined
to blame the President for allowing a discussion that could
serve no scientific purpose, now forgave him from the bottom
of my heart.”
What follows is from notes most kindly supplied by the Hon.
and Rev. W. H. Fremantle, who was an eye-witness of the scene.
“ The Bishop of Oxford attacked Darwin, at first playfully
but at last in grim earnest. It was known that the Bishop had
written an article against Darwin in the last Quarterly Review:
it was also rumoured that Professor Owen had been staying at
Cuddesden and had primed the Bishop, who was to act as
mouthpiece to the great Paleontologist, who did not himself
dare to enter the lists. The Bishop, however, did not show
himself master of the facts, and made one serious blunder. A
fact which had been much dwelt on as confirmatory of Darwin’s
idea of variation, was that a sheep had been born shortly before
in a flock in the North of England, having an addition of one
to the vertebra of the spine. The Bishop was declaring with
rhetorical exaggeration that there was hardly any actual evi-
dence on Darwin’s side. ‘ What have they to bring forward ?’
he exclaimed. ‘Some rumoured statement about a long-legged
sheep.’ But he passed on to banter: ‘I should like to ask
Professor Huxley, who is sitting by me, and is about to tear
me to pieces when I have sat down, as to his belief in being
descended from an ape. Is it on his grandfather’s or his
grandmother’s side that the ape ancestry comes in?’ And then
taking a graver tone, he asserted in a solemn peroration that
Darwin’s views were contrary to the revelations of God in the
Scriptures. Professor Huxley was unwilling to respond: but
he was called for and spoke with his usual incisiveness and
with some scorn. ‘I am here only in the interests of science,’
he said, ‘and I have not heard anything which can prejudice
the case of my august client.’ Then after showing how little
competent the Bishop was to enter upon the discussion, he
touched on the question of Creation. ‘ You say that develop-
ment drives out the Creator. But you assert that God made
you: and yet you know that you yourself were originally a
* Quarterly Review, July 1860.
On. XIII.] REVIEWS AND ORITIOISMS, 1860. 239
little piece of matter no bigger than the end of this gold
pencil-case.’ Lastly as to the descent from a monkey, he said :
‘I should feel it no shame to have risen from such an origin.
But I should feel it a shame to have sprung from one who
prostituted the gifts of culture and of eloquence to the service
of prejudice and of falsehood.’
“ Many othersspoke. Mr. Gresley, an old Oxford don, pointed
out that in human nature at least orderly development was not
the necessary rule; Homer was the greatest of poets, but he
lived 3000 years ago, and has not produced his like.
* Admiral Fitz-Roy was present, and said that he had often ex-
postulated with his old comrade of the Beagle for entertaining
views which were contradictory to the First Chapter of Genesis.
“Sir John Lubbock declared that many of the arguments
by which the permanence of species was supported came to
nothing, and instanced some wheat which was said to have
come off an Egyptian mummy and was sent to him to prove
that wheat had not changed since the time of the Pharaohs;
but which proved to be made of French chocolate.* Sir
Joseph (then Dr.) Hooker spoke shortly, saying that he had
found the hypothesis of Natural Selection so helpful in explain-
ing the phenomena of his own subject of Botany, that he had
been constrained to acceptit. After a few words from Darwin’s
old friend Professor Henslow who occupied the chair, the
meeting broke up, leaving the impression that those most
capable of estimating the arguments of Darwin in detail saw
their way to accept his conclusions.”
Many versions of Mr. Huxley’s speech were current: the
following report of his conclusion is from a letter addressed
by the late John Richard Green, then an undergraduate, to
a fellow-student, now Professor Boyd Dawkins :—“ I asserted,
and I repeat, that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having
an ape for his grandfather, If there were an ancestor whom I
should feel shame in recalling, it would be a man, a man of
restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an
equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into
scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance,
only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the
attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent
digressions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.” f
* Sir John Lubbock also insisted on the embryological evidence for
evolution.—F. D.
+ Mr. Fawcett wrote (Macmillan’s Magazine, 1860) :—
“The retort was so justly deserved and so inimitable in its manner,
that no one who was present can ever forget the impression that it made.”
240 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Ca. XIII.
The following letter shows that Mr. Huxley’s presence at
this remarkable scene depended on so slight a chance as that
of meeting a friend in the street; that this friend should have
been Robert Ohambers, so that the author of the Vestiges
should have sounded the war-note for the battle of the Origin,
adds interest to the incident. I have to thank Mr. Huxley
for allowing the story to be told in words of his not written for
publication. 7
T. H. Hualey to Francis Darwin.
June 27, 1891.
...1 should say that Fremantle’s account is substantially
correct; but that Green has the passage of my speech more
accurately. However, I am certain I did not use the word
equivocal ” *
The odd part of the business is that I should not have been
present except for Robert Chambers. I had heard of the Bishop’s
intention to utilise the occasion. I knew he had the reputation
of being a first-rate controversialist, and I was quite aware that
if he played his cards properly, we should have little chance,
with such an audience, of making an efficient defence. More-
over, I was very tired, and wanted to join my wife at her
brother-in-law’s country house near Reading, on the Saturday.
On the Friday I met Chambers in the street, and in reply to
some remark of his about the meeting, I said that I did not
mean to attend it; did not see the good of giving up peace and
quietness to be episcopally pounded. Chambers broke out into
vehement remonstrances and talked about my deserting them.
So I said, “Oh! if you take it that way, I'll come and have
my share of what is going on.”
So I came, and chanced to sit near old Sir Benjamin Brodie.
The Bishop began his speech, and, to my astonishment, very
soon showed that he was so ignorant that he did not know how
to manage his own case. My spirits rose proportionally, and
when he turned to me with his insolent question, I said to Sir
Benjamin, in an undertone, “ The Lord hath delivered him into
mine hands.” .
That sagacious old gentleman stared at me as if I had lost
my senses. But, in fact, the Bishop had justified the severest
retort I could devise, and I made up my mind to let him have
it. I was careful, however, not to rise to reply, until the
meeting called for me—then I let myself go.
In justice to the Bishop, I am bound to say he bore no
* This agrees with Professor Victor Carus’s recollection.
Cu. XIIL] REVIEWS AND ORITICISMS, 1860. 241
malice, but was always courtesy itself when we occasionally
met in after years. Hooker and I walked away from the
meeting together, and I remember saying to him that this
experience changed my opinion as to the practical value of
the art of public ing, and that, from that time forth, I
should carefully cultivate it, and try to leave off hating it. I
did the former, but never quite succeeded in the latter effort.
I did not mean to trouble you with such a long scrawl when
I began about this piece of ancient history.
Ever yours very faithfully
T. H, Hoxiey.
The eye-witness above quoted (p. 237) continues :—
“ There was a crowded conversazione in the evening at the
rooms of the hospitable and genial Professor of Botany, Dr.
Daubeny, where the almost sole topic was the battle of the
Origin, and I was much struck with the fair and unprejudiced
way in which the black coats and white cravats of Oxford
discussed the question, and the frankness with which they
offered their congratulations to the winners in the combat.” *
0. D. to J. D. Hooker, Monday night [July 2nd, 1860].
My par Hooxer,—I have just received your letter. I have
been very poorly, with almost continuous bad headache for
forty-eight hours, and I was low enough, and thinking what a
useless burthen I was to myself and all others, when your letter
came, and it has so cheered me; your kindness and affection
brought tears into my eyes. Talk of fame, honour, pleasure,
wealth, all are dirt compared with affection; and this is a
doctrine with which, I know, from your letter, that you will
agree with from the bottom of your heart. ... How I should
have liked to have wandered about Oxford with you, if I had
been well enough; and how still more I should have liked to
have heard you triumphing over the Bishop. I am astonished
at your success and audacity. It is something unintelligible to
me how any one can argue in public like orators do. I had no
idea you had this power. I have read lately so many hostile
views, that I was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly
in the wrong, and that ——— was right when he said the whole
subject would be forgotten in ten years; but now that I hear
that you and Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I
* See Professor Newton’s interesting Early Days of Darwinism in
or Magazine, Feb. 1888, where the battle at Oxford is briefly
escyt
242 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Ox. XIII.
never could do) I fully believe that our cause will, in the long-
run, prevail. Iam glad I was not in Oxford, for I should haye
been overwhelmed, with my [health] in its present state.
C. D. to J. D. Hooker. [July 1860.]
... I have just read the Quarterly.* It is uncommonly
clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts,
* Suarierte: Review, July 1860. The article in question was by
Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and was afterwards published in his
Essays Contributed to the Quarterly Review, 1874. In the Life and
Letters, ii. p. 182, Mr. Huxley has given some account of this article.
I quote a few lines:—“ Since Lord Brougham assailed Dr. Young, the
world has seen no such specimen of the insolence of a shallow pretender
to a Master in Science as this remarkable production, in w one of
the most exact of observers, most cautious of reasoners, and most candid
of expositors, of this or any other age, is held up to scorn as a ‘flighty’
person, who endeavours ‘ to prop up his utterly rotten fabric of guess and
speculation,’ and whose ‘mode of dealing with nature’ is reprobated
as ‘utterly dishonourable to Natural Science.’” The passage from
the Anti-Jacobin, referred to in the letter, gives the history of the
evolution of space from the “primeval point or punctum saliens of
’ the universe,” which is conceived to have moved “forward in a right
line, ad infinitum, till it grew tired; after which the right line, which it
had generated, would begin to put itself in motion in a lateral direction,
describing an area of infinite extent. This area, as soon as it became
conscious of its own existence, would begin to ascend or descend
according as its oe ies gravity would determine it, forming an
solid space filled with vacuum, and capable of containing the present
universe.
The following (p..263) may serve as an example of the pene in
which the reviewer refers to Sir Charles Lyell :—* That Mr. Darwin
should have wandered from this broad highway of nature’s works into
the jungle of fanciful assumption is no small evil. We trust that he is
mistaken in believing that he may count Sir O. Lyell as one of his
converts. We know, indeed, the strength of the temptations which he
can bring to bear upon his geological brother. .. . Yet no man has been
more distinct and more logical in the denial of the transmutation of
species than Sir O. Lyell, and that not in the infancy of his scientific
life, but in its full vigour and maturity.” The Bishop on to es
to Lyell, in order that with his help “this flimsy speculation may be as
completely put down as was what in zB of all denials we must venture
to call its twin though less instructed brother, the Vestiges of Creation.”
With reference to this article, Mr. Brodie Innes, my father’s old friend
and neighbour, writes:—“ Most men would have been annoyed by an
article written with the Bishop’s accustomed vigour, a mixture of t
and ridicule. Mr. Darwin was writing on some parish matter, and put a
stscript—‘If you have not seen last Quarterly, do get it; the
Bishop of Oxford has made such capital fun of me and my grandfather.’
By a curious coincidence, when I received the letter, I was staying in the
game house with the Bishop, and showed it to him. He said, ‘1 am very
glad he takes it in that way, he is such a capital fellow.’” s
Ou, XIIL] REVIEWS AND ORITICISMS, 1860. 243
and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes mo
quite splendidly by quoting the Anti-Jacobin versus my Grand-
father. You are not alluded to, nor, strange to say, Huxley ;
and I can plainly see, here and there, ——’s hand. The
concluding pages will make Lyell shake in his shoes. By
Jove, if he sticks to us, he will bea real hero. Good-night.
Your well-quizzed, but not sorrowful, and affectionate friend,
0. D.
I can see there has been some queer tampering with the
review, for a page has been cut out and reprinted.
The following extract from a letter of Sept. Ist, 1860, is of
interest, not only as showing that Lyell was still conscientiously
working out his conversion, but also and especially as illus-
trating the remarkable fact that hardly any of my father’s
critics gave him any new objections—so fruitful had been his
ponderings of twenty years :—
*T have been much interested by your letter of the 28th,
received this morning. It has delighted me, because it demon-
strates that you have thought a good deal lately on Natural
Selection. Few things have surprised me more than the entire
paucity of objections and difficulties new to me in the published
reviews. Your remarks are of a different stamp and new to
me.
O. D. to Asa Gray. [Harifield, Sussex] July 22nd [1860].
My prar Gray,—Owing to absence from home at water-cure
and then having to move my sick girl to whence I am now
writing, I have only lately read the discussion in Proc.
American Acad.,* and now I cannot resist expressing my
sincere admiration of your most clear powers of reasoning. As
Hooker lately said in a note to me, you are more than any one
else the thorough master of the subject. I declare that you
know my book as well as I do myself; and bring to the
question new lines of illustration and argument in a manner
which excites my astonishment and almost my envy!{ I
* April 10th, 1860. Dr. Gray criticised in detail “several of the
itions taken at the preceding meeting by Mr. [J. A.] Lowell, Prof.
wen and Prof. Agassiz.” It was reprinted in the Athenzwm, Aug. 4th,
1860.
+ On Sept. 26th, 1860, he wrote in the same sense to Gray :—* You
never touch the subject without making it clearer. I look at it as even
more extraordinary that you never say a word or use an epithet which
does not ce as fully my meaning. Now Lyell, Hooker, and others,
who perfectly understand my book, yet sometimes use expressions to
which I demur.” 3
R
244 ORIGIN OF SPECIES. (Cu. XIIL.
admire these discussions, I think, almost more than your
article in Silliman’s Journal. Every single word seems
weighed carefully, and tells like a 82-pound shot. It makes
me much wish (but I know that you have not time) that you
could write more in detail, and give, for instance, the facts on
the variability of the American wild fruits. The Atheneum
has the largest circulation, and I have sent my copy to the
editor with a request that he would republish the first dis-
cussion ; I much fear he will not, as he reviewed the subject in
so hostile a spirit. . . . I shall be curious [to see], and will
order the August number, as soon as I know that it contains
your review of reviews. My conclusion is that you have made
a mistake in being a botanist, you ought to have been a lawyer.
The following passages from a letter to Huxley (Dec. 2nd,
1860) may serve to show what was my father’s view of the
position of the subject, after a year’s experience of reviewers,
critics and converts :—
“T have got fairly sick of hostile reviews. Nevertheless,
they have been of use in showing me when to expatiate a little
and to introduce a few new discussions.
“ T entirely agree with you, that the difficulties on my notions
are terrific, yet having seen what all the Reviews have said
against me, I have far more confidence in the general truth of
the doctrine than I formerly had. Another thing gives me
confidence, viz. that some who went half an inch with me now
go further, and some who were bitterly opposed are now less
bitterly opposed. ... I can pretty plainly see that, if my
view is ever to be generally adopted, it will be by young men
growing up and replacing the old workers, and then young ones
finding that they can group facts and search out new lines of
investigation better on the notion of descent, than on that of
creation.”
( 245 )
OHAPTER XIV.
THE SPREAD Of EVOLUTION.
1861—1871.
Tux beginning of the year 1861 saw my father engaged on the
3rd edition (2000 copies) of the Origin, which was largely
corrected and added to, and was published in April, 1861.
On July 1, he started, with his family, for Torquay, where
he remained until August 27—a holiday which he characteris-
tically enters in his diary as “ eight weeks and a day.” The
house he occupied was in Hesketh Crescent, a pleasantly placed
row of houses close above the sea, somewhat removed from
what was then the main body of the town, and not far from the
beautiful cliffed coast-line in the neighbourhood of Anstey’s
Cove.
During the Torquay holiday, and for the remainder of the
year, he worked at the fertilisation of orchids. This part of
the year 1861 is not dealt with in the present chapter, because
(as explained in the preface) the record of his life, seems to
become clearer when the whole of his botanical work is placed
together and treated separately. The present chapter will,
therefore, include only the progress of his work in the direction
of a general amplification of the Origin of Species—e.g., the
publication of Animals and Plants and the Descent of Man.
It will also give some idea of the growth of belief in evolutionary
doctrines.
With regard to the third edition, he wrote to Mr. Murray in
December, 1860 :—
“JT shall be glad to hear when you have decided how many
copies you will print off—the more the better for me in all
ways, as far as compatible with safety ; for I hope never again
to make so many corrections, or rather additions, which I have
made in hopes of making my many rather stupid reviewers at
least understand what is meant. I hope and think I shall
improve the book considerably.”
interesting feature in the new edition was the “ His-
246 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cu. XIV.
torical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin
of Species,” * which now appeared for the first time, and was
continued in the later editions of the work. It bears a strong
impress of the author’s personal character in the obvious wish
to do full justice to all his predecessors,—though even in this
respect it has not escaped some adverse criticism.
A passage in a letter to Hooker (March 27, 1861) gives the
history of one of his corrections.
“ Here is a good joke: H. 0. Watson (who, I fancy and hope,
is going to review the new edition of the Origin) says that in
the first four paragraphs of the introduction, the words ‘I,
‘me,’ ‘my,’ occur forty-three times! I was dimly conscious
of the accursed fact. He says it can be explained phreno-
logically, which I suppose civilly means, that I am the most
egotistically self-sufficient man alive ; perhaps so. I wonder
whether he will print this pleasing fact; it beats hollow the
parentheses in Wollaston’s writing.
“ Tam, my dear Hooker, ever yours,
“0, Darwin.
“P.S.—Do not spread this pleasing joke; it is rather too
biting.”
He wrote a couple of years later, 1863, to Asa Gray, in a
manner which illustrates his use of the personal pronoun in the
earlier editions of the Origin :—
“You speak of Lyell as a judge; now what I complain of is
that he declines to be a judge .... I have sometimes almost
wished that Lyell had pronounced against me. When I say
‘me,’ I only mean change of species by descent. That seems to
me the turning-point. Personally, of course, I care much
about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unim-
portant, compared to the question of Creation or Modification.”
He was, at first, alone, and felt himself to be so in maintain-
ing a rational workable theory of Evolution. It was therefore —
perfectly natural that he should speak of “‘ my” theory.
Towards the end of the present year (1861) the final arrange-
ments for the first French edition of the Origin were completed,
and in September a copy of the third English edition was
despatched to Mdlle. Clémence Royer, who undertook the
* The Historical Sketch had already appeared in the first German
edition (1860) and the American edition. Bronn states in the German
edition (footnote, p. 1) that it was his critique in the N. Jahrbuch fiir
Mineralogie that suggested to my father the idea of such a sketch,
Cu. XIV] 1861—1871. 247
work of translation. The book was now spreading on the
Continent, a Dutch edition had appeared, and, as we have seen,
a German translation had been published in 1860. In a letter
to Mr, Murray (September 10, 1861), he wrote, “ My book
seems exciting much attention in Germany, judging from the
number of discussions sent me.” The silence had been broken,
and in a few years the voice of German science was to become
one of the strongest of the advocates of Evolution.
A letter, June 23, 1861, gave a pleasant echo from the Con-
tinent of the growth of his views :—
Hugh Falconer * to 0. Darwin. 31 Sackville St., W.,
June 23, 1861.
My prar Darwiy,—I have been to Adelsberg cave and
brought back with me a live Proteus anguinus, designed for you
from the moment I got it; i.e. if you have got an aquarium and
would care to have it. I only returned last night from the
Continent, and hearing from your brother that you are about to
go to Torquay, I lose no time in making you the offer. The
poor dear animal is still alive—although it has had no appre-
ciable means of sustenance for a month—and I am most
anxious to get rid of the responsibility of starving it longer.
In your hands it will thrive and have a fair chance of being
developed without delay into some type of the Columbide—
say a Pouter or a Tumbler.
My dear Darwin, I have been rambling through the north of
Italy, and Germany lately. Everywhere have I heard your
views and your admirable essay canvassed—the views of course
often dissented from, according to the special bias of the
speaker—but the work, its honesty of purpose, grandeur of
conception, felicity of illustration, and courageous exposition,
always referred to in terms of the highest admiration. And
among your warmest friends no one rejoiced more heartily in
the just appreciation of Charles Darwin than did,
Yours very truly.
My father replied :—
Down [June 24, 1861}.
My prar Fatoonzr,—I have just received your note, and by
good luck a day earlier than properly, and I lose not 2 moment
* Hugh Falconer, born 1809, died 1865, Chiefly known as a palwon-
tologist, although employed as a botanist during his whole career in
Tndia, where he was a medical officer in the H.E.L.C. Service.
248 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (On. XTY.
in answering you, and thanking you heartily for your offer of
the valuable specimen ; but I have no aquarium and shall soon
start for Torquay, so that it would be a thousand pities that I
should have it. Yet I should certainly much like to see it,
but I fear it is impossible. Would not the Zoological Society
be the best place? and then the interest which many would
onl this extraordinary animal would repay you for your
trouble.
Kind as you have been in taking this trouble and offering me
this specimen, to tell the truth I value your note more than the
specimen. I shall keep your note amongsta very few precious
letters. Your kindness has quite touched me.
Yours affectionately and gratefully.
My father, who had the strongest belief in the value of Asa
Gray’s help, was anxious that his evolutionary writings should
be more widely known in England. In the autumn of 1860,
and the early part of 1861, he had a good deal of correspondence
with him as to the publication, in the form of a pamphlet, of
Gray’s three articles in the July, August, and October numbers
of the Atlantic Monthly, 1860.
The reader will find these articles republished in Dr. Gray’s
Darwiniana, p. 87, under the title “ Natural Selection not
inconsistent with Natural Theology.” The pamphlet found
many admirers, and my father believed that it was of much
value in lessening opposition, and making converts to Evolution.
His high opinion of it is shown not only in his letters, but by
the fact that he inserted a special notice of it in a prominent
place in the third edition of the Origin. Lyell, among others,
recognised its value as an antidote to the kind of criticism from
which the cause of Evolution suffered. Thus my father wrote
to Dr. Gray: “‘ Just to exemplify the use of your pamphlet, the
Bishop of London was asking Lyell what he thought of the
review in the Quarterly, and Lyell answered, ‘Read Asa Gray
in the Atlantic.’”
On the same subject he wrote to Gray in the following
ear :—
her I believe that your pamphlet has done my book great
good; and I thank you from my heart for myself: and
believing that the views are in large part true, I must think
that you have done natural science a good turn. Natural
Selection seems to be making a little progress in England and
on the Continent; a new German edition is called for, and a
French one has just appeared.”
The following may serve as an example of the form assumed
Ox, XIV.) 1861—1871. 249
between these friends of the animosity at that time so strong
between England and America * :—
“Talking of books, I am in the middle of one which pleases
me, though it is very innocent food, viz. Miss Oooper’s Journal
of a Naturalist. Who is she? She seems a very clever
woman, and gives a capital account of the battle between our
and your weeds.f Does it not hurt your Yankee pride that we
thrash you so confoundedly? I am sure Mrs. Gray will
stick up for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not
more honest, downright good sort of weeds. The book gives an
extremely pretty picture of one of your villages; but I see
your autumn, though so much more gorgeous than ours, comes
on sooner, and that is one comfort.”
A question constantly recurring in the letters to Gray is that
of design. For instance :—
“Your question what would convince me of design is a
poser. IfI saw an angel come down to teach us good, and I
was convinced from others seeing him that I was not mad, I
should believe in design. IfI could be convinced thoroughly
that life and mind was in an unknown way a function of other
imponderable force, I should be convinced. If man was made
of brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism
which had ever lived, I should perhaps be convinced. But this
is childish writing.
“T have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think,
adopts your idea of the stream of variation having been led or
designed. I have asked him (and he says he will hereafter
reflect and answer me) whether he believes that the shape of my
nose was designed. he does I have nothing more to say. If
not, seeing what Fanciers have done by selecting individual
differences in the nasal bones of pigeons, I must think that it is
illogical to suppose that the variations, which natural selection
preserves for the good of any being, have been designed. But
I know that I am in the same sort of muddle (as I have said
* In his letters to Gray there are also numerous references to the
American war. I give a single passage. “I never knew the newspapers
so profoundly interesting. North America does not do England justice;
I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few,
and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of
lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the
long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the causé of
humanity. What wonderful times we live in! Massachusetts seems to
show noble enthusiasm. Great God! how Ishould like to see the greatest
curse on earth—slavery—abolished !”
+ This refers to the remarkable fact that many introduced European
weeds have spread over large parts of the United States,
250 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cu. XTY.
before) as all the world seems to be in with respect to free will,
yet with everything supposed to have been foreseen or pre-
ordained.”
The shape of his nose would perhaps not have been used as
an illustration, if he had remembered Fitz-Roy’s objection to that
- feature (see Autobiography, p. 26). He should, too, have re-
membered the difficulty of predicting the value to an organism
of an apparently unimportant character.
In England Professor Huxley was at work in the evolutiona
cause. He gave, in 1862, two lectures at Edinburgh on Man’s
Place in Nature. My father wrote :—
“TI am heartily glad of your success in the North. By
Jove, you have attacked Bigotry in its stronghold. I thought
you would have been mobbed. I am so glad that you will
publish your Lectures. You seem to have kept a due medium
between extreme boldness and caution. Iam heartily glad that
all went off so well.”
A review,* by F. W. Hutton, afterwards Professor of Biology
and Geology at Canterbury, N. Z., gave a hopeful note of
the time not far off when a broader view of the argument
for Evolution would be accepted. My father wrote to the
author f :—
Down, April 20th, 1861.
Dear Srr,—I hope that you will permit me to thank you for
sending me a copy of your paper in the Geologist, and at the
same time to express my opinion that you have done the subject
a real service by the highly original, striking, and condensed
manner with which you have put the case. I am actually
weary of telling econ that Ido not pretend to adduce direct
evidence of one species changing into another, but that I believe
that this view in the main is correct, because so many phenomena
can be thus grouped together and explained.
But it is generally of no use, I cannot make persons see this.
I generally throw in their teeth the universally admitted theory
of the undulations of light—neither the undulations, nor the
very existence of ether being proved—yet admitted because the
view explains so much. You are one of the very few who have
seen this, and have now put it most forcibly and clearly. Iam
much pleased to see how carefully you have read my book, and
what is far more important, er ne on so many points with an
independent spirit. As Iam deeply interested in the subject
* Geologist, 1861, p. 132.
+ The letter is published in a lecture by Professor Hutton given before -
the Philosoph, Institute, Canterbury, N.Z., Sept. 12th, 1887.
Cu. XIV.) 1861—1871. 251
(and I hope not exclusively under a personal point of view) I
could not resist venturing to thank you for the right good
service which you haye done. Pray believe me, dear sir,
Yours faithfully and obliged.
It was a still more hopeful sign that work of the first rank
in value, conceived on evolutionary principles, began to be
published.
My father expressed this idea in a letter to the late Mr. Bates.*
“Under a general point of view, I am quite convinced
ooker and Festey took the same view some months ago)
that a philosophic view of nature can solely be driven into
naturalists by treating special subjects as you have done.”
This refers to Mr. Bates’ celebrated paper on mimicry, with
which the following letter deals :—
Down Nov. 20 [1862).
Duar Batus,—I have just finished, after several reads, your
paper.t| In my opinion it is one of the most remarkable and
* Mr. Bates is perhaps most widely known through his delightful The
Naturalist on the Amazons. It was with regard to this book that my
father wrote (April 1863) to the author:—* I have finished vol.i, My
criticisms may be condensed into a single sentence, namely, that it is the
best work of Natural History Travels ever —— in England. Your
style seems to me admirable. Nothing can be better than the discussion
on the struggle for existence, and nothing better than the description of
the Forest scenery. It is a grand book, and whether or not it sells
quickly, it will last. You have spoken out boldly on Species; and
boldness on the subject seems to get rarer and rarer. How beautifully
illustrated it is.”
+ Mr. Bates’ paper, ‘ Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazons
Valley’ (Linn. Soc. Trans. xxiii. 1862), in which the now familiar subject
of mimicry was founded, My father wrote a short review of it in the
Natural History Review, 1863, p. 219, parts of which occur almost
verbatim in the later editions of the Origin of Species. A striking
passage occurs in the review, showing the difficulties of the case from a
creationist’s point of view :—
“By what means, it may be asked, have so many butterflies of the
Amazonian region acquired their deceptive dress? Most naturalists will
answer that they were thus clothed from the hour of their creation—an
answer which will generally be so far triumphant that it can be met only
by long-drawn pane but it is made at the expense of putting an
effectual bar to all further inquiry. In this particular case, moreover,
the creationist will meet with ag difficulties; for many of the
forms of Leptalis can be shown by a graduated series to be
merely varieties of one species ; other mimickers are undoubtedly distinct
species, or even distinct genera. So again, some of the mimicked forms
can be shown to be merely varieties; but the greater number must be
ranked as distinct species. Hence the creationist will have to admit that
some of these forms have become imitators, by means of the laws of
252 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cu. XIV.
admirable papers I ever read in my life. The mimetic cases
are truly marvellous, and you connect excellently a host of
analogous facts. ‘The illustrations are beautiful, and seem very
well chosen; but it would have saved the reader not a little
trouble, if the name of each had been engraved below each
separate figure. No doubt this would have put the engraver
into fits, as it would have destroyed the beauty of the plate. I
am not at all surprised at such a paper having consumed much
time. Iam rejoiced that I passed over the whole subject in the
Origin, for I should have made a precious mess of it. You have
most clearly stated and solved a wonderful problem. No
doubt with most people this will be the cream of the paper; but
I am not sure that all your facts and reasonings on variation, and
on the segregation of complete and semi-complete species, is not
really more, or at least as valuable a part. I never conceived
the process nearly so clearly before; one feels present at the
creation of new forms. I wish, however, you had enlarged a
little more on the pairing of similar varieties; a rather more
numerous body of facts seems here wanted. Then, again, what
a host of curious miscellaneous observations there are—as on
related sexual and individual variability: these will some day,
if I live, be a treasure to me.
With respect to mimetic resemblance being so common with
insects, do you not think it may be connected with their small
size; they cannot defend themselves; they cannot escape by
flight, at least, from birds, therefore they escape by trickery and
deception ?
I have one serious criticism to make, and that is about the
title of the paper; I cannot but think that you ought to have
called prominent attention in it to the mimetic resemblances.
Your paper is too good to be largely appreciated by the mob of
naturalists without souls; but, rely on it, that it will have lasting
value, and I cordially congratulate you on your first great work.
You will find, I should think, that Wallace will appreciate it.
How gets on your book? Keep your spirits up. A book is no
variation, whilst others he must look at as rs organ created under their
present guise; he will further have to admit that some have been created
in imitation of forms not themselves created as we now see them, but due
to the laws of variation! Professor Agassiz, indeed, would think nothing
of this difficulty; for he believes that not only each species and each
variety, but that groups of individuals, though identically the same,
when inhabiting distinct countries, have been all separately created in
due proportional numbers to the wants of each land. Not man
naturalists will be content thus to believe that varieties and individ
have been turned out all ready made, almost as a manufacturer turns out
toys according to the temporary demand of the market.”
Cu. XIV.) 1861—1871. 253
light labour. Ihave been better lately, and working hard, but
my health is very indifferent. How is your health? Belicve
me, dear Bates,
Yours very sincerely.
1863.
Although the battle* of Evolution was not yet won, the
rowth of belief was undoubtedly rapid. So that, for instance,
Charles Kingsley could write to F'. D. Maurice f :
“ The state of the scientific mind is most curious; Darwin is
conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere
force of truth and fact.”
The change did not proceed without a certain amount of
personal bitterness. My father wrote in February, 1863 :—
“ What an accursed evil it is that there should be all this
quarrelling within what ought to be the peaceful realms of
science.”
I do not desire to keep alive the memories of dead quarrels,
but some of the burning questions of that day are too important
from the re eee point of view to be altogether omitted.
Of this sort is the history of Lyell’s conversion to Evolution.
It led to no flaw in the friendship of the two men principally
concerned, but it shook and irritated a number of smaller
people. Lyell was like the Mississippi in flood, and as he
changed his course, the dwellers on the banks were angered
and frightened by the general upsetting of landmarks.
O. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down, Feb. 24[1868].
My prar Hooxer,—I am astonished at your note. I have
not seen the Athenzewm,} but I have sent for it, and may get it
to-morrow ; and will then say what I think.
* Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating the
growing tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth in the Origin
Sa gan He gave a series of lectures to working men at the School of
ines in November, 1862. These were printed in 1863 from the
shorthand notes of Mr. May, as six little blue books, price 4d. each,
under the title, Our Knowledge of the Oauses of Organic Nature.
+ Kingsley’s Life, vol. ii. p. 171.
} In the Antiquity of Man, first edition, p. 480, Lyell criticised some-
what sevérely Owen’s account of the difference between the Human and
Simian brains. The number of the Athenzum here referred to (1863,
p. 262) contains a reply by Professor Owen to Lyell’s strictures. The
surprise expressed by my father was at the revival of a controversy which
254 - ‘THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (On. XIV,
I have read Lyell’s book. [The Antiquity of roa The
whole certainly struck me as a compilation, but of the highest
class, for when possible the facts have been verified on the spot,
making it almost an original work. ‘The Glacial chapters seem
to me best, and in parts magnificent. I could hardly judge
about Man, as all the gloss and novelty was completely worn
off. But certainly the aggregation of the evidence produced a
very striking effect on my mind. The chapter comparin
language and changes of species, seems most ingenious a
interesting. He has shown great skill in picking out salient
points in the argument for change of species; but I am deeply
disappointed (I do not mean personally) to find that his timidity
prevents him giving any judgment. ... From all my com-
munications with him, I must ever think that he has really
entirely lost faith in the immutability of species; and yet one
of his strongest sentences is nearly as follows; “If it should
ever | be rendered highly probable that species change by
variation and natural selection,” &c. &c. I had hoped he would
have guided the public as far as his own belief went. . . . One
thing does please me on this subject, that he seems to appreciate
your work. No doubt the public ora part may be induced to
think that, as he gives to usa larger space than to Lamarck,
he must think that there is something in our views. When
reading the brain chapter, it struck me forcibly that if he had
said openly that he believed in change of species, and as a
consequence that man was derived from some Quadrumanous
animal, it would have been very proper to have discussed by
compilation the differences in the most important organ, viz. the
brain. As itis, the chapter seems to me to come in rather by
the head and shoulders. I do not think (but then I am as pre-
judiced as Falconer and Huxley, or more so) that it is too
severe; it struck me as given with judicial force. It might
perhaps be said with truth that he had no business to judge on
a subject on which he knows nothing; but compilers must do
this to a certain extent. (You know I value and rank high
compilers, being one myself!)
The Lyells are coming here on Sunday evening to stay till
Wednesday. I dread it, but I must say how much disappointed
Iam that he has not spoken out on species, still less on man.
every one believed to be closed. Professor Huxley (Medical Times,
Oct. 25th, 1862, quoted in Man’s Place in Nature, p. 117) spoke of the
“two years during which this preposterous controversy has dragged ita
weary length.” And this no doubt expressed a very general feeling.
t The italics are not Lvell’s,
On. XIV.) 1861—1871. 255
And the best of the joke is that he thinks he has acted with the
courage of a martyr of old. I hope I may have taken an
exaggerated view of his timidity, and shall particularly be glad
of your opinion on this head. When I got his book I turned
over the pages, and saw he had discussed the subject of species,
and said that I thought he would do more to convert the public
than all of us, and now (which makes the case worse for me) I
must, in common honesty, retract. I wish to Heaven he had
said not a word on the subject.
C. D. to O. Lyell. Down, March 6 [1863].
. . « L have been of course deeply interested by your book. *
I have hardly any remarks worth rending, but will scribble a
little on what most interested me. But I will first get out what
I hate saying, viz. that I have been greatly disappointed that
you have not given judgment and spoken fairly out what you
think about the derivation of species. I should have been
contented if you had boldly said that species have not been
separately created, and had thrown as much doubt as you like
on how far variation and natural selection suffices. I hope to
Heaven I am wrong (and from what you say about Whewell it
seems so), but I cannot see how your chapters can do more
good than an extraordinary able review. I think the Parthenon
is right, that you will leave the public in a fog. No doubt
they may infer that as you give more space to myself, Wallace,
and Hooker, than to Lamarck, you think more of us. But I
had always thought that your judgment would have been an
epoch in the subject. All that is over with me, and I will only
think on the admirable skill with which you have selected the
striking points, and explained them. No praise can be too
strong, in my opinion, for the inimitable chapter on language
in comparison with species. .. .
I know you will forgive me for writing with perfect freedom,
for you must know how deeply I respect you as my old honoured
guide and master. I heartily hope and expect that your book
will have a gigantic circulation, and may do in many ways as
much good as it ought to do. Iam tired,sono more. I have
written so briefly that you will have to guess my meaning. I
fear my remarks are hardly worth sending. Farewell, with
kindest remembrance to Lady Lyell,
| Ever yours.
* The Antiquity of Man.
256 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cn. XIV.
A letter from Lyeli to Hooker (Mar. 9, 1863), published in
Lyell’s Life and Letters, vol. ii. p. 361, shows what was his
feeling at the time :—
“He [Darwin] seems much disappointed that I do not go
farther with him, or do not speak out more. I can only say
that I have spoken out to the full extent of my present con-
victions, and even beyond my stats of feeling as to man’s un-
broken descent from the brutes, and I find I am half converting
not a few who were in arms against Darwin, and are even now
_ against Huxley.” Lyell speaks, too, of having had to abandon
“ old and long cherished ideas, which constituted the charm to
me of the theoretical part of the science in my earlier days,
when I believed with Pascal in the theory, as Hallam terms it,
of ‘ the archangel ruined.’ ”
C. D. to O. Lyell. Down, 12th [March, 1868}.
My pear Lyett,—I thank you for your very interesting and
kind, I may say, charming letter. I feared you might be
huffed for a little time with me. I know some men would have
been so... .As you say that you have gone as far as you believe
on the species question, I have not a word to say; but I must
feel convinced that at times, judging from conversation, ex-
pressions, letters, &c., you have as completely given up belief
in immutability of specific forms as I have done. I must still
think a clear expression from you, if you could have given it,
would have been potent with the public, and all the more so, as
you formerly held opposite opinions. The more I work, the
more satisfied I become with variation and natural selection,
but that part of the case I look at as less important, though
more interesting to me personally. As you ask for criticisms
on this head (and believe me that I should not have made them
unasked), I may specify (pp. 412, 413) that such words as “ Mr.
D. labours to show,” ‘is believed by the author to throw light,”
would lead a common reader to think that you yourself do not
at all agree, but merely think it fair to give my opinion. Lastly,
you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck’s
doctrine of development and progression. If this is your
deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said, but it does not
seem so tome. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before Lamarck,
and others, propounded the obvious view that if species were
not created separately they must have descended from other
species, and I can see nothing else in common between the
Origin and Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is
very injurious to its acceptance, as it implies necessary pro-
On. XIV.] 1861—1871. 257
gression, and closely connects Wallace’s and my views with
what I consider, after two deliberate readings, as a wretched
book, and one from which (I well remember my surprise) I
gained nothing. But I know you rank it higher, which is
curious, as it did not in the least shake your belief. But
enough, and more than enough. Please remember you have
brought it all down on yourself! !
I am very sorry to hear about Falconer’s “reclamation.”* I
hate the very word, and have a sincere affection for him.
Did you ever read anything so wretched as the Athenzeum
reviews of you, and of Huxley especially. Your object to
make man old, and Huxley’s object to degrade him. The
wretched writer has not a glimpse of what the discovery of
scientific truth means. How splendid some pages are in
Huxley, but I fear the book will not be popular... .
In the Athenzewm, Mar. 28, 1862, p. 417, appeared a notice of
Dr. Carpenter’s book on ‘ Foraminifera,’ which led to more
skirmishing in the same journal. The article was remarkable
for upholding spontaneous generation.
My father wrote, Mar. 29, 1863 :—
“ Many thanks for Athenzewm, received this morning, and to
be returned to-morrow morning. Who would have ever thought
of the old stupid Atheneum taking to Oken-like transcendental
philosophy written in Owenian style!
“Tt will be some time before we seo ‘slime, protoplasm, &c.’
generating a newanimal. But I have long regretted that I
truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of
creation,t by which I really meant ‘ appeared’ by some wholly
unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of
the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of
matter.”
The Athenzeum continued to be a scientific battle-ground. On
April 4, 1863, Falconer wrote a severe article on Lyell. And
* “ Falconer, whom I [Lyell] referred to oftener than to any other author,
says I have not done justice to the part he took in resuscitating the cave
a and says he shall come out with a separate paper to prove it.
offered to alter anything in the new edition, but this he declined.”—
C. Lyell to C. Darwin, March 11, 1863; Lyell’s Life, vol ii. p. 364,
+ Man’s Place in Nature, 1863.
} This refers to a passage in which the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter’s
book speaks of “an operation of force,” or “‘ a concurrence of forces which
have now no place in nature,” as being, “a creative foree, in fact, which
Darwin could only express in Pentateuchal terms as the primordial form
‘into which life was first breathed.” The conception of expressing a
creative force as a primordial form is the reviewer's.
8
_ 258 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cx. XIV.
my father wrote (Athenzeum, 1863, p. 554), under the cloak of
attacking spontaneous generation, to defend Evolution. In
reply, an article appeared in the same Journal (May 2nd, 1863,
p. 586), accusing my father of claiming for his views the
exclusive merit of “connecting by an intelligible thread of
reasoning ” a number of facts in morphology, &c. The writer
remarks that, “The different generalisations cited by Mr.
Darwin as being connected by an intelligible thread of reason-
ing exclusively through his attempt to explain specific trans-
mutation are in fact related to it in this wise, that they have
prepared the minds of naturalists for a better reception of such
attempts to explain the way of the origin of species from
species.”
To this my father replied as follows in the Athenzewm of May
9th, 1863 :-—
Down, May 5 [1863].
I hope that you will grant me space to own that your
reviewer is quite correct when he states that any theory of
descent will connect, * by an intelligible thread of reasoning,”
the several generalizations before specified. I ought to have
made this admission expressly ; with the reservation, however,
that, as far as I can judge, no theory so well explains or connects
these several generalizations (more especially the formation of
domestic races in comparison with natural species, the principles
of classification, embryonic resemblance, &e.) as the theory, or
hypothesis, or guess, if the reviewer so likes to call it, of
Natural Selection. Nor has any other satisfactory explanation
been ever offered of the almost perfect adaptation of all organic
beings to each other, and to their physical conditions of life.
Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by Lamarck,
by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, by the author of the Vestiges, by
Mr. Wallace and myself, or in any other such view, signifies
extremely little in comparison with the admission that species
have descended from other species, and have not been created
immutable ; for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide ©
field opened to him for further inquiry. I believe, however,
from what I see of the progress of opinion on the Continent,
and in this country, that the theory of Natural Selection will
ultimately be adopted, with, no doubt, many subordinate
modifications and improvements. |
Cuartes Darwin,
In the following, he refers to the above letter to the
Athenzewm :—
4
Cu. XIV.) 1861—1871. 259
0. D. to J. D. Hooker. Saturday [May 11, 1863}.
My pear Hooxer,—You give good advice about not writing in
newspapers; I have been gnashing my teeth at my own folly ;
and this not caused by ’s sneers, which were so good that
I almost enjoyed them. I haye written once again to own to a
certain extent of truth in what he says, and then if I am ever
such a fool again, have no mercy on me, I have read the squib
in Public Opinion ;* it is capital; if there is more, and you
have a copy, do lend it. It shows well that a scientific man
had better be trampled in dirt than squabble.
In the following year (1864) he received the greatest honour
which a scientific man can receive in this country, the Copley
Medal of the Royal Society. It is presented at the Anniv
Meeting on St. Andrew’s Day (Nov. 30), the medallist being
usually present to receive it, but this the state of my father’s
health prevented. He wrote to Mr. Fox :—
“T was glad to see your hand-writing. The Copley, being
open to all sciences and all the world, is reckoned a great
honour ; but excepting from several kind letters, such things
make little difference to me. It shows, however, that Natural
Selection is making some progress in this country, and that
pleases me. The subject, however, is safe in foreign lands.”
The presentation of the Copley Medal is of interest in
connection with what has gone before, inasmuch as it led to Sir
C. Lyell making, in his after-dinner speech, a “confession of
faith as to the Origin.” He wrote to my father (Life of Sir
* Public Opinion, April 23, 1863. A lively account of a police case, in
which the quarrels of scientific men are satirised, Mr. John Bull gives
evidence that—
“The whole neighbourhood was unsettled by their disputes; Huxley
aero with Owen, Owen with Darwin, Lyell with Owen, Falconer and
restwich with Lyell, and Gray the menagerie man with everybody. He
had pleasure, however, in stating Set Darwin was the quietest of the
set. They were always picking bones with each other and fighting over
their gains. If either of the gravel sifters or stone breakers found any-
thing, he was obliged to conceal it immediately, or one of the old bone
collectors would be sure to appropriate it first and deny the theft after-
wards, and the consequent wrangling and disputes were as endless as they
were wearisome.
“Tord Mayor.—Probably the clergyman of the parish might exert some
influence over them?
“The gentleman smiled, shook his head, and stated that he regretted
to say that no class of men paid so little attention to the opinions of the
clergy as that to which these unhappy men belonged.”
8
260 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cn. XIV.
O. Lyell, vol. ii. p. 384), ‘I said I had been forced to give up my
old faith without thoroughly seeing my way to a new one. But
I think you would have been satisfied with the length I went.”
Lyell’s acceptance of Evolution was made public in the tenth
edition of the Principles, published in 1867 and 1868. It wasa
sign of improvement, “a great triumph,” as my father called it,
that an evolutionary article by Wallace, dealing with Lyeil’s
book, should have appeared in the Quarterly Review (April,
1869). Mr. Wallace wrote :—
‘‘The history of science hardly presents so striking an
instance of youthfulness of mind in advanced life as is shown
by this abandonment of opinions so long held and so powerfully
advocated; and if we bear in mind the extreme caution, com-
bined with the ardent love of truth which characterise every
work which our author has produced, we shall be convinced
that so great a change was not decided on without long and
anxious deliberation, and that the views now adopted must
indeed be supported by arguments of overwhelming force. If
for no other reason than that Sir Charles Lyell in his tenth
edition has adopted it, the theory of Mr. Darwin deserves an
attentive and respectful consideration from every earnest seeker
after truth.”
The incident of the Copley Medal is interesting as giving an
index of the state of the scientific mind at the time.
My father wrote: “some of the old members of the
Royal are quite shocked at my having the Copley.” In
the Reader, December 8, 1864, General Sabine’s presidential
address at the Anniversary Meeting is reported at some
length. Special weight was laid on my father’s work in
Geology, Zoology, and Botany, but the Origin of Species was
praised chiefly as containing a “mass of observations,’ &c. It
is curious that as in the case of his election to the French
Institute, so in this case, he was honoured not for the great
work of his life, but for his less important work in special
lines.
I believe I am right in saying that no little dissatisfaction
at the President’s manner of allusion to the Origin was felt by
some Fellows of the Society.
My father spoke justly when he said that the subject was
“ safe in foreign lands.” In telling Lyell of the progress of
opinion, he wrote (March, 1863) :— ; |
“ A first-rate German naturalist * (I now forget the name! ),
who has lately published a grand folio, has spoken out to the
* No doubt Haeckel, whose monograph on the Radiolaria was pub-
lished in 1862.
Ox. XIV.) 1861—1871. 261
utmost extent on the Origin. De Candolle, in a very good
paper on ‘Oaks,’ goes, in Asa Gray’s opinion, as far as he
himself does; but De Candolle, in writing to me, says we, ‘ we
think this and that;’ so that I infer he really goes to the full
extent with me, and tells me of a French good botanical
paleontologist * (name forgotten), who writes to De Candolle
that he is sure that my views will ultimately prevail. But I
did not intend to have written all this. It satisfies me with
the final results, but this result, I begin to see, will take two or
three life-times. The entomologists are enough to keep the
subject back for half a century.”
The official attitude of French science was not very hopeful.
The Seerétaire Perpétuel of the Académie published an Examen
du livre de M. Darwin, on which my father remarks :—
“A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book f
against me, which pleases me much, for it is plain that our
good work is spreading in France.”
Mr. Huxley, who reviewed the book,{ quotes the following
passage from Flourens :—
“M. Darwin continue: Aucune distinction absolue n’a été
et ne peut étre établie entre les espéces et les variétés! Je
vous ai déja dit que vous vous trompiez; une distinction
absolue sépare les variétés d’avec les espéces.” Mr. Huxley
remarks on this, “ Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy
in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated
in this way even by a Perpetual Secretary.” After demon-
strating M. Flourens’ misapprehension of Natural Selection,
Mr. Huxley says, “ How one knows it all by heart, and with
what relief one reads at p. 65, ‘ Je laisse M. Darwin.’ ”
The deterrent effect of the Académie on the spread of
Evolution in France has been most striking. Even at the
present day a member of the Institute does not feel quite
happy in owning to a belief in Darwinism. We may indeed
be thankful that we are “devoid of such a blessing.”
Among the Germans, he was fast gaining supporters.
In 1865 he began a correspondence with the distinguished
Naturalist, Fritz Miller, then, as now, resident in Brazil.
They never met, but the correspondence with Miller, which
continued to the close of my father’s life, was a source of
very great pleasure to him. My impression is that of all his
unseen friends Fritz Miiller was the one for whom he had
* The Marquis de Saporta.
t+ Ezamen du livre M. Darwin sur Porigine des espéces. Par P.
Flourens. 8yo. Paris, 1864.
t Lay Sermons, p. 328.
262 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cu. XIV.
the strongest regard. Fritz Miller is the brother of another
distinguished man, the late Hermann Miiller, the author of
Die Befruchtung der Blumen oP Fertilisation of Flowers),
and of much other valuable work.
The occasion of writing to Fritz Miiller was the latter's
book, Fiir Darwin, which was afterwards translated by Mr.
Dallas at my father’s suggestion, under the title Facts and
Arguments for Darwin.
Shortly afterwards, in 1866, began his connection with
Professor Victor Carus, of Leipzig, who undertook the trans-
lation of the 4th edition of the Origin. From this time
forward Professor Carus continued to translate my father’s
books into German. The conscientious care with which this
work was done was of material service, and I well remember
the admiration (mingled with a tinge of vexation at his own
shortcomings) with which my father used to receive the lists of
oversights, &c., which Professor Carus discovered in the course
of translation. The connection was not a mere business one,
but was cemented by warm feelings of regard on both sides.
About this time, too, he came in contact with Professor
Ernst Haeckel, whose influence on German science has been so
powerful.
The earliest letter which I have seen from my father to
Professor Haeckel, was written in 1865, and from that time
forward they mo aero (though not, I think, with any regu-
larity) up to the end of my father’s life. His friendship with
Haeckel was not merely the growth of correspondence, as was
the case with some others, for instance, Fritz Miller. Haeckel
paid more than one visit to Down, and these were thoroughly
enjoyed by my father. The following letter will serve to show
the strong feeling of regard which he entertained for his corre-
spondent—a feeling which I have often heard him emphatically
express, and which was warmly returned. The book referred
to is Haeckel’s Generelle Morphologie, published in 1866, a copy
of which my father received from the author in January, 1867,
Dr. E. Krause * has given a good account of Professor
Haeckel’s services in the cause of Evolution. After speaking
of the lukewarm reception which the Origin met with in
Germany on its first publication, he goes on to describe the
first adherents of the new faith as more or less popular writers,
not especially likely to advance its acceptance with the
rofessorial or purely scientific world. And he claims for
aeckel that it was his advocacy of Evolution in his Radio-
:
* Charles Darwin und sein Verhiiliniss zu Deutschland, 1885,
Cu. XIV.) 1861—1871. 263
laria (1862), and at the “ Versammlung” of Naturalists at
Stettin in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the
first time publicly before the foram of German science, and
his enthusiastic propagandism that chiefly contributed to its
success.
Mr. Huxley, writing in 1869, paid a high tribute to Professor
Haeckel as the Corypheus of the Darwinian movement in
Germany. Of his Generelle Morphologie, “an attempt to work
out the practical applications” of the doctrine of Evolution to
their final results, he says that it has the “ force and suggestive-
ness, and . . . systematising power of Oken without his extra-
vagance.” Mr, Huxley also testifies to the value of Haeckel’s
Schépfungs-Geschichte as an exposition of the Generelle Mor-
phologie * for an educated public.”
Again, in his Evolution in Biology,” Mr. Huxley wrote:
“ Whatever hesitation may not unfrequently be felt by less
daring minds, in following Haeckel in many of his specula-
tions, his attempt to systematise the doctrine of Evolution and
to exhibit its influence as the central thought of modern
biology, cannot fail to have a far-reaching influence on the
progress of science.”
In the following letter my father alludes to the somewhat
fierce manner in which Professor Haeckel fought the battle of
‘ Darwinismus, and on this subject Dr. Krause has some good
remarks (p. 162). He asks whether much that happened in the
heat of the conflict might not well have been otherwise, and
adds that Haeckel himself is the last man to deny this. Never-
theless he thinks that even these things may have worked
well for the cause of Evolution, inasmuch as Haeckel “ con-
centrated on himself by his Ursprung des Menschen-Geschlechis,
his Generelle Morphologie, and Schépfungs-Geschichte, all the
hatred and bitterness which Evolution excited in certain
quarters,” so that, “in a surprisingly short time it became the
fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone should be abused,
while Darwin was held up as the ideal of forethought and
moderation.”
0. D. to E. Haeckel. Down, May 21, 1867.
Dear Haxoxet,—Your letter of the 18th has given me great
pleasure, for you have received what I said in the most kind and
* An article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edit, reprinted in
Science and Oultwre, 1881, p. 298. oi
264 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cu. XIV.
cordial manner. You have in part taken what I said much
stronger than I had intended. It never occurred to me for a
moment to doubt that your work, with the whole subject so
admirably and clearly arranged, as well as fortified by so many
new facts and arguments, would not advance our common object
in the highest degree. All that I think is that you will excite
anger, and that anger so completely blinds every one that your
arguments would have no chance of influencing those who are
already opposed to our views. Moreover, I do not at all like
that you, towards whom I feel so much friendship, should un-
necessarily make enemies, and there is pain and vexation enough
in the world without more being caused. But I repeat that I
can feel no doubt that your work will greatly advance our
subject, and I heartily wish it could be translated into English,
for my own sake and that of others. With respect to what
you say about my advancing too strongly objections against
my own views, some of my English friends think that 1 have
erred on this side; but truth compelled me to write what I did,
and I am inclined to think it was good policy. The belief in
the descent theory is slowly spreading in England,* even
amongst those who can give no reason for their belief. No body
of men were at first so much opposed fo my views as the members
of the London Entomological Society, but now I am assured
that, with the exception of two or three old men, all the
members concur with me to a certain extent. It has beena
great disappointment to me that I have never received your long
letter written to me from the Canary Islands. I am rejoiced to
hear that your tour, which seems to have been a most interesting
one, has done your health much good.
.... Lamvery glad to hear that there is some chance of
your visiting England this autumn, and all in this house will be
delighted to see you here.
Believe me, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely.
I place here an extract from a letter of later date (Nov. 1868),
which refers to one of Haeckel’s later works.
“Your chapters on the affinities and genealogy of the animal
kingdom strike me as admirable and full of original thought.
* In October, 1867, he wrote to Mr. Wallace :—“ Mr. Warrington has
lately read an excellent and spirited abstract of the be are before the
Victoria Institute, and as this is a most orthodox body, he has gained the
name of the Devil’s Advocate. The discussion which followed during
three consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked.”
+ Die natiirliche Schipfungs-Geschichte, 1868. It was translated and
published in 1876, under the title, The History of Creation.
Cu. XIV.] 1861—1871. 265
Your boldness, however, sometimes makes me tremble, but as
Huxley remarked, some one must be bold enough to make a
beginning in drawing up tables of descent. Although you fully
admit the imperfection of the geological record, yet Huxley
agreed with me in thinking that you are sometimes rather rash
in venturing to say at what periods the several groups first
appeared. I have this advantage over you, that I remember
how wonderfully different any statement on this subject made
20 years ago, would have been to what would now be the case,
and I expect the next 20 years will make quite as great a
difference.”
The following extract from a letter to Professor W. Preyer, a
well-known physiologist, shows that he estimated at its true
value the help he was to receive from the scientific workers of
Germany :—
March 31, 1868.
. . . » Lam delighted to hear that you uphold the doctrine
of the Modification of Species, and defend my views. The
support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground
for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail. To the
present day I am continually abused or treated with contempt
by writers of my own country; but the younger naturalists
are almost all on my side, and sooner or later the public
must follow those who make the subject their special study.
Se abuse and contempt of ignorant writers hurts me very
little...
I must now pass on to the publication, in 1868, of his book
on The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.
It was begun two days after the appearance of the second edition
of the Origin, on Jan. 9, 1860, and it may, I think, be reckoned
that about half of the eight years that elapsed between its com-
mencement and completion was spent on it. The book did not
escape adverse criticism: it was said, for instance, that the
public had been patiently waiting for Mr. Darwin’s piéces
justicatives, and thatafter eight years of expectation, all they
got was a mass of detail about pigeons, rabbits and silk-
worms. But the true critics welcomed it as an expansion with
unrivalled wealth of illustration of a section of the Origin.
Variation under the influence of man was the only subject
(except the question of man’s origin) which he was able to deal
with in detail so as to utilise his full stores of knowledge.
When we remember how important for his argument is a know-
266 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cu. XIf¥.
ledge of the action of artificial selection, we may well rejoice
that this subject was chosen by him for amplification.
In 1864, he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker :
“T have begun looking over my old MS., and it is as fresh as
if I had never written it; parts are astonishingly dull, but yet
worth printing, I think; and other parts strike me as very good.
I am a complete millionaire in odd and curious little facts, and
I have been really astounded at my own industry whilst reading
my chapters on Inheritance and Selection. God knows when
the book will ever be completed, for I find that I am very weak,
and on my best days cannot do more than one or one and a half
hours’ work. It isa good deal harder than writing about my
dear climbing plants.”
In Aug. 1867, when Lyell was reading the proofs of the book,
my father wrote :—
“T thank you cordially for your last two letters. The former
one did me real good, for I had got so wearied with the subject
that I could hardly bear to correct the proofs, and you gave me
fresh heart. I remember thinking that when you came to the
Pigeon chapter you would pass it over as quite unreadable. I have
been particularly pleased that you have noticed Pangenesis. I
do not know whether you ever had the feeling of having thought
so much over a subject that you had lost all power of judging
it. This is my case with Pangenesis (which is 26 or 27 years
old), but I am inclined to think that if it be admitted as a
probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in
Biology.”
His theory of Pangenesis, by which he attempted to explain
“ how the characters of the parents are ‘ photographed’ on the
child, by means of material atoms derived from each cell in
both parents, and developed in the child,” has never met with
much acceptance. Nevertheless, some of his contemporaries
felt with him about it. Thus in February 1868, he wrote to
Hooker :—
“T heard yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid
vanity), ‘I can hardly tell you how much I admire the chapter
on Pangenesis. It is a positive comfort to me to have any
feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting
me, and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one
supplies its place, and that I think hardly possible, Now
his foregoing [italicised] words express my sentiments exactly
and fully : though perhaps I feel the relief extra strongly from
having during many years vainly attempted to form some
hypothesis. When you or Huxley say that a single cell of a
slant or the stump of an amputated limb, has the ‘ potentiality’
On. XIV.) 1861—1871. 267
of reproducing the whole—or ‘diffuses an influence,’ these
words give me no positive idea ;—but, when it is said that the
cells of a plant, or stump, include atoms derived from every
other cell of the whole organism and capable of development, I
gain a distinct idea.”
Immediately after the publication of the book, he wrote :
Down, February 10 [1868].
My pzrar Hooxer,—What is the good of having a friend, if
one may not boast to him? I heard yesterday that Murray
has sold in a week the whole edition of 1500 copies of my book,
and the sale so pressing that he has agreed with Clowes to get
another edition in fourteen days! This has done me a world
of good, for I had got into a sort of dogged hatred of my book.
And now there has appeared a review in the Pall Mall which
has pleased me excessively, more perhaps than is reasonable. |
I am quite content, and do not care how much I may be pitched
into. If by any chance you should hear who wrote the article
in the Pall Mall, do please tell me ; it is some one who writes
capitally, and who knows the subject. I went to luncheon on
Sunday, to Lubbock’s, partly in hopes of seeing you, and, be
hanged to you, you were not there.
Your cock-a-hoop friend,
0. D.
Independently of the favourable tone of the able series of
notices in the Pall Mall Gazette (Feb. 10, 15, 17, 1868),
my father may well have been gratified by the following
passages :—
* We must call attention to the rare and noble calmness with
which he expounds his own views, undisturbed by the heats of
polemical agitation which those views have excited, and per-
sistently refusing to retort on his antagonists by ridicule, by
indignation, or by contempt. Considering the amount of vitu-
peration and insinuation which has come from the other side,
this forbearance is supremely dignified.”
And again in the third notice, Feb. 17 :—
* Nowhere has the author a word that could wound the most
sensitive self-love of an antagonist; nowhere does he, in text or
note, expose the fallacies and mistakes of brother investigators
. . . but while abstaining from impertinent censure, he is lavish
in acknowledging the smallest debts he may owe; and his book
will make many men happy.”
268 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cu. XIY.
I am indebted to Messrs. Smith and Elder for the information
that these articles were written by Mr. G. H. Lewes.
The following extract from a letter (Feb. 1870) to his friend
Professor Newton, the well-known ornithologist, shows how
much he valued the appreciation of his colleagues.
“T suppose it would be universally held extremely wrong for
a defendant to write to a Judge to express his satisfaction at a
judgment in his favour; and yet I am going thus toact. I
have just read what you have said in the ‘ Record’ * about my
igeon chapters, and it has gratified me beyond measure. I
eo sometimes felt a little disappointed that the labour of so
many years seemed to be almost thrown away, for you are the
first man capable of forming a judgment (excepting partly
Quatrefages), who seems to have thought anything of this part
of my work. The amount of labour, correspondence, and care,
which the subject cost me, is more than you could well suppose.
I thought the article in the Atheneum was very unjust; but
now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for your
sympathy and too warm praise.”
WORK ON MAN.
In February 1867, when the manuscript of Animals and
Plants had been sent to Messrs. Clowes to be printed, and
before the proofs began to come in, he had an interval of spare
time, and began a “Chapter on Man,” but he soon found it
growing under his hands, and determined to publish it separately
as a “ very small volume.”
It is remarkable that only four years before this date, namely
in 1864, he had given up hope of being able to work out this
subject. He wrote to Mr. Wallace :—
“T have collected a few notes on man, but I do not suppose
that I shall ever use them. Do you intend to follow out your
views, and if so, would you like at some future time to have my
few references and notes? Iamsure I hardly know whether
they are of any value, and they are at present in a state of
chaos. There is much more that I should like to write, but I
have not strength.” But this was at a period of ill-health;
not long before, in 1863, he had written in the same depressed
tone about his future work generally :—
“JT have been so steadily going downhill, I cannot help
doubting whether I can ever crawl a little uphill again. Unless
* Zoological Record. The volume for 1868, published December, 1869.
On. XIV.) 1861—1871. 269
I can, enough to work a little, I hope my life may be very short,
for to lie on a sofa all day and do nothing but give trouble
to the best and kindest of wives and good dear children is
dreadful.”
The “Chapter on Man,” which afterwards grew into the
Descent of Man, was interrupted by the necessity of correcting
the proofs of Animals and Plants, and by some botanical
work, but was resumed with unremitting industry on the
first available day in the following year. He could not rest,
and he recognised with regret the gradual change in his mind
that rendered continuous work more and more necessary to
him as he grew older. This is expressed in a letter to Sir
J. D. Hooker, June 17, 1868, which repeats to some extent
what is given in the Autobiography :—
“Tam glad you were at the Messiah, it is the one thing that
I should like to hear again, but I dare say I should find my
soul too dried up to appreciate it as in old days; and then
I should feel very flat, for it is a horrid bore to feel as I
constantly do, that I am a withered leaf for every subject
except Science. It sometimes makes me hate Science, though
God knows I ought to be thankful for such a perennial interest,
which makes me forget for some hours every day my accursed
stomach.’
The Descent of Man (and this is indicated on its title-page)
consists of two separate books, namely on the pedigree of
mankind, and on sexual selection in the animal kingdom
generally. In studying this latter part of the subject he had
to take into consideration the whole subject of colour. I give
the two following characteristic letters, in which the reader is
as it were present at the birth of a theory.
0. D.to A. R. Wallace. Down, February 23 [1867].
Deak Wattace,—I much regretted that I was unable to call
on you, but after Monday I was unable even to leave the house.
On Monday evening I called on Bates, and put a difficulty
before him, which he could not answer, and, as on some former
similar occasion, his first suggestion was, “‘ You had better ask
Wallace.” My difficulty is, why are caterpillars sometimes so
beautifully and artistically coloured? Seeing that many are
coloured to escape danger, I can hardly attribute their bright
colour in other cases to mere physical conditions. Bates says
the most gaudy caterpillar he ever saw in Amazonia (of a
sphinx) was conspicuous at the distance of yards from its
270 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cn. XIV.
black and red colours, whilst feeding on large green leaves. If
any one objected to male butterflies haying been made beautiful
by sexual selection, and asked why should they not have been
made beautiful as well as their caterpillars, what would you
answer? Icould not answer, but should maintain my ground.
Will you think over this, and some time, either by letter or
when we meet, tell me what you think? ....
He seems to have received an explanation by return of post,
for a day or two afterwards he could write to Wallace :—
“ Bates was quite right; you are the man to apply to ina
difficulty. I never heard anything more ingenious than your
suggestion, and I hope you may be able to prove it true. t
is a splendid fact about the white moths; it warms one’s very
blood to see a theory thus almost proved to be true.”
Mr. Wallace’s suggestion was that conspicuous caterpillars
or perfect insects (e.g. white butterflies), which are distasteful
to birds, benefit by being promptly recognised and therefore
easily avoided.*
The letter from Darwin to Wallace goeson: “The reason
of my being so much interested just at present about sexual
selection is, that I have almost resolved to publish a little essa
on the origin of Mankind, and I still strongly think (thoug
I failed to convince you, and this, to me, is the heaviest blow
possible) that sexual selection has been the main agent in
forming the races of man, -
“ By the way, there is another subject which I shall introduce
in my essay, namely, expression of countenance. Now, do you
happen to know by any odd chance a very good-natured and
acute observer in the Malay Archipelago, who you think would
make a few easy observations for me on the expression of the
Malays when excited by various emotions ? ”
The reference to the subject of expression in the above
letter is explained by the fact, that my father’s original inten-
tion was to give his essay on this subject asa chapter in the
Descent of Man, which in its turn grew, as we have seen, out of
a proposed chapter in Animals and Plants.
He got much valuable help from Dr. Giinther, of the Natural
History Museum, to whom he wrote in May 1870 :—
“As I crawl on with the successive classes I am astonished
to find how similar the rules are about the nuptial or ‘ wedding
* Mr. Jenner Weir’s observations published in the Transactions of the
Entomological Society (1869 and 1870) give strong support to the theory
in question.
On. XIV.) 1861—1871. 271
dress’ of all animals. The subject has begun to interest me
in an extraordinary degree; but I must try not to fall into my
common error of being too speculative. But a drunkard might
as well say he would drink a little and not too much! My
essay, as far as fishes, batrachians and reptiles are concerned,
will be in fact yours, only written by me.”
The last revise of the Descent of Man was corrected on
January 15th, 1871, so that the book occupied him for about
three years. He wrote to Sir J. Hooker: “I finished the last
proofs of my book a few days ago; the work half-killed me,
and I have not the most remote idea whether the book is worth
publishing.”
He also wrote to Dr. Gray :—
*“*T have finished my book on the Descent of Man, &c., and its
publication is delayed only by the Index: when published, I
will send you a copy, but I do not know that you will care
about it. Parts, as on the moral sense, will, I dare say,
aggravate you, and if [ hear from you, I shall probably receive
a few stabs from your polished stiletto of a pen.”
The book was published on February 24, 1871. 2500
copies were printed at first, and 5000 more before the end of
Ny eee My father notes that he received for this edition
1470.
Nothing can give a better idea (in a small compass) of the
growth of Evolutionism, and its position at this time, than a
quotation from Mr. Huxley * :-—
“ The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more
than a decade from the date of the publication of the Origin
of Species ; and whatever may be thought or said about Mr.
Darwin’s doctrines, or the manner in which he has propounded
them, this much is certain, that in a dozen years the Origin of
Species has worked as complete a revolution in Biological
Science as the Principia did in Astronomy ;” and it had done
so, “because in the words of Helmholtz, it contains ‘an
essentially new creative thought.’ And, as time has slipped
by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin’s critics, The
i of ignorance and insolence which at first characterised
a large proportion of the attacks with which he was assailed,
is no longer the sad distinction of anti-Darwinian criticism.”
A passage in the Introduction to the Descent of Man shows
that the author recognised clearly this improvement in the
position of Evolutionism. “ When a naturalist like Carl Vogt
ventures to say in his address, as President of the National
* Contemporary Review, 1871.
7
7
’
}
272 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Ca. XIV.
Institution of Geneva (1869), ‘ personne, en Europe au moins,
n’ose plus soutenir la création indépendante et de toutes pisces,
des espéces,’ it is manifest that at least a large number of
naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants
of other species; and this especially holds good with the
younger and rising naturalists. . . . Of the older and honoured
chiefs in natural science, many, unfortunately, are still opposed
to Evolution in every form.”
In Mr. James Hague’s pleasantly written article, “A
Reminiscence of Mr. Darwin” Fooy! ete Magazine, October
1884), he describes a visit to my father “early in 1871,”
shortly after the publication of the Descent of Man. Mr.
Hague represents my father as “ much impressed by the general
assent with which his views had been received,” and as
remarking that “everybody is talking about it without being
shocked,”
Later in the year the reception of the book is described in
different language in the Edinburgh Review: “On every side
it is raising a storm of mingled wrath, wonder and admira-
tion.”
Haeckel seems to have been one of the first to write to
a ae about the Descent of Man. I quote from Darwin’s
reply -—
“I must send you a few words to thank you for your
interesting, and I may truly say, charming letter. I am
delighted that you approve of my book, as far as you have read
it. I felt very great difficulty and doubt how often I ought
to allude to what you have published ; strictly speaking every
idea, although occurring independently to me, if published by
you previously ought to have appeared as if taken from your
works, but this would have made my book very dull reading ;
and I hoped that a full acknowledgment at the beginning
would sufiice.* I cannot tell you how glad I am to find that
I have expressed my high admiration of your labours with
sufficient clearness; I am sure that I have not expressed it too
strongly.”
In March he wrote to Professor Ray Lankester :—
“JT think you will be glad to hear, as a proof of the
* In the introduction to the Descent of Man the author wrote :—* This
last naturalist [Haeckel] ... has recently . . . published his Natiirliche
Schépfungs-Geschichte, in which he fully discusses the genealogy’of man.
If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I hoor
robably never have completed it. Almost ali the conclusions at which
et arrived, I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on
many points is much fuller than mine.”
Cn. XIV.) 1861—1871. 273
increasing liberality of England, that my book has sold wonder-
fully .... and as yet no abuse (though some, no doubt, will
come, strong ponte and only contempt even in the poor old
Athenzeum.”
About the same time he wrote to Mr. Murray :—
“Many thanks for the Nonconformist [March 8, 1871}. I like
to see all that is written, and it is of some real use, If
you hear of reviewers in out-of-the-way papers, especially the
religious, as Record, Guardian, Tablet, kindly inform me. It
is wonderful that there has been no abuse as yet. On the
whole, the reviews have been highly favourable.”
The following extract from a letter to Mr. Murray (April 18,
1871) refers to a review in the Times * :—
“TI have no idea who wrote the Times’ review. He has no
knowledge of science, and seems to me a wind-bag full of meta-
physics and classics, so that I do not much regard his adverse
judgment, though I suppose it will injure the sale.”
A striking review appeared in the Saturday Review (March 4
and 11, 1871) in which the position of Evolution is well stated.
“He claims to have brought man himself, his origin and
constitution, within that unity which he had previously sought
to trace through all lower animal forms. The growth of
opinion in the interval, due in chief measure to his own inter-
mediate works, has placed the discussion of this problem in a
position very much in advance of that held by it fifteen years
ago. The problem of Evolution is hardly any longer to be
treated as one of first principles: nor has Mr. Darwin todo
battle for a first hearing of his central hypothesis, upborne as it
is by a phalanx of names full of distinction and promise in
either hemisphere.”
We must now return to the history of the general principle
of Evolution. At the beginning of 1869 ¢ he was at work on
* April 7 and 8, 1871.
+ His holiday this year was at Caerdeon, on the north shore of the
beautiful Barmouth estuary, and pleasantly placed in being close to
wild hill country behind, as well as to the picturesque wooded “ hum-
mocks,” between the steeper hills and the river. My father was ill and
somewhat depressed throughout this visit, and I think felt imprisoned
and saddened by his inability to reach the hills over which he had once
wandered for days together.
He wrote from Caerdeon to Sir J. D. Hooker (June 22nd) :—
* We have been here for ten days, how I wish it was possible for you to
pay usa visit here; we have a beautiful house with a terraced garden,
and a really magnificent view of Cader, right opposite. Old Cader is a
d fellow, and shows himself off superbly with every changing light.
e remain here till the end of July, when the H. Wedgwoods have the
T
274 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cm. XIV.
the fifth edition of the Origin. The most important alterations
were suggested by a remarkable paper in the North British
Review (June, 1867) written by the late Fleeming Jenkin.
It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms, which my
father, as I believe, felt to be the most valuable ever made on
his views should have come, not from a professed naturalist but
from a Professor of Engineering.
The point on which Fleeming Jenkin convinced my father
is the extreme difficulty of believing that single individuals
which differ from their fellows in the possession of some useful
character can be the starting point of a new variety. Thus the
origin of a new variety is more likely to be found in a species
which presents the incipient character in a large number of
its individuals. This point of view was of course perfectly
familiar to him, it was this that induced him to study “ un-
conscious selection,” where a breed is formed by the long-
continued preservation by Man of all those individuals which
are best adapted to his needs: not as in the art of the
rofessed breeder, where a single individual is picked out to
reed from.
It is impossible to give in a short compass an account of
Fleeming Jenkin’s argument. My father’s copy of the paper
(ripped out of the volume as usual, and tied with a bit of
string) is annotated in pencil in many places. I quote
a passage opposite which my father has written “
sneers”’—but it should be remembered that he used the word
“sneer” in rather a special sense, not as necessarily implying
a fecling of bitterness in the critic, but rather in the sense of
“banter.” Speaking of the “ true believer,” Fleeming Jenkin
says, p. 293:—
“He can invent trains of ancestors of whose existence there
is no evidence ;~ he can marshal hosts of equally imaginary
foes ; he can call up continents, floods, and peculiar atmospheres ;
he can dry up oceans, split islands, and parcel out eternity at
will; surely with these advantages he must be a dull fellow if
he cannot scheme some series of animals and circumstances
explaining our assumed difficulty quite naturally. Feeling the
difficulty of dealing with adversaries who command so huge a
domain of fancy, we will abandon these arguments, and trust to
=
house. I have been as yet in a very poor way; it seems as soon as
stimulus of mental work stops, my whole strength gives way. As yet I
have hardly crawled half a mile from the house, and then haye been
fearfully fatigued. It is enough to make one wish oneself quiet ina
eomfortable tomb.”
'
Ox. XIV.) nn 1861—1871. 275
' those which at least cannot be assailed by mere efforts of
imagination.”
In the fifth edition of the Origin, my father altered a
passage in the Historical Sketch (fourth edition, p. xviii.). He
thus practically gave up the difficult task of understanding
whether or not Sir R. Owen claims to have discovered the
principle of Natural Selection. Adding, “ As far as the mere
enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned,
it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded
me, for both of us... were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells
and Mr. Matthew.”
The desire that his views might spread in France was always
strong with my father, and he was therefore justly annoyed to
find that in 1869 the publisher of the French edition had
brought out a third edition without consulting the author.
He was accordingly glad to enter into an arrangement for a
French translation of the fifth edition; this was undertaken
by M. Reinwald, with whom he continued to have pleasant rela«
tions as the publisher of many of his books in French,
He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker :—
“T must enjoy myself and tell you about Malle. C. Royer,
who translated the Origin into French, and for whose second
edition I took infinite trouble. She has now just brought out a
third edition without informing me, so that all the corrections,
&c., in the fourth and fifth English editions are lost. Besides
her enormously long preface to the first edition, she has added
a second preface abusing me like a pickpocket for Pangenesis,
which of course has no relation to the Origin. So I wrote to
Paris ; and Reinwald agrees to bring out at once a new transla-
tion from the fifth English edition, in competition with her third
edition. . . . This fact shows that ‘ evolution of species’ must
at last be spreading in France.”
Tt will be well perhaps to place here all that remains to be
said about the Origin of Species. The sixth or final edition
was published in January 1872 in a smaller and cheaper form
than its predecessors. The chief addition was a discussion
suggested by Mr. Mivart’s Genesis of Species, which appeared
in 1871, before the publication of the Descent of Man. The
following quotation from a letter to Wallace (July 9, 1871)
may serve to show the spirit and method in which Mr. Mivart
dealt with the subject. “I grieve to see the omissionof the
words by Mivart, detected by Wright.* I complained to
* The late Chauncey Wright, in an article published in the North
American Review, vol. cxiii. pp. 83, 84. Wright points out that the words
omitted are “essential to the point on which he [Mr, Mivart] re Mr.
T
276 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cu. XIV.
Mivart that in two cases he quotes only the commencement of
sentences by me, and thus modifies my meaning ; but I never
supposed he would have omitted words. There are other cases
of what I consider unfair treatment.”
My father continues, with his usual charity and modera-
tion :-—
“T conclude with sorrow that though he means to be
honourable, he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly.”
In July 1871, my father wrote to Mr. Wallace :—
“T feel very doubtful how far I shall succeed in answering
Mivart,-it is so difficult to answer objections to doubtful
points, and make the discussion readable. I shall make only
a selection. The worst of it is, that I cannot possibly hunt
through all my references for isolated points, it would take me
three weeks of intolerably hard work. I wish I had your
power of arguing clearly. At present I feel sick of everything,
and if I could occupy my time and forget my daily discomforts,
or rather miseries, I would never publish another word. But
I shall cheer up, I dare say, soon, having only just got over a
bad attack. Farewell; God knows why I bother you about
myself. I can say nothing more about missing-links than
what I have said. Ishould rely much on pre-silurian times;
but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre.*
Farewell.
“... There is a most cutting review of me in the i uly]
Quarterly ; I have only read a few pages. The skill and style
make me think of Mivart. I shall soon be viewed as the most
despicable of men. This Quarterly Review tempts me to
republish Ch. Wright,f even if not read by any one, just to
show some one will say a word against Mivart, and that his
(i.e. Mivart’s) remarks ought not to be swallowed without
some reflection. ... God knows whether my strength and
spirit will last out to write a chapter versus Mivart and others;
I do so hate controversy and feel I shall do it so badly.”
The Quarterly review was the subject of an article by Mr.
Huxley in the November number of the Contemporary Review. —
Here, also, are discussed Mr. Wallace’s Contribution to the
Theory of Natural Selection, and the second edition of Mr.
Darwin’s authority.” It should be mentioned that the passage from
which words are omitted is not given within inverted commas by
Mr. Mivart.
* My father, as an Evolutionist, felt that he required more time than
Sir W. Thomson’s estimate of the age of the world allows.
4: pes | Wright’s review was published as a pamphlet in the autumn
of 1871.
Ox. XIV] 1861—1871. 277
Mivart’s Genesis of Species. What follows is taken from Mr.
Huxley’s article. The Quarterly reviewer, though to some
extent an evolutionist, believes that Man “ differs more from an
elephant or a gorilla, than do these from the dust of the earth
on which they tread.” The reviewer also declares that
Darwin has “ with needless opposition, set at naught the first
principles of both philosophy aud religion.” Mr. Huxley
passes from the Quarterly reviewer's further statement, that
there is no necessary opposition between evolution and religion,
to the more definite position taken by Mr. Mivart, that the
orthodox authorities of the Roman Catholic Church agree in
distinctly asserting derivative creation, so that “their teach-
ings harmonize with all that modern science can possibly
require.” Here Mr. Huxley felt the want of that “study of
Christian philosophy” (at any rate, in its Jesuitic garb),
which Mr. Mivart speaks of, and it was a want he at once set
to work to fill up. He was then staying at St. Andrews,
whence he wrote to my father :—
“‘ By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with
a good copy of Suarez,* in a dozen big folios. Among these I
dived, to the great astonishment of the librarian, and looking
into them ‘as careful robins eye the delver’s toil’ (vide Idylls),
I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes which were
most promising.” yen those who know Mr. Huxley’s un-
rivalled power of tearing the heart out of a book must marvel
at the skill with which he has made Suarez speak on his side,
“So I have come out,” he wrote, “in the new character of a
defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and upset Mivart out of the
mouth of his own prophet.”
The remainder of Mr. Huxley’s critique is largely occupied
with a dissection of the Quarterly reviewer's psychology, and
his ethical views. He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace’s objections
to the doctrine of Evolution by natural causes when applied to
the mental faculties of Man. Finally, he devotes a couple of
pages to justifying his description of the Quarterly reviewer's
treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike “ unjust and unbecoming.”
* The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies.
+ The same words may be applied to Mr. Mivart’s treatment of my
father. The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th,
1874) refers to Mr. Mivart’s statement (Lessons from Nature, p. 144) that
Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views as te the “ bestiality
of man” :-—
“I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the
Academy. 1 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,
278 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cm. XIV.
In the sixth edition my father also referred to the “ direct
action of the conditions of life” as a subordinate cause of
modification in living things: On this subject he wrote to Dr.
Moritz Wagner (Oct. 18, 1876): “In my opinion the greatest
error which I have committed, has been not allowing sufficient
weight to the direct action of the environment, i.e. food, climate,
&c., independently of natural selection. Modifications thus
caused, which are neither of advantage nor disadvantage to the
modified organism, would be especially favoured, as I can now
see chiefly through your observations, by isolation, in a small
area, where only a few individuals lived under nearly uniform
conditions.”
It has been supposed that such statements indicate a serious
change of front on my father’s part. As a matter of fact the
first edition of the Origin contains the words, “I am con-
vinced that natural selection has been the main but not the
exclusive means of modification.” Moreover, any alteration
that his views may have undergone was due not to a change of
opinion, but to change in the materials on which a judgment
was to be formed. Thus he wrote to Wagner in the above
quoted letter :—
“ When I wrote the Origin, and for some years afterwards, I
could find little good evidence of the direct action of the
environment; now there is a large body of evidence.”
With the possibility of such action of the environment he
had of course been familiar for many years. Thus he wrote to
Mr. Davidson in 1861 :—
“My greatest trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct
effects of the long-continued action of changed conditions of
life without any selection, with the action of selection on
mere accidental (so to speak) variability. I oscillate much on
this head, but generally return to my belief that the direct
action of the conditions of life has not been great. At least
this direct action can have played an extremely small part in
producing all the numberless and beautiful adaptations in
every living creature.”
And to Sir Joseph Hooker in the following year :— |
**T hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present
work is leading me to believe rather more in the direct action
of physical conditions. I presume I regret it, because it
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.”
“Om. XIV] 1861—1871. 279
lessens the glory of Natural Selection, and is so confoundedly
doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get all my
facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this
will be.”
Reference has already been made to the growth of his book
on the Haupression of the Emotions out of a projected chapter in
the Descent of Man,
It was published in the autumn of 1872. The edition con-
sisted of 7000, and of these 5267 copies were sold at Mr.
Murray’s sale in November. ‘T'wo 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.*
As usual he had no belief in the possibility of the book
being generally successful. The following passage in a letter
to Haeckel serves to show that he had felt the writing of this
book as a somewhat severe strain :—
“T 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.
“T am growing old and weak, and no man can tell when his
intellectual powers begin to fail. Long life and happiness to
you for your own sake and for that of science.”
A good review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the Quarterly
Journal of Science, Jan. 1873. Mr. Wallace truly remarks that
the book exhibits certain “characteristics of the author’s mind in
an eminent degree,” namely, “ the insatiable longing to discover
the causes of the varied and complex phenomena presented by
living things.” He adds that in the case of the author “the
restless curiosity of the child to know the ‘what for?’ the
‘why ?’ and the ‘how?’ of everything” seems “ never to have
abated its force.”
The publication of the Expression book was the occasion of
the following letter to one of his oldest friends, the late Mrs.
Haliburton, who was the daughter of a Shropshire neighbour,
Mr. Owen of Woodhouse, and became the wife of the author of
Sam Slick.
Noy. 1, 1872.
My prar Mrs. Hatrsurton,—I dare say you will be surprised
to hear from me. My object in writing now is to say that I
* They were utilised to some extent in the 2nd edition, edited by me,
and published in 1890.—F’, D.
~
280 THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. (Cx. XIV.
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 Wood-
house. 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 asI 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 grati-
tude and affection for all bearing the name of Owen, I venture
to sign myself,
Yours affectionately.
Cagis Darwin.
( 281 )
CHAPTER XV.
MISCELLANEA.—REVIVAL OF GEOLOGICAL WORK.—-THE VIVISEOTION
QUESTION.——HONOUBS,
In 1874 a second edition of his Coral Reefs was published,
which need not specially concern us. It was not until some
time afterwards that the criticisms of my father’s theory
appeared, which have attracted a good deal of attention.
The following interesting account of the subject is taken
from Professor's Judd’s “Critical Introduction” to Messrs.
Ward, Lock and Co’s. edition of Coral Reefs and Volcanic
Islands, &c. *
“ The first serious note of dissent to the generally accepted
theory was heard in 1863, when a distinguished German
naturalist, Dr. Karl Semper, declared that his study of the
Pelew Islands showed that uninterrupted subsidence could
not have been going on in that region. Dr. Semper’s objec-
tions were very carefully considered by Mr. Darwin, and a
reply to them appeared in the second and revised edition of his
Ooral Reefs, which was published in 1874. With characteristic
frankness and freedom from prejudices, Darwin admitted that
the facts brought forward by Dr. Semper proved that in certain
specified cases, subsidence could not have played the chief
part in originating the peculiar forms of the coral islands.
But while making this admission, he firmly maintained that
exceptional cases, like those described in the Pelew Islands,
were not sufficient to invalidate the theory of subsidence as
applied to the widely spread atolls, encircling reefs, and
barrier-reefs of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It is worthy of
note that to the end of his life Darwin maintained a friendly
correspondence with Semper concerning the points on which
they were at issue.
“ After the appearance of Semper’s work, Dr. J. J. Rein
published an account of the Bermudas, in which he opposed
the interpretation of the structure of the islands given by
* The Minerva Library of Famous Books, 1890, edited by G. T.
Bettany.
282 MISCELLANEA. (Cu. XV.
Nelson and other authors, and maintained that the facts ob-
served in them are opposed to the views of Darwin. Al-
though so far as I am aware, Darwin had no opportunity of
studying and considering these particular objections, it may be
mentioned that two American geologists have since carefully
re-examined the district—Professor W. N. Rice in 1884 and
Professor A. Heilprin in 1889—and they have independently
arrived at the conclusion that Dr. Rein’s objections cannot be
maintained.
“ The most serious objection to Darwin’s coral-reef theory,
however, was that which developed itself after the return of
H.M.S. Challenger from her famous voyage. Mr. John Murray,
one of the staff of naturalists on board that vessel, propounded
a new theory of coral-reefs, and maintained that the view that
they were formed by subsidence was one that was no longer
tenable; these objections have been supported by Professor
Alexander Agassiz in the United States, and by Dr. A. Geikie,
and Dr. H. B. Guppy in this pees
“ Although Mr. Darwin did not live to bring out a third
edition of his Coral Reefs, I know from several conversations
with him that he had given the most patient and thoughtful
consideration to Mr. Murray’s paper on the subject. He
admitted to me that had he known, when he wrote his work, of
the abundant deposition of the remains of calcareous organisms
on the sea floor, he might have regarded this cause as sufficient
in a few cases to raise the summit of submerged volcanoes or
other mountains to a level at which reef-forming corals can
commence to flourish. But he did not think that the admission
that under certain favourable conditions, atolls might be thus
formed without subsidence, necessitated an abandonment of his
theory in the case of the innumerable examples of the kind
which stud the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
« A letter written by Darwin to Professor Alexander Agassiz
in May 1881, shows exactly the attitude which careful con-
sideration of the subject led him to maintain towards the
theory propounded by Mr. Murray :—
«“¢ You will have seen,’ he writes, ‘ Mr. Murray’s views on the
formation of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my
book, I thought long over the same view, but only as far as
ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little
was known of the multitude of minute oceanic organisms. I re-
jected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the Beagle,
in the south temperate regions, I concluded that shells, the
smaller corals, &c., decayed, and were dissolved, when not
protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could
Cx. XV.) CORAL REEFS, 1881. 283
not accumulate in the open ocean. Certainly, shells, &c., were
in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud
between my fingers ; but you will know well whether this is in
any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at the
proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be
distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can,
however, hardly believe in the former presence of as many
banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in
the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute
oceanic organisms could have accumulated to the thickness of
many hundred feet.
“ Darwin’s concluding words in the same letter written within
a year of his death, are a striking proof of the candour and
openness of mind which he preserved so well to the end, in this
as in other controversies.
«Tf 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.’
“Itis noteworthy that the objections to Darwin’s theory have
for the most part proceeded from zoologists, while those who
have fully appreciated the geological aspect of the question
have been the staunchest supporters of the theory of subsi-
dence. The desirability of such boring operations in atolls has
been insisted upon by several geologists, and it may be hoped
that before many years have passed away, Darwin’s hopes may
be realised, either with or without the intervention of the
‘doubly rich millionaire.’
“Three years after the death of Darwin, the veteran Professor
Dana re-entered the lists and contributed a powerful defence of
the theory of subsidence in the form of a reply to an essay
written by the ablest exponent of the anti-Darwinian views on
this subject, Dr. A. Geikie. While pointing out that the Dar-
winian position had been to a great extent misunderstood by
its opponents, he showed that the rival theory presented even
greater difficulties than those which it professed to remove.
“ During the last five years, the whole question of the origin
of coral-reefs and islands has been re-opened, and a controversy
has arisen, into which, unfortunately, acrimonious elements
have been very unnecessarily introduced. ‘Those who desire it,
will find clear and impartial statements of the varied and often
284 MISCELLANEA. (Cz. XY.
mutually destructive views put forward by different authors, in
three works which have made their appearance within the last
year—The Bermuda Islands, by Professor Angelo Heilprin:
Corals and Coral Islands, new edition by Professor J. D. Dana;
and the third edition of Darwin’s Coral-Ree/s, with Notes and
Appendix by Professor T. G. Bonney.
“Most readers will, I think, rise from the perusal of these
works with the conviction that, while on certain points of
detail it is clear that, through the want of knowledge concern-
ing the action of marine organisms in the open ocean, Darwin
was betrayed into some grave errors, yet the main foundations
of his argument have not been seriously impaired by the new
facts observed in the deep-sea amend. or by the severe
criticisms to which his theory has been subjected during the
last ten years. On the other hand, I think it will appear that
much misapprehension has been exhibited by some of Darwin’s
critics, as to what his views and arguments really were ; so that
the reprint and wide circulation of the book in its original form
is greatly to be desired, and cannot but be attended with
advantage to all those who will have the fairness to acquaint
themselves with Darwin’s views at first hand, before attempting
to reply to them.”
The only important geological work of my father’s later years
is embodied in his book on earthworms (1881), which may
therefore be conveniently considered in this place. This
subject was one which had interested him many years before
this date, and in 1838 a paper on the formation of mould was
published in the Proceedings of the Geological Society.
Here he showed that “fragments of burnt marl, cinders, &c.,
which had been thickly strewed over the surface of several
meadows were found after a few years lying at a depth of some
inches beneath the turf, but still forming a layer.” For the
explanation of this fact, which forms the central idea of the
geological part of the book, he was indebted to his uncle
Josiah Wedgwood, who suggested that worms, by bringing earth
to the surface in their castings, must undermine any objects
lying on the surface and cause an apparent sinking.
In the book of 1881 he extended his observations on this
burying action, and devised a number of different ways of
checking his estimates as to the amount of work done. He
also added a mass of observations on the natural history and
intelligence of worms, a part of the work which added greatly
to its popularity.
In 1877 Sir Thomas Farrer had discovered close to his
garden the remains of a building of Roman-British times, and
On. XV.) EARTHWORMS, 1881. 285
thus gave my father the opportunity of seeing for himself the
effects produced by earthworms on the old concrete floors,
walls, &c. On his return he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer :—
“TI cannot remember a more delightful week than the last.
I know very well that E. will not believe me, but the worms
were by no means the sole charm.”
In the autumn of 1880, when the Power of Movement in
Plants was nearly finished, he began once more on the subject.
He wrote to Professor Carus (September 21) :—
“Tn the intervals of correcting the press, I am writing a
very little book, and have done nearly half of it. Its title will
be (as at present designed), The Formation of Vegetable Mould
through the Action of Worms.* As far as I can judge, it will be
a curious little book.”
The manuscript was sent to the printers in April 1881, and
when the proof-sheets were coming in he wrote to Professor
Carus: ‘The subject has been to me a hobby-horse, and I have
perhaps treated it in foolish detail.”
It was published on October 10, and 2000 copies were sold
at once. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, “I am glad that you
approve of the Worms. When in old days I used to tell you
whatever I was doing, if you were at all interested, I always
felt as most men do when their work is finally published.”
To Mr. Mellard Reade he wrote (November 8): “It has
been a complete surprise to me how many persons have cared
for the subject.” And to Mr. Dyer (in November): “ My
book has been received with almost laughable enthusiasm, and
8500 copies have been sold!!!” Again to his friend Mr.
Anthony Rich, he wrote on February 4, 1882, “I have been
plagued with an endless stream of letters on the subject; most
of them very foolish and enthusiastic ; but some containing
good facts which I have used in correcting yesterday the
Sixth Thousand.” The popularity of the book may be roughly
estimated by the fact that, in the three years following its
publication, 8500 copies were sold—a sale relatively greater
than that of the Origin of Species.
It is not difficult to account for its success with the non-
scientific public. Conclusions so wide and so novel, and so
easily understood, drawn from the study of creatures so familiar,
and treated with unabated vigour and freshness, may well
have attracted many readers. A reviewer remarks: “In the
eyes of most men. . . the earthworm is a mere blind, dumb-
* The full title is The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the
Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits, 1881.
286 MISCELLANEA. (Cu. XV.
senseless, and unpleasantly slimy annelid. Mr. Darwin under-
takes to rehabilitate his character, and the earthworm steps —
forth at once as an intelligent and beneficent personage, a
worker of vast geological changes, a planer down of mountain
sides . . . a friend of man .. . and an ally of the Society for
the preservation of ancient monuments.” The St. James's
Gazette, of October 17th, 1881, pointed ont that the teaching of
the cumulative importance of the infinitely little is the point
of contact between this book and the author’s previous work.
One more book remains to be noticed, the Life of Hrasmus
Darwin.
In February 1879 an essay by Dr. Ernst Krause, on the
scientific work of Erasmus Darwin, appeared in the evolutionary
journal, Kosmos. The number of Kosmos in question was a
“ Gratulationsheft,” * or special congratulatory issue in honour
of my father’s birthday, so that Dr. Krause’s essay, glorifying
the older evolutionist, was quite in its place. He wrote to Dr.
Krause, thanking him cordially for the honour paid to Erasmus;
and asking his permission to publish an English translation of
the Essay.
His chief reason for writing a notice of his grandfather’s life
was “to contradict flatly some calumnies by Miss Seward.”
This appears from a letter of March 27, 1879, to his cousin
Reginald Darwin, in which he asks for any documents and
letters which might throw light on the character of Erasmus.
This led to Mr. Reginald Darwin placing in my father’s hands
a quantity of valuable material, including a curious folio
common-place book, of which he wrote: “I have been deeply
interested by the great book,. . . . reading and looking at it is
like having communion with the dead. . . . [it] has taught me
a good deal about the occupations and tastes of our grand-
father.”
Dr. Krause’s contribution formed the second part of the Life
of Erasmus Darwin, my father supplying a “ preliminary
notice.” This expression on the title-page is somewhat mis-
leading; my father’s contribution is more than half the book,
and should have been described as a biography. Work of this
kind was new to him, and he wrote doubtfully to Mr. Thiselton
Dyer, June 18th: “ God only knows what I shall make of his
life, it is such a new kind of work to me.” The strong interest
he felt about his forbears helped to give zest to the work,
* The same number contains a good biographical sketch of my father
of which the material was to a large extent supplied by him to the writer,
Professor Preyer of Jena. The article contains an excellent list of my
father’s publications,
Ou. XV.] VIVISECTION, 1881. 287
which became a decided enjoyment to him. With the general
public the book was not markedly successful, but many of his
friends recognised its merits, Sir J.D. Hooker was one of
these, and to him my father wrote, “ Your praise of the Life of
Dr. D. has pleased me exceedingly, for I despised my work, and
thought myself a perfect fool to have undertaken such a job.”
To Mr, Galton, too, he wrote, November 14 :-—
“Tam extremely glad that you approve of the little Life of our
dfather, for goes been repenting that I ever undertook
it, as the work was quite beyond my tether.”
THE VIVISECTION QUESTION,
Something has already been said of my father’s strong
feeling with regard to suffering* both in man and beast. It
was indeed one of the strongest feelings in his nature, and was
exemplified in matters small and great, in his sympathy with
the educational miseries of dancing dogs, or his horror at the
sufferings of slaves.
The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in
Brazil, when he was powerless to interfere with what he
believed to be the torture of a slave, haunted him for years,
especially at night. In smaller matters, where he could inter-
fere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from his walk
pale and faint from having seen a horse ill-used, and from the
agitation of violently remonstrating with the man, On another
occasion he saw a horse-breaker teaching his son to ride; the
little boy was frightened and the man was rough; my father
stopped, and jumping out of the carriage reproved the man in
no measured terms.
One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that his
humanity to animals was well known in his own neighbourhood.
A visitor, driving from Orpington to Down, told the cabman to
go faster. ‘“ Why,” said the man, “if I had whipped the horse
* He once made an attempt to free a patient in a mad-house, who (as
he wrongly supposed) was sane. He was in correspondence with the
gardener at the asylum, and on one occasion he found a letter from the
patient enclosed with one from the gardener. The letter was rational in
tone and declared that the writer was sane and wrongfully confined.
My father wrote to the Lunacy Commissioners (without explaining the
source of his information) and in due time heard that the man had
visited by the Commissioners, and that he was certainly insane. Some
time afterward the patient was discharged, and wrote to thank my father
for his interference, adding that he had undoubtedly been insane when he
wrote his former letter,
288 MISCELLANEA. (On. XV.
this much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would have got out of the
carriage and abused me well.”
With respect to the special point under consideration,—the
sufferings of animals subjected to experiment,—nothing could
show a stronger feeling than the following words from a letter
to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871) :—
“You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite
that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but
not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a sub-
ject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another
word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night.”
The Anti-Vivisection agitation, to which the following letters
refer, seems to have become specially active in 1874, as may be
seen, e.g. by the index to Nature for that year, in which the
word “ Vivisection” suddenly comes into prominence. But
before that date the subject had received the earnest attention
of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool Meeting of the British
Association in 1870, a Committee was appointed, whose report
defined the circumstances and conditions under which, in the
opinion of the signatories, experiments on living animals were
justifiable. In the spring of 1875, Lord Hartismere intro-
duced 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 Commis-
sioners were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W. E.
Forster, Sir J. B. Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen,
and Mr. R. H. Hutton: they commenced their inquiry in
July, 1875, and the Report was published early in the
following year. ~
In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon’s Bill, entitled,
« An Act to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals,”
was introduced. The framers of this Bill, yielding to the
unreasonable clamour of the public, went far beyond the re-
commendations of the Royal Commission. As a correspondent —
writes in Nature (1876, p- 248), “ the evidence on the s
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 con-
tradicted them.”
The legislation which my father worked for, was practically
what was introduced as Dr. Lyon Playfair’s Bill.
7
On. XV.] VIVISECTION, 1881. 289
The following letter appeared in the Times, April 18th,
1881 :—
0. D. to Frithiof Holmgren.* Down, April 14, 1881.
Dzar Srr,—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 ex-
pression as more correct and comprehensive than that of vivi-
section. 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 haveall 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 Com-
mission proved that the accusations made against our English
hysiologists were false. From all that I have heard, however,
T 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
* Professor of Physiology at Upsala.
U
290 MISCELLANEA. (Cu. XY.
Pasteur’s results in modifying the germs of the most malignant
diseases, from which, as it happens, animals will in the first
lace receive more relief than man. Let it be remembered
ow many lives and what a fearful amount of suffering have
been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms through
the experiments of Virchow and others on living animals. In
the future every one will be astonished at the ingratitude
shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind.
As for myself, permit me to assure you that I honour, and shall
always honour, every one who advances the noble science of
physiology.
Dear Sir, yours faithfully.
In the Times of the following day appeared a letter headed
“Mr. Darwin and Vivisection,” signed by Miss Frances Power
Cobbe. To this my father replied in the Times of April 22,
1881. On the same day he wrote to Mr. Romanes :—
“As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the Times
on Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to
bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on
all physiologists.”
O. D. to the Editor of the ‘ Times,’
Srr,—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 corre-
spondent in Sweden in saying that “the investigation of the
matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations
made against our English physiologists were false,’ I will
merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences from the
report of the Commission.
(1.) The sentence—“ It is not to be doubted that inhumanity —
may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists,”
which Miss Cobbe quotes from page 17 of the report, and
which, in her opinion, “can necessarily concern English
physiologists alone and not foreigners,’ is immediately
followed by the words “We have seen that it was so in
Magendie.” Magendie was a French physiologist who became
notorious some half century ago for his cruel experiments on
living animals. |
(2.) The Commissioners, after speaking of the “general
sentiment of humanity” prevailing in this country, say
(p. 10) :-— , |
“This principle is accepted generally by the very highly
Ve ee ee a
On. XV.) HONOURS. 291
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 bo easily
discernible by those who study the evidence as it has been laid
before us.”
Again, according to the Commissioners (p. 10) :—
“The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals; when asked whether the general tendency
of the scientific world in this country is at variance with
humanity, says he believes it to be very different indeed from
that of foreign physiologists; and while giving it as the
opinion of the society that experiments are performed which
are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science,
and that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not
justifiable to inflict even for the scientific object in view, he
readily acknowledges that he does not know a single case of
wanton cruelty, and that in general the English physiologists
have used anesthetics where they think they can do so with
safety to the experiment.”
I am, Sir, your obedient servant.
April 21,
During the later years of my father’s life there was u
growing tendency in the public to do him honour.* The
honours which he valued most highly were those which united
the sympathy of friends with a mark of recognition of his
scientific colleagues. Of this type was the article “Charles
Darwin,” published in Nature, June 4, 1874, and written by
Asa Gray. This admirable estimate of my father’s work in
science is given in the form of a comparison and contrast
between Robert Brown and Charles Darwin.
To Gray he wrote :—
“ T wrote yesterday and cannot remember exactly what I said,
and now cannot be easy without again telling you how pro-
foundly I have been gratified. Every one, I suppose, occasion-
ally 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} pleases me especially,
* In 1867 he had received a distingnished honour from Germany,—the
order “ Pour le Mérite.”
+ “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.” 2 Similar
U
292 MISCELLANEA. (Cu. XV.
and I do not think any one else has ever noticed the point.
I have always said you were the man to hit the nail on the
head.” .
In 1877 he received the honorary degree of LL.D. from
the University of Cambridge. The degree was conferred on
November 17, and with the customary Latin speech from the
Public Orator, concluding with the words: “Tu vero, qui
leges nature tam docte illustraveris, legum doctor nobis esto.”
The honorary degree led to a movement being set on foot in
the University to obtain some permanent memorial of my
father. In June 1879 he sat to Mr. W. Richmond for the
portrait in the possession of the University, now placed in the
Library of the Philosophical Society at Cambridge.
A similar wish on the part of the Linnean Society—with
which my father was so closely associated—led to his sitting
in August, 1881, to Mr. John Collier, for the portrait now in
the possession of the Society. The portrait represents him
standing facing the observer in the loose cloak so familiar
to those who knew him, with his slouch hat in his hand.
Many of those who knew his face most intimately, think that
Mr. Collier’s picture is the best of the portraits, and in this
judgment the sitter himself was inclined to agree. According
to my feeling it is not so simple or strong a representation of
him as that given by Mr. Ouless. The last-named portrait
was painted at Down in 1875; it is in the possession of the
family,* and is known to many through Rajon’s fine etching.
Of Mr. Ouless’s picture my father wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker :
“IT look a very venerable, acute, melancholy old dog;
whether I really look so I do not know.”
Besides the Cambridge degree, he received about the same
time honours of an academic kind from some foreign societies.
On August 5, 1878, he was elected a Corresponding Member
of the French Institute in the Botanical Section,t and wrote
to Dr. Asa Gray :—
“T see that we are both elected Corresponding Members
of the Institute. Itis rather a good joke that I should be
elected in the Botanical Section, as the extent of my know-
remarks had been previously made by Mr. Huxley. See Critiques and
Addresses, p. 305.
* A replica by the artist hangs alongside of the portraits of Milton
and Paley in the hall of Christ’s College. Cambridge.
+ He received twenty-six votes out of a possible thirty-nine, five blank
papers were sent in, and eight votes were recorded for the other
candidates. In 1872 an attempt had been made to elect him in the
Section of Zoology, when, however, he only received fifteen out of
forty-eight votes, and Lovén was chosen for the vacant place. It appears
Cu. XV.) HONOURS. 293
ledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant
and a pea a Leguminous one.”
He valued very highly two photographic albums containing
rtraits of a large number of scientific men in Germany and
olland, which he received as birthday gifts in 1877.
In the year 1878 my father received a singular mark of
recognition in the form of a letter from a stranger, announcing
that the writer intended to leave to him the reversion of the
greater part of his fortune. Mr. Anthony Rich, who desired
thus to mark his sense of my father’s services to science, was the
author of a Dicti of Roman and Greek Antiquities, said to
be the best book of the kind. It has been translated into
French, German, and Italian, and has, in English, gone through
several editions. Mr, Rich lived a great part of his life in
Italy, painting, and collecting books and engravings. He
finally settled, many years ago, at Worthing (then a small
village), where he was a friend of Byron’s Trelawny. My
father visited Mr. Rich at Worthing, more than once, and
gained a cordial liking and respect for him.
Mr. Rich died in April, 1891, having arranged that his
bequest * should not lapse in consequence of the predecease
of my father.
In 1879 he received from the Royal Academy of Turin the
Bressa Prize for the years 1875-78, amounting to the sum
of 12,000 francs. He refers to this in a letter to Dr. Dohrn
(February 15th, 1880) :—
“Perhaps you saw in the papers that the Turin Society
honoured me to an extraordinary degree by awarding me the
Bressa Prize. Now it occurred to me that if your station
wanted some piece of apparatus, of about the value of £100, I
should very much like to be allowed to pay forit. Will you
be so kind as to keep this in mind, and if any want should
occur to you, I would send you a cheque at any time.”
I find from my father’s accounts that £100 was presented to
the Naples Station.
Two years before my father’s death, and twenty-one years
(Nature, August 1st, 1872) that an eminent member of the Academy
wrote to Les Mondes to the following effect :—
“ What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that
the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame
—the Origin of Species, and still more the Descent of Man, is not science,
but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often
evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a
bad gg which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.”
* Mr. Rich leaves a single near relative, to whom is bequeathed the
life-interest in his property.
294 MISCELLANEA (On. XY.
after the publication of his greatest work, a lecture was given
(April 9, 1880) at the Royal Institution by Mr. Huxley* which
was aptly named “The Coming of Age of the Origin of
Species.” The following characteristic letter, referring to this
subject, may fitly close the present chapter.
Abinger Hall, Dorking, Sunday, April 11, 1880.
My pzar Hovxiry,—I wished much to attend your Lecture,
but I have had a bad cough, and we have come here to see
whether a change would do me good, as it has done. Whata
magnificent success your lecture seems to have been, as I judge
from the reports in the Standard and Daily News, and more
especially from the accounts given me by three of my children.
I suppose that you have not written out your lecture, so I fear
there is no chance of its being printed in extenso. You appear
to have piled, as on so many other occasions, honours high and
thick on my old head. But I well know how great a part you
have played in establishing and spreading the belief in the
descent-theory, ever since that grand review in the Times and
the battle royal at Oxford up to the present day.
Ever, my dear Huxley,
Yours sincerely and gratefully,
CuarLes Darwin.
P.S.—It was absurdly stupid in me, but I had read the
announcement of your Lecture, and thought that you meant
the maturity of the subject, until my wife one day remarked,
“it is almost twenty-one years since the Origin appeared,” and
then for the first time the meaning of your words flashed on me.
* Published in Science and Culture, p. 310.
BOTANICAL WORK.
“T have beon making some little trifling observations which
have interested and perplexed me much,”
From a letter of June 1860,
( 297 )
CHAPTER XVI.
FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS.
Tue botanical work which my father accomplished by the
guidance of the light cast on the study of natural history by his
own work on evolution remains to be noticed. In a letter to
Mr. Murray, September 24th, 1861, speaking of his book the
Fertilisation of Orchids, he says: “It will perhaps serve to
illustrate how Natural History may be worked under the belief
of the modification of species.” This remark gives a sugges-
tion as to the value and interest of his botanical work, and it
might be expressed in far more emphatic language without
danger of exaggeration.
In the same letter to Mr. Murray, he says: “I think this
little volume will do good to the Origin, as it will show that I
have worked hard at details.” It is true that his botanical work
added a mass of corroborative detail to the case for Evolution,
but the chief support given to his doctrines by these researches
was of another kind. They supplied an argument against those
critics who have so freely dogmatised as to the uselessness of
particular structures, and as to the consequent impossibility of
their having been developed by means of natural selection. His
observations on Orchids enabled him to say: “I can show the
meaning of some of the apparently meaningless ridges and
horns; who will now venture to say that this or that structure
is useless?” A kindred point is expressed in a letter to Sir
J. D. Hooker (May 14th, 1862) :—
‘When many parts of structure, as in the woodpecker, show
distinct adaptation to external bodies, it is preposterous to
attribute them to the effects of climate, &c., but when a single
point alone, as a hooked seed, it is conceivable it may thus have
arisen. I have found the study of Orchids eminently useful in
showing me how nearly all parts of the flower are co-adapted
for fertilisation by insects, and therefore the results of natural
selection,—even the most trifling details of structure.”
One of the greatest services rendered by my father to the
study of Natural History is the revival of Teleology. The
298 ‘BOTANY. (Cx. XVI.
evolutionist studies the purpose or meaning of organs with
the zeal of the older Teleologist, but with far wider and more
coherent purpose. He has the invigorating knowledge that
he is gaining not isolated conceptions of the economy of the
present, but a coherent view of both past and present. And
even where he fails to discover the use of any part, he may, by
a knowledge of its structure, unravel the history of the past
vicissitudes in the life of the species. In this way a vigour and
unity is given to the study of the forms of organised bei
which before it lacked. Mr. Huxley has well remarked : *
“ Perhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of
Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of
Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts
of both, which his views offer. The teleology which su
that the eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher
vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it exhibits, for
the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to seo,
has undoubtedly received its death-blow. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to remember that there is a wider teleology which is
not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based
upon the fundamental proposition of Evolution.”
The point which here especially concerns us is to recognise
that this “great service to natural science,’ as Dr. Gray
describes it, was effected almost as much by Darwin’s special
botanical work as by the Origin of Species.
For a statement of the scope and influence of my father’s
botanical work, I may refer to Mr. Thiselton Dyer’s article in
‘Charles Darwin,’ one of the Nature Series. Mr. Dyer’s wide
knowledge, his friendship with my father, and his power of
sympathising with the work of others, combine to give this
essay a permanent value. The following passage (p. 43) gives
a true picture :—
“ Notwithstanding the extent and variety of his botanical
work, Mr. Darwin always disclaimed any right to be regarded
as a professed botanist. He turned his attention to plants,
doubtless because they were convenient objects for studying
organic phenomena in their least complicated forms; and this —
point of view, which, if one may use the expression without
disrespect, had something of the amateur about it, was in itself
of the greatest importance. For, from not being, till he took
up any point, familiar with the literature bearing on it, his
mind was absolutely free from any prepossession. He was never
afraid of his facts, or of framing any hypothesis, however
* The “Genealogy of Animals” (The Academy, 1869), reprinted in
Critiques and Addresses.
Ox. XVI.J FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. 299
startling, which seemed to explain them. ... In any oneelse
such an attitude would have produced much work that was
crude and rash. But Mr. Darwin—if one may venture on
language which will strike no one who had conversed with
him as over-strained—seemed by gentle persuasion to have
penetrated that reserve of nature which baffles smaller men.
In other words, his long experience had given him a kind of
instinctive insight into the method of attack of any biological
problem, however unfamiliar to him, while he rigidly controlled
the fertility of his mind in hypothetical explanations by the no
less fertility of ingeniously devised experiment.”
To form any just idea of the greatness of the revolution
worked by my father’s researches in the study of the fertilisa-
tion of flowers, it is necessary to know from what a condition
this branch of knowledge has emerged. It should be remem-
bered that it was only during the early years of the present
century that the idea of sex, as applied to plants, became firmly
established. Sachs, in his History of Botany* (1875), has
given some striking illustrations of the remarkable slowness
with which its acceptance gained ground. He remarks that
when we consider the experimental proofs given by Camerarius
— and by Kélreuter (1761-66), it appears incredible that
oubts should afterwards have been raised as to the sexuality
of plants. Yet he shows that such doubts did actually re-
peatedly crop up. . These adverse criticisms rested for the most
part on careless experiments, but in many cases on a priori
arguments. Even as late as 1820, a book of this kind, which
would now rank with circle squaring, or flat-earth philosophy,
was seriously noticed in a botanical journal. A distinct concep-
tion of sex, as applied to plants, had, in fact, not long emerged
from the mists of profitless discussion and feeble experiment,
at the time when my father began botany by attending
Henslow’s lectures at Cambridge.
When the belief in the sexuality of plants had become
established as an incontrovertible piece of knowledge, a weight
of misconception remained, weighing down any rational view
of the subject. Camerarius t believed (naturally enough in his
eh Me ev hermaphrodite } flowers are necessarily self-fertilised.
He the wit to be astonished at this, a degree of intelligence
which, as Sachs points out, the majority of his successors did
not. attain to.
* An English edition is published by the Clarendon Press, 1890.
+ Sachs, Geschichte d. Botanik, p. 419.
+ That is to say, flowers possessing both stamens, or male organs, and
pistils or female organs
800 BOTANY. (Ox. XVI.
The following extracts from a note-book show that this
point occurred to my father as early as 1837:
“ Do not plants which have male and female organs together
[t.e. in the same flower] yet receive influence from other
lants? Does not Lyell give some argument about varieties
ing difficult to keep [true] on account of pollen from other
plants? Because this may be applied to show all plants do
receive intermixture.”
Sprengel,* indeed, understood that the hermaphrodite
structure of flowers by no means necessarily leads to self-
fertilisation. But although he discovered that in many cases
pollen is of necessity carried to the stigma of another flower,
he did not understand that in the advantage gained by the
intercrossing of distinct plants lies the key to the whole
question. Hermann Miiller+t has well remarked that this
“omission was for several generations fatal to Sprengel’s
work..... For both at the time and subsequently, botanists
felt above all the weakness of his theory, and they set aside,
along with his defective ideas, the rich store of his patient
and acute observations and his comprehensive and accurate
interpretations.” It remained for my father to convince the
world that the meaning hidden in the structure of flowers was
to be found by seeking light in the same direction in which
Sprengel, seventy years before, had laboured. Robert Brown
was the connecting link between them, for it was at his
recommendation that my father in 1841 read Sprengel’s now
celebrated Secret of Nature Displayed.t
The book impressed him as being “ full of truth,” although
“ with some little nonsense.” It not only encouraged him in
kindred speculation, but guided him in his work, for in 1844
he speaks of verifying Sprengel’s observations. It may be
doubted whether Robert Brown ever planted a more fruitful
seed than in putting such a book into such hands.
A passage in the Autobiography (p. 44) shows how it was
that my father was attracted to the subject of fertilisation :
“During the summer of 1839, and I believe during the previous
summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers
by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in
my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played
an important part in keeping specific forms constant.”
The original connection between the study of flowers and
* Christian Conrad Sprengel, born 1750, died 1816.
+ Fertilisation of Flowers (Eng. Trans.) 1883, p. 3.
¢ Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur im Baue und in der Befruchtung
der Blumen. Berlin, 1793.
Cua. XVI.) FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. 301
the problem of evolution is curious, and could hardly have
been predicted. Moreover, it was not a permanent bond. My
father proved by along series of laborious experiments, that
when a plant is fertilised and sets seeds under the influence of
pollen from a distinct individual, the offspring so produced are
superior in vigour to the offspring of self-fertilisation, i.e.
of the union of the male and female elements of a single
plant. When this fact was established, it was possible
to understand the raison d’éire of the machinery which insures
cross-fertilisation in so many flowers; and to understand how
natural selection can act on, and mould, the floral structure.
Asa Gray has well remarked with regard to this central idea
(Nature, June 4, 1874) :—* The aphorism, ‘ Nature abhors a
vacuum,’ is a characteristic specimen of the science of the
middle ages. The aphorism, ‘ Nature abhors close fertilisa-
tion,’ and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our age
and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also the
principle of Natural Selection . . . . and to have applied these
principles to the system of nature, in such a manner as to make,
within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon natural history
than has been made since Linnzus, is ample title for one man’s
fame,”
The flowers of the Papilionaces* attracted his attention
early, and were the subject of his first paper on fertilisation.
The following extract from an undated letter to Asa Gray
seems to have been written before the publication of this paper,
probably in 1856 or 1857 :—
“, ... What you say on Papilionaceous flowers is very
true; and I have no facts to show that varieties are crossed ;
but yet (and the same remark is applicable in a beautiful way
to Fumaria and Dielytra, as I noticed many years ago), I must
believe that the flowers are constructed partly in direct relation
to the visits of insects; and how insects can avoid bringing
pollen from other individuals I cannot understand. It is really
pretty to watch the action of a humble-bee on the scarlet
kidney bean, and in this genus (and in Lathyrus grandiflorus) {
the honey is so placed that the bee invariably alights on that
one side of the flower towards which the spiral pistil is pro-
truded (bringing out with it pollen), and by the depression of
* The order to which the pea and bean belong.
+ Gardeners’ Chronicle, 1857, p. 725. It appears that this paper was
a piece of “over-time” work. He wrote to a friend, “that confounded
oe Poems per was done in the afternoon, and the consequence was I
to go to Moor Park for a week.”
} The sweet pea and everlasting pea belong to the genus Lathyrus.
302 BOTANY. (Cx. XVL
the wing-petal is forced against the bee’s side all dusted with
llen. In the broom the pistil is rubbed on the centre of the
ar of the bee. I suspect there is something to be made out
about the Leguminos», which will bring the case within our
theory; though I have failed to do so, theory will explain
why in the vegetable . . . . kingdom the act of fertilisation
even in hermaphrodites usually takes place sub jove, though
thus exposed to great injury from damp and rain.”
A letter to Dr. Asa Gray (September 5th, 1857) gives the sub-
stance of the paper in the Gardeners’ Chronicle :—
“Lately I was led to examine buds of kidney bean with the
pollen shed; but I was led to believe that the pollen could
hardly get on the stigma by wind or otherwise, except by bees
visiting [the flower] and moving the wing petals: hence I
included a small bunch of flowers in two bottles in every way
treated the same: the flowers in one I daily just momentarily
moved, as if by a bee; these set three fine pods, the other not
one. Of course this little experiment must be tried again, and
this year in England it is too late, as the flowers seem now
seldom to set. If bees are necessary to this flower’s self-
fertilisation, bees must almost cross them, as their dusted right-
side of head and right legs constantly touch the stigma.
“T have, also, lately been reobserving daily Lobelia fulgens
—this in my garden is never visited by insects, and never sets
seeds, without pollen be put on the stigma (whereas the small
blue Lobelia is visited by bees and does set seed); I mention
this because there are such beautiful contrivances to prevent
the stigma ever getting its own pollen; which seems only
explicable on the doctrine of the advantage of crosses.”
The paper was supplemented by a second in 1858.* The
chief object of these publications seems to have been to obtain
information as to the possibility of growing varieties of
Leguminous plants near each other, and yet keeping them true.
It is curious that the Papilionacew should not only have been
the first flowers which attracted his attention by their obvious
adaptation to the visits of insects, but should also have consti-
tuted one of his sorest puzzles. The common pea and the .
sweet pea gave him much difficulty, because, although they are
as obviously fitted for insect-visits as the rest of the order, yet
their varieties keep true. The fact is that neither of these
- plants being indigenous, they are not perfectly adapted for
fertilisation by British insects. He could not, at this stage
of his observations, know that the co-ordination between a
® Gardeners’ Chronicle, 1858, p. 828.
Cx. XVI.) FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. 808
flower and the particular insect which fertilises it may be as
delicate as that between a lock and its key, so that this explana-
tion was not likely to occur to him.
Besides observing the Leguminose, he had already begun,
as shown in the foregoing extracts, to attend to the structure
of other flowers in relation to insects. At the beginning of
1860 he worked at Leschenaultia,* which at first puzzled him,
but was ultimately made out. A passage in a letter chiefly
relating to Leschenaultia seems to show that it was only in the
spring of 1860 that he began widely to apply his knowledge
to the relation of insects to other flowers. This is somewhat
surprising, when we remember that he-had read Sprengel many
years before. He wrote (May 14) :—
“JT should look at this curious contrivance as specially
related to visits of insects; as I begin to think is almost
universally the case.”
Even in July 1862 he wrote to Asa Gray :—
“There is no end to the adaptations. Ought not these cases
to make one very cautious when one doubts about the use of
all parts? I fully believe that the structure of all irregular
flowers is governed in relation to insects. Insects are the
Lords of the floral (to quote the witty Athenszeum) world.”
This idea has been worked out by H. Miiller, who has written
on insects in the character of flower-breeders or flower-
fanciers, showing how the habits and structure of the visitors
are reflected in the forms and colours of the flowers visited.
He was probably attracted to the study of Orchids by the
fact that several kinds are common near Down. The letters
of 1860 show that these plants occupied a good deal of his
attention ; and in 1861 he gave part of the summer and all
the autumn to the subject. He evidently considered himself
idle for wasting time on Orchids which ought to have been
given to Variation under Domestication. Thus he wrote :—
“ There is to me incomparably more interest in observing
than in writing; but I feel quite guilty in trespassing on these
subjects, and kot sticking to varieties of the confounded cocks,
hens and d I hear that Lyell is savage at me.”
It was in the summer of 1860 that he made out one of the
most striking and familiar facts in the Orchid-book, namely,
the manner in which the pollen masses are adapted for removal
by insects. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, July 12 :—
“T have been examining Orchis pyramidalis, and it almost
equals, perhaps even beats, your Listera case; the sticky
* He published a short paper on the manner of fertilisation of this
flower, in the Gardeners’ Chronicle 1871, p.. 1166.
304 BOTANY. (Ox. XVL
glands are congenitally united into a saddle-sha organ,
which has great power of movement, and seizes hold of a
(or proboscis) in an admirable manner, and then another
movement takes place in the pollen masses, by which they are
beautifully adapted to leave pollen on the two lateral stigmatic
surfaces. I never saw anything so beautiful.”
In June of the same year he wrote :—
“You speak of adaptation being rarely visible, though
present in plants. I have just recently been looking at the
common Orchis, and I declare I think its adaptations in every
part of the flower quite as beautiful and plain, or even more
beautiful than in the woodpecker.” *
He wrote also to Dr. Gray, June 8, 1860 :—
“Talking of adaptation, I have lately been looking at our
common orchids, and I dare say the facts are as old and well-
known as the hills, but I have been so struck with admiration
at the contrivances, that I have sent a notice to the Gardeners’
Chronicle.”
Besides attending to the fertilisation of the flowers he was
already, in 1860, busy with the homologies of the a
subject of which he made good use in the Orchid book. He
wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (July) :-—
“Tt is a real good joke my discussing homologies of Orchids
with you, after examining only three or four genera; and this
very fact makes me feel positive Iam right! I do not quite
understand some of your terms; but sometime I must get you
to explain the homologies; for I am intensely interested in
the subject, just as at a game of chess.”
This work was valuable from a systematic point of view.
In 1880 he wrote to Mr. Bentham :—
“Tt was very kind in you to write to me about the Orchidem,
for it has pleased me to an extreme degree that I could have
been of the least use to you about the nature of the parts.”
The pleasure which his early observations on Orchids gave
him is shown in such passages as the following from a letter to
Sir J. D. Hooker (July 27, 1861) :—
“ You cannot conceive how the Orchids have delighted me,
They came safe, but box rather smashed; cylindrical old
cocoa- or snuff-canister much safer, Ienclose postage. As an
account of the movement, I shall allude to what I suppose is
Oncidium, to make certain,—is the enclosed flower with crum-
pled petals this genus? Also I most specially want to know
what the enclosed little globular brown Orchid is. I haye
* The woodpecker was one of his stock examples of adaptation.
Cu. XVI.) FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. 305
only seen pollen of a Cattleya on a bee, but surely have you
not unintentionally sent me what I wanted most (after Catase-
tum or Mormodes), viz., one of the Epidendrew ?! I particu-
larly want (and wi tly tell you why) another spike of this
little Orchid, with older flowers, some even almost withered.”
His delight in observation is again shown in a letter to
Dr. Gray (1863). Referring to OCriiger’s letters from Trinidad,
he wrote :— Happy man, he has actually seen crowds of
bees flying round Catasetum, with the pollinia sticking to their
backs !”
The following extracts of letters to Sir J. D. Hooker illus-
trate further the interest which his work excited in him :—
“ Veitch sent mea grand lot this morning. What wonderful
structures !
“T have now seen enough, and you must not send me more,
for though I enjoy looking at them much, and it has been very
useful to me, seeing so many different forms, it is idleness.
For my object each species requires studying for days. I
wish you had time to take up the group. 1 would give a
good deal to know what the rostellum is, of which I have
traced so many curious modifications. I suppose it cannot be
one of the stigmas,* there seems a great tendency for two
lateral stigmas to appear. My paper, though touching on
only subordinate points will run, I fear, to 100 MS. folio
! The beauty of the adaptation of parts seems to me
unparalleled. I should think or guess waxy pollen was most
differentiated. In Oypripedium which seems least modified,
and a much exterminated group, the grains are single. In all
others, as far as I have seen, they are in packets of four; and
these packets cohere into many wedge-formed masses in Orchis;
into eight, four, and finally two. It seems curious that a
flower should exist, which could at most fertilise only two other
flowers, seeing how abundant 2 sxcrps generally is ; this fact I
look at as explaining the perfection of the contrivance by
which the pollen, so important from its fewness, is carried
from flower to flower ” ¢ (1861).
“T was thinking of writing to you to-day, when your note
with the Orchids came. What frightful trouble you have
taken about Vanilla ; you really must not take an atom more ;
* It is a modification of the upper ry, an
+ This rather obscure statement may be paraphrased thus :—
The machinery is so perfect that the plant can afford to minimise the
pa pig! oye produced. Where the machinery for pollen distribution
is of a sort, for instance where it is carried by the wind, enormous
quantities are produced, e.g. in the fir tree.
806 BOTANY. (Cu. XVI.
for the Orchids are more play than real work. I have been
much interested by Epidendrum, and have worked all morning
at them; for Heaven’s sake, do not corrupt me by any more”
(August 30, 1861).
He originally intended to publish his notes on Orchids as a
paper in the Linnean Society’s Journal, but it soon became
evident that a separate volume would be a more suitable form
of publication. In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, Sept. 24, 1861,
he writes :—
“TJ have been acting, I fear that you will think, like a goose ;
and perhaps in truth I have. When I finished a few days ago
my Orchis paper, which turns out one hundred and forty folio
pages!! and thought of the expense of woodcuts, I said to
myself, I will offer the Linnean Society to withdraw it, and
ublish if ina pamphlet. It then flashed on me that perhaps
Murray would publish it, so I gave him a cautious description,
and offered to share risks and profits. This morning he writes
‘that he will publish and take all risks, and share profits and
pay for all illustrations. It is a risk, and Heaven knows
whether it will not be a dead failure, but I have not deceived
Murray, and [have] told him that it would interest those
alone who cared much for natural history. I hope I do not
exaggerate the curiosity of the many special contrivances.”
And again on September 28th :-—
“What a good soul you are not to sneer at me, but to pat
me on the back. I have the greatest doubt whether I am not
going to do, in publishing my paper,a most ridiculous thing.
It would annoy me much, but only for Murray’s sake, if the
publication were a dead failure.”
There was still much work to be done, and in October he
was still receiving Orchids from Kew, and wrote to Hooker :—
“ Tt is impossible to thank you enough. I was almost mad
at the wealth of Orchids.” And again—
“ Mr. Veitch most generously has sent me two splendid buds
of Mormodes, which will be capital for dissection, but I fear
will never be irritable; so for the sake of charity and love of
heaven do, I beseech you, observe what movement takes place
in Cychnoches, and what part must be touched. Mr. V. has:
also sent me one splendid flower of Catasetum, the most
wonderful Orchid I have seen.”
On October 13 he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker :—
“ Tt seems that I cannot exhaust your good nature. I haye
had the hardest day’s work at Catasetum and buds of Mor-
modes, and believe I understand at last the mechanism of
movements and the functions. Catasetum is a beautiful case
Cu. XVI) FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. 307
of slight modification of structure leading to new functions.
I never was more interested in any subject in all my life than
in this of Orchids. I owe very much to you.”
Again to the same friend, November 1, 1861 :—
“Tf you really can spare another Catasetum, when nearly
ready, I shall be most grateful; had I not better send for it ?
The case is truly marvellous; the (so-called) sensation, or
stimulus from a light touch is certainly transmitted through
the antennw for more than one inch instantaneously. ... A
cursed insect or something let my last flower off last night.”
Professor de Candolle has remarked* of my father, “ Ce n’est
~ lui qui aurait demandé de construire des palais pour y
oger des laboratoires.” This was singularly true of his
orchid work, or rather it would be nearer the truth to say that
he had no laboratory, for it was only after the publication of
the Fertilisation of Orchids, that he built himself a green-
ice He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (December 24th,
1862) :-—
« And now I am going to tell you a most important piece of
news!! I have almost resolved to build a small hot-house; my
neighbour’s really first-rate gardener has suggested it, and
offered to make me plans, and see that it is well done, and he is
really a clever fellow, who wins lots of prizes, and is very
observant. He believes that we should succeed with a little
patience ; it will be a grand amusement for me to experiment
with plants,”
Again he wrote (February 15th, 1863) :—
** T write now because the new hot-house is ready, and I long
to stock it, just like a schoolboy. Could you tell me pretty
soon what ts you can give me; and then I shall know
what to order? And do advise me how I had better get such
plants as you can spare. Would it do to send my tax-cart
early in the morning, on a day that was not frosty, lining the
cart with mats, and arriving here before night? I have no
idea whether this degree of exposure (and of course the cart
would be cold) could injure stove-plants; they would be about
five hours (with bait) on the journey home.”
A week later he wrote :—
“You cannot imagine what pleasure your plants give me
(far more than your dead Wedgwood-ware can give you); H.
and I go and gloat over them, but we privatelv confessed to
each other, that if they were not our own, perhaps we should
not see such transcendant beauty in each leaf.”
* “ Darwin considéré, &c.,” Archives des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles
8eme période. Tome vii. 481, 1882. :
x
308 BOTANY. (Cu. XVE.
And in March, when he was extremely unwell, he wrote :—
*‘ A few words about the stove-plants ; they do so amuse me.
I have crawled to see them two or three times. Will you
correct and answer, and return enclosed. I have hunted in all
my books and cannot find these names, and I like much to
know the family.” His difficulty with regard to the names of
plants is illustrated, with regard to a Lupine on which he was
at work, in an extract from a letter (July 21, 1866) to Sir
J. D. Hooker: “I sent to the nursery garden, whence I bought
the seed, and could only hear that it was ‘the common blue
Lupine,’ the man saying ‘he was no scholard, and did not
know Latin, and that parties who make experiments ought to
find out the names.’”
The book was published May 15th, 1862. Ofits reception he
writes to Mr. Murray, June 13th and 18th :—
“The Botanists praise my Orchid-book to the skies. Some
one sent me (perhaps you) the Parthenon, with a good review.
The Athenzum* treats me with very kind pity and contempt ;
but the reviewer knew nothing of his subject.”
“There is a superb, but I fear exaggerated, review in the
London Review.| But I have not been a fool, as I thought I
was, to publish ; for Asa Gray, about the most competent judge
in the world, thinks almost as highly of the book as does the
London Review. The Athenzewm will hinder the sale greatly.”
The Rev. M. J. Berkeley was the author of the notice in the
London Review, as my father learned from Sir J. D. Hooker,
who added, “I thought it very well done indeed. I have read
a good deal of the Orchid-book, and echo all he says.”
To this my father replied (June 30th, 1862) :—
“ My dear old friend,—You speak of my warming the cockles
of your heart, but you will never know how often you have
warmed mine. It is not your approbation of my scientific
work (though I care for that more than for any one’s): it is
something deeper. To this day I remember keenly a letter
you wrote to me from Oxford, when I was at the Water-cure,
and how it cheered me when I was utterly weary of life.
Well, my Orchid-book is a success (but 1 do not know whether
it sells).”
In oe ie letter to the same friend, he wrote :—
“You have pleased me much by what you say in regard to
Bentham and Oliver approving of my book; for I had got a
sort of nervousness, and doubted whether I had not e an
egregious fool of myself, and concocted pleasant little stinging
* May 24th, 1862. + June 14th, 1862,
Cx. XVI.) FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. 309
remarks for reviews, such as ‘ Mr. Darwin’s head seems to have
been turned by a certain degree of success, and he thinks that
the most trifling observations are worth publication.’ ”
He wrote too, to Asa Gray :—
“Your generous sympathy makes you over-estimate what
you have read of my Orchid-book. But your letter of May
18th and 26th has given me an almost foolish amount of
satisfaction. The subject interested me, I knew, beyond its
real value; but I had lately got to think that I had made
myself a complete fool by publishing in a semi-popular form.
Now I shall confidently defy the world. ... No doubt my
volume contains much error: how curiously difficult it is to be
accurate, though I try my utmost. Your notes have interested
me beyond measure. I can now afford to d— my critics
with ineffable complacency of mind. Cordial thanks for this
benefit.”
Sir Joseph Hooker reviewed the book in the Gardeners’
Chronicle, writing in a successful imitation of the style of
Lindley, the Editor. My father wrote to Sir Joseph (Nov. 12,
1862) :-—
**So you did write the review in the Gardeners’ Chronicle.
Once or twice I doubted whether it was Lindley; but when I
came to a little slap at R. Brown, I doubted no longer. You
arch-rogue! Ido not wonder you have deceived others also.
Perhaps I am a conceited dog; but if so, you have much to
answer for; I never received so much praise, and coming from
you I value it much more than from any other,”
With regard to botanical opinion generally, he wrote to Dr.
Gray, “ I am fairly astonished at the success of my book with
botanists.” Among naturalists who were not botanists, Lyell
was pre-eminent in his appreciation of the book. I have no
means of knowing when he read it, but in later life, as I learn
from Professor Judd, he was enthusiastic in praise of the
Fertilisation of Orchids, which he considered “ next to the
Origin, as the most valuable of all Darwin’s works,” Among
the general public the author did not at first hear of many
disciples, thus he wrote to his cousin Fox in September 1862:
“Hardly any one not a botanist, except yourself, as far as I
know, has cared for it.”
If we examine the literature relating to the fertilisation of
flowers, we do not find that this new branch of study showed
any great activity immediately after the publication of the
Orchid-book. There are a few papers by Asa Gray, in 1862 and
1868, by Hildebrand in 1864, and by Moggridge in 1865, but
the great mass of work by Axell, Delpino, Hildebrand, and
310 BOTANY. (Cu. XVI.
the Miillers, did not begin to appear until about 1867. The
period during which the new views were being assimilated,
and before they became thoroughly fruitful, was, however,
surprisingly short. The later activity in this department may
be roughly gauged by the fact that the valuable ‘ Bibliography,’
given by Professor D’Arcy Thompson in his translation of
Miiller’s Befruchtung (1883),* contains references to 814 papers.
In 1877 a second edition of the Fertilisation of Orchids was
published, the first edition having been for some time out of
print. The new edition was remodelled and almost rewritten,
and a large amount of new matter added, much of which the
author owed to his friend Fritz Miller.
With regard to this edition he wrote to Dr. Gray :—
“T do not suppose I shall ever again touch the book. After
much doubt I have resolved to act in this way with all my
books for the future; that is to correct them once and never
touch them again, so as to use the small quantity of work left
in me for new matter.”
One of the latest references to his Orchid-work occurs in a
letter to Mr. Bentham, February 16,1880. Itshows the amount
of pleasure which this subject gave to my father, and (what is
characteristic of him) that his reminiscence of the work was
one of delight in the observations which preceded its publica-
tion, not to the applause which followed it :—
“ They are wonderful creatures, these Orchids, and I some-
times think with a glow of pleasure, when I remember i
out some little point in their method of fertilisation.”
The Effect of Cross-and Self-fertilisation in the Vegetable King-
dom. Different Forms of Flowers on Planis of the same
species.
Two other books bearing on the problem of sex in plants
require a brief notice. The Effects of Cross-and Self-Fertili-
sation, published in 1876, is one of his most important works,
and at the same time one of the most unreadable to any but the
professed naturalist. Its value lies in the proof it offers of the
increased vigour given to the offspring by the act of cross-
fertilisation. Itis the complement of the Orchid book because
it makes us understand the advantage gained by the mechanisms
for insuring cross-fertilisation described in that work.
The book is also valuable in another respect, because it
throws light on the difficult problems of the origin of sexuality.
* My father’s “ Prefatory Notice” to this work is dated February 6th,
1882, and is therefore almost the last of his writings.
Cu. XVI.J FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. 3i1
The increased vigour resulting from cross-fertilisation is
allied in the closest manner to the advantage gained by change
of conditions. So strongly is this the case, that in some
instances cross-fertilisation gives no advantage to the off-
spring, unless the parents have lived under slightly different
conditions. So that the really important thing is not that two
individuals of different blood shall unite, but two individuals
which have been subjected to different conditions. We are
thus led to believe, that sexuality is a means for infusing vigour
into the offspring by the coalescence of differentiated elements,
an advantage which could not accompany asexual repro-
ductions.
It is remarkable that this book, the result of eleven years
of experimental work, owed its origin to a chance observation.
My father had raised two beds of Linaria vulgaris—one set
being the offspring of cross and the other of self-fertilisation.
The plants were grown for the sake of some observations on
inheritance, and not with any view to cross-breeding, and he
was astonished to observe that the offspring of self-fertilisation
were clearly less vigorous than the others. It seemed incredible
to him that this result could be due to a single act of self-
fertilisation, and it was only in the following year, when
precisely the same result occurred in the case of a similar
experiment on inheritance in carnations, that his attention was -
“thoroughly aroused,” and that he determined to make a series
of experiments specially directed to the question.
The volume on Forms of Flowers was published in 1877, and
was dedicated by the author to Professor Asa Gray, “as a small
tribute of respect and affection.” It consists of certain earlier
papers re-edited, with the addition of a quantity of new matter,
The subjects treated in the book are :—
(i.) Heterostyled Plants.
(ii.) Polygamous, Diccious, and Gynodicecious Plants.
lii.) Cleistogamic Flowers.
he nature of heterostyled plants may be illustrated in the
primrose, one of the best known examples of the class. If a
number of primroses be gathered, it will be found that some
plants yield nothing but “pin-eyed” flowers, in which the
style (or organ for the transmission of the pollen to the ovule)
is long, while the others yield only “thrum-eyed” flowers
with short styles. Thus primroses are divided into two sets
or castes differing structurally from each other. My father
showed that they also differ sexually, and that in fact the bond
between the two castes more nearly resembles that between
separate sexes than any other known relationship. Thus for
~
$12 BOTANY. (Cz. XVI.
example a long-styled primrose, though it can be fertilised by
its own pollen, is not fully fertile unless it is impregnated by
the pollen of a short-styled flower. Heterostyled plants are
comparable to hermaphrodite animals, such as snails, which
require the concourse of two individuals, although each pos-
sesses both the sexual elements. The difference is that in the
case of the primrose it is perfect fertility, and not simply fertility,
that depends on the mutual action of the two sets of in-
dividuals.
The work on heterostyled plants has a special bearing, to
which the author attached much importance, on the problem of
the origin of species.*
He found that a wonderfully close parallelism exists between
hybridisation (i.e. crosses between distinct species), and certain
forms of fertilisation among heterostyled plants. So that it is
hardly an exaggeration to say that the “ illegitimately ” reared
seedlings are hybrids, although both their parents belong to
identically the same species. In a letter to Professor Huxley,
given in the second volume of the Life and Letters (p. 384), my
father writes as if his researches on heterostyled plants tended
to make him believe that sterility is a selected or acquired
quality. But in his later publications, e.g. in the sixth edition
of the Origin, he adheres to the belief that sterility is an
incidental f rather than a selected quality. The result of his
work on heterostyled plants is of importance as showing that
sterility is no test of specific distinctness, and that it depends
on differentiation of the sexual elements which is independent
of any racial difference. I imagine that it was his instinctive
love of making out a difficulty which to a great extent kept him
at work so patiently on the heterostyled plants. But it was
the fact that general conclusions of the above character could
be drawn from his results which made him think his results
worthy of publication.
* See Autobiography, p. 48.
+ The pollen or fertilising element is in each species adapted to
roduce a certain change in the egg-cell (or female element), just as a
ey is adapted toa lock. Ifa key opens a lock for which it was never
intended it is an incidental result. In the same way if the pollen of
species of A. proves to be capable of fertilising the egg-cell of species B.
we may call it incidental.
( 813 )
CHAPTER XVII.
Climbing Plants; Power of Movement in Plants; Insec-
tivorous Planis ; Kew Index of Plant Names.
My father mentions in his Autobiography (p. 45) that he was
led to take up the subject of climbing plants by reading
Dr. Gray’s paper, “ Note on the Coiling of the Tendrils of
Plants.” * This essay seems to have been read in 1862, but I
am only able to guess at the date of the letter in which he asks
for a reference to it, so that the precise date of his beginning
this work cannot be determined.
In June 1863, he was certainly at work, and wrote to Sir
J. D. Hooker for information as to previous publications on the
subject, being then in ignorance of Palm’s and H. v. Mohl’s
works on climbing plants, both of which were published in
1827,
O. Darwin to Asa Gray. Down, August 4 [1863].
My present hobby-horse I owe to you, viz. the tendrils:
their irritability is beautiful, as beautiful in all its modifica-
tions as anything in Orchids. About the spontaneous move-
ment (independent of touch) of the tendrils and upper inter-
nodes, I am rather taken aback by your saying, “is it not well
known?” I can find nothing in any book which I have... .
The spontaneous movement of the tendrils is independent of
the movement of the upper internodes, but both work har-
moniously together in sweeping a circle for the tendrils to
grasp a stick. So with all climbing plants (without tendrils)
as yet examined, the upper internodes go on night and day
sweeping a circle in one fixed direction. It is surprising to
watch the Apocynes with shoots 18 inches long (beyond the
supporting stick), steadily searching for something to climb up.
When the shoot meets a stick, the motion at that point is
arrested, but in the upper part is continued; so that the
climbing of all plants yet examined is the simple result of the
* Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences, 1858,
314 BOTANY. [Cu. XVII.
spontaneous circulatory movement of the upper internodes.*
Pray tell me whether anything has been published on this
subject? I hate publishing what is old; but I shall hardly
regret my work if it is old, as it has much amused me... .
He soon found that his observations were not entirely novel,
and wrote to Hooker: “I have now read two German books,
and all I believe that has been written on climbers, and it has
stirred me up to find that I have a good deal of new matter. It
is strange, but I really think no one has explained simple
twining plants. These books have stirred me up, and made me
wish for plants specified in them.”
He continued his observations on climbing plants during the
prolonged illness from which he suffered in the autumn of 1863,
and in the following spring. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker,
apparently in March 1864 :—
“The hot-house is such an amusement to me, and my
amusement I owe to you, as my delight is to look at the
many odd leaves and plants from Kew. ... The only ap-
proach to work which I can do is to look at tendrils and
climbers, this does not distress my weakened brain. Ask
Oliver to look over the enclosed queries (and do you look)
and amuse a broken-down brother naturalist by answering
any which he can. If you ever lounge through your houses,
remember me and climbing plants.”
A letter to Dr. Gray, April 9, 1865, has a word or two on
the subject.—
“T have began correcting proofs of my paper on Climbing
Plants. I suppose I shall be able to send you a copy in four
or five weeks. I think it contains a good deal new, and some
curious points, but it is so fearfully long, that no one will ever
read it. If, however, you do not skim through it, you will be
an unnatural parent, for it is your child.”
Dr. Gray not only read it but approved of it, to my father’s
great satisfaction, as the following extracts show :—
“ T was much pleased to get your letter of July 24th. Now
that I can do nothing, I maunder over old subjects, and your
approbation of my climbing paper gives me very great satis-
faction. I made my observations when I could do nothi
else and much enjoyed it, but always doubted whether they
were worth publishing..... -?
“TI received yesterday your articlet on climbers, and it has
* This view is rejected by some botanists.
+ In the Saale ae number of Silliman’s Journal, concluded in the
January number, 1866.
Cu. XVILJ MOVEMENT IN PLANTS. 315
pleased me in an extraordinary and even silly manner. You pay
me a superb compliment, and as I have just said to my wife, I
think my friends must ete that I like praise, they give me
such hearty doses. I always admire your skill in reviews or
abstracts, and you have done this article excellently and given
the whole essence of my paper. ....I have had a letter
from a good zoologist in 5. Brazil, F. Miiller, who has been
stirred up to observe climbers, and gives me some curious cases
of branch-climbers, in which branches are converted into
tendrils, and then continue to grow and throw out leaves
and new branches, and then lose their tendril character.”
The paper on Climbing Plants was republished in 1875, asa
separate book. The author had been unable to.give his cus-
tomary amount of care to the style of the original essay, owing
to the fact that it was written during a period of continued ill-
health, and it was now found to require a great deal of altera-
tion. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (March 3, 1875) : “It is
lucky for authors in general that they do not require such
dreadful work in merely licking what they write into shape.”
And to Mr. Murray, in Sittenter, he wrote : ** The corrections
are heavy in Olimbing Plants, and yet I deliberately went over
the MS. and old sheets three times.” The book was published
in September 1875, an edition of 1500 copies was struck off;
the edition sold fairly well, and 500 additional copies were
printed in June of the following year.
The Power of Movement in Plants. 1880,
The few sentences in the autobiographical chapter give with
sufficient clearness the connection between the Power of
Movement and the book on Climbing Plants. The central idea
of the book is that the movements of plants in relation to
light, gravitation, &c., are modifications of a spontaneous
tendency to revolve or circumnutate, which is widely inherent
in the growing parts of plants. This conception has not been
generally adopted, and has not taken a place among the
canons of orthodox physiology. The book has been treated
by Professor Sachs with a few words of professorial contempt;
and by Professor Wiesner it has been honoured by careful
and generously expressed criticism.
Mr. Thiselton Dyer * has well said ; “ Whether this masterly
* Charles Darwin, Nature Series, p. 41.
316 BOTANY. (Cu. XVil.
conception of the unity of what has hitherto seemed a chaos of
unrelated phenomena will be sustained, time alone will show.
But no one can doubt the importance of what Mr. Darwin has
done, in showing that for the future the phenomena of plant
movement can and indeed must be studied from a single point
of view.”
The work was begun in the summer of 1877, after the publi-
cation of Different Forms of Flowers, and by the autumn his
enthusiasm for the subject was thoroughly established, and he
wrote to Mr Dyer: “Iam all on fire at the work.” At this
time he was studying the movements of cotyledons, in which
the sleep of plants is to be observed in its simplest form; in
the following spring he was trying to discover what useful
purpose these sleep-movements could serve, and wrote to Sir
Joseph Hooker (March 25th, 1878) :—
“TI think we have proved that the sleep of plants is to lessen the
injury to the leaves from radiation. This has interested me
much, and has cost us great labour, as it has been a problem
since the time of Linnezus. But we have killed or badly
injured a multitude of plants. N.B.—Ozalis carnosa was most
valuable, but last night was killed.”
The book was published on November 6, 1880, and 1500
copies were disposed of at Mr. Murray’s sale With regard to
it he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (November 23) :—
“‘ Your note has pleased me much—for I did not expect that
you would have had time to read any of it. Read the last
chapter, and you will know the whole result, but without the
evidence. The case, however, of radicles bending after ex-
posure for an hour to geotropism, with their tips (or brains)
cut off is, I think worth your reading (bottom of p. 525); it
astounded me. But I will bother you no more about my book.
The sensitiveness of seedlings to light is marvellous.”
To another friend, Mr. Thiselton Dyer, he wrote (Novem-
ber 28, 1880) :
“ Very many thanks for your most kind note, but you think
too highly of our work, not but what this is very pleasant... .
Many of the Germans are very contemptuous about i
out the use of organs; but they may sneer the souls out of
their bodies, and I for one shall think it the most interesting
part of Natural History. Indeed you are greatly mistaken if
you doubt for one moment on the very great value of your
constant and most kind assistance to us.”
The book was widely reviewed, and excited much interest
among the general public. The following letter refers to a
leading article in the Times, November 20, 1880 :—
Ca. XVIL) MOVEMENT IN PLANTS. 317
0. D. to Mrs. Haliburion.* Down, November 22, 1880,
My pear Saran,—You see how audaciously I begin; but I
have always loved and shall ever love this name. Your letter
has done more than please me, for its kindness has touched my
heart. I often think of old days and of the delight of my
visits to Woodhouse, and of the deep debt of gratitude which I
owe to your father. It was very good of you to write. I had
quite forgotten my old ambition about the Shrewsbury news-
paper ;{ but I remember the pride which I felt when I saw
in a book about beetles the impressive words “captured by
©. Darwin.” Captured sounded so grand compared with caught.
This seemed to me glory enough for any man! I do not know
in the least what made the Times glorify me, for it has some-
times pitched into me ferociously.
I should very much like to see you again, but you would
find a visit here very dull, for we feel very old and have no
amusement, and lead a solitary life. But we intend in a few
weeks to spend a few days in London, and then if you have
anything else to do in London, you would perhaps come and
lunch with us.
Believe me, my dear Sarah,
Yours gratefully and affectionately.
The following letter was called forth by the publication of a
volume devoted to the criticism of the Power of Movement in
Planis by an accomplished botanist, Dr. Julius Wiesner, Pro-
fessor of Botany in the University of Vienna:
0. D. to Julius Wiesner. Down, October 25th, 1881.
My pear Sir,—I have now finished your book,t and have
understood the whole except a very few passages. In the first
place, let me thank you cordially for the manner in which you
have everywhere treated me. You have shown how a man
may differ from another in the most decided manner, and yet
express his difference with the most perfect courtesy. Not a
* Mrs. Haliburton was a daughter of my father’s early friend, the late
Mr. Owen, of Woodhouse.
+ Mrs. Haliburton had reminded him of his saying as a boy that if
Eddowes’ newspaper ever alluded to him as “our deserving fellow-
townsman,” his ambition would be amply gratified.
+ Das Bewegungsvermigen der Pflanzen. Vienna, 1881,
318 BOTANY. (Cu. XVIL.
few English and German naturalists might learn a useful
lesson from your example; for the coarse language often used
by scientific men towards each other does no good, and only
degrades science.
I have been profoundly interested by your book, and some
of your experiments are so beautiful, that I actually felt
pleasure while being vivisected. It would take up too much
space to discuss all the important topics in your book. I fear
that you have quite upset the interpretation which I have
given of the effects of cutting off the tips of horizontally
extended roots, and of those laterally exposed to moisture ;
but I cannot persuade myself that the horizontal position of
lateral branches and roots is due simply to their lessened
power of growth. Nor when I think of my experiments with
the cotyledons of Phalaris, can I give up the belief of the
transmission of some stimulus due to light from the upper to
the lower part. At p. 60 you have misunderstood my meaning,
when you say that { believe that the effects from light are
transmitted to a part which is not itself heliotropic. I never
considered whether or not the short part beneath the ground
was heliotropic; but I believe that with young seedlings the
part which bends near, but above the ground is heliotropic, and
I believe so from this part bending only moderately when the
light is oblique, and bending rectangularly when the light is
horizontal. Nevertheless the bending of this lower part, as
I conclude from my experiments with opaque caps, is in-
fluenced by the action of light on the upper part. My opinion,
however, on the above and many other points, signifies very
little, for I have no doubt that your book will convince most
botanists that I am wrong in all the points on which we differ.
Independently of the question of transmission, my mind is
so full of facts leading me to believe that light, gravity, &.,
act not in a direct manner on growth, but as stimuli, that I am
quite unable to modify my judgment on this head. I could
not understand the passage at p 78, until I consulted my
son George, who is a mathematician. He supposes that your
objection is founded on the diffused light from the lamp
illuminating both sides of the object, and not being me
with increasing distance in the same ratio as the direct light ;
but he doubts whether this necessary correction will account for
the very little difference in the heliotropic curvature of the
plants in the successive pots.
With respect to the sensitiveness of the tips of roots to
contact, I cannot admit your view until it is proved that I am
in error about bits of card attached by liquid gum causing
Oa. XVII) INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS. 319
movement; whereas no movement was caused if the card
remained separated from the tip by a layer of the liquid gum.
The fact also of thicker and thinner bits of card attached on
opposite sides of the same root by shellac, causing movement
in one direction, has to be explained. You often speak of the
tip having been injured; but externally there was no sign of
injury: and when the tip was plainly injured, the extreme part
became curved towards the injured side. I can no more
believe that the tip was injured by the bits of card, at least
when attached by gum-water, than that the glands of Drosera
are injured by a particle of thread or hair placed on it, or that
the human tongue is so when it feels any such object.
About the most important subject in my book, namely
circumnutation, I can only say that I feel utterly bewildered
at the difference in our conclusions; but I could not fully
understand some parts which my son Francis will be able to
translate to me when he returns home. The greater part of
your book is beautifully clear.
Finally, I wish that I had enough strength and spirit to
commence @ fresh set of experiments, and publish the results,
with a full recantation of my errors when convinced of them;
but Iam too old for such an undertaking, nor do I suppose
that I shall be able to do much, or any more, original work.
I imagine that I see one possible source of error in your
beautiful experiment of a plant rotating and exposed to a
lateral light.
With high respect, and with sincere thanks for the kind
manner in which you have treated me and my mistakes, I
remain, .
My dear Sir, yours sincerely.
Insectivorous Plants.
In the summer of 1860 he was staying at the house of his
sister-in-law, Miss Wedgwood, in Ashdown Forest whence he
wrote (July 29, 1860), to Sir Joseph Hooker :—
“ Latterly I have done nothing here; but at first I amused
myself with a few observations on the insect-catching power
of Drosera: * and I must consult you some time whether m
‘twaddle’ is worth communicating to the Linnean Society.”
In August he wrote to the same friend :—
“J will gratefully send my notes on Drosera when copied
* The common sun-dew.
320 BOTANY. (Cx. XVIL
by my copier: the subject amused me when I had nothing
to do.”
He has described in the Autobiography (p. 47), the general
nature of these early experiments. He noticed insects sticking
to the leaves, and finding that flias, &c., placed on the adhesive
glands, were held fast and embraced, he suspected that
the captured prey was digested and absorbed by the leaves,
He therefore tried the effect on the leaves of various nitro-
genous fluids—with results which, as far as they went, verified
his surmise. In September, 1860, he wrote to Dr. Gray :—
“JT have been infinitely amused by working at Drosera’: the
movements are really curious; and the manner in which the
leaves detect certain nitrogenous compounds is marvellous,
You will laugh; but it is, at present, my full belief (after
endless experiments) that they detect (and move in con-
sequence of) the sy, part of a single grain of nitrate of
ammonia; but the muriate and sulphate of ammonia bother
their chemical skill, and they cannot make anything of the
nitrogen in these salts!”
Later in the autumn he was again obliged to leave home for
Eastbourne, where he continued his work on Drosera.
On his return home he wrote to Lyell (November 1860) :—
“TJ will and must finish my Drosera MS., which will take
me a week, for, at the present moment, I care more about
Drosera than the origin of all the species in the world. But
I will not publish on Drosera till next year, for I am frightened
and astounded at my results. I declare it isa certain fact,
that one organ is so sensitive to touch, that a weight seventy-
eight-times less than that, viz., y/55 of a grain, which will move
the best chemical balance, suffices to cause a conspicuous
movement. Is it not curious that a plant should be far more
sensitive to the touch than any nerve in the human body ?
Yet I am perfectly sure that this is true. When I am on my
hobby-horse, I never can resist telling my friends how well
my hobby goes, so you must forgive the rider.”
The work was continued, as * holiday task, at Bournemouth,
where he stayed during the autumn of 1862.
A long break now ensued in his work on insectivorous plants,
and it was not till 1872 that the subjeet seriously occupied him
again. A passage in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, written in 1863
or 1864, shows, however, that the question was not altogether
absent from his mind in the interim :—
“ Depend on it you are unjust on the merits of my beloved
Drosera ; it is a wonderful plant, or rather a most sagacious
animal, I will stick up for Drosera to the day of my death.
On. X VIL) INSEOTIVOROUS PLANTS. $21
Heaven knows whether I shall ever publish my pile of experi-
ments on it.”
He notes in his diary that the last proof of the Hwpression
of the Emotions was finished on August 22, 1872, and that he
began to work on Drosera on the following day. ,
C. D. to Asa Gray [Sevenoaks], October 22 [1872].
.++L have worked pretty hard for four or five weeks on
Drosera, and then broke down; so that we took a house near
Sevenoaks for three weeks (where I now am) to get complete
rest. I have very little power of working now, and must put
off the rest of the work on Drosera till next spring, as my
plants are dying. It is an endless subject, and I must cut it
short, and for this reason shall not do much on Dionwa. The
point which has interested me most is tracing the nerves /
which follow the vascular bundles. By a prick with a sharp
lancet at a certain point, I can paralyse one-half the leaf, so
that a stimulus to the other half causes no movement. It is
just like dividing the spinal marrow of a frog:—no stimulus
can be sent from the brain or anterior part of the spine to the
hind legs: but if these latter are stimulated, they move by
reflex action. I find my old results about the astonishing
sensitiveness of the nervous system (!?) of Drosera to various
stimulants fully confirmed and extended... .
0. D. io Asa Gray, Down, June 3 [1874].
..- Lam now hard at work getting my book on Drosera & Co.
ready for the printers, but it will take some time, for I am
always finding out new points to observe. I think you will
be interested by my observations on the digestive process
in Drosera; the secretion contains an acid of the acetic series,
and some ferment closely analogous to, but not identical with,
pepsine; for I have been making a long series of comparative
trials. No human being will believe what I shall publish
about the smallness of the doses of phosphate of ammonia which
act. . 2...
The manuscript of Insectivorous Plants’ was finished in
March 1875. He seems to have been more than usually
oppressed by the writing of this book, thus he wrote to Sir
J. D. Hooker in February :—
“ You ask about my book, and all that I can say is that I am
ready to commit suicide; I thought it was decently written,
¥
322 BOTANY. (Ca. XVI.
but find so much wants rewriting, that it will not be ready
to go to printers for two months, and will then make a
confoundedly big book. Murray will say that it is no use
publishing in the middle of summer, so I do not know what
will be the upshot; but I begin to think that every one who
publishes a book is a fool.”
The book was published on July 2nd, 1875, and 2700 copies
were sold out of the edition of 3000.
The Kew Index of Plant-Names.
Some account of my father’s connection with the Index of
Plant-Names, now (1892) being printed by the Clarendon
Press, will be found in Mr. B. Daydon Jackson’s paper in
the Journal of Botany, 1887, p. 151. Mr. Jackson quotes
the following statement by Sir J. D. Hooker :—
“ Shortly before his death, Mr. Charles Darwin informed Sir
Joseph Hooker that it was his intention to devote a considerable
sum of money annually for some years in aid or furtherance
of some work or works of practical utility to biological science,
and to make provisions in his will in the event of these not
being completed during his lifetime.
“ Amongst other objects connected with botanical science,
Mr. Darwin regarded with especial interest the importance of
a complete index to the names and authors of the genera and
species of plants known to botanists, together with their native
countries. Steudel’s Nomenclator is the only existing work of
this nature, and although now nearly half a century old, Mr.
Darwin had found it of great aid in his own researches. It
has been indispensable to every botanical institution, whether
as a list of all known flowering plants, as an indication of
their authors, or as a digest of botanical geography.”
Since 1840, when the Nomenclator was published, the number
of described plants may be said to have doubled, so that
Steudel is now seriously below the requirements of botanical
work. 'To remedy this want, the Nomenclator has been from time |
to time posted up in an interleaved copy in the Herbarium at
Kew, by the help of ‘‘funds supplied by private liberality.” *
My father, like other botanists, had, as Sir Joseph Hooker
points out, experienced the value of Steudel’s work, He
obtained plants from all sorts of sources, which were often
incorrectly named, and he felt the necessity of adhering to
* Kew Gardens Report, 1881, p. 62,
Ox. XVII) KEW INDEX. 323
the accepted nomenclature so that he might convey to other
workers precise indications as to the plants which he had studied.
It was frequently a matter of importance to him to know
the native country of his experimental plants. Thus it was
natural that he should recognise the desirability of completing
and publishing the interleaved volume at Kew. The wish to help
in this object was heightened by the admiration he felt for the
results for which the world has to thank the Royal Gardens at
Kew, and by his gratitude for the invaluable aid which for so
many years he received from its Director and his staff. He
expressly stated that it was his wish “to aid in some way the
scientific work carried on at the Royal Gardens ” *—which
induced him to offer to supply funds for the completion of the
Kew Nomenclator.
The following passage, for which I am indebted to Professor
Judd, is of interest, as illustrating, the motives that actuated
my father in this matter. Professor Judd writes :—
“On the occasion of my last visit to him, he told me that his
income having recently greatly increased, while his wants re-
mained the same, he was most anxious to devote what he could
spare to the advancement of Geology or Biology. He dwelt in
the most touching manner on the fact that he owed so much
happiness and fame to the natural history sciences, which had
been the solace of what might have been a painful existence ;—
and he begged me, if I knew of any research which could be
aided by a grant of a few hundreds of pounds, to let him know,
as it would be a delight to him to feel that he was helping in
promoting the progress of science. He informed me at the
same time that he was making the same suggestion to Sir
Joseph Hooker and Professor Huxley with respect to Botany
and Zoology respectively. I was much impressed by the
earnestness, and, indeed, deep emotion, with which he spoke
of his indebtedness to Science, and his desire to promote its
interests.”
The plan of the proposed work having been carefully con-
sidered, Sir Joseph Hooker was able to confide its elaboration
in detail to Mr. B. Daydon Jackson, Secretary of the Linnean
Society, whose extensive knowledge of botanical literature
qualifies him for the task. My father’s original idea of
producing a modern edition of Steudel’s Nomenclator has been
practically abandoned, the aim now kept in view is rather to
construct a list of genera and species (with references) founded
on Bentham and Hooker’s Genera Plantarum, Under Sir
* See Nature, January 5, 1882.
B24 BOTANY, (Ox. XVIL
Joseph Hooker’s supervision, the work, carried out with
admirable zeal by Mr. Jackson, goes steadily forward. The
colossal nature of the undertaking may be estimated by the
fact that the manuscript of the Index is at the present time
(1892) believed to weigh more than a ton.
The Kew ‘Index,’ will be a fitting memorial of my father:
and his share in its completion illustrates a part of his cha-
racter—his ready sympathy with work outside his own lines of
investigation—and his respect for minute and patient labour in
all branches of science.
( 325 )
OHAPTER XVIII.
CONCLUSION.
Some idea of the general course of my father’s health may
have been gathered from the letters given in the preceding
pages. The subject of health appears more prominently than
is often necessary in a Biography, because it was, unfortunately,
so real an element in determining the outward form of his life.
My father was at one time in the hands of Dr. Bence Jones,
from whose treatment he certainly derived benefit. In later
years he became a patient of Sir Andrew Olark, under whose
care he improved greatly in general health. It was not only
for his generously rendered service that my father felt a
debt of gratitude towards Sir Andrew Clark. He owed to
his cheering personal influence an often-repeated encourage-
ment, which latterly added something real to his happiness,
and he found sincere pleasure in Sir Andrew’s friendship
and kindness towards himself and his children. During the
last ten years of his life the state of his health was a cause
of satisfaction and hope to his family. His condition showed
signs of amendment in several particulars. He suffered
less distress and discomfort, and was able to work more
steadily.
Scattered through his letters are one or two references to
pain or uneasiness felt in the region of the heart. How far
these indicate that the heart was affected early in life, I
cannot pretend to say ; in any case it is certain that he had no
serious or permanent trouble of this nature until shortly before
his death. In spite of the general improvement in his health,
which has been above alluded to, there was a certain loss of
physical vigour occasionally apparent during the last few
years of his life. This is illustrated by a sentence in a letter
to his old friend Sir James Sulivan, written on January 10,
1879: “ My scientific work tires me more that it used fo do,
but I have nothing else to do, and whether one is worn out a
year or two sooner or later signifies but little.”
A similar feeling is shown in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker of
326 CONCLUSION. (Cx. XVIIL
June 15, 1881. My father was staying at Patterdale, and
wrote: “I am rather despondent about myself .... I have
not the heart or strength to begin any investigation lasting
years, which is the only thing I enjoy, and I have no little
jobs which I can do.”
In July, 1881, he wrote to Mr. Wallace: “ We have just
returned home after spending five weeks on Ullswater; the
scenery is quite charming, but I cannot walk, and everything
tires me, even seeing scenery .... What I shall do with my
few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have every-
thing to make me happy and contented, but life has become
very wearisome to me.” He was, however, able to do a good
deal of work, and that of a trying sort,* during the autumn of
1881, but towards the end of the year, he was clearly in need
of rest: and during the winter was in a lower condition than
was usual with him.
On December 13, he went for a week to his daughter’s house
in Bryanston Street. During his stay in London he went to
call on Mr. Romanes, and was seized when on the doo
with an attack apparently of the same kind as those whi
afterwards became so frequent. The rest of the incident,
which I give in Mr. Romanes’ words, is interesting too from a
different point of view, as giving one more illustration of my
father’s scrupulous consideration for others :—
“T happened to be out, but my butler, observing that Mr.
Darwin was ill, asked him to come in. He said he would
prefer going home, and although the butler urged him to wait
at least until a cab could be fetched, he said he would rather
not give so much trouble. For the same reason he refused to
allow the butler to accompany him. Accordingly he watched
him walking with difficulty towards the direction in which cabs
were to be met with, and saw that, when he had got about
three hundred yards from the house, he staggered and caught
hold of the park-railings as if to prevent himself from falling.
The butler therefore hastened to his assistance, but after a few
seconds saw him turn round with the evident purpose of
retracing his steps to my house. However, after he had
returned part of the way he seems to have felt better, for he
again changed his mind, and proceeded to find a cab.”
During the last week of February and in the beginning of
March, attacks of pain in the region of the heart, with irre-
gularity of the pulse, became frequent, coming on indeed
nearly every afternoon. A seizure of this sort occurred about
* On the action of carbonate of ammonia on roots and leaves.
Cu. XVIIL) CONCLUSION. 327
March 7, when he was walking alone at a short distance
from the house; he got home with difficulty, and this was
the last time that he was able to reach his favourite ‘Sand-
walk.’ Shortly after this, his illness became obviously more
serious and alarming, and he was seen by Sir Andrew Clark,
whose treatment was continued by Dr. Norman Moore, of
St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and Dr. Allfrey, at that time
in practice at St. Mary Oray. He suffered from distressing
sensations of exhaustion and faintness, and seemed to recognise
with deep depression the fact that his working days were
over. He gradually recovered from this condition, and became
more cheerful and hopeful, as is shown in the following letter
to Mr. Huxley, who was anxious that my father should have
closer medical supervision than the existing arrangements
allowed :-—
* Down, March 27, 1882.
“ My pear Huxixy,—Your most kind letter has been a real
cordial tome. I have felt better to-day than for three weeks,
and have felt as yet no pain. Your plan seems an excellent
one, and I will probably act upon it, unless I get very much
better. Dr. Clark’s kindness is unbounded to me, but he is
too busy to come here. Once again, accept my cordial thanks,
my dear old friend. I wish to there were more automata *
in the world like you.
“ Ever yours,
“Cu. Darwin.”
The allusion to Sir Andrew Clark requires a word of ex-
planation. Sir Andrew himself was ever ready to devote him-
self to my father, who however, could not endure the thought
of sending for him, knowing how severely his great practice
taxed his strength.
No especial change occurred during the beginning of April,
but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while
sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to
reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my
temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an experi-
ment in which I was engaged. During the night of April
18th, about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and
passed into a faint, from which he was brought back to
consciousness with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise
the ap of death, and said, “I am not the least afraid to
* The allusion is to Mr. Huxley’s address, “On the hypothesis that
animals are automata, and its history,” given at the Belfast Meeting of
the British Association, 1874, and republished in Science and Culture.
328 CONCLUSION. (Ca. XVIII.
die.” All the next morning he suffered from terrible nausea
and faintness, and hardly rallied before the end came.
He died at about four o’clock on Wednesday, April 19th,
1882, in the 74th year of his age.
I close the record of my father’s life with a few words of
retrospect added to the manuscript of his Autobiography in
1879 :—
“As for myself, I believe that I have acted Br in
steadily following and devoting my life to Science. feel no
remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often
and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to
my fellow creatures.”
( 329 )
APPENDIX I.
THE FUNERAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
On the Friday succeeding my father’s death, the following letter,
signed by twenty Members of Parliament, was addressed to Dr.
Bradley, Dean of Westminster :—
Hovss or Commons, April 21, 1882.
Very Rev. Sm,—We hope you will not think we are taking a
liberty if we venture to suggest that it would be acceptable to a very
number of our ne og bag of all classes and opinions
that our illustrious countryman, . Darwin, should be buried in
Westminster Abbey.
We remain, your obedient servants,
JoHN LuBBocK, RicHarp B. Marri,
Nervi. Srorry Maske.yyz, Franois W. Buxton,
A. J. Munpet3a, E, L, Sranzey,
G. O. TREVELYAN, Henry Broapuurst,
Lyon PLAYFaIR, JoHN BaRRAN,
Caries W. DILxe, J. F. CHesruam,
Davip WEDDERBURN, H. 8. Hotzanp,
ARTHUR RUSSELL, H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,
Horace Davey, CHARLEs Bruce,
BENJAMIN ARMITAGE, RicHarD Fort.
The Dean was abroad at the time, and telegraphed his cordial
uiescence.
“The family had desired that my father should be buried at Down:
with regard to their wishes, Sir John Lubbock wrote :—
House or Commons, April 25, 1882.
My vegan Darwin,—I quite sympathise with your feeling, and
poms I should greatly have preferred that your father should
ave rested in Down amongst us all. It is, I am sure, quite under-
stood that the initiative was not taken by you. Still, from a national
point of view, it is clearly right that he should be buried in*the
Abbey. I esteem it a great privilege to be allowed to accompany my
dear master to the grave.
Believe me, yours most sincerely,
JoHuN LusBoox.
W. E. Darwin, Esq.
330 APPENDIX I.
The family gave up their first-formed plans, and the funeral took
place in Westminster Abbey on April 26th. The pall-bearers were :—
Sir Jonn Lussock, Canon Farrar,
Mr. Houxiey, Sir JosePH Hooxer,
Mr. James Russetn Lowen, j$-Mr. Wii11am SporriswoopE
(American Minister), (President of the Royal
Society),
Mr. A. R. WALLACE, The Earl of Dersy,
The Doxe or DEVONSHIRE, The Duxe or ARGYLL,
The funeral was attended by the representatives of France,
Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, and by those of the Universities and
learned Societies, as well as by large numbers of personal friends and
distinguished men.
The grave is in the north aisle of the Nave, close to the angle of
the choir-screen, and a few feet from the grave of Sir Isaac Newton.
The stone bears the inscription—
CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN.
Born 12 February, 1809.
Died 19 April, 1882.
( 331 )
APPENDIX IL.
PorTRAITS.
Date. Description. Artist. | In the Possession of
—
1838 | Water-colour . | G. Richmond . | The Family.
1851 | Lithograph. . | Ipswich British
Assn. Series.
1858 | Chalk Drawing. | Samuel Lawrence | The Family.
1853 ? | Chalk Drawing* | Samuel Lawrence | Professor Hughes,
Cambridge.
1869 | Bust, marble . | T. Woolner, R.A. | The Family.
1875 | Oil Paintingf . | W. Ouless, R.A. | The Family.
Etched by . . | P. Rajon.
1879 | Oil Painting . | W.B. Richmond | The University of
Cambridge.
1881 | Oil Paintingt . | Hon. John Collier | The Linnean Society,
Btched by . . | Leopold Flameng
Curer PorTRAITS AND MEMORIALS NOT TAKEN FROM LIFE.
Statue§. . . | Joseph Boehm, | Museum, South
R.A. Kensington.
Bust. . . « | Chr. Lehr, Junr.
Plaque . . . | T. Woolner, R.A.,| Christ’s College, in
and Josiah Charles Darwin’s
ii gegte and} Room.
ns.
Deep Medallion. | J. Boehm, R.A. | In Westminster
Abbey.
* Probably a sketch made at one of the sittings for the last-mentioned.
+ A replica by the artist is in the possession of Christ's College, Cam-
bridge.
ry’ replica by the artist is in the possession of W. E. Darwin, Esq.,
Southampton. ‘
§ A cast from this work is now placed in the New Museums at
Cambridge.
832 APPENDIX IL.
Curer ENGRAVINGS FROM PHOTOGRAPHS.
*1854? By Messrs. Maull and Fox, engraved on wood for Harper's
Magazine (Oct. 1884). Frontispiece, Life and Letters, vol. i.
1868 By the late Mrs. Cameron, reproduced in heliogravure by the
wee Y Engraving Company for the present work.
*1870? By O. J. Rejlander, engraved on Steel by O. H. Jeens for
Nature (June 4, is74).
"1874? By Major in, engraved on wood for the Century Magazine
(Jan. 1883). Frontispiece, Life and Letters, vol. ii.
1881 By Messrs. Elliot and Fry, 4 omg on wood by G, Kruells,
for vol. iii. of the Life and :
* The dates of these photographs must, from various causes, remain
uncertain. Owing toa loss of books by-fire, Messrs. Maull and Fox can
give only an approximate date. Mr. Rejlander died some years ago, and
his business was broken up. on brother, Major Darwin, has no record of
the date at which his photograph was taken.
( 883 )
INDEX.
ABBOTT. * BEAGLE.”
Aszort, F. E., letters to, on religi- | Ascension, 30
ous opinions, 55. ‘Athensum,’ letter to the, 258;
Aberdeen, British Association
Meeting at, 1859.. 202.
Abstract re Origin of Species”), 192,
193, 195, 196.
Agassiz, Louis, Professor, letter to,
sending him the ‘ Origin of Spe-
dite? 208; note on, and extract
from letter to, 208 ; opinion of the
opinions of, 243.
Agassiz, Alexander, Professor, letter
po :—on coral ve 282.
yi arena
orth, William, 12.
Albuns age photogra received
from Germany and Holland, 293.
Algebra, distaste for the study of, 17.
Allfrey, Dr., treatment by, 327.
American edition of the ‘ Origin,’
226.
—— Civil War, the, 249.
Ammonia, salts of, behaviour of the
leaves of Drosera, towards, $20.
Andes, excursion across the, 136 ;
nals on the slow hen x the, 153.
Anim ane 0
‘Annals and Magazine of Natural
History,’ review of the ‘ Origin’
in the, 227.
Anti-Jacobin, 242, note, 243.
Anis, elave-making, 191.
Apocynes, twisting of shoots of,
313.
Apparatus, 92-94; purchase of, for
e Zoological Station at Naples,
293.
Appletons’ — reprints of the
* Origin,’ 235.
article in the, 257; reply to the
article, 258.
review of the ‘Origin’ in
a 211, 212; reviews in th the, of
Lyell’s * Antiquit of Man,’ and
uxley’s ‘Man’s placein Nature,’
253, 257; review of the Bes
tion of Animals and Plants,’ in
the, 268 ; review of the ‘ Fertilisa-
tion of Orchids,’ in the, 308.
Athensum Club, 147.
‘Atlantic Monthly’ Asa Gray’s
articles in the, 248.
Atolls, formation of, 282.
Audubon, 14.
Seer 5-54.
* Automata,’ 3
Aveling, ~ eg on OC. Darwin’s reli-
gious views, 65, note.
Bapsage and Carl vias 86
Bachelor of Arts, degree ‘taken, 18.
Bar, Karl Ernest von, 213.
Bahia, forest scenery at, 131; letter
to R. W. Darwin from, 128.
Barmouth, visit to, 106.
Bates, H. W., pa r on mimetic
butterflies, 251; Darwin’s opinion
of, 251 note ; ‘Naturalist on the
Amazons,’ opinion of, 251; letter
to :—on his * ‘Insect-Fauna of the
Amazons Valley,’ 251.
Beagle, correspondence relating to
the appointment to the, 115-123.
» equipment of the, 125;
accommodation on board the,
125; officers and crew of the,
126, 127, 130; manner of life on
board the, 125.
334
INDEX.
* BEAGLE.’
Beagle, voyage of the, 25-30.
, Zoology of the voyage of
the, publication of the, 31.
Beans, stated to have grown on the
wrong side of the pod, 52.
Bees, visits of, necessary for the
impregnation of the Scarlet Bean,
301.
Bees’ cells, Sedgwick on, 217.
combs, 195.
Beetles, collecting at, Cambridge,
&c., 20, 23, 106, 109, 194.
Bell, Professor Thomas, 141.
‘ Bell-stone,’ Shrewsbury, an erratic
boulder, 14.
Beneficence, Evidence of, 236.
Bentham, G,, approval of the work
on the fertilisation of orchids,
308.
ri letter to, on orchids, 304,
310.
Berkeley, Rey. M. J., review of the
‘ Fertilisation of Orchids’ by, 308.
‘Bermuda Islands,’ by Prof. A.
Heilprin,’ 284.
‘Bibliothéque Universelle de Ge-
néye,’ review of the ‘ Origin’ in
the, 231.
Birds’ nests, 195.
ee” Rey. L., see JENYNsS,
Rev. L.
‘‘ Bob,” the retriever, 70.
Body-snatchers, arrest of, in Cam-
bridge, 22.
Books, treatment of, 96.
Boott, Dr. Francis, 230.
Botanical work, scope and influence
of C. Darwin’s, 297, 298.
Botofogo Bay, letter to W. D. Fox
from, 132, note.
Boulders, erratic, of South America,
paper on the, 32, 149.
Bournemouth, residence at, 320.
Bowen, Prof. F., Asa Gray on the
opinions of, 243.
Branch-climbers, 315.
Bressa Prize, award of the, by the
Royal Academy of Turin, 293.
British Association, Sir C. Lyell’s
Presidential address to the, at
Aberdeen, 1859 ..202; at Oxford,
236; action of, in connection with
the question of vivisection, 288.
CATS.
Broderip, W. J., 141.
Bronn, H. G., translator of the
‘Origin’ into German, 229.
Brown, Robert, acquaintance with,
34; recommendation of Spren-
gel’s book, 300.
Buckle, Mr., meeting with, 35.
Bulwer’s ‘ Professor Long,’ 38.
nye ns C., his opinion of the
Butler, ) ‘s schoolmaster at Shrews-
ury, 8.
» Rey. T., 106.
CaErDEoN, holiday at, 273.
Cambridge, gun-practice at, 10;
life at, 17-23, 30, 104-113, 142.
Cambridge, degree of LL.D. con-
ferred by University of, 292;
subscription portrait at, 292.
Philosophical Society, Sedg-
wick’s attack before the, 234.
oe on sexuality in plants,
299.
Canary Islands, projected excur-
sion to, 114.
Cape Verd Islands, 129.
Carlyle, Thomas, acquaintance
with, 36
Carnarvon, Lord
»P Act to
amend the Law relating to cruelty
to animals, 288.
Carnations, effects of cross- and self-
fertilisation on, 311.
Carpenter, Dr. W. B., letters to :—on
the ‘ Origin of Species,’ 210; re-
view in the ‘ Medico-Chirurgical
Review,’ 231; notice of the
te ifera,’ in the Atheneum,
7.
Carus, Prof. Victor, impressions of
the Oxford discussion, 240. ;
, his translations of the
‘Origin’ and other works, 262;
letter to :—on earthworms, 285.
Case, Rev. G., schoolmaster at
Shrewsbury, 6.
Catasetum, eile of, adhering to
bees’ backs, 305; sensitiveness
m7 rat wtood oc see
terpillars, colouring of, 269, 270.
Cats and mice, 236,
INDEX.
335
CATTLE.
Cattle, falsely described new breed
of, 53.
Oelebes, African character of pro-
ductions of, 227.
Chambers, R., 179, 240.
Chemistry, study of, 11.
Chili, recent elevation of the coast
of, 30.
Chimneys, employment of boys in
sweeping, 161.
Christ’s College, Cambridge, 104;
bet as to height of combination-
room of, 142.
Church, destination to the, 17, 108.
Cirripedia, work on the, 38, 155-
158; confusion of nomenclature
of, 159; completion of work on
the, 163.
Clark, Sir Andrew, treatment by,
325, 327.
Classics, study of, at Dr. Butler’s
school, 9.
Climbing plants, 45, 313-315.
‘Climbing Plants,’ publication of
the, 315.
Coal, supposed marine origin of,
158.
Coal-plants, letters to Sir Joseph
Hooker on, 158, 159.
Cobbe, Miss, letter headed “ Mr.
Darwin and vivisection”’ in the
Times, 290.
Coldstream, Dr., 12.
Collections made during the voyage
of the ‘Beagle,’ destination of
the, 141.
Collier, Hon. John, portrait of O.
Darwin, by, 292.
Cooper, Miss, ‘ Journal of a Natu-
ralist,’ 249.
Copley medal, award of, to OC.
Darwin, 259.
Coral Reefs, work on, 32, 148;
publication of, 149.
. second edition of, 281;
Semper’s remarks on the, 281;
Murray’s criticisms, 282; third
edition, 284.
and Islands, Prof. Geikie
and Sir ©. Lyell on the theory
of, 152.
aaa and Volcanoes, book on,
DARWIN.
‘Corals and Coral Islands,’ by
Prof. J. D. Dana, 284.
ae Te on proofs, 201, 202,
205.
Correspondence, 74.
during life at Cambridge,
1828-31..104-113; relating to
appointment on the ‘Beagle,’
115-123; during the voyage of
the Beagle 125-139; during
residence in London, 1836-42..
140-49; on the subject of re-
ligion, 55-65; during residence
at Down, 1842-1854 ..150-164 ;
during the progress of the work
on the ‘ Origin of Species,’ 165-
205 ; after the publication of the
work, 206-265; on the ‘ Varia-
tion of Animals and Plants,’
265-268 ; on the work on ‘ Man,’
268-280; miscellaneous, 281-
294; on botanical researches,
297-322.
Cotyledons, movements of, 316.
Crawford, John, review of the
‘Origin, 219.
Creation, objections to use of the
term, 257.
Cross- and self-fertilisation in
plants,’ 47.
Cross-fertilisation of hermaphro-
dite flowers, first ideas of the,
300
Crossing of animals, 148,
Cychnoches, 306.
Cypripedium, pollen of, 305.
Daas, W. §., translation of Fritz
Miiller’s ‘ Fiir Darwin,’ 262.
Dana, Professor J. D., defence of
the theory of subsidence, 283;
‘Corals and Coral Islands,’ 284.
Darwin, Charles R., 1; Auto-
biography of, 5-54; birth, 5;
loss of mother, 5; day-school at
Shrewsbury, 6; natural history
tastes, 6; hoaxing, 7; humanity,
7; egg-collecting, 7; angling,
7; dragoon’s funeral, 8 ; boarding
school at Shrewsbury, 8; fond-
ness for dogs, 7; classics, 9;
liking for geometry, 9; reading,
10; fondness for shooting, 10;
336
INDEX.
DARWIN
science, 10; at Edinburgh, 11-
15; early medical practice at
Shrewsbury, 12; tours in North
Wales, 15; shooting at Wood-
house and Maer, 15,16; at Cam-
bridge, 17-23, 30 ; visit to North
Wales, with Sedgwick, 24, 25;
on the voyage of the ‘ Beagle,’
25-30; residence in London,
81-37; marriage, 32; residence
at Down, 37; publications, 38-
49; manner of writing, 49;
mental qualities, 50-54.
Darwin, Reminiscences of, 66-103 ;
personal a ce, 67, 68;
mode of walking, 67; dissecting,
67; laughing, 68; gestures, 68 ;
dress, 69 ; early rising, 69 ; work,
69 ; fondness for dogs, 69 ; walks,
70; love of flowers, 72; riding,
78; diet, 73, 76; correspond-
ence, 74; business habits, 75;
smoking, 75; snuff-taking, 75;
reading aloud, 77; backgammon,
76; music, 77; bed-time, 77;
art-criticism, 78; German read-
ing, 79; general interest in
science, 79; idleness a sign of
ill-health, 80; aversion to public
ap ces, 80; visits, 81;
holidays, 81; love of scenery,
81; visits to hydropathic esta
lishments, 82; family relations,
82-87; hospitality, 87; conver-
sational powers, 88-90; friends,
90; local influence, 90; mode of
work, 91; literary style, 99; ill-
health, 102.
, Dr. Erasmus, life of, by
Ernst Krause, 48, 286.
, Erasmus Alvey, 3; letter
from, 215.
, Miss Susan, letters to:—
relating the ‘Beagle,’ appoint-
ment, 118, 120 ; from Valparaiso,
135.
——_—, Mrs., letter to, with regard
to the publication of the essay
of 1844..171; letter to, from
Moor Park, 184.
, Reginald, letters to, on
Dr. Erasmus Darwin’s common-
place book and papers, 286.
DUNNS.
Darwin, Dr. Robert Waring, 1; his
family, 3; letter to, in answer
to ohjections to accept the ap-
[etter to, from Behis, 128°
etter m .
* Darwinismus,’ 42.
us,
Daubeny, Professor, 241; ‘On the
final causes of the sexuality of
plants,’ 237.
Davidson, Mr., letter to, 278.
De Oandolle, Professor A. sending
e olle, essor A., i
him the ‘ Origin of Species,’ 209.
Descent of Man,’ work on the,
269; publication of the, 46, 271.
. Reviews of the, in the
‘Edinburgh Review,’ 272; in
the Nonconformist, 273; in the
Times, 273; in the
Review, 273; in the ‘ Quarterly
re Review,’ ” 2, 90
esign in Nature, . :
ment from, as to aaipiaaaae
God, 58.
, evidence of, 236.
Dielytra, 301.
‘ Different Forms of Flowers,’ pub-
lication of the, 48, 311.
Digestion in Drosera, 320, 321.
Dimorphism and trimorphism in
plants, papers on, 45.
Divergence, | prensa of, 40.
Dohrn, Dr. Anton, letter to, eo
ing to present apparatus to
tie station at Naples,
Deseterre variation under,
Down, residence at, 37, 150; daily
life at, 66; local influence at,
me ; sequestered situation of,
Dragoon, funeral of a, 8.
Draper, Dr., paper before the British |
Association on the “ Intellectual
development of Europe,” 237.
Drosera, observations on, 47, 319 ;
action of glands of, 320; action
of ammoniacal salts on the leaves
of, 320.
Dunns, Rey. J., the sup
author of a review in the ‘
British Review,’ 235.
orth
INDEX.
837
DUTCH.
Dutch translation of the ‘ Origin,’
247.
Dyer, W. Thiselton, on Mr.
win’s botanical work, 298;
on the ‘Power of Movement in
Plants,’ 315; note to, on the life
of Erasmus Darwin, 286.
» letter to:—on movement
in plants, 316.
EARTHQUAKES, paper on, 32.
Earthworms, Le on the forma-
tion of — dhs the agency of,
82, 49;
work done age’
284; publica on of, 385.
Hidiabecgh Plinian cue
' Medical Socie ref
Wernerian Society, 14;
on Bhookaye: and Zool
in the, 272.
‘ Effects of Oross- and Self-Fertili-
sation in the Vegetable King-
= publication of the, 47, 48,
Elie de Beaumont’s theory, 146.
i spread of the Descent-
eory in, 264.
review of the
Churchman,
‘Origin’ in the, 241.
a oN eltnenn for, 107.
ical Society, concurrence
a the —— of the, 264.
Epidendrum,
is ceremony at crossing the,
Biratio blocks, at owe Roy, 147.
hein of Sg America,
on the,
Direonenipiideanel Darwin’s work,
Dr. Falconer on, 247.
Evolution, cy a of the theory
of, 165, 253, 271, 273.
Experiment, love of, 94.
Expression i in man, 224, 270.
in the Malays, 270.
of the Emotions, work on
the, 268.
‘Expression of the Emotions in Men
FORDYOCE.
rx ama publication of the,
Eye, structure of the, 208, 215, 227.
Fatooner, Dr. Hugh, 247.
cl of priority against
Lyell, 257; letter from, offering
a live Proteus and reporting on
continental opinion, 247; letter
>. 247; sending him the ‘ Origin
of Species, ? 209.
Family relations, 82-87.
Farrer, Sir Thomas, letter to, on
earthworms, 285.
Fawcett, Henry, on Huxley’s reply
to the Bishop of Oxford, 239, note.
Fernando Noronha, visit to, 131.
‘ Fertilisation of Orchids,’ publica-
tion of oa 44, 48, 308.
. of Orchids,’ publication of
— A prere of the, 810.
Orchids,’ reviews of the ;
7: the ‘ Parthenon,’ 308; in the
808; in the ‘London
Review,’ 308 ; in Gardeners’
Chronicle, 309.
of flowers, bibliography of
the, 8 10 graphy
Fish swallowing seeds, 180.
Fitz-Roy, wer 25; character of,
th Se . G. Peacock, 115;
’s impression of, 119, 120;
discipline on board the * Beagle,’
ld letter to, from Shrewsbury,
Fitzwilliam Gallery, Cambridge, 19,
Flourens, ‘Examen du livre de M.
Darwin,’ 261.
Flowers, adaptation of, to visits of
insects, different forms of,
on ae of the same species, 48,
310; fertilisation of, 297-312;
hermaphrodite, first ideas of
cross-fertilisation of, 300; irregu-
lar, all adapted for visits of
insects, 303.
Flustra, Bari on the larvae of, 13.
Bit bg on the geology of
Pores J is ‘extract from letter to,
338
INDEX.
FORMATION.
‘Formation of Vegetable Mould,
through the action of Worms,’
publication of the, 49, 285; un-
ted success of the, 285.
Fossil bones, given to the College
of Surgeons, 142.
Fox, Rev. William Darwin, 21;
letters to, 110-113, 114, 181; from
Botofogo Bay, 132; in 1836-1842:
143, 148, 149; on the house at
Down, 150; on their respective
families, 160 ; on family matters,
194; on the progress of the work,
181, 183, 196; on the award of
the Copley Medal, 259.
France pete tiier oo contrast of
progress of theo 261.
Fremantle, Mr., fs! the Oxford
meeting of the British Associa-
tion, 238.
French, translation of the ‘ Origin,’
246 ; "third edition of the, pub-
lished, 275.
translation of the ‘ Origin’
from the fifth English edition,
arrangements for the, 275.
Fumaria, 301.
Funeral in Westminster Abbey, 329.
GALAPAGos, 29.
Galton, Francis, note to, on the
life of Erasmus , 287.
Gardeners’ Chronicle, review of the
* Origin’ in the, 224; Mr. Patrick
Matthew’s claim of priority in
the, 232; review of the ‘ Fertili-
sation of Orchids,’ in the, 309.
Geikie, Prof. Archibald, notes on
the work on Coral Reefs, 152,
182; notes on the work on Vol-
canic Islands, 153; on Darwin’s
theory of the parallel roads of
Glen Roy, 145,
Geoffrey St. Hilaire, 207.
‘Geological Observations on South
America,’ 38 ; publication of the,
156.
‘Geological Observations on Vol-
canic Islands,’ publication of the,
152; Prof. Geikie’ s notes on the,
153.
pr eae Society, secretaryship of
the, 31, 144.
:
GRAY.
Geological work in the
$ en dae review of the ‘
Geology, commencement of the
study of, 24, 113; lectures on,
in Hain x 14; gee
for, 134, 1 study of, cee
the Beagle’s voyage, 27.
German {translation of the ‘ Origin
of Species,’ 247.
Germany, Hackel’s influence in the
spread of Darwinism, 262.
henna received
——, reception of Darwinistic
Glacial period, influence of the, on
distribution, 43.
Glacier action in North Wales, 32.
Glands, sticky, of the pollinia, 304.
Glen Roy, visit to, and paper on,
31; expedition to, 145.
Glossotherium, 142,
Glutton Club, 107.
Gorilla, brain of, compared with
that of man, 237.
Gower Street, Upper, residence in,
32, 148.
Graham, W., letter to, 63.
BTA, Dr. R. E., 12; an evolutionist,
are light, &c., acting as stimuli,
Gray, Dr. Asa, comparison of rain
drops and variations, 62;
from, to J. D. Hooker, on the
‘Origin of Species,’ 224; articles
in the ‘ Atlantic Monthly,’ 248 ;
Darwiniana,’ 248; on the aphor-
ism, “N ature abhors close fertili-
sation,” 301; “ Note on the coiling
of the Tendrils of Plants,” 313.
letters to: on Design
in Nature, 63; with abstract of
the theory of the ¢ of
Species,’ 188; sending him the
‘ Origin of Species,’ 209 ;
ing an American edition, 225; on
Sedgwick’s and Pictet’s revigws,
231; on notices in the * North
British’ and ‘Edinburgh’ Re-
INDEX.
339
GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET.
views, and on the theological
view, 235; on the position of
Profs. and Bowen, 243;
on his article in the ‘ Atlantic
Monthly,’ 248; on change of
ies by descent, 246; on de-
sign, 249; on the American war,
249; on the ‘ Descent of Man,’
271; on the pages notice
in ‘Nature,’ 291; on their elec-
tion to the French Institute, 292 ;
on fertilisation of Papilionaceous
flowers and Lobelia by insects,
801, 302; on the structure of
irregular flowers, 303; on Orchids,
804, 305, 309, 310; on movement
of tendrils, 313; on climbing
plants, 314; on Drosera, 320, 321.
Great Marlborough Street, resi-
dence in, 31, 142.
Gretton, Mr., his ‘ Memory’s Hark-
back,’ 8. :
Grote, A., meeting with, 36,
Gully, Dr., 160.
Giinther, Dr. A., letter to:—on
sexual differences, 270.
Hioxet, Professor Ernst, embryo-
logical researches of, 43; intflu-
ence of, in the spread of Darwin-
ism in Germany, 262.
, letters to :—on the p
of Evolution in England, 263 ;
on his works, 264; on the ‘ De-
scent of Man,’ 272; on the ‘ Ex-
pression of the Emotions,’ 279.
Hickels ‘Generelle Morphologie,’
‘Radiolaria,’ ‘ Schépfungs - Ges-
chichte,’ ,and ‘Ursprung des
Menschen-Geschlechts,’ 262, 263.
‘Natiirliche Schépfun,
Geschichte, 263 ; Huxley’s opin-
ion of, 263.
Hague, James, on the reception of
the ‘ Descent of Man,’ 272.
Haliburton, Mrs., letter to, on the
‘Expression of the Emotions,’
_ 2793 letter to, 317.
Hardie, Mr., 12.
Harris, William Snow, 122.
Haughton, Professor S., opinion on
the new views of Wallace and
Darwin 41;
criticism on the
HOLMGREN.
eer of the origin of species,
0.
Health, 68; improved during the
last ten years of life, 325.
Heart, pain felt in the region of the,
28, 325, 326.
Heilprin, Professor A., ‘The Ber-
muda Islands,’ 284.
Heliotropism of seedlings, 318.
Henslow, Professor, lectures by, at
Oambridge, 18; introduction to,
21; intimacy with, 107, 113; his
opinion of Lyell’s ‘ Principles,’
83; of the Darwinian theory,
227.
, letter from, on the offer of
the appointment to the ‘ Beagle,’
116.
, letter to, from Rev. G.
Peacock, 115.
, letters to:—relating to the
appointment to the ‘ Beagle,’ 121,
122; from Rio de Janeiro, 134;
from Sydney, 138; from Shrews-
bury, 139; as to destination of
specimens collected during the
voyage of the ‘ Beagle,’ 140.
, letters'to :—1836-1842, 144;
sending him the ‘ Origin,’ 209.
Herbert, John Maurice, 19; anec-
dotes from, 105, 106, 108; letters
to, 109 ; on the ‘ South American
Geology,’ 154.
Hermaphrodite flowers, first idea of
cross-fertilisation of, 300.
Herschel, Sir J., acquaintance with,
34; letter from Sir O. Lyell to,
on the theory of coral-reefs, 153;
his opinion of the ‘ Origin,’ 220.
Heterostyled plants, 311; some
forms of fertilisation of, analogous
to hybridisation, 312.
‘Historical Sketch of the Recent
Progress of Opinion on the Origin
of Species,’ 246.;
Hoaxes, 53.
Holidays, 81.
Holland, photograph-album re-
ceived from, 293.
Holland, Sir H., his opinions of the
theory, 215.
Holmgren, Frithiof, letter to, on
vivisection, 289,
340
INDEX.
HOOKER.
Hooker, Sir J. D., on the training
obtained by the work on Cirri-
pedes, 156; letters from, on the
‘ Origin of es,’ 188, 211, 220;
speech at
Bishop Wilberforce, 239; review
of the ‘ Fertilisation of Orchids’
by, 309.
, letters t6, 158; on coal-
lants, 158, 159; announcing
eath of R. W. Darwin, and an
intention to water-cure, 160;
on the award of the Royal
Society’s Medal, 162; on the
theory of the origin of species,
1738, 177; cirripedial work, 177;
on the Philosophical Club, 178 ;
coda gm yee soaked
179, 180., on the prepara-
tion of a sketch = Fag docey hi
species, 181; on the pa r
before the Linnean Society, 187,
190; on the ‘ Abstract,’ 192, 193,
194, 200; on thistle-seeds, 193 ;
on Wallace’s letter, 194; on the
arrangement with Mr. Murray,
198; on Professor Haughton’s
remarks, 200; on style and varia-
bility, 201; on the completion of
proof-sheets, 202; on the review
of the ‘ Origin’ in the Atheneum,
211, 212; on his review in the
Gardeners’ Chronicle, 224; on the
oo of opinion, 230; on Mr.
tthew’s claim of priority and
the ‘Edinburgh Review, 232;
on the Cambridge opposition,
234; on the British Association
discussion, 241; on the review in
the ‘ Quarterly” 242; on the
corrections in the new edition,
246; on Lyell’s ‘Antiquity of
Man,’ 253; on letters in the
papers, 259; on the completion
an publication ‘of the book on
‘Variation under Domestication,’
266, 267; on pangenesis, 266; on
work, 269; on a visit to Wales,
273; on a new French transla-
tion of the ‘ Origin,’ 275; on the
life of Erasmus Darwin. 287; on
Mr. Ouless’ portrait, 292 ; on the
earthworm, 285; on the fertilisa-
HUXLEY.
tion of Orchids, 297, 303, 304,
Horses, humanity to, 287.
Hot-house, building of, 807.
Humboldt, Baron A. von,
with, 34; his opinion of O.
Darwin, 155
Humboldt’ : Personal Narrative,’
Huth, Mr. on ‘ Consanguineous
Ma 53.
Hutton, Prof F. W., letter to, on
his review of the ‘ Origin,’ 250.
Huxley, Prof. T. H., on the value
as training, of Darwin’s work on
the Oirripedes, 157; on the
theory of evolution, 155-169;
review of the ‘Origin’ in the
‘Westminster Review,’ 281;
reply. to Owen, on the Brain
in Man and the Gorilla, 237;
a at Oxford, in answer tothe
ee F 238; lectures on ‘Our
Knowledge of the causes of
ic Nature,” 253, note;
opinion of Hiickel’s work, 263;
on the progress of the doctrine
of evolution, 271; article in the
‘Contemporary Review,’
Mivart, and the Quarterly re-
viewer of the ‘ Descent of ,
276; lecture on ‘the Co of
Age of the Origin of Species,’ ©
294; on teleology, 298.
; Pic ‘er on the Pu
of Species, ; on
cussion at Oxford, 240.
» letters to:—on his adoption
of the theory, 214; on the review
in the Times, 221; on the effect
of reviews, 244; on his Edin-
burgh = pe ry ; on wal
coming of age of the Origin
Species.’ 294; last letter to, 327.
INDEX.
341
HYBRIDISATION.
Hybridisation, analogy of, with
fone: forms of fertilisation of
heterostyled plants, 312.
Hydropathic establishments, visits
to, 82.
IcunvEemMonipz, and their func-
tion, 236.
Ilkley, residence at, in 1859 .. 206.
Ill-health, 32, 39, 102, 149, 158,
160, 268.
Immortality of the Soul, 61.
Innes, Rev. J. Brodie, 76, 91.
on Darwin’s position with
regard to theological views, 229 ;
note on the review in the ‘ Quar-
terly’ and Darwin’s appreciation
of it, 242, note.
‘ Insectivorous Plants,’ work on the
Insects, 10; y ud of, in cross-
fertilisation, 300.
Institute aaece “omega =
co. mn mem 0 Cc)
Botanveal section of the, 292.
Isolation, effects of, 278.
Jaoxson, B. Daydon, preparation
of the Kew-Index teh wasiee
the charge of, 323.
Jenkin, Fleeming, review of the
‘ Origin,’ 274.
Jenyns, Rev. Leonard, acquaintance
with, 22; his opinion of the
, 228.
, letters to: —on the ‘ Origin
of Species,’ 209; on checks to
increase of species, 175; on his
‘Observations in Natural His-
tory,’ 175; on the immutability
of species, 176.
— Dr. Bence, treatment by,
‘Journal of Researches,’ 38, 143;
publication of the second edition
of the, 154; differences in the
two editions of the, with regard
to the theory of species, 170.
Judd, Prof., on Coral Reefs, 281;
on Mr. Darwin’s intention to
devote a certain sum to the ad-
LOBELIA.
vancement of scientific interests
823
Jukes, Prof, Joseph B., 230.
Kew-Inpex of plant names, 322;
ofan of, by Mr. Darwin,
Kidney-beans, fertilisation of, 301.
Kingsley, Rev. Charles, letter from,
on ee ‘ Origin “ paynd aoe
on the p of the theory o
Evolution, 353.
Kossuth, character of, 184.
Krause, Ernst, ‘Life of Erasmus
Darwin,’ 48; on Hickel’s services
to the cause of Evolution in
Germany, 262; on the work of
Dr. Erasmus Darwin, 286.
Lamanroxr’s philosophy, 166.
views, references to, 174,
177, 207, 256.
Lankester, E. Ray, letter to, on the
ray of the ‘Descent of Man,’
27
La ae, tin
yrus ; ‘ tion
of, by as 301.
Laws, designed, 236.
Leibnitz, objections raised by, to
Newton’s law of Gravitation, 229.
Leschenaultia, fertilisation of, 303.
Lewes, G. H., review of the ‘ Varia-
tion of Animals and Plants,’ in
the Pall Mall Gazette, 268.
Life, origin of, 257.
Light, gravity, &c., acting as
stimuli, 318.
Lightning, 236.
Linaria aris, observations on
cross- and self-fertilisation in,
811.
Lindley, John, 162.
Linnean Society, joint =
A. R. Wallace, read
187; portrait at the, 292.
Linum flavum, dimorphism of, 45.
List of naturalists who had adopted
the theory in March, 1860.. 230.
Literature, taste in, 50.
Little-Go, passed, 111.
— Sulgens, not self-fertilisable,
r with
ore the,
Zz 2
342
INDEX.
LONDON.
London, residence in, 31-37; from
1836 to 1842... 140-149.
‘London Review,’ review of the
Mehr aan of Orchids’ in the,
Lonsdale, W., 141.
Lubbock, Sir John, letter from, to
W.E on the funeral in
Wostininater Abbey, 329; letter
to :—on beetle-collecting, 194.
Lyell, Sir Charles, uaintance
with, 31; character o 33 ; in-
fluence of, on Geology, 88 ; geo-
logical views, 135; on Darwin's
theory of coral ‘islands, 153;
extract of letter to, on the treatise
on volcanic islands, 154; attitude
towards the doctrine of Eyolu-
tion, 167, 260; announcement of
the forthcoming ‘ Origin of Spe-
cies,’ to the British Association
at Aberdeen in 1859... 202 ; letter
from, criticisi the ‘ Origin,’
206; Bishop Wilberforce’s re-
marks upon, 242, note; inclina-
tion to accept the notion of desi gn,
249; on Darwin’s views, 256; on
the ‘Fertilisation of Orchids,’ 309
———., Sir Charles, letters to, 145,
148:—on the second edition of
the ‘ Journal of Researches,’ 154 ;
on the receipt of Wallace’s bd
185, 186; on the gg 0 beng
fore the Linnean iety, Ot;
on the mode of publication of the
‘Origin, 196, 198; with proof-
duets, | 208; on the announcement
of the work of the British Asso-
ciation, 203; on his adoption of
the theory of descent, 212; on
objectors to the theory of descent,
O18, 219; on the second edition
of the ¢ Origin,’ 218, 223; on the
review of the ‘ igin’ in the
‘Annals,’ 227; on objections,
229; on the review in the ‘ Edin-
burgh Review,’ and on Matthew’s
anticipation of the theory of
Natural Selection, 232; on design
in variation, 234; on the ‘ An-
tiquity of Man,’ 255, 256; on the
progress of opinion, 260; on‘ Pan-
genesis,’ 266; on Drosera, 320.
MOOR PARK.
Lyell, Sea eee oes Charles, ‘ Antiquity of
‘ Hlements of Geology,’ 145.
‘Principles of Geology.’ 168;
tenth edition of, 260.
LIythrum, trimorphism of, 45.
Macavay, meeting with, 35.
se bei William, 15.
tosh, Sir James, meeting
with, 16.
* Macmillan’s Magazine,’ review of
aheoe Origin’ in, by H. Fawcett,
deadnentc 142.
Mad-house, attempt to free a patient
from a, 287, note.
Maer, visits to, 15, 15, 16.
Malay Archipelago, Wallace’s * Zoo-
logical Geography ’ of the, 227.
Malays, expression in the, 270.
Malthus on Population, 40, 189.
. ok Hydropathic treatment at,
Mammalia, fossil from South
America, 142.
Man, descent of, 46; objections to
discussing origin of, vail, rs
of, and that of the
influence of sexual se ellen ai
the races of, "he ison ae
Marriage, 32, 148.
Mathernatice aera with, 108;
distaste for the study of, peo
Matthew, Patrick, re ase
— theory of Natarel Selootion,
‘ Medi ical Review,’ re-
view of the ‘ Origin’ in the, by
Mental peculiarities, 49-54.
Microscopes, 92; compound, 158.
Mimicry, H. W. "Bates on, 251.
Minerals, collecting, 10.
Miracles, 58.
Mivart’s’ * Genesis of Species,’ 275.
Moor Park, Hydropathic establish-
ment at, 41.
water-cure at, 184,
INDEX. 343
MOORE. ORIGIN.
Moore, Dr. Norman, treatment by, theory of, claimed by Mr. Patrick
327. Matthew, 232; Sedgwick on,
Mormodes, 306 216.
Moths, white, Mr. Weir’s observa-
tions on, 270.
ree meeting with, 36.
Mould, formation of, by the agency
of Earthworms, paper on the,
82, 49; publication of book on
the, 285
‘Mount,’ the Shrewsbury, Charles
Sg ee
iller, itz, embryo re-
searches of, 43.
, ‘ Fiir Darwin,’ 262; ‘ Facts
and ents for Darwin,’ 262.
——, Fritz, observations on
branch-tendrils, 315.
, Hermann, 262; on self-
fertilisation of plants, 48; on
Sprengel’s views as to cross-
fertilisation, 300.
Murray, John, criticisms on the
Darwinian theory of coral forma-
tion, 282.
Murray, John, letters to :—relating
to the publication of the ‘ Origin
of Species,’ 199, 201, 204; on the
reception of the ‘Origin’ in the
United States, 226 note; on the
third edition of the ‘ Origin,’ 245 ;
on critiques of the ‘ Descent of
Man,’ 273 ; on the publication of
the ‘ Fertilisation of Orchids,’ 297,
308; on the publication of ‘ Climb-
ing Plants,’ 315.
Music, effects of, 50; fondness for,
77, 107 ; taste for, at Cambridge,
19,
Mylodon, 142.
Names of garden plants, difficulty
of obtaining, 308
Naples, Zoological Station, dona-
tion of £100 to the, for apparatus,
293.
Nash, Mrs., reminiscences of Mr.
Darwin, 87.
Natural History, early taste for, 6.
selection, 165, 190.
belief in, founded on gene
ral considerations, 258; H. O.
Watson on, 168; priority in the
Naturalists, list of, who had adopted
the theory in March, 1860.. 230,
Naturalists Voyage, 170.
* Nature,’ review in, 315.
“ Nervous system of” Drosera, 821.
Newton, Prof, A., letter to, 268.
Newton’s ‘ Law of Gravitation,’ ob-
— raised by Leibnitz to,
229.
<r aE on board the Beagle,
Nitrogenous compounds, detection
of, by the leaves of Drosera, 320.
‘Nomenclator,’ 822; endowment
- Nye Darwin, 322; plan of the,
323.
Nomenclature, need of reform in,
159.
Nonconformist, review of the ‘ De-
scent of Man’ in the, 273.
‘North British Review,’ review of
the ‘ Origin’ in the, 235, 274.
North Wales, tours through, 15;
tour in, 32; visit to, with Sedg-
wick, 24; visit to, in 1869., 273.
Nose, objection to shape of, 26.
Novels, kin ing for, 50, 77,
Nuptial dress of animals, 270
OBSERVATION, methods of, 94, 95.
power of, 52.
Old Testament, Darwinian theory
contained in the, 42.
Oliver, Prof., approval of the work
on the ‘ Fertilisation of Orchids,’
308.
Orchids, fertilisation of, bearing of
the, on the theory of Natural
Selection, 297; fertilisation of,
work on the, 245; homologies of,
304; study of, 303,304; pleasure
of investigating, 310.
Orchis pyramidalis, adaptation in,
303.
Orders, thoughts of taking, 108.
rudimentary, comparison
of, with unsounded letters in
words, 208.
Origin of Species, first notes on the,
31; investigations upon the, 39-
INDEX.
ORIGIN.
41; progress of the theory of the,
165; differences in the two edi-
tions of the ‘Journal’ with regard
to the, 170; extracts from note-
books on the, 169; first sketch of
work on the, 170; essay of 1844
on the, 171.
‘ Origin of Species,’ publication of
the first edition of the, 41, 206;
success of the, 42; reviews of the,
in the Athenzuwum, 211, 212; in
*Macmillan’s Magazine,’ 219; in
the Times, 221; in the Gardeners’
arpa: anes - the ‘ gre and
gazine of Natura istory,
227; in the Spectator, 231; in
the ‘ Bibliothéque Universelle de
Gentve,’ 231; in the ‘ Medico-
Chirurgical Review,’ 231; in the
‘Westminster Review,’ 231; in
the ‘Edinburgh Review,’ 282,
233, 235; in the ‘North British
Review,’ 235; in the Saturday
Review, 236; in the ‘ Quarterly
Review,’ 242; in the ‘ Geologist,’
250.
publication of the second
edition of the, 223.
third edition, commence-
ment of work upon the, 245.
publication of the fifth edi-
tion of the, 274, 275.
sixth edition, publication of
the, 275.
the ‘ Coming of Age’ of the
294.
Ouless, W., portrait of Mr. Darwin
by, 292.
Owen, Sir R., on the differences be-
tween the brains of man and the
Gorilla, 237; reply to Lyell, on
the difference between the human
and simian brains, 253; claim of
priority, 275.
Oxford, British Association Meet-
ing, discussion at, 236-239,
Patey’s writings, study of, 18.
Pall Mall Gazette, review of the
Variation of Animals and Plants,’
in the, 267.
Pangenesis, 266.
PRIMROSE.
Papilionaces, papers on cross-fer-
Parallel roads of Gi
r of Glen r
on the, 145. ion es
ee worms, experiments on,
Parslow, Joseph, 150, note.
‘ Parthenon,’ review of the ‘ Fertili-
sation of Orchids,’ in the, 308.
Pasteur’s results upon the germs of
diseases, 290.
Patagonia, 29.
Peacock, Rey. George, letter from,
to Professor Henslow, 115.
Philosophical Club, 178.
gazine, 25.
Photograph-albums received from
Germany and Holland, 293,
Pictet, weyy, gh J.; a of the
‘Origin’ in the ‘Bibliothéque
Universelle,’ 231.
Pictures, taste for, acquired at Cam-
bridge, 19.
Pigeons, nasal bones of, 249,
Plants, climbing, 45, 3813-815;
insectivorous, 47, 319-322 ; power
of movement in, 48, 315-319;
aren difficulty of naming, 308 ;
eterostyled, polygamous, dic-
cious and gynodiecious, 311.
Pleasurable sensations, influence of,
in Natural Selection, 60.
Plinian Society, 13.
Poetry, taste for, 9; failure of taste
Pollen, & f, by the wings
ollen, conveyance o i
of butterflies and mar # 302.
, differences in the two forms
of Primrose, 312.
“ Polly,” the fox-terrier, 70.
Pontobdella, egg-cases of, 18,
Portraits, list of, 331.
“Pour le Mérite,” the order, 291,
note.
Pouter Pigeons, 234.
Powell, Prof. Baden, his opinion on
the structure of the eye, 228.
* Power of Movement in Plants,’ 48,
315-319; publication of the, 316.
Preyer, Prof. W., letter to, 265.
Primrose, heterostyled flowers of
the, 311; differences of the
in the two forms of the, 31
INDEX. 845
PRIMULA. SEEDS.
—— dimorphism of, paper on ag Medical Society, Edinburgh,
e, .
Primulw, said to have 0 osercee Society, award of the Royal
seed without access insects, Medal to O. Darwin, 162; award
53. of the Copley Medal to O. Darwin,
Public Opinion, squib in, 259.
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE,
review of the ‘ Expression of the
Emotions,’ in the, 279.
Quarterly Review,’ review of the
‘Origin’ in the, 242; Darwin’s
appreciation of it, 242, note; re-
view of the ‘ Descent of Man’ in
the, 276,
Rassits, asserted close interbreed-
ing of, 53,
Ramsay, Sir Andrew, 230.
, Mr., 23.
Reade, T. Mellard, note to, on the
earthworms, 285.
Rein, Dr. J. J., account of the
Bermudas, 281.
Reinwald, M., French translation
of the ‘ Origin’ by, 275.
Religious views, 55-65; general
statement of, 57-62.
Reverence, development of tho
bump of, 17.
Reversion, 201.
Reviewers, 43, .
Ri Anthony, letter to, on the
on * Earthworms,’ 285;
uest from, 293.
Richmond, W., portrait of C. Darwin
by, 292.
Rio de Janeiro, letter to J. 8. Hens-
low, from, 134.
Rogers, Prof. H. D., 230.
Romanes, G. J., account of a sudden
attack of illness, 326.
letter to, on vivisection,
Roots, sensitiveness of tips of, to
contact, 318,
a Commission on Vivisection,
Royer, Mdlle. Clémence, French
translation of the ‘ Origin’ by,
246; publication of third French
edition of the ‘ Origin,’ and criti-
cism of pangenesis by, 275.
Rudimentary organs, 207 ; compari-
son of, with unsounded letters in
words, 208.
Sapnrnze, Sir E., 162; reference to
Darwin’s work in his Presidential
Address to the Royal Society,
260.
Sachs on the establishment of the
idea of sexuality in plants, 299.
St. Helena, 29.
St. Jago, so Verd Islands, 129;
geology of, 29.
St. John’s College, Cambridge,
strict discipline at, 104.
St. Paul’s Island, visit to, 130.
Salisbury iy trap-dyke in, 15.
“ Sand walk,” last visit to the, 327.
San Salvador, letter to R. W. Dar-
win from, 128.
Saporta, Marquis de, his opinion in
1863 ..261.
Saturday Review, article in the,
235; review of the ‘ Descent of
Man’ in the, 273.
Scelidotherium, 142.
Scepticism, effects of, in science, 52.
Science, early attention to, 10;
general interest in, 79.
Scott, Sir Walter, 14.
Sea-sickness, 127, 128.
Sedgwick, Professor Adam, intro-
duction to, 113; visit to North
Wales with, 24; opinion of OC,
Darwin, 137; letter from, on the
- * Origin of Species,’ 216; review
of the ‘ Origin’ in the Spectator,
231; attack before the ‘Cam-
bridge Philosophical Society,’ 234.
Seedlings, heliotropism of, 318.
Seeds, experiments on the germina-
tion of, after immersion, 179, 180,
on
346
INDEX.
SELECTION.
Selection, natural, 165, 190 in-
fluence of, 40.
, sexual, in insects, 270; in-
fluence of, upon races of man,
270.
Semper, Professor Karl, on coral
reefs, 281.
Sex in plants, establishment of the
idea of, 299.
Sexual selection, 270; influence of,
upon races of man, 270.
Sexuality, origin of, 310.
Shanklin, 193.
Shooting, fondness for, 10, 15.
Shrewsbury, schools at, 6,8; return
to, 140; early medical practice
at, 12.
Sigillaria, 158.
Silliman’s Journal, reviews in, 225,
235, 244, 314.
Slavery, 137.
Slaves, sympathy with, 287.
Smit; Rey Syde of plants, 816.
on Rey. Sydney, meeting with,
Snipe, first, 10.
Snowdon, ascent of, 15.
Son, eldest, birth of, 149; observa-
tions on, 149.
South America, publication of the
geological observations on, 156.
Species, accumulation of facts re-
lating to, 39-41, 148; checks to
the increase of, 175; mutability
of, 176 ; progress of the theory of
the, 165; differences with
to the, in the two editions of the
‘Journal,’ 170; extracts from
Note-books on, 169; first sketch
of the, 170; Essay of 1884 on
the, 171.
Spectator, review of the ‘ Origin’ in
the, 231.
ees Herbert, an evolutionist,
169.
Sprengel, O. K., on cross-fertilisa-
tion of hermaphrodite flowers,
300.
, ‘Das entdeckte Geheimniss
der Natur,’ 44.
Stanhope, Lord, 36.
Regie in heterostyled plants,
12
TRIMORPHISM.
Steudel’s ‘ Nomenclator,’ 322.
Stokes, Admiral Lort, 126.
Strickland, H. E., letter to, on
nomenclature, 159.
‘ Struggle for Existence, 40, 189.
Style, 99; defects of, 201.
Suarez, T. H. Huxley’s study of,
277.
Subsidence, theory of, 281.
Suffering, evidence from, as to the
existence of God, 57, 59, 60.
Sulivan, Sir B. J., letter to, 325.
a reminiscences of O. Darwin,
Sundew, 47, see Drosera.
Sydney, letter to J. 8.
from, 138.
Henslow
TELEOLOGY, revival of, 297.
and morphology, reconcilia-
en of, b haemo f Darwinism, 291, note.
plants, irritability of
oS 818.
Teneriffe, 23; desire to visit, 129;
a jected excursion to, 114.
ogical views, 236.
Thelogy and Natural History,
Thistle-ccods, conveyance of, by
wind, 193.
Thompson, Professor D’ Arey, litera-
yas of the fertilisation of flowers,
Thwaites, G. H. K., 230
Tierra del Fuego, 29
Times, review of the ‘ > in
the, 221, 222; review of the
‘Descent of Man’ in the, 273;
letter to, on vivisection, 290;
rh 9 on Mr. Darwin in the,
3
ip te a seen, of the * Origin
0
Torquay, vit ee (1861), 245.
Toxodon, 14
Toenail of the ‘Origin’ into
re 4 Dutch and German,
trenowieale of species, patie?
tions on the, 39; first note-book
on the, 142.
Trimorphism and dimorphism in
plants, papers on, 45.
INDEX.
347
tarianism,
definition of, 201.
Unorthodoxy, 197.
Vauparaiso, letter to Miss 8. Dar-
win from, 189.
Vanilla,
Variability, 201.
‘Variation of Animals and Plants
under Domestication,’ publica-
tion of, 46, 265.
” reviews of the, in the
Pall Mall Gazette, 267; in the
Atheneum, 268.
Vegetable Kingdom, cross- and
self-fertilisation in the, 47.
Viviseotion, 287-291; opinion of,
288 ; commencement 0 agitation
against, and Royal Commission
on, 288; legislation on, 288.
Vogt, Prof. arl, on the origin of
species, 27
Volcanic iclands, Geological obser-
vations on, publication of the,
152; Prof. Geikie’s notes on the,
152.
bone and Coral-reefs, book on,
Waaner, Morrrz, letter to, on the
influence of isolation, 278.
Wallace, A. R., first essay on varia-
bility of species, 41, 188; article
in the ‘ Quarter! Review,’ April,
1869 ..260; opinion of Pangenesis,
266; review of the ‘ Expression
of the Emotions,’ 279.
, letters to.—on a paper by
Wallace, 182; on the ‘ Origin of
Species,’ 195, 209; on ‘ Warring-
ton’s paper ‘at. the Victoria In-
stitute,’ 264, note; on man, 268;
on sexual selection, 269, 270; on
Mr. Wrights ich hlet in answer
to on Mivart’s
+ Sac dgin and an article in the
‘Quarterly Review,’ 276; on his
criticism of Mivart’s ‘ Lessons
= Nature,’ 277 ; last letter to,
Wallace, A. R., letter from, to Prof.
A. Newton, 189.
Warrington, Mr., Analysis of the
* Origin’ read by, to the Victoria
Institute, 264, note.
Water-cure, at Ilkley, 206; at Mal-
vern, 160; Moor Park, 82, 184.
Watkins, Archdeacon, 106.
Watson, H. A charge of egotism
apache 4 Darwin, 246; on
tural Selection, 168.
Wedgwood, — married to O.
Darwin, 14
Tisiah, character of, 16.
——-., ” Miss Julia, letter to, 62.
= ig Tea married to R. W.
arwin, 1
Weir, J., Jenner, observations on’
white moths, 270.
Westminster Abbey, funeral in, 329 ;
* Westminster Review,’ review of
the ‘Origin,’ in the, by T. H.
Huxley, 231.
Whale, secondary, 218.
ba tem, Dr., acquaintance with,
Whitley, Rev. O., 19,
Wiesner, Prof. Julius, criticisms of
the ‘Power of Movement in
Plants,’ 317; letter to, on Move-
ment in Plants, 317.
Wilberforce, Bishop, his opinion of
the ‘Origin, 227; speech at
Oxford against the Darwinian
theory, 237; review of the
* Origin’ in the ‘Quarterly Re-
view,’ 238.
Wollaston, T. V., review of the
‘Origin ’ in the ‘ Annals,’ 227.
: Weaders of the World,’ 10.
Wood, Searles V., 230.
Woodhouse, shooting at, 15.
Work, 69: 3 method of, 50, 91-99.
» growing necessity of, 269.
Worms, formation of vegetablo-
mould by the action of, 32,49, 285..
348 INDEX.
WRIGHT. ZOOLOGY.
Wright, Chauncey, article against “— lectures on, in Edinburgh,
Mivart’s ‘Genesis of Species,’
275, 276. ‘ese of the Voyage of the
Writing, manner of, 50, 97-99. arrangements for pub-
fisting the, 143; Government
Zacuarias, Dr., Orro, letter to, on Grant obtained for ig 144; pub-
the theory of evolution, 166. tion of the, 31, 32
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES. _ ,
1039
n=
“= =
j li <a |
; mn _ ea age gt >
oy OI AAW 7
Seah = —
a ~
—— _— — ’ = |
ja a |
3 ;
a ‘ : = |
a, a "
?
; e . : ' — a
| ie
| v
:
é
~~ d * |
; ;
‘ , he ..
~* wu : ae ‘ s |
ji * P] oh
an } |
~ jd ‘ae - a, i ~ Ai
' 1 |
- per > © ol am ei he". . : eit | |
| 1 - +
| ' il yee
4
a
5
=
as
ey
mK i
x ti | on.
;
‘
'
.
-
~ f 2 rR ALP, 2
“Aen RAY, TS eee
’ Le
rie
eA re
£ ryt
‘ are
ae eS ee ee ee ee, ee i a es RH — ee a ee es eee eee ee ee ee oS
ee Se, ee ee . i ¢ . ee Se ar Sain “=r 3% = err.
—— : . oo . ae " ; 7 > ? hs
ad ——— ~ Pye : i
_ 1 - ray
re - —- ates vr - E : 7 ; :
is .
4 * * ‘ ‘ —s ‘
é 3 3 a : ' Sat :
; v . - re b :
= , . ur ~ .
Falk . > a b :
¢
a , -
- :
Pe ; * . ;
fe “ : i ;
i ‘ ‘ ' -
: ‘ “S" - 4 .
A = = y ‘ -_ rj : ; : : ) :
> . : :
a : 3 : * - - - pon, % -
w a - : | :
. : : << Oe ;
a andl ie ® v " : ‘ :
= ; ; one ae= “
- a ee : :
Per par oe
eae ieltiediaeiadh dich Madea ian
- on
nee “s ‘
- -
-
Sar ares
ween os
—— ¢ «
SS pares ;
p= ‘ etree mee ; oe oe coe
eee eer Ore aid — : pe oangbhmterure eeeet ote 2 s ee eee
. : ee eno te ed “ ore : : esa gne me
coaster na Part em, iaedig di "eth Ca : me eae see = | ae | : &
seni . wien ee Ae © ote Re ye heen nT ee ran rays > = “9 - - . e sae nench phe rs nS = a Socal wok erate cana aa one . Sea aes — Se
ae ies Se ets : : . . tom ape PE ME AOE 0am Eg rere puta renal Pw Papel Pp reciente s =e ; “ . a
aeroryannay ts is os : ’ : ee c : : SL PLE IEALEL AE AACOL ARG PEEL AOL CLONER OCIA PTE IIP OP OLA
- eet oo teat iS ~s “ e " - - Beik~ r ’ 7 ‘ aed . art 2 ahr Gt wedgn pny sat ants ale prirearr tbs '
2 hha ee tp SPT ; - Sade et a ee / more - ar - 2 eeegnl y so ~ Moc aer eed Geter Pada Pda ees ind o? bee cope
> es alata Gah Ata al . ere os . om ‘ naps de ~> 4 . oH pease Seen a ¥ is canter fh yee ee = on
mes ee Toes woe eee OE: © . a ee cane ~ rn aa a ae - rs Sta oe oe Seite ae = on - as a
: ere et noe aries < PARP A ALEBAG ILL POL Le hr rare Rens ;
Be reese Bre ee IOIET NRE CSE VSUNRS ISSR een eS = mr : ~ ne filer
eee ea eeu taunts betel Boe PE TT area oe
Paste AE Rh He y ;
Reranch teat ee nee aes Veh | geneiee Tago Ape
a etree : ” ese nt anaes re te te Paes ‘ 5 yee “ayes . amr as. “i SALA PPL IDA EA ,
. Sree rita eem Nd ee AREER UL RS TRANS YneibN mY te Hits baa ; - ; spades ees wth often fm vt PE EID EEO OPEL D
URN SALE FERC RLF BME TYRES SPECS NUNEZ COW ‘ wr : ; : - 2
Ponies Ee ek a 2h ch isa ihe Nebel PE SUSY HW. Se Se
Pura mee
PL POTS “-
ee Nig ae ite a Ar ewes .
St PPP TPE AGEL PANT MOD
Ab SEEPS! HPAES ©
Sr ae ek oe |
we ent ; Sa enone ee
pelt ah yet Sie haa Nie ohh Pike AP ian tii My thi no whey EST LOOPY