Skip to main content

Full text of "The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter"

See other formats 


■ 


I 
■ 


»• 


■ 


■ 


'-Mf 


■ 

pi 

is  ■  ■ 


. 


■ 


ll 


S*i  V.-v^-'C 


HHHi 


■ 
■ 


■  fl  oil 

^M        hi'4 


■ 


St:  RTv 

■  ■ 

I  ■ 


■ 


■ 


■ 


>„  ¥►• 


■ 


^H 


■  ■ 


■ 


FROM    A   PHOTOGRAPH    (1874?)    BY    CAPTAIN    L.    DARWIN,    R.E.       ENGRAVED    FOR   THE 

'CENTURY    MAGAZINE,'   JANUARY    1883. 

Frontispiece,  Vol.  II. 


'-^  a. 

LIFE  AND  LETTERS 


OF 


CHARLES  DARWIN, 


INCLUDING 


AN  AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL  CHAPTER 


EDITED    BY   HIS    SON, 

FRANCIS     DARWIN. 


IN    THREE    VOLUMES:— Vol.    II. 


"•  &4 


LONDON: 
JOHN    MURRAY,   ALBEMARLE   STREET. 

1887. 

All  Rights  Reserved. 


LONDON: 
PRINTED  BV  WILLIAM  CLOWES  AND  SONS,   Limited, 

STAMFORD   STREET   AND  CHARING   CROSS. 


-  n 

rV      Vi    -<-'  "V_*» 


» 


ABLE   OF  CONTENTS. 


-*o»- 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


TAGE 


VOLUME   II. 

CHAPTER    I. — The   Foundations    of    the    '  Origin    of 

Species  ' — 1837-1844        ....  .  .         .         1 

CHAPTER  II. — The  Growth  of  the  'Origin  of  Species' 

— 1843-1856   ........        19 

CHAPTER  III.— The  Unfinished  Book— May  1856-JuNE 

1858       .........       67 

CHAPTER  IV. — The  Writing  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species' 

— June  18,  1858-Nov.   1859     .  .  .  .  115 

CHAPTER  V. — Professor  Huxley  on  the  Reception  of 

the  'Origin  of  Species'         .  .  .  .  .179 

CHAPTER   VI. — The    Publication   of   the    '  Origin  of 

Species' — Oct.  3,  1859-DEC.  31,  1859      .  .         .     205 

CHAPTER  VII.— The  '  Origin  of  Species  '    (continued)— 

i860       .........      256 

CHAPTER  VIII.— The  Spread  of  Evolution—  1861-1862     356 


»o» 

Volume  II. 

Frontispiece:  Charles  Darwin  in  1874  (?).  From  the 
'  Century  Magazine ' :  the  Photograph  by  Captain 
L.  Darwin,  R.E. 

Facsimile  of  a  Page  from  a  Note-Book  of  1837.  Photo- 
lithographed  by  the  Cambridge  Scientific  Instrument 
Company       ......         to  face  page  5 


# 


ERRATA. 


Volume  II. 

P.  239,  line  17  \for  "  [?]  "  read  "  E.  R."  The  surmise  given  in  the  foot- 
note is  incorrect.  It  appears  from  papers  in  the  possession  of 
Mr.  J.  Estlin  Carpenter,  that  Dr.  Carpenter  urged  on  the  Editor 
of  the  '  Edinburgh  Review '  a  purely  scientific  treatment  of  the 
'  Origin  of  Species.' 

P.  246  note  :  for  "  Ichthyology  "  read  "  Ichnology." 

P.  289,  line  22  :  for  "  Crampton  "  read  "  Crompton." 

P.  356,  line  6  :  for  "  3000  "  read  "  2000." 

P.  380,  line  3  from  foot  -.for  "  in  the  Amazons  "  read  "  on  the  Amazons." 

P.  390,  line  4  :  for  "  direct  in  the  "  read  "  in  the  direct." 


LIFE  AND  LETTERS 


OF 


CHARLES      DARWIN. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   '  ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.' 

[In  the  first  volume,  p.  82,  the  growth  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species  ' 
has  been  briefly  described  in  my  father's  words.  The  letters 
given  in  the  present  and  following  chapters  will  illustrate  and 
amplify  the  history  thus  sketched  out. 

It  is  clear  that,  in  the  early  part  of  the  voyage  of  the  Beagle 
he  did  not  feel  it  inconsistent  with  his  views  to  express  him- 
self in  thoroughly  orthodox  language  as  to  the  genesis  of  new 
species.  Thus  in  1834  he  wrote*  at  Valparaiso:  "I  have 
already  found  beds  of  recent  shells  yet  retaining  their  colour 
at  an  elevation  of  1 300  feet,  and  beneath  the  level  country  is 
strewn  with  them.  It  seems  not  a  very  improbable  conjecture 
that  the  want  of  animals  may  be  owing  to  none  having  been 
created  since  this  country  was  raised  from  the  sea." 

This  passage  does  not  occur  in  the  published  'Journal,'  the 
last  proof  of  which  was  finished  in  1837;  and  this  fact  har- 
monizes with  the  change  we  know  to  have  been  proceeding  in 
his  views.  But  in  the  published  '  Journal '  we  find  passages 
which  show  a  point  of  view  more  in  accordance  with  orthodox 

*  MS.  Journals,  p.  468. 
VOL.  II.  B 


2        THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

theological  natural  history  than  with  his  later  views.  Thus, 
in  speaking  of  the  birds  Synallaxis  and  Scytalopus  (ist  edit. 
p.  353  ;  2nd  edit.  p.  289),  he  says:  "When  rinding,  as  in 
this  case,  any  animal  which  seems  to  play  so  insignificant 
a  part  in  the  great  scheme  of  nature,  one  is  apt  to  wonder 
why  a  distinct  species  should  have  been  created." 

A  comparison  of  the  two  editions  of  the  '  Journal '  is  in- 
structive, 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.  83),  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  written  (1845).  Thus  the  turning-point  in  the  formation 
of  his  theory  took  place  between  the  writing  of  the  two 
editions. 

I  will  first  give  a  few  passages  which  are  practically  the 
same  in  the  two  editions,  and  which  are,  therefore,  chiefly  of 
interest  as  illustrating  his  frame  of  mind  in  1837. 

The  case  of  the  two  species  of  Molothrus  (ist  edit.  p.  61  ; 
2nd  edit.  p.  53)  must  have  been  one  of  the  earliest  instances 
noticed  by  him  of  the  existence  of  representative  species — 
a  phenomenon  which  we  know  ('Autobiography,'  p.  8^,)  struck 
him  deeply.  The  discussion  on  introduced  animals  (ist  edit. 
p.  139  ;  2nd  edit.  p.  120)  shows  how  much  he  was  impressed 
by  the  complicated  interdependence  of  the  inhabitants  of  a 
given  area. 

An  analogous  point  of  view  is  given  in  the  discussion 
(ist  edit.  p.  98  ;  2nd  edit.  p.  85)  of  the  mistaken  belief  that 
large  animals  require,  for  their  support,  a  luxuriant  vegeta- 
tion ;  the  incorrectness  of  this  view  is  illustrated  by  the  com- 


THE   'NATURALIST'S  VOYAGE.'  3 

parison  of  the  fauna  of  South  Africa  and  South  America,  and 
the  vegetation  of  the  two  continents.  The  interest  of  the 
discussion  is  that  it  shows  clearly  our  a  priori  ignorance  of 
the  conditions  of  life  suitable  to  any  organism. 

There  is  a  passage  which  has  been  more  than  once  quoted 
as  bearing  on  the  origin  of  his  views.  It  is  where  he  dis- 
cusses the  striking  difference  between  the  species  of  mice  on 
the  east  and  west  of  the  Andes  (ist  edit.  p.  399)  :  "  Unless  we 
suppose  the  same  species  to  have  been  created  in  two 
different  countries,  we  ought  not  to  expect  any  closer  simi- 
larity between  the  organic  beings  on  the  opposite  sides  of 
the  Andes  than  on  shores  separated  by  a  broad  strait  of  the 
sea."  In  the  2nd  edit.  p.  327,  the  passage  is  almost  verbally 
identical,  and  is  practically  the  same. 

There  are  other  passages  again  which  are  more  strongly 
evolutionary  in  the  2nd  edit.,  but  otherwise  are  similar  to  the 
corresponding  passages  in  the  ist  edition.  Thus,  in  describing 
the  blind  Tuco-tuco  (ist  edit.  p.  60  ;  2nd  edit.  p.  52),  in  the 
first  edition  he  makes  no  allusion  to  what  Lamarck  might 
have  thought,  nor  is  the  instance  used  as  an  example  of 
modification,  as  in  the  edition  of  1845. 

A  striking  passage  occurs  in  the  2nd  edit.  (p.  173)  on  the 
relationship  between  the  "  extinct  edentata  and  the  living 
sloths,  ant-eaters,  and  armadillos." 

"  This  wonderful  relationship  in  the  same  continent  between 
the  dead  and  the  living,  will,  I  do  not  doubt,  hereafter  throw 
more  light  on  the  appearance  of  organic  beings  on  our  earth, 
and  their  disappearance  from  it,  than  any  other  class  of  facts." 

This  sentence  does  not  occur  in  the  1st  edit,  but  he  was 
evidently  profoundly  struck  by  the  disappearance  of  the 
gigantic  forerunners  of  the  present  animals.  The  difference 
between  the  discussions  in  the  two  editions  is  most  instructive. 
In  both,  our  ignorance  of  the  conditions  of  life  is  insisted  on, 
but  in  the  second  edition,  the  discussion  is  made  to  lead  up  to 
a  strong  statement  of  the  intensity  of  the  struggle  for  life. 

B  2 


4        THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.' 

Then  follows  a  comparison  between  rarity  *  and  extinction,, 
which  introduces  the  idea  that  the  preservation  and  dominance 
of  existing  species  depend  on  the  degree  in  which  they  are 
adapted  to  surrounding  conditions.  In  the  first  edition,  he  is 
merely  "tempted  to  believe  in  such  simple  relations  as  varia- 
tion of  climate  and  food,  or  introduction  of  enemies,  or  the 
increased  number  of  other  species,  as  the  cause  of  the  succes- 
sion of  races,"  But  finally  (ist  edit.)  he  ends  the  chapter  by 
comparing  the  extinction  of  a  species  to  the  exhaustion  and 
disappearance  of  varieties  of  fruit-trees,  as  though  he  thought 
that  a  mysterious  term  of  life  was  impressed  on  each  species 
at  its  creation. 

The  difference  of  treatment  of  the  Galapagos  problem  is  of 
some  interest.  In  the  earlier  book,  the  American  type  of  the 
productions  of  the  islands  is  noticed,  as  is  the  fact  that  the 
different  islands  possess  forms  specially  their  own,  but  the 
importance  of  the  whole  problem  is  not  so  strongly  put 
forward.     Thus,  in  the  first  edition,  he  merely  says  : — 

"This  similarity  of  type  between  distant  islands  and  con- 
tinents, while  the  species  are  distinct,  has  scarcely  been 
sufficiently  noticed.  The  circumstance  would  be  explained, 
according  to  the  views  of  some  authors,  by  saying  that  the 
creative  power  had  acted  according  to  the  same  law  over  a 
wide  area." — (ist  edit.  p.  474.) 

This  passage  is  not  given  in  the  second  edition,  and  the 
generalisations  on  geographical  distribution  are  much  wider 
and  fuller.     Thus  he  asks  : — 

"  Why  were  their  aboriginal  inhabitants,  associated  ...  in 
different  proportions  both  in  kind  and  number  from  those 
on  the  Continent,  and  therefore  acting  on  each  other  in  a 
different  manner — why  were  they  created  on  American  types 
of  organisation  ? " — (2nd  edit.  p.  393.) 

*  In  the  second  edition,  p.  146,  of  our  ignorance  of  the  causes  of 
the  destruction  of  Niata  cattle  by  rarity  or  extinction.  The  passage 
droughts  is  given  as  a  good  example      does  not  occur  in  the  first  edition. 


FROM  A  NOTE-BOOK  OF  1837. 


led  to  comprehend  true  affinities.  My  theory  would  give  zest 
to  recent  &  Fossil  Comparative  Anatomy :  it  would  lead  to 
study  of  instincts,  heredity,  &  mind  heredity,  whole  meta- 
physics, it  would  lead  to  closest  examination  of  hybridity  & 
generation,  causes  of  change  in  order  to  know  what  we  have 
come  from  &  to  what  we  tend,  to  what  circumstances  favour 
crossing  &  what  prevents  it,  this  and  direct  examination  of 
direct  passages  of  structure  in  species,  might  lead  to  laws":  of 
change,  which  would  then  be  main  object  of  study,  to'  guide 
our  speculations. 


to  i 

•J 


I 

a  tig  re 

I  :  oppc: 


NOTE-BOOK   OF    1 837.  5 

The  same  difference  of  treatment  is  shown  elsewhere  in  this 
chapter.  Thus  the  gradation  in  the  form  of  beak  presented 
by  the  thirteen  allied  species  of  finch  is  described  in  the  first 
edition  (p.  461)  without  comment.  Whereas  in  the  second 
edition  (p.  380)  he  concludes  : — 

"  One  might  really  fancy  that  from  an  original  paucity  of 
birds  in  this  Archipelago,  one  species  has  been  taken  and 
modified  for  different  ends." 

On  the  whole  it  seems  to  me  remarkable  that  the  difference 
between  the  two  editions  is  not  greater ;  it  is  another  proof  of 
the  author's  caution  and  self-restraint  in  the  treatment  of  his 
theory.  After  reading  the  second  edition  of  the  '  Journal,'  we 
find  with  a  strong  sense  of  surprise  how  far  developed  were 
his  views  in  1837.  We  are  enabled  to  form  an  opinion  on 
this  point  from  the  note-books  in  which  he  wrote  down 
detached  thoughts  and  queries.  I  shall  quote  from  the  first 
note-book,  completed  between  July  1837  and  February 
1838:  and  this  is  the  more  worth  doing,  as  it  gives  us  an 
insight  into  the  condition  of  his  thoughts  before  the  reading 
of  Malthus.  The  notes  are  written  in  his  most  hurried  style, 
so  many  words  being  omitted,  that  it  is  often  difficult  to 
arrive  at  the  meaning.  With  a  few  exceptions  (indicated  by 
square  brackets)*  I  have  printed  the  extracts  as  written  ;  the 
punctuation,  however,  has  been  altered,  and  a  few  obvious 
slips  corrected  where  it  seemed  necessary.  The  extracts  are 
not  printed  in  order,  but  are  roughly  classified.! 

"  Propagation  explains  why  modern  animals  same  type  as 
extinct,  which  is  law,  almost  proved." 

"  We  can  see  why  structure  is  common  in  certain  countries 

*  In  the  extracts  from  the  note-  tion   is   discussed,  and   where   the 

book   ordinary  brackets  represent  ';  Zoonomia  "  is  mentioned.     Many 

my  father's  parentheses.  pages  have  been  cut  out  of  thenote- 

f  On  the  first  page  of  the  note-  book,  probably  for  use  in  writing  the 

book,  is  written  "  Zoonomia  "  ;  this  Sketch   of  1844,    and   these  would 

seems  to  refer  to  the  first  few  pages  have  no  doubt  contained  the  most 

in  which  reproduction  by  gemma-  interesting  extracts. 


6       THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   '  ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

when  we  can  hardly  believe  necessary,  but  if  it  was  necessary 
to  one  forefather,  the  result  would  be  as  it  is.  Hence  ante- 
lopes at  Cape  of  Good  Hope  ;  marsupials  at  Australia." 

"  Countries  longest  separated  greatest  differences — if  sepa- 
rated from  immersage,  possibly  two  distinct  types,  but  each 
having  its  representatives — as  in  Australia." 

"Will  this  apply  to  whole  organic  kingdom  when  our  planet 
first  cooled  ? " 

The  two  following  extracts  show  that  he  applied  the  theory 
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)." 

The  following  extracts  are  again  concerned  with  an  a  priori 
view  of  the  probability  of  the  origin  of  species  by  descent — 
"  propagation,"  as  he  called  it. 

"  The  tree  of  life  should  perhaps  be  called  the  coral  of  life, 
base  of  branches  dead  ;  so  that  passages  cannot  be  seen." 

"  There  never  may  have  been  grade  between  pig  and  tapir, 
yet  from  some  common  progenitor.  Now  if  the  intermediate 
ranks  had  produced  infinite  species,  probably  the  series  would 
have  been  more  perfect." 

At  another  place,  speaking  of  intermediate  forms,  he  says  : — 

"  Cuvier  objects  to  propagation  of  species  by  saying,  why 
have  not  some  intermediate  forms  been  discovered  between 
Palseotherium,  Megalonyx,  Mastodon,  and  the  species  now 
living  ?  Now  according  to  my  view  (in  S.  America)  parent  of 
all  Armadilloes  might  be  brother  to  Megatherium — uncle 
now  dead." 


NOTE-BOOK   OF    1 837.  7 

Speaking  elsewhere  of  intermediate  forms,  he  remarks  : — 

"  Opponents  will  say — show  them  me.  I  will  answer  yes,  if 
you  will  show  me  every  step  between  bulldog  and  grey- 
hound." 

Here  we  see  that  the  case  of  domestic  animals  was  already 
present  in  his  mind  as  bearing  on  the  production  of  natural 
species.  The  disappearance  of  intermediate  forms  naturally 
leads  up  to  the  subject  of  extinction,  with  which  the  next 
extract  begins. 

"  It  is  a  wonderful  fact,  horse,  elephant,  and  mastodon, 
dying  out  about  same  time  in  such  different  quarters. 

"  Will  Mr.  Lyell  say  that  some  [same  ?]  circumstance  killed 
it  over  a  tract  from  Spain  to  South  America  ? — (Never.) 

"  They  die,  without  they  change,  like  golden  pippins  ;  it  is 
a  generation  of  species  like  generation  of  individuals. 

"  Why  does  individual  die  ?  To  perpetuate  certain  peculi- 
arities (therefore  adaptation),  and  obliterate  accidental  varieties, 
and  to  accommodate  itself  to  change  (for,  of  course,  change, 
even  in  varieties,  is  accommodation).  Now  this  argument 
applies  to  species. 

"  If  individual  cannot  propagate  he  has  no  issue — so  with 
species. 

"If  species  generate  other  species,  their  race  is  not  utterly  cut 
off: — like  golden  pippins,  if  produced  by  seed,  go  on — other- 
wise all  die. 

"  The  fossil  horse  generated,  in  South  Africa,  zebra — and 
continued — perished  in  America. 

"  All  animals  of  same  species  are  bound  together  just  like 
buds  of  plants,  which  die  at  one  time,  though  produced  either 
sooner  or  later.  Prove  animals  like  plants — trace  gradation 
between  associated  and  non-associated  animals — and  the  story 
will  be  complete." 

Here  we  have  the  view  already  alluded  to  of  a  term  of  life 
impressed  on  a  species. 

But  in  the  following  note  we  get  extinction  connected  with 


8        THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

unfavourable  variation,  and  thus  a  hint  is  given  of  natural 
selection  : — 

"  With  respect  to  extinction,  we  can  easily  see  that  [a] 
variety  of  [the]  ostrich  (Petise),  may  not  be  well  adapted, 
and  thus  perish  out ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  like  Orpheus  [a 
Galapagos  bird],  being  favourable,  many  might  be  produced. 
This  requires  [the]  principle  that  the  permanent  variations 
produced  by  confined  breeding  and  changing  circumstances 
are  continued  and  producefd]  according  to  the  adaptation  of 
such  circumstances,  and  therefore  that  death  of  species  is  a 
consequence  (contrary  to  what  would  appear  from  America) 
of  non-adaptation  of  circumstances." 

The  first  part  of  the  next  extract  has  a  similar  bearing. 
The  end  of  the  passage  is  of  much  interest,  as  showing  that 
he  had  at  this  early  date  visions  of  the  far-reaching  character 
of  his  speculations  : — 

"  With  belief  of  transmutation  and  geographical  grouping, 
we  are  led  to  endeavour  to  discover  causes  of  change  ;  the 
manner  of  adaptation  (wish  of  parents  ?  ?),  instinct  and  struc- 
ture becomes  full  of  speculation  and  lines  of  observation. 
View  of  generation  being  condensation,*  test  of  highest  or- 
ganisation intelligible  ....  My  theory  would  give  zest  to 
recent  and  fossil  comparative  anatomy ;  it  would  lead  to  the 
study  of  instincts,  heredity,  and  mind-heredity,  whole  [of] 
metaphysics. 

"  It  would  lead  to  closest  examination  of  hybridity,  regener- 
ation, causes  of  change  in  order  to  know  what  we  have  come 
from  and  to  what  we  tend — to  what  circumstances  favour 
crossing  and  what  prevents  it — this,  and  direct  examination 
of  direct  passages  of  structure  in  species,  might  lead  to  laws 
of  change,  which  would  then  be  the  main  object  of  study,  to 
guide  our  speculations." 

The  following  two  extracts  have   a   similar  interest ;  the 

*  I  imagine  him  to  mean  that  a  small  number  of  the  best  organized 
each  generation  is  "  condensed  "  to      individuals. 


NOTE-BOOK   OF    1 837.  9 

second   is  especially  interesting,  as  it    contains  the  germ  of 
the  concluding  sentence  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species  '  :  * — 

"  Before  the  attraction  of  gravity  discovered  it  might  have 
been  said  it  was  as  great  a  difficulty  to  account  for  the 
movement  of  all  [planets]  by  one  law,  as  to  account  for  each 
separate  one  ;  so  to  say  that  all  mammalia  were  born  from 
one  stock,  and  since  distributed  by  such  means  as  we  can 
recognise,  may  be  thought  to  explain  nothing. 

"  Astronomers  might  formerly  have  said  that  God  fore- 
ordered  each  planet  to  move  in  its  particular  destiny.  In  the 
same  manner  God  orders  each  animal  created  with  certain 
forms  in  certain  countries  ;  but  how  much  more  simple  and 
sublime  [a]  power — let  attraction  act  according  to  certain 
law,  such  are  inevitable  consequences — let  animals  be  created, 
then  by  the  fixed  laws  of  generation,  such  will  be  their 
successors. 

"  Let  the  powers  of  transportal  be  such,  and  so  will  be  the 
forms  of  one  country  to  another — let  geological  changes  go  at 
such  a  rate,  so  will  be  the  number  and  distribution  of  the 
species ! ! " 

The  three  next  extracts  are  of  miscellaneous  interest  : — 

"  When  one  sees  nipple  on  man's  breast,  one  does  not  say 
some  use,  but  sex  not  having  been  determined — so  with  useless 
wings  under  elytra  of  beetles — born  from  beetles  with  wings, 
and  modified — if  simple  creation  merely,  would  have  been 
born  without  them." 

"  In  a  decreasing  population  at  any  one  moment  fewer 
closely  related  (few  species  of  genera) ;  ultimately  few  genera 
(for  otherwise  the  relationship  would  converge  sooner),  and 
lastly,  perhaps,  some  one  single  one.     Will  not  this  account 

*  '  Origin  of  Species  '  (edit,  i.),  p.  cycling  on  according   to  the  fixed 

490  : — "  There  is  a  grandeur  in  this  law  of  gravity,   from  so    simple   a 

view  of  life,  with  its  several  powers,  beginning     endless     forms     most 

having    been    originally    breathed  beautiful  and  most  wonderful  have 

into  a  few  forms  or  into  one  ;  and  been,  and  are  being  evolved." 
that   whilst   this   planet   has   gone 


IO     THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

for  the  odd  genera  with  few  species  which  stand  between 
great  groups,  which  we  are  bound  to  consider  the  increasing 
ones  ?  " 

The  last  extract  which  I  shall  quote  gives  the  germ  of  his 
theory  of  the  relation  between  alpine  plants  in  various  parts 
of  the  world,  in  the  publication  of  which  he  was  forestalled 
by  E.  Forbes  (see  Vol.  I.  p.  88).  He  says,  in  the  1837  note- 
book, that  alpine  plants,  "  formerly  descended  lower,  therefore 
[they  are]  species  of  lower  genera  altered,  or  northern  plants." 

When  we  turn  to  the  Sketch  of  his  theory,  written  in  1844 
(still  therefore  before  the  second  edition  of  the  '  Journal ' 
was  completed),  we  find  an  enormous  advance  made  on  the 
note-book  of  1837.  The  Sketch  is  in  fact  a  surprisingly  com- 
plete presentation  of  the  argument  afterwards  familiar  to  us 
in  the  '  Origin  of  Species.'  There  is  some  obscurity  as  to  the 
date  of  the  short  Sketch  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  1844 
Essay.  We  know  from  his  own  words  (Vol.  I.  p.  184),  that  it 
was  in  June  1842  that  he  first  wrote  out  a  short  sketch  of 
his  views.*  This  statement  is  given  with  so  much  circum- 
stance that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  suppose  that  it  contains 
an  error  of  date.  It  agrees  also  with  the  following  extract 
from  his  Diary. 

"  1842.     May  18th.     Went  to  Maer. 

"June  15th  to  Shrewsbury,  and  on  18th  to  Capel  Curig. 
During  my  stay  at  Maer  and  Shrewsbury  (five  years  after 
commencement)  wrote  pencil-sketch  of  species  theory." 

Again  in  the  introduction  to  the  '  Origin,'  p.  1,  he  writes, 
"after  an  interval  of  five  years'  work,"  [from  1837,  i.e.  in  1842,] 
"  I  allowed  myself  to  speculate  on  the  subject,  and  drew  up 
some  short  notes." 

Nevertheless  in  the  letter  signed  by  Sir  C.  Lyell  and 
Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  which  serves  as  an  introduction  to  the  joint 
paper  of  Messrs.  C.  Darwin  and  A.  Wallace  on  the  '  Tendency 

*  This  version  I  cannot  find,  and  much  of  his  MS.,  after  it  had  been 
it  was  probably  destroyed,  like  so      enlarged  and  re-copied  in  1844. 


SKETCH    OF    1842.  II 

of  Species  to  form  Varieties/  *  the  essay  of  1844  (extracts 
from  which  form  part  of  the  paper)  is  said  to  have  been 
"sketched  in  1 839,  and  copied  in  1844."  This  statement  is 
obviously  made  on  the  authority  of  a  note  written  in  my 
father's  hand  across  the  Table  of  Contents  of  the  1844  Essay. 
It  is  to  the  following  effect :  "This  was  sketched  in  1839,  and 
copied  out  in  full,  as  here  written  and  read  by  you  in  1844." 
I  conclude  that  this  note  was  added  in  1858,  when  the  MS. 
was  sent  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (see  Letter  of  June  29,  1858, 
Vol.  II.  p.  1 19).  There  is  also  some  further  evidence  on  this  side 
of  the  question.  Writing  to  Mr.  Wallace  (Jan.  25,  1859)  my 
father  says : — "  Every  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."  The  statement  that  the  earliest 
sketch  was  written  in  1839  nas  been  frequently  made  in 
biographical  notices  of  my  father,  no  doubt  on  the  authority 
of  the  '  Linnean  Journal,'  but  it  must,  I  think,  be  considered 
as  erroneous.  The  error  may  possibly  have  arisen  in  this 
way.  In  writing  on  the  Table  of  Contents  of  the  1844  MS. 
that  it  was  sketched  in  1839,  I  think  my  father  may  have 
intended  to  imply  that  the  framework  of  the  theory  was  clearly 
thought  out  by  him  at  that  date.  In  the  Autobiography 
(p.  88)  he  speaks  of  the  time,  "about  1839,  when  the  theory 
was  clearly  conceived,"  meaning,  no  doubt,  the  end  of  1838 
and  beginning  of  1839,  when  the  reading  of  Malthus  had 
given  him  the  key  to  the  idea  of  natural  selection.  But  this 
explanation  does  not  apply  to  the  letter  to  Mr.  Wallace  ;  and 
with  regard  to  the  passage  f  in  the 'Linnean  Journal'  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  how  it  should  have  been  allowed  to 

*  '  Linn.     Soc.     Journal,'     1858,  footnote  apologising  for  the  style  of 

P-  45-  the  extracts,  on  the  ground  that  the 

f  My  father  certainly  saw  the  "  work  was  never  intended  for  pub- 
proofs  of  the  paper,  for  he  added  a  lication." 


12      THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

remain  as  it  now  stands,  conveying,  as  it  clearly  does,  the 
impression  that  1839  was  the  date  of  his  earliest  written  sketch. 
The  sketch  of  1844  is  written  in  a  clerk's  hand,  in  two 
hundred  and  .thirty-one  pages  folio,  blank  leaves  being 
alternated  with  the  MS.  with  a  view  to  amplification.  The 
text  has  been  revised  and  corrected,  criticisms  being  pencilled 
by  himself  on  the  margin.  It  is  divided  into  two  parts  :  I.  "  On 
the  variation  of  Organic  Beings  under  Domestication  and  in 
their  Natural  State."  II.  "On  the  Evidence  favourable  and 
opposed  to  the  view  that  Species  are  naturally  formed  races 
descended  from  common  Stocks."  The  first  part  contains  the 
main  argument  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species.'  It  is  founded,  as  is 
the  argument  of  that  work,  on  the  study  of  domestic  animals, 
and  both  the  Sketch  and  the  '  Origin '  open  with  a  chapter 
on  variation  under  domestication  and  on  artificial  selection. 
This  is  followed,  in  both  essays,  by  discussions  on  variation 
under  nature,  on  natural  selection,  and  on  the  struggle  for 
life.  Here,  any  close  resemblance  between  the  two  essays 
with  regard  to  arrangement  ceases.  Chapter  III.  of  the 
Sketch,  which  concludes  the  first  part,  treats  of  the  varia- 
tions which  occur  in  the  instincts  and  habits  of  animals, 
and  thus  corresponds  to  some  extent  with  Chapter  VII.  of 
the  'Origin'  (1st  edit.).  It  thus  forms  a  complement  to 
the  chapters  which  deal  with  variation  in  structure.  It  seems 
to  have  been  placed  thus  early  in  the  Essay  to  prevent  the 
hasty  rejection  of  the  whole  theory  by  a  reader  to  whom 
the  idea  of  natural  selection  acting  on  instincts  might  seem 
impossible.  This  is  the  more  probable,  as  the  Chapter  on 
Instinct  in  the  '  Origin '  is  specially  mentioned  (Introduction, 
p.  5)  as  one  of  the  "  most  apparent  and  gravest  difficulties  on 
the  theory."  Moreover  the  chapter  in  the  Sketch  ends  with 
a   discussion,    "whether  any  particular   corporeal   structures 

are  so  wonderful  as  to  justify  the  rejection  prima  facie 

of  our  theory."     Under  this  heading  comes  the  discussion  of 
the  eye,  which  in  the  '  Origin '  finds  its  place  in  Chapter  VI. 


SKETCH    OF    1844.  13, 

under  "  Difficulties  on  Theory."  The  second  part  seems  to 
have  been  planned  in  accordance  with  his  favourite  point  of 
view  with  regard  to  his  theory.  This  is  briefly  given  in  a 
letter  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray,  November  nth,  1859:  "I  cannot 
possibly  believe  that  a  false  theory  would  explain  so  many 
classes  of  facts,  as  I  think  it  certainly  does  explain.  On  these 
grounds  I  drop  my  anchor,  and  believe  that  the  difficulties 
will  slowly  disappear."  On  this  principle,  having  stated  the 
theory  in  the  first  part,  he  proceeds  to  show  to  what  extent 
various  wide  series  of  facts  can  be  explained  by  its  means. 

Thus  the  second  part  of  the  Sketch  corresponds  roughly 
to  the  nine  concluding  Chapters  of  the  First  Edition  of  the 
'Origin.'  But  we  must  exclude  Chapter  VII.  ('Origin')  on 
Instinct,  which  forms  a  chapter  in  the  first  part  of  the  Sketch, 
and  Chapter  VIII.  ('Origin')  on  Hybridism,  a  subject  treated 
in  the  Sketch  with  'Variation  under  Nature '  in  the  first  part. 

The  following  list  of  the  chapters  of  the  second  part  of  the 
Sketch  will  illustrate  their  correspondence  with  the  final 
chapters  of  the  '  Origin.' 

Chapter  I.  "  On  the  kind  of  intermediateness  necessary, 
and  the  number  of  such  intermediate  forms." 

This  includes  a  geological  discussion,  and  corresponds  to 
parts  of  Chapters  VI.  and  IX.  of  the  '  Origin.' 

Chapter  II.  "The  gradual  appearance  and  disappearance 
of  organic  beings."  Corresponds  to  Chapter  X.  of  the 
'  Origin.' 

Chapter  III.  "  Geographical  Distribution."  Corresponds  to 
Chapters  XI.  and  XII.  of  the  'Origin.' 

Chapter  IV.  "  Affinities  and  Classification  of  Organic 
beings." 

Chapter  V.  "  Unity  of  Type,"  Morphology,  Embryology. 

Chapter  VI.  Rudimentary  Organs. 

These  three  chapters  correspond  to  Chapter  XII.  of  the 
'  Origin.' 

Chapter  VII.  Recapitulation   and    Conclusion.     The   final 


14       THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

sentence  of  the  Sketch,  which  we  saw  in  its  first  rough 
form  in  the  Note  Book  of  1837,  closely  resembles  the  final 
sentence  of  the  '  Origin,'  much  of  it  being  identical.  The 
1  Origin '  is  not  divided  into  two  "  Parts,"  but  we  see  traces  of 
such  a  division  having  been  present  in  the  writer's  mind,  in 
this  resemblance  between  the  second  part  of  the  Sketch  and 
the  final  chapters  of  the  '  Origin.'  That  he  should  speak  *  of 
the  chapters  on  transition,  on  instinct,  on  hybridism,  and 
on  the  geological  record,  as  forming  a  group,  may  be  due  to 
the  division  of  his  early  MS.  into  two  parts. 

Mr.  Huxley,  who  was  good  enough  to  read  the  Sketch  at 
my  request,  while  remarking  that  the  "  main  lines  of  argu- 
ment" and  the  illustrations  employed  are  the  same,  points 
out  that  in  the  1844  Essay,  "  much  more  weight  is  attached  to 
the  influence  of  external  conditions  in  producing  variation, 
and  to  the  inheritance  of  acquired  habits  than  in  the 
'  Origin.' " 

It  is  extremely  interesting  to  find  in  the  Sketch  the  first 
mention  of  principles  familiar  to  us  in  the  '  Origin  of  Species.' 
Foremost  among  these  may  be  mentioned  the  principle  of 
Sexual  Selection,  which  is  clearly  enunciated.  The  important 
form  of  selection  known  as  "  unconscious,"  is  also  given. 
Here  also  occurs  a  statement  of  the  law  that  peculiarities 
tend  to  appear  in  the  offspring  at  an  age  corresponding  to 
that  at  which  they  occurred  in  the  parent. 

Professor  Newton,  who  was  so  kind  as  to  look  through  the 
1844  Sketch,  tells  me  that  my  father's  remarks  on  the  migra- 
tion of  birds,  incidentally  given  in  more  than  one  passage, 
show  that  he  had  anticipated  the  views  of  some  later  writers. 

With  regard  to  the  general  style  of  the  Sketch,  it  is  not 
to  be  expected  that  it  should  have  all  the  characteristics  of 
the  '  Origin,'  and  we  do  not,  in  fact,  find  that  balance  and 
control,  that  concentration  and  grasp,  which  are  so  striking 
in  the  work  of  1859. 

*  '  Origin,'  Introduction,  p.  5. 


PRINCIPLE   OF   DIVERGENCE.  1 5 

In  the  Autobiography  (Vol.  I.  p.  84)  my  father  has  stated 
what  seemed  to  him  the  chief  flaw  of  the  1844  Sketch;  he 
had  overlooked  "one  problem  of  great  importance,"  the 
problem  of  the  divergence  of  .character.  This  point  is  dis- 
cussed in  the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  but,  as  it  may  not  be  familiar 
to  all  readers,  I  will  give  a  short  account  of  the  difficulty  and 
its  solution.  The  author  begins  by  stating  that  varieties 
differ  from  each  other  less  than  species,  and  then  goes  on : 
"  Nevertheless,  according  to  my  view,  varieties  are  species  in 
process  of  formation How  then  does  the  lesser  dif- 
ference between  varieties  become  augmented  into  the  greater 
difference  between  species."  *  He  shows  how  an  analogous 
divergence  takes  place  under  domestication  where  an  originally 
uniform  stock  of  horses  has  been  split  up  into  race-horses, 
dray-horses,  &c,  and  then  goes  on  to  explain  how  the  same 
principle  applies  to  natural  species.  "From  the  simple 
circumstance  that  the  more  diversified  the  descendants  from 
any  one  species  become  in  structure,  constitution,  and  habits, 
by  so  much  will  they  be  better  enabled  to  seize  on  many  and 
widely  diversified  places  in  the  polity  of  nature,  and  so  be 
enabled  to  increase  in  numbers." 

The  principle  is  exemplified  by  the  fact  that  if  on  one  plot 
of  ground  a  single  variety  of  wheat  be  sown,  and  on  to 
another  a  mixture  of  varieties,  in  the  latter  case  the  produce 
is  greater.  More  individuals  have  been  able  to  exist  because 
they  were  not  all  of  the  same  variety.  An  organism  becomes 
more  perfect  and  more  fitted  to  survive  when  by  division 
of  labour  the  different  functions  of  life  are  performed  by 
different  organs.  In  the  same  way  a  species  becomes  more 
efficient  and  more  able  to  survive  when  different  sections  of 
the  species  become  differentiated  so  as  to  fill  different  stations. 

In  reading  the  Sketch  of  1844,  I  have  found  it  difficult  to 
recognise,  as  a  flaw  in  the  Essay,  the  absence  of  any  definite 
statement    of    the    principle    of  divergence.     Descent    with 

*  '  Origin,'  1st  edit.  p.  hi. 


l6      THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

modification  implies  divergence,  and  we  become  so  habituated 
to  a  belief  in  descent,  and  therefore  in  divergence,  that  we 
do  not  notice  the  absence  of  proof  that  divergence  is  in  itself 
an  advantage.  As  shown  in  the  Autobiography,  my  father 
in  1876  found  it  hardly  credible  that  he  should  have  over- 
looked the  problem  and  its  solution. 

The  following  letter  will  be  more  in  place  here  than  its 
chronological  position,  since  it  shows  what  was  my  father's 
feeling  as  to  the  value  of  the  Sketch  at  the  time  of  its 
completion.] 

C.  Darwin  to  Mrs.  Darwin. 

Down,  July  5,  1844. 

...  I  have  just  finished  my  sketch  of  my  species  theory. 
If,  as  I  believe,  my  theory  in  time  be  accepted  even  by 
one  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 

*  Mr.  H.  Wedgwood. 


SKETCH    OF    1844.  17 

zn  deciphering  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  at  a  publisher's  or  his  own  risk. 
Many  of  the  scraps  in  the  portfolios  contain  mere  rude  sugges- 
tions 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 
"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  if  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. 

*  After  Mr.  Strickland's  name  ible.  "Professor  Owen  would  be 
comes  the  following  sentence,  which  very  good  ;  but  I  presume  he  would 
has  been  erased,  but  remains  leg-      not  undertake  such  a  work." 

VOL.  II.  C 


1 8      THE   FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

"  If  there  should  be  any  difficulty  in  getting  an  editor  who 
would  go  thoroughly  into  the  subject,  and  think  of  the  bearing 
of  the  passages  marked  in  the  books  and  copied  out  of  scraps 
of  paper,  then  let  my  sketch  be  published  as  it  is,  stating 
that  it  was  done  several  years  ago  *  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  of  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."] 

*  The  words  u  several  years  ago  and,"  seem  to  have  been  added  at  a 
later  date. 


(     19     ) 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES. 
LETTERS,    1 843-1 856. 

[The  history  of  my  father's  life  is  told  more  completely  in 
his  correspondence  with  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  than  in  any  other 
series  of  letters ;  and  this  is  especially  true  of  the  history 
of  the  growth  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species.'  This,  therefore, 
seems  an  appropriate  place  for  the  following  notes,  which 
Sir  Joseph  Hooker  has  kindly  given  me.  They  give,  more- 
over, an  interesting  picture  of  his  early  friendship  with  my 
father : — 

"My    first    meeting   with    Mr.    Darwin    was    in    1839,    in 

Trafalgar    Square.      I    was    walking    with    an    officer    who 

had   been   his  shipmate  for  a  short  time  in  the  Beagle  seven 

years   before,   but  who   had    not,   I    believe,  since  met  him. 

I  was  introduced  ;  the  interview  was  of  course  brief,  and  the 

memory  of  him  that  I  carried  away  and  still  retain  was  that 

of    a    rather   tall    and    rather    broad-shouldered    man,    with 

a  slight  stoop,  an   agreeable  and  animated  expression  when 

talking,  beetle  brows,  and  a  hollow  but  mellow  voice ;   and 

that  his  greeting  of  his  old  acquaintance  was  sailor-like — 

that  is,  delightfully  frank  and  cordial.     I  observed  him  well, 

for  I  was  already  aware  of  his  attainments  and  labours,  derived 

from  having  read  various  proof-sheets  of  his  then  unpublished 

'  Journal.'     These  had  been  submitted  to  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir 

Charles)  Lyell  by  Mr.  Darwin,  and  by  him  sent  to  his  father, 

Ch.  Lyell,  Esq.,  of  Kinnordy,  who  (being  a  very  old  friend  of 

my  father,  and  taking  a  kind  interest  in  my  projected  career 

as  a  naturalist)  had  allowed  me  to  peruse  them.     At  this  time 

c  2 


20  GROWTH   OF   THE  'ORIGIN.'  [1843. 

I  was  hurrying  on  my  studies,  so  as  to  take  my  degree  before 
volunteering  to  accompany  Sir  James  Ross  in  the  Antarctic 
Expedition,  which  had  just  been  determined  on  by  the 
Admiralty  ;  and  so  pressed  for  time  was  I,  that  I  used  to 
sleep  with  the  sheets  of  the  '  Journal '  under  my  pillow,  that 
I  might  read  them  between  waking  and  rising.  They  im- 
pressed me  profoundly,  I  might  say  despairingly,  with  the 
variety  of  acquirements,  mental  and  physical,  required  in 
a  naturalist  who  should  follow  in  Darwin's  footsteps,  whilst 
they  stimulated  me  to  enthusiasm  in  the  desire  to  travel 
and  observe. 

"  It  has  been  a  permanent  source  of  happiness  to  me  that 
I  knew  so  much  of  Mr.  Darwin's  scientific  work  so  many 
years  before  that  intimacy  began  which  ripened  into  feelings 
as  near  to  those  of  reverence  for  his  life,  works,  and  cha- 
racter as  is  reasonable  and  proper.  It  only  remains  to  add 
to  this  little  episode  that  I  received  a  copy  of  the  '  Journal ' 
complete, — a  gift  from  Mr.  Lyell, — a  few  days  before  leaving 
England. 

"  Very  soon  after  the  return  of  the  Antarctic  Expedition 
my  correspondence  with  Mr.  Darwin  began  (December,  1843) 
by  his  sending  me  a  long  letter,  warmly  congratulating 
me  on  my  return  to  my  family  and  friends,  and  expressing 
a  wish  to  hear  more  of  the  results  of  the  expedition,  of  which 
he  had  derived  some  knowledge  from  private  letters  of  my 
own  (written  to  or  communicated  through  Mr.  Lyell).  Then, 
plunging  at  once  into  scientific  matters,  he  directed  my  atten- 
tion to  the  importance  of  correlating  the  Fuegian  Flora  with 
that  of  the  Cordillera  and  of  Europe,  and  invited  me  to  study 
the  botanical  collections  which  he  had  made  in  the  Galapagos 
Islands,  as  well  as  his  Patagonian  and  Fuegian  plants. 

"  This  led  to  me  sending  him  an  outline  of  the  conclusions 
I  had  formed  regarding  the  distribution  of  plants  in  the 
southern  regions,  and  the  necessity  of  assuming  the  destruc- 
tion of  considerable  areas  of  land  to  account  for  the  relations 


1843.]  SIR   J.    D.    HOOKER'S   REMINISCE^XES.  21 

of  the  flora  of  the  so-called  Antarctic  Islands.  I  do  not 
suppose  that  any  of  these  ideas  were  new  to  him,  but  they 
led  to  an  animated  and  lengthy  correspondence  full  of 
instruction." 

Here  follows  the  letter  (1843)  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  above 
referred  to.] 

My  dear  Sir, — I  had  hoped  before  this  time  to  have  had 
the  pleasure  of  seeing  you  and  congratulating  you  on  your 
safe  return  from  your  long  and  glorious  voyage.  But  as  I 
seldom  go  to  London,  we  may  not  yet  meet  for  some  time — 
without  you  are  led  to  attend  the  Geological  meetings. 

I  am  anxious  to  know  what  you  intend  doing  with  all  your 
materials — I  had  so  much  pleasure  in  reading  parts  of  some 
of  your  letters,  that  I  shall  be  very  sorry  if  I,  as  one  of  the 
public,  have  no  opportunity  of  reading  a  good  deal  more. 
I  suppose  you  are  very  busy  now  and  full  of  enjoyment : 
how  well  I  remember  the  happiness  of  my  first  few  months 
of  England — it  was  worth  all  the  discomforts  of  many  a  gale  ! 
But  I  have  run  from  the  subject,  which  made  me  write,  of 
expressing  my  pleasure  that  Henslow  (as  he  informed  me 
a  few  days  since  by  letter)  has  sent  to  you  my  small  collec- 
tion of  plants.  You  cannot  think  how  much  pleased  I  am, 
as  I  feared  they  would  have  been  all  lost,  and  few  as  they  are, 
they  cost  me  a  good  deal  of  trouble.  There  are  a  very  few 
notes,  which  I  believe  Henslow  has  got,  describing  the 
habitats,  &c,  of  some  few  of  the  more  remarkable  plants. 
I  paid  particular  attention  to  the  Alpine  flowers  of  Tierra  del 
Fuego,  and  I  am  sure  I  got  every  plant  which  was  in  flower 
in  Patagonia  at  the  seasons  when  we  were  there.  I  have  long 
thought  that  some  general  sketch  of  the  Flora  of  the  point  of 
land,  stretching  so  far  into  the  southern  seas,  would  be  very 
curious.  Do  make  comparative  remarks  on  the  species  allied 
to  the  European  species,  for  the  advantage  of  botanical 
ignoramuses  like  myself.     It  has  often  struck  me  as  a  curious 


22  GROWTH   OF   THE  'ORIGIN.'  [l843- 

point  to  find  out,  whether  there  are  many  European  genera 
in  T.  del  Fuego  which  are  not  found  along  the  ridge  of  the 
Cordillera;  the  separation  in  such  case  would  be  so  enor- 
mous. Do  point  out  in  any  sketch  you  draw  up,  what 
genera  are  American  and  what  European,  and  how  great 
the  differences  of  the  species  are,  when  the  genera  are 
European,  for  the  sake  of  the  ignoramuses. 

I  hope  Henslow  will  send  you  my  Galapagos  plants  (about 
which  Humboldt  even  expressed  to  me  considerable  curiosity) 
— I  took  much  pains  in  collecting  all  I  could.  A  Flora  of  this 
archipelago  would,  I  suspect,  offer  a  nearly  parallel  case  to 
that  of  St.  Helena,  which  has  so  long  excited  interest. 
Pray  excuse  this  long   rambling  note,  and  believe   me,  my 

dear  sir,  yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

Will  you  be  so  good  as  to  present  my  respectful  com- 
pliments to  Sir  W.  Hooker. 

[Referring  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker's  work  on  the  Galapagos 
Flora,  my  father  wrote  in  1846 : 

"  I  cannot  tell  you  how  delighted  and  astonished  I  am  at 
the  results  of  your  examination ;  how  wonderfully  they 
support  my  assertion  on  the  differences  in  the  animals  of  the 
different  islands,  about  which  I  have  always  been  fearful." 

Again  he  wrote  (1849)  : — 

"  I  received  a  few  weeks  ago  your  Galapagos  papers,*  and 
I  have  read  them  since  being  here.  I  really  cannot  express 
too  strongly  my  admiration  of  the  geographical  discussion  : 
to  my  judgment  it  is  a  perfect  model  of  what  such  a  paper 
should  be  ;  it  took  me  four  days  to  read  and  think  over. 
How  interesting  the  Flora  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  appears 
to  be,  how  I  wish  there  were  materials  for  you  to  treat  its 

*  These  papers  include  the  re-      and  were  published  by  the  Linnean 
suits  of  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker's  examina-      Society  in  1849. 
tion  of  my  father's  Galapagos  plants, 


1843.]  NATURAL   SELECTION.  23 

flora  as  you  have  done  the  Galapagos.  In  the  Systematic 
paper  I  was  rather  disappointed  in  not  rinding  general 
remarks  on  affinities,  structures,  &c,  such  as  you  often  give 
in  conversation,  and  such  as  De  Candolle  and  St.  Hilaire 
introduced  in  almost  all  their  papers,  and  which  make  them 
interesting  even  to  a  non-Botanist." 

"  Very  soon  afterwards  [continues  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker]  in  a 
letter  dated  January  1844,  the  subject  of  the  'Origin  of 
Species '  was  brought  forward  by  him,  and  I  believe  that  I 
was  the  first  to  whom  he  communicated  his  then  new  ideas 
on  the  subject,  and  which  being  of  interest  as  a  contribution 
to  the  history  of  Evolution,  I  here  copy  from  his  letter  "  : — ] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

[January  nth,  1844.] 
.  .  .  Besides  a  general  interest  about  the  southern  lands,  I 
have  been  now  ever  since  my  return  engaged  in  a  very  pre- 
sumptuous work,  and  I  know  no  one  individual  who  would 
not  say  a  very  foolish  one.  I  was  so  struck  with  the  distri- 
bution 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 
almost  convinced  (quite  contrary  to  the  opinion  I  started 
with)  that  species  are  not  (it  is  like  confessing  a  murder) 
immutable.  Heaven  forfend  me  from  Lamarck  nonsense  of 
a  "  tendency  to  progression,"  "  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  presump- 
tion !)  the  simple  way  by  which  species  become  exquisitely 
adapted  to  various  ends.     You  will  now  groan,  and  think  to 


24  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1844. 

yourself,  "on  what  a  man  have  I  been  wasting  my  time 
and  writing  to."  I  should,  five  years  ago,  have  thought 
so.  .  .  . 

[The  following  letter  written  on  February  23,  1844,  shows 
that  the  acquaintanceship  with  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  was  then 
fast  ripening  into  friendship.  The  letter  is  chiefly  of  interest 
as  showing  the  sort  of  problems  then  occupying  my  father's 
mind  :] 

DEAR  HOOKER, — I  hope  you  will  excuse  the  freedom  of  my 
address,  but  I  feel  that  as  co-circum-wanderers  and  as  fellow 
labourers  (though  myself  a  very  weak  one)  we  may  throw 
aside  some  of  the  old-world  formality.  ...  I  have  just  finished 
a  little  volume  on  the  volcanic  islands  which  we  visited.  I 
do  not  know  how  far  you  care  for  dry  simple  geology,  but  I 
hope  you  will  let  me  send  you  a  copy.  I  suppose  I  can  send 
it  from  London  by  common  coach  conveyance. 

...  I  am  going  to  ask  you  some  more  questions,  though  I 
dare  say,  without  asking  them,  I  shall  see  answers  in  your 
work,  when  published,  which  will  be  quite  time  enough  for 
my  purposes.  First  for  the  Galapagos,  you  will  see  in  my 
Journal,  that  the  Birds,  though  peculiar  species,  have  a  most 
obvious  S.  American  aspect :  I  have  just  ascertained  the 
same  thing  holds  good  with  the  sea-shells.  Is  it  so  with 
those  plants  which  are  peculiar  to  this  archipelago  ;  you  state 
that  their  numerical  proportions  are  continental  (is  not  this  a 
very  curious  fact?)  but  are  they  related  in  forms  to  S. 
America.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  case  of  an  archipelago, 
with  the  separate  islands  possessing  distinct  representative 
species  ?  I  have  always  intended  (but  have  not  yet  done  so) 
to  examine  Webb  and  Berthelot  on  the  Canary  Islands  for 
this  object.  Talking  with  Mr.  Bentham,  he  told  me  that  the 
separate  islands  of  the  Sandwich  Archipelago  possessed 
distinct  representative  species  of  the  same  genera  of  Labiatae  : 
would  not  this  be  worth  your  enquiry  ?     How   is  it  with  the 


1 844.]  GALAPAGOS  FLORA.  2$ 

Azores  ;  to  be   sure  the  heavy  western  gales  would  tend  to 
diffuse  the  same  species  over  that  group. 

I  hope  you  will  (I  dare  say  my  hope  is  quite  superfluous) 
attend  to  this  general  kind  of  affinity  in  isolated  islands, 
though  I  suppose  it  is  more  difficult  to  perceive  this  sort  of 
relation  in  plants,  than  in  birds  or  quadrupeds,  the  groups  of 
which  are,  I  fancy,  rather  more  confined.  Can  St.  Helena 
be  classed,  though  remotely,  either  with  Africa  or  S.  America  ? 
From  some  facts,  which  I  have  collected,  I  have  been  led  to 
conclude  that  the  fauna  of  mountains  are  either  remarkably 
similar  (sometimes  in  the  presence  of  the  same  species  and  at 
other  times  of  same  genera),  or  that  they  are  remarkably 
dissimilar ;  and  it  has  occurred  to  me  that  possibly  part  of 
this  peculiarity  of  the  St.  Helena  and  Galapagos  floras  may 
be  attributed  to  a  great  part  of  these  two  Floras  being 
mountain  Floras.  I  fear  my  notes  will  hardly  serve  to  dis- 
tinguish much  of  the  habitats  of  the  Galapagos  plants,  but 
they  may  in  some  cases  ;  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  green,  leafy 
plants  come  from  the  summits  of  the  islands,  and  the  thin 
brown  leafless  plants  come  from  the  lower  arid  parts  :  would 
you  be  so  kind  as  to  bear  this  remark  in  mind,  when  ex- 
amining my  collection. 

I  will  trouble  you  with  only  one  other  question.  In  dis- 
cussion with  Mr.  Gould,  I  found  that  in  most  of  the  genera 
of  birds  which  range  over  the  whole  or  greater  part  of  the 
world,  the  individual  species  have  wider  ranges,  thus  the  Owl 
is  mundane,  and  many  of  the  species  have  very  wide  ranges. 
So  I  believe  it  is  with  land  and  fresh-water  shells — and  I 
might  adduce  other  cases.  Is  it  not  so  with  Cryptogamic 
plants  ;  have  not  most  of  the  species  wide  ranges,  in  those 
genera  which  are  mundane  ?  I  do  not  suppose  that  the 
converse  holds,  viz. — that  when  a  species  has  a  wide  range, 
its  genus  also  ranges  wide.  Will  you  so  far  oblige  me  by 
occasionally  thinking  over  this?  It  would  cost  me  vast 
trouble  to  get  a  list  of  mundane  phanerogamic  genera  and 


26  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1844. 

then  search  how  far  the  species  of  these  genera  are  apt  to 
range  wide  in  their  several  countries ;  but  you  might  occa- 
sionally, in  the  course  of  your  pursuits,  just  bear  this  in  mind, 
though  perhaps  the  point  may  long  since  have  occurred  to 
you  or  other  Botanists.  Geology  is  bringing  to  light  interest- 
ing facts,  concerning  the  ranges  of  shells  ;  I  think  it  is  pretty 
well  established,  that  according  as  the  geographical  range  of 
a  species  is  wide,  so  is  its  persistence  and  duration  in  time. 
I  hope  you  will  try  to  grudge  as  little  as  you  can  the  trouble 
of  my  letters,  and  pray  believe  me  very  truly  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S.  I  should  feel  extremely  obliged  for  your  kind  offer  of 
the  sketch  of  Humboldt  ;  I  venerate  him,  and  after  having  had 
the  pleasure  of  conversing  with  him  in  London,  I  shall  still 
more  like  to  have  any  portrait  of  him. 

[What  follows  is  quoted  from  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker's  notes. 

"  The  next  act  in  the  drama  of  our  lives  opens  with  personal 
intercourse.  This  began  with  an  invitation  to  breakfast  with 
him  at  his  brother's  (Erasmus  Darwin's)  house  in  Park  Street  ; 
which  was  shortly  afterwards  followed  by  an  invitation  to 
Down  to  meet  a  few  brother  Naturalists.  In  the  short 
intervals  of  good  health  that  followed  the  long  illnesses  which 
oftentimes  rendered  life  a  burthen  to  him,  between  1844  and 
1847,  I  had  many  such  invitations,  and  delightful  they  were. 
A  more  hospitable  and  more  attractive  home  under  every 
point  of  view  could  not  be  imagined — of  Society  there  were 
most  often  Dr.  Falconer,  Edward  Forbes,  Professor  Bell,  and 
Mr.  Waterhouse — there  were  long  walks,  romps  with  the 
children  on  hands  and  knees,  music  that  haunts  me  still. 
Darwin's  own  hearty  manner,  hollow  laugh,  and  thorough 
enjoyment  of  home  life  with  friends  ;  strolls  with  him  all 
together,  and  interviews  with  us  one  by  one  in  his  study,  to 
discuss  questions  in  any  branch  of  biological  or  physical 
knowledge  that  we  had  followed ;  and  which  I  at  any  rate 


1 844.]  sir  j.  d.  hooker's  reminiscences.  27 

always  left  with  the  feeling  that  I  had  imparted  nothing  and 
carried  away  more  than  I  could  stagger  under.  Latterly,  as 
his  health  became  more  seriously  affected,  I  was  for  days  and 
weeks  the  only  visitor,  bringing  my  work  with  me  and 
enjoying  his  society  as  opportunity  offered.  It  was  an 
established  rule  that  he  every  day  pumped  me,  as  he  called 
it,  for  half  an  hour  or  so  after  breakfast  in  his  study,  when 
he  first  brought  out  a  heap  of  slips  with  questions  botanical, 
geographical,  &c,  for  me  to  answer,  and  concluded  by  telling 
me  of  the  progress  he  had  made  in  his  own  work,  asking  my 
opinion  on  various  points.  I  saw  no  more  of  him  till  about 
noon,  when  I  heard  his  mellow  ringing  voice  calling  my 
name  under  my  window — this  was  to  join  him  in  his  daily 
forenoon  walk  round  the  sand- walk.*  On  joining  him  I 
found  him  in  a  rough  grey  shooting-coat  in  summer,  and 
thick  cape  over  his  shoulders  in  winter,  and  a  stout  staff  in 
his  hand  ;  away  we  trudged  through  the  garden,  where  there 
was  always  some  experiment  to  visit,  and  on  to  the  sand- 
walk,  round  which  a  fixed  number  of  turns  were  taken,  during 
which  our  conversation  usually  ran  on  foreign  lands  and  seas, 
old  friends,  old  books,  and  things  far  off  to  both  mind  and 
eye. 

"  In  the  afternoon  there  was  another  such  walk,  after  which 
he  again  retired  till  dinner  if  well  enough  to  join  the  family  ; 
if  not,  he  generally  managed  to  appear  in  the  drawing-room, 
where  seated  in  his  high  chair,  with  his  feet  in  enormous 
carpet  shoes,  supported  on  a  high  stool — he  enjoyed  the 
music  or  conversation  of  his  family," 

Here  follows  a  series  of  letters  illustrating  the  growth 
of  my  father's  views,  and  the  nature  of  his  work  during  this 
period.] 

*  See  Vol.  I.  p.  115. 


28  GROWTH   OF   THE  'ORIGIN.'  [1844. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [1844}. 

.  .  .  The  conclusion,  which  I  have  come  at  is,  that  those 
areas,  in  which  species  are  most  numerous,  have  oftenest 
been  divided  and  isolated  from  other  areas,  united  and  again 
divided  ;  a  process  implying  antiquity  and  some  changes  in 
the  external  conditions.  This  will  justly  sound  very  hypo- 
thetical. I  cannot  give  my  reasons  in  detail  ;  but  the  most 
general  conclusion,  which  the  geographical  distribution  of  all 
organic  beings,  appears  to  me  to  indicate,  is  that  isolation  is 
the  chief  concomitant  or  cause  of  the  appearance  of  new 
forms  (I  well  know  there  are  some  staring  exceptions), 
Secondly,  from  seeing  how  often  the  plants  and  animals 
swarm  in  a  country,  when  introduced  into  it,  and  from  see- 
ing what'  a  vast  number  of  plants  will  live,  for  instance  in 
England,  if  kept  free  from  weeds,  and  native  plants,  I  have 
been  led  to  consider  that  the  spreading  and  number  of  the 
organic  beings  of  any  country  depend  less  on  its  external 
features,  than  on  the  number  of  forms,  which  have  been  there 
originally  created  or  produced.  I  much  doubt  whether  you 
will  find  it  possible  to  explain  the  number  of  forms  by  pro- 
portional differences  of  exposure  ;  and  I  cannot  doubt  if 
half  the  species  in  any  country  were  destroyed  or  had  not 
been  created,  yet  that  country  would  appear  to  us  fully 
peopled.  With  respect  to  original  creation  or  production  of 
new  forms,  I  have  said  that  isolation  appears  the  chief  ele- 
ment. Hence,  with  respect  to  terrestrial  productions,  a  tract 
of  country,  which  had  oftenest  within  the  late  geological  pe- 
riods subsided  and  been  converted  into  islands,  and  reunited, 
I  should  expect  to  contain  most  forms. 

But  such  speculations  are  amusing  only  to  one's  self,  and  in 
this  case  useless,  as  they  do  not  show  any  direct  line  of  obser- 
vation :  if  I  had  seen  how  hypothetical  [is]  the  little,  which  I 


1 844.]  MUTABILITY   OF   SPECIES.  29 

have  unclearly  written,  I  would  not  have  troubled  you  with 
the  reading  of  it.     Believe  me, — at  last  not  hypothetically, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  1844. 

...   I  forget  my  last  letter,  but  it  must  have  been  a  very 
silly  one,  as  it  seems   I   gave  my  notion  of  the  number  of 
species  being   in    great   degree   governed  by  the  degree    to 
which  the  area  had  been  often  isolated  and  divided  ;  I  must 
have  been  cracked  to  have  written  it,  for  I  have  no  evidence, 
without  a  person  be  willing  to  admit  all  my  views,  and  then 
it  does  follow  ;    but  in    my  most  sanguine    moments,  all  I 
•expect,  is  that  I  shall  be  able  to  show  even  to  sound  Natur- 
alists, that  there  are  two  sides  to  the  question  of  the  immut- 
ability 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  immutability.      Agassiz 
lately  has  brought  the  strongest  argument  in  favour  of  immut- 
ability.    Isidore  G.  St.  Hilaire  has  written  some  good  Essays, 
tending  towards  the  mutability-side,  in  the  '  Suites  a  Buffon,' 
entitled  "  Zoolog.  Generale."    Is  it  not  strange  that  the  author 
of  such  a  book  as  the  '  Animaux   sans  Vertebres '    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   wood-pecker  to    climb    trees.      I    believe   all    these 
absurd  views   arise  from  no   one  having,  as   far  as  I  know, 
approached  the  subject  on  the  side  of  variation  under  domest- 


30  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1845. 

ication,  and  having  studied  all  that  is  known  about  domestic- 
ation. I  was  very  glad  to  hear  your  criticism  on  island-floras 
and  on  non-diffusion  of  plants  :  the  subject  is  too  long  for  a 
letter  :  I  could  defend  myself  to  some  considerable  extent, 
but  I  doubt  whether  successfully  in  your  eyes,  or  indeed  in 
my  own.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  [July,  1844.] 

...  I  am  now  reading  a  wonderful  book  for  facts  on 
variation — Bronn,  'Geschichte  der  Natur.'  It  is  stiff  German  : 
it  forestalls  me,  sometimes  I  think  delightfully,  and  some- 
times cruelly.  You  will  be  ten  times  hereafter  more  horrified 
at  me  than  at  H.  Watson.  I  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).  ...  I  must  leave  this 
letter  till  to-morrow,  for  I  am  tired  ;  but  I  so  enjoy  writing 
to  you,  that  I  must  inflict  a  little  more  on  you. 

Have  you  any  good  evidence  for  absence  of  insects  in  small 
islands  ?  I  found  thirteen  species  in  Keeling  Atoll.  Flies 
are  good  fertilizers,  and  I  have  seen  a  microscopic  Thrips 
and  a  Cecidomya  take  flight  from  a  flower  in  the  direction 
of  another  with  pollen  adhering  to  them.  In  Arctic  countries 
a  bee  seems  to  go  as  far  N.  as  any  flower 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Shrewsbury  [September,  1845]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  write  a  line  to  say  that  Cosmos  * 
arrived  quite  safely  (N.B.  One  sheet  came  loose  in  Pt.  I.),  and 
to  thank  you  for  your  nice  note.  I  have  just  begun  the  intro- 
duction, and  groan  over  the  style,  which  in  such  parts  is  full 
half  the  battle.  How  true  many  of  the  remarks  are  {i.e.  as 
far  as  I  can  understand  the  wretched  English)  on  the  scenery  ; 
it  is  an  exact  expression  of  one's  own  thoughts. 

*  A  translation  of  Humboldt's  '  Kosmos.' 


1 845.]  MUTABILITY   OF   SPECIES.  3 1 

I  wish  I  ever  had  any  books  to  lend  you  in  return  for  the 
many  you  have  lent  me.  .  .  . 

All  of  what  you  kindly  say  about  my  species  work  does 
not  alter  one  iota  my  long  self-acknowledged  presumption 
in  accumulating  facts  and  speculating  on  the  subject  of 
variation,  without  having  worked  out  my  due  share  of  species. 
But  now  for  nine  years  it  has  been  anyhow  the  greatest 
amusement  to  me. 

Farewell,  my  dear  Hooker,  I  grieve  more  than  you  can 
well  believe,  over  our  prospect  of  so  seldom  meeting. 

I  have  never  perceived  but  one  fault  in  you,  and  that  you 
have  grievously,  viz.  modesty ;  you  form  an  exception  to 
Sydney  Smith's  aphorism,  that  merit  and  modesty  have  no 
other  connection,  except  in  their  first  letter.     Farewell, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  L.  Jenyns  (Blomefield). 

Down,  Oct.  1 2th  [1845]. 
My  DEAR  JENYNS, — 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 
require,  in  my  case,  some  leisure  and  energy,  both  of  which 
ingredients  I  have  had  none  to  spare,  as  writing  my  Geology 
thoroughly  expends  both.  I  had  always  thought  that  I 
would  keep  a  journal  and  record  everything,  but  in  the  way 
I  now  live  I  find  I  observe  nothing  to  record.  Looking  after 
my  garden  and  trees,  and  occasionally  a  very  little  walk  in 
an  idle  frame  of  my  mind,  fills  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 

*  Mr.  Jenyns'  *  Observations  in  lowed  by  a  "  Calendar  of  Periodic 

Natural    History.'     It   is   prefaced  Phenomena    in   Natural   History," 

by  an  Introduction  on  "  Habits  of  with  "  Remarks  on  the  importance 

observing   as   connected   with   the  of  such  Registers." 
study  of  Natural  History,"  and  fol- 


32  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1845. 

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  perhaps  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 
{i.e.  if  free  from  accidents)  life  of  the  parents  the  number  of 
individuals  will  become  enormous,  and  I  have  been  much 
surprised  to  think  how  great  destruction  miist  annually  or 
occasionally  be  falling  on  every  species,  yet  the  means  and 
period  of  such  destruction  is  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  con- 
clusion, but  I  have  at  least  honestly  and  deliberately  come  to 
it.  I  shall  not  publish  on  this  subject  for  several  years.  At 
present  I  am  on  the  Geology  of  South  America.  I  hope  to 
pick  up  from  your  book  some  facts  on  slight  variations  in 
structure  or  instincts  in  the  animals  of  your  acquaintance. 

Believe  me,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 


1845.]  STRUGGLE   FOR   LIFE.  33 

C.  D arzvii  1  to  L.  Jenyns* 

Down,  [1845?]. 
My  DEAR  JENYNS, — I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for 
the  trouble  you  have  taken  in  having  written  me  so  long 
a  note.  The  question  of  where,  when,  and  how  the  check 
to  the  increase  of  a  given  species  falls  appears  to  me  par 
ticularly  interesting,  and  our  difficulty  in  answering  it  shows 
how  really  ignorant  we  are  of  the  lives  and  habits  of  our  most 
familiar  species.  I  was  aware  of  the  bare  fact  of  old  birds 
driving  away  their  young,  but  had  never  thought  of  the  effect 
you  so  clearly  point  out,  of  local  gaps  in  number  being  thus 
immediately  filled  up.  But  the  original  difficulty  remains  ;  for 
if  your  farmers  had  not  killed  your  sparrows  and  rooks,  what 
would  have  become  of  those  which  now  immigrate  into  your 
parish  ?  in  the  middle  of  England  one  is  too  far  distant  from 
the  natural  limits  of  the  rook  and  sparrow  to  suppose  that 
the  young  are  thus  far  expelled  from  Cambridgeshire.  The 
check  must  fall  heavily  at  some  time  of  each  species'  life  ; 
for,  if  one  calculates  that  only  half  the  progeny  are  reared 
and  bred,  how  enormous  is  the  increase !  One  has,  however, 
no  business  to  feel  so  much  surprise  at  one's  ignorance,  when 
one  knows  how  impossible  it  is  without  statistics  to  con- 
jecture the  duration  of  life  and  percentage  of  deaths  to  births 
in  mankind.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  apparently  the  birds 
of  passage  which  breed  here  and  increase,  return  in  the  suc- 
ceeding years  in  about  the  same  number,  whereas  those  that 
come  here  for  their  winter  and  non-breeding  season  annually, 
come  here  with  the  same  numbers,  but  return  with  greatly 
decreased  numbers,  one  would  know  (as  indeed  seems 
probable)  that  the  check  fell  chiefly  on  full-grown  birds 
in  the  winter  season,  and  not  on  the  eggs  and  very  young 
birds,  which  has  appeared  to  me  often  the  most  probable 
period.     If  at  any  time  any  remarks  on  this  subject  should 

_*  Rev.  L.  Blomefield. 
VOL.  II.  D 


34  GROWTH   OF   THE    'ORIGIN.'  [1845  ? 

occur  to  you,  I  should   be  most  grateful  for  the  benefit  of 
them. 

With  respect  to   my  far  distant  work  on  species,  I  must 
have  expressed  myself  with  singular  inaccuracy  if  I  led  you 
to  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,   I 
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  deter- 
mining 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  presumptuous 
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.     I  am  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 


1846.]  MR.   JENYNS'   'OBSERVATIONS.'  35 

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,  and  believe  me, 

Yours  very  truly, 

C.  Darwin, 


C.  Darwin  to  L.  Jenyns, 

Down,  Oct.  17th,  1846. 

Dear  Jenyns, — I  have  taken  a  most  ungrateful  length 
of  time   in   thanking   you    for   your   very   kind   present   of 
your  '  Observations.'     But  I  happened  to  have  had  in  hand 
several  other  books,  and  have  finished  yours  only  a  few  days 
ago.     I  found   it  very  pleasant  reading,   and   many  of  your 
facts  interested  me  much.     I   think   I  was  more  interested, 
which  is  odd,  with  your  notes  on  some  of  the  lower  animals 
than  on  the  higher  ones.     The  introduction  struck  me  as  very 
good  ;  but  this  is  what  I  expected,  for  I  well  remember  being 
quite  delighted  with  a  preliminary  essay  to  the  first  number 
of  the  '  Annals  of  Natural  History.'     I  missed  one  discussion, 
and  think  myself  ill-used,  for   I   remember  your  saying  you 
would  make  some  remarks  on  the  weather  and  barometer, 
as  a  guide  for  the  ignorant  in  prediction.     I  had  also  hoped 
to  have  perhaps  met   with  some  remarks  on  the  amount  of 
variation    in    our   common   species.      Andrew    Smith    once 
declared  he  would  get  some  hundreds  of  specimens  of  larks 
and  sparrows  from  all  parts  of  Great  Britain,  and  see  whether, 
with  finest  measurements,  he  could  detect  any  proportional 
variations   in  beaks  or  limbs,  &c.     This  point  interests  me 
from  having  lately  been  skimming  over  the  absurdly  opposite 
conclusions  of  Gloger  and  Brehm ;  the  one  making  half-a- 
dozen    species   out   of  every   common    bird,   and   the   other 

D  2 


36  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [ 1 84.6. 

turning  so  many  reputed  species  into  one.  Have  you  ever 
done  anything  of  this  kind,  or  have  you  ever  studied  Gloger's 
or  Brehm's  works  ?  I  was  interested  in  your  account  of  the 
martins,  for  I  had  just  before  been  utterly  perplexed  by 
noticing  just  such  a  proceeding  as  you  describe  :  I  counted 
seven,  one  day  lately,  visiting  a  single  nest  and  sticking  dirt 
on  the  adjoining  wall.  I  may  mention  that  I  once  saw  some 
squirrels  eagerly  splitting  those  little  semi-transparent 
spherical  galls  on  the  back  of  oak-leaves  for  the  maggot 
within  ;  so  that  they  are  insectivorous.  A  Cychrus  rostratus 
once  squirted  into  my  eyes  and  gave  me  extreme  pain  ;  and 
I  must  tell  you  what  happened  to  me  on  the  banks  of  the 
Cam,  in  my  early  entomological  days :  under  a  piece  of 
bark  I  found  two  Carabi  (I  forget  which),  and  caught  one  in 
each  hand,  when  lo  and  behold  I  saw  a  sacred  Panagcens  crux 
major  I  I  could  not  bear  to  give  up  either  of  my  Carabi,  and 
to  lose  Panag&us  was  out  of  the  question ;  so  that  in  despair 
I  gently  seized  one  of  the  Carabi  between  my  teeth,  when  to 
my  unspeakable  disgust  and  pain  the  little  inconsiderate 
beast  squirted  his  acid  down  my  throat,  and  I  lost  both  Carabi 
and  Panagceus !  I  was  quite  astonished  to  hear  of  a  terres- 
trial Planaria ;  for  about  a  year  or  two  ago  I  described  in  the 
'  Annals  of  Natural  History'  several  beautifully  coloured 
terrestrial  species  of  the  Southern  Hemisphere,  and  thought  it 
quite  a  new  fact.  By  the  way,  you  speak  of  a  sheep  with  a 
broken  leg  not  having  flukes  :  I  have  heard  my  father  aver 
that  a  fever,  or  any  serioiis  accident,  as  a  broken  limb,  will 
cause  in  a  man  all  the  intestinal  worms  to  be  evacuated. 
Might  not  this  possibly  have  been  the  case  with  the  flukes  in 
their  early  state  ? 

I  hope  you  were  none  the  worse  for  Southampton  ;  *  I  wish 

I  had   seen  you  looking  rather  fatter.     I   enjoyed  my  week 

extremely,  and  it  did  me  good.     I   missed  you  the  last  few 

days,  and  we  never  managed  to  see  much  of  each  other ;  but 

*  The  meeting  of  the  British  Association. 


1 849.]  VARIABILITY.  37 

there  were  so  many  people  there,  that  I  for  one  hardly  saw 
anything  of  any  one.  Once  again  I  thank  you  very  cordially 
for  your  kind  present,  and  the  pleasure  it  has  given  me,  and 
believe  me, 

Ever  most  truly  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  have  quite  forgotten  to  say  how  greatly  interested  I 
was  with  your  discussion  on  the  statistics  of  animals  :  when 
will  Natural  History  be  so  perfect  that  such  points  as  you 
discuss  will  be  perfectly  known  about  any  one  animal  ? 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Malvern,  June  13  [1849]. 

...  At  last  I  am  going  to  press  with  a  small  poor 
first-fruit  of  my  confounded  Cirripedia,  viz.  the  fossil  ped- 
unculate cirripedia.  You  ask  what  effect  studying  species 
has  had  on  my  variation  theories  ;  I  do  not  think  much — I 
have  felt  some  difficulties  more.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have 
been  struck  (and  probably  unfairly  from  the  class)  with  the 
variability  of  every  part  in  some  slight  degree  of  every 
species.  When  the  same  organ  is  rigorously  compared  in 
many  individuals,  I  always  find  some  slight  variability,  and 
consequently  that  the  diagnosis  of  species  from  minute 
differences  is  always  dangerous.  I  had  thought  the  same 
parts  of  the  same  species  more  resemble  (than  they  do 
anyhow  in  Cirripedia)  objects  cast  in  the  same  mould. 
Systematic  work  would  be  easy  were  it  not  for  this  con- 
founded variation,  which,  however,  is  pleasant  to  me  as 
a  speculatist,  though  odious  to  me  as  a  systematist.  Your 
remarks  on  the  distinctness  (so  unpleasant  to  me)  of  the 
Himalayan  Rubi,  willows,  &c,  compared  with  those  of 
northern  [Europe  ?],  &c,  are  very  interesting ;  if  my  rude 
species-sketch  had  any  small  share  in  leading  you  to  these 


38 


GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.' 


[1849. 


observations,  it  has  already  done  good  and  ample  service,  and 
may  lay  its  bones  in  the  earth  in  peace.  I  never  heard  any- 
thing so  strange  as  Falconer's  neglect  of  your  letters  ;  I  am 
extremely  glad  you  are  cordial  with  him  again,  though  it 
must  have  cost  you  an  effort.  Falconer  is  a  man  one  must 
love.  .  .  .  May  you  prosper  in  every  way,  my  dear  Hooker. 

Your  affectionate  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Danvin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Wednesday,  [September,  n.  d.] 
.  .  .  Many  thanks  for  your  letter  received  yesterday,  which, 
as  always,  set  me  thinking :  I  laughed  at  your  attack  at  my 
stinginess  in  changes  of  level  towards  Forbes,*  being  so 
liberal  towards  myself;  but  I  must  maintain,  that  I  have 
never  let  down  or  upheaved  our  mother-earth's  surface,  for 
the  sake  of  explaining  any  one  phenomenon,  and  I  trust  I 
have  very  seldom  done  so  without  some  distinct  evidence. 
So  I  must  still  think  it  a  bold  step  (perhaps  a  very  true  one) 
to  sink  into  the  depths  of  ocean,  within  the  period  of  existing 
species,  so  large  a  tract  of  surface.  But  there  is  no  amount 
or  extent  of  change  of  level,  which  I  am  not  fully  prepared 
to  admit,  but  I  must  say  I  should  like  better  evidence,  than 
the  identity  of  a  few  plants,  which  possibly  (I  do  not  say 
probably)  might  have  been  otherwise  transported.    Particular 


*  Edward  Forbes,  born  in  the 
Isle  of  Man  1815,  died  1854.  His 
best  known  work  was  his  Report 
on  the  distribution  of  marine 
animals  at  different  depths  in  the 
Mediterranean.  An  important 
memoir  of  his  is  referred  to  in  my 
father's  'Autobiography,'  p.  88.  He 
held  successively  the  posts  of  Cura- 
tor to  the  Geological  Society's 
Museum,  and  Professor  of  Natural 
History  in  the  Museum  of  Practical 


Geology  ;  shortly  before  he  died  he 
was  appointed  Professor  of  Natural 
History  in  the  University  of  Edin- 
burgh. He  seems  to  have  im- 
pressed his  contemporaries  as  a 
man  of  strikingly  versatile  and 
vigorous  mind.  The  above  allu- 
sion to  changes  of  level  refers  to 
Forbes's  tendency  to  explain  the 
facts  of  geographical  distribution 
by  means  of  an   active  geological 


imagination. 


I853-]  LAMARCK,  THE   '  VESTIGES.'  39 

thanks  for  your  attempt  to  get  me  a  copy  of  '  L'Espece,'  *  and 
almost  equal  thanks  for  your  criticisms  on  him  :  I  rather 
misdoubted  him,  and  felt  not  much  inclined  to  take  as  gospel 
his  facts.  I  find  this  one  of  my  greatest  difficulties  with 
foreign  authors,  viz.  judging  of  their  credibility.  How  pain- 
fully (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, 
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  indispensable 
union)  ;  and  though  I  shall  get  more  kicks  than  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  dis- 
believed 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.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  September  25th  [1853]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  have  read  your  paper  with  great 
interest ;  it  seems  all  very  clear,  and  will  form  an  admirable 
introduction  to  the  New  Zealand  Flora,  or  to  any  Flora  in  the 
world.     How  few  generalizers  there  are  among  systematists  ; 

*  Probably  Godron's  essay,  pub-  in  1848-49,  and  afterwards  as  a 
lished  by  the  Academy  of  Nancy      separate  book  in  1859. 


40  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1853. 

I  really  suspect  there  is  something  absolutely  opposed  to  each 
other  and  hostile  in  the  two  frames  of  mind  required  for 
systematising  and  reasoning  on  large  collections  of  facts. 
Many  of  your  arguments  appear  to  me  very  well  put,  and, 
as  far  as  my  experience  goes,  the  candid  way  in  which  you 
discuss  the  subject  is  unique.  The  whole  will  be  very  useful 
to  me  whenever  I  undertake  my  volume,  though  parts  take 
the  wind  very  completely  out  of  my  sails  ;  it  will  be  ail  nuts 
to  me  .  .  .  for  I  have  for  some  time  determined  to  give  the 
arguments  on  both  sides  (as  far  as  I  could),  instead  of  arguing 
on  the  mutability  side  alone. 

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  disbelieving  in  the  mere  permanence  of  species  has  made 

much   difference  one  way  or  the  other  ;  in  some  few  cases 

(if  publishing  avowedly  on  the  doctrine  of  non-permanence), 

I    should    not  have   affixed    names,  and    in   some   few  cases 

should  have  affixed  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  a  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. 

I    am  heartily  glad   to   hear   your  Journal  f    is   so    much 
advanced  ;    how   magnificently   it   seems   to   be   illustrated  ! 

*  In  '  Bleak  House.'  f  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker's  '  Himalayan  Journal.' 


1 853.]  NEW  ZEALAND   FLORA.  4 1 

An  '  Oriental  Naturalist',  with  lots  of  imagination  and  not 
too  much  regard  to  facts,  is  just  the  man  to  discuss  species! 
I  think  your  title  of  c  A  Journal  of  a  Naturalist  in  the  East ' 
very  good;  but  whether  "in  the  Himalaya"  would  not  be 
better,  I  have  doubted,  for  the  East  sounds  rather  vague.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

[1853.] 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  have  no  remarks  at  all  worth 
sending  you,  nor,  indeed,  was  it  likely  that  I  should,  con- 
sidering how  perfect  and  elaborated  an  essay  it  is.*  As  far 
as  my  judgment  goes,  it  is  the  most  important  discussion 
on  the  points  in  question  ever  published.  I  can  say  no  more. 
I  agree  with  almost  everything  you  say  ;  but  I  require  much 
time  to  digest  an  essay  of  such  quality.  It  almost  made  me 
gloomy,  partly  from  feeling  I  could  not  answer  some  points 
which  theoretically  I  should  have  liked  to  have  been  different, 
and  partly  from  seeing  so  far  better  done  than  I  could  have 
done,  discussions  on  some  points  which  I  had  intended  to 
have  taken  up.  .  .  . 

I  much  enjoyed  the  slaps  you  have  given  to  the  provincial 
species-mongers.  I  wish  I  could  have  been  of  the  slightest 
use :  I  have  been  deeply  interested  by  the  whole  essay,  and 
congratulate  you  on  having  produced  a  memoir  which  I 
believe  will  be  memorable.  I  was  deep  in  it  when  your 
most  considerate  note  arrived,  begging  me  not  to  hurry.  I 
thank  Mrs.  Hooker  and  yourself  most  sincerely  for  your  wish 
to  see  me.  I  will  not  let  another  summer  pass  without 
seeing  you  at  Kew,  for  indeed  I  should  enjoy  it  much.  .  .  . 

You  do  me  really  more  honour  than  I  have  any  claim  to, 
putting  me  in  after  Lyell  on  ups  and  downs.  In  a  year 
or  two's  time,  when   I   shall  be  at  my  species  book  (if  I  do 


*  i 


New  Zealand  Flora,'  1853. 


42 


GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.' 


[1854. 


not  break  down),  I  shall  gnash  my  teeth  and  abuse  you  for 
having  put  so  many  hostile  facts  so  confoundedly  well. 

Ever  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  March  26th  [1854]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER,— 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  somewhat  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  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  acquaintances,  and  that  I  would  endeavour  to 
go  oftener  to  London  ;  I  was  not  then  thinking  of  the  Club, 
which,  as  far  as  any  one  thing  goes,  would  answer  my  exact 
object  in  keeping  up  old  and  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 


*  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  culti- 
vating the  various  branches  of 
Natural  Science,  and  who  have 
contributed  to  its  progress  ;  to  in- 
crease 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 
quitted  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. 


1 8  54-]  HUMBOLDT — AGASSIZ.  43 

grievous  how  often  any  change  knocks  me  up.  I  will  further 
pledge  myself,  as  I  told  Lyell,  to  resign  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.  Very  many  thanks  for  answers 
about  Glaciers.  I  am  very  glad  to  hear  of  the  second  Edit.* 
so  very  soon  ;  but  am  not  surprised,  for  I  have  heard  of 
several,  in  our  small  circle,  reading  it  with  very  much  pleasure. 
I  shall  be  curious  to  hear  what  Humboldt  will  say  :  it  will,  I 
should  think,  delight  him,  and  meet  with  more  praise  from 
him  than  any  other  book  of  Travels,  for  I  cannot  remember 
one,  which  has  so  many  subjects  in  common  with  him.  What 
a  wonderful  old  fellow  he  is.  ...  .  By  the  way,  I  hope, 
when  you  go  to  Hitcham,|  towards  the  end  of  May,  you  will 
be  forced  to  have  some  rest.  I  am  grieved  to  hear  that  all 
the  bad  symptoms  have  not  left  Henslow  ;  it  is  so  strange 
and  new  to  feel  any  uneasiness  about  his  health.  I  am 
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.  .  .  . 
It  is  delightful  to  hear  all  that  he  says  on  Agassiz  :  how  very 
singular  it  is  that  so  eminently  clever  a  man,  with  such 
immense  knowledge  on  many  branches  of  Natural  History, 
should  write  as  he  does.  Lyell  told  me  that  he  was  so 
delighted  with  one  of  his  (Agassiz')  lectures  on  progressive 
development,  &c.  &c,  that  he  went  to  him  afterwards  and 
told  him,  "  that  it  was  so  delightful,  that  he  could  not  help 
all  the  time  wishing  it  was  true."  I  seldom  see  a  Zoological 
paper  from  North  America,  without  observing  the  impress  of 
Agassiz'  doctrines, — another  proof,  by  the  way,  of  how  great 
a  man  he  is.  I  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. 

*  Of  the  Himalayan  Journal.  f  Henslow's  living. 


44  GROWTH   OF    THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1854. 

How  awfully  flat  I  shall  feel,  if,  when  I  get  my  notes  together 
on  species,  &c.  &c.,  the  whole  thing  explodes  like  an  empty 
puff-ball.     Do  not  work  yourself  to  death. 

Ever  yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Nov.  5th  [1854]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  was  delighted  to  get  your  note 
yesterday.  I  congratulate  you  very  heartily,*  and  whether 
you  care  much  or  little,  I  rejoice  to  see  the  highest  scientific 
judgment-court  in  Great  Britain  recognise  your  claims.  I  do 
hope  Mrs.  Hooker  is  pleased,  and  E.  desires  me  particularly 
to  send  her  cordial  congratulations.  ...  I  pity  you  from  the 
very  bottom  of  my  heart  about  your  after-dinner  speech, 
which  I  fear  I  shall  not  hear.  Without  you  have  a  very 
much  greater  soul  than  I  have  (and  I  believe  that  you  have), 
you  will  find  the  medal  a  pleasant  little  stimulus  ;  when  work 
goes  badly,  and  one  ruminates  that  all  is  vanity,  it  is  pleasant 
to  have  some  tangible  proof,  that  others  have  thought  some- 
thing of  one's  labours. 

Good-bye,  my  dear  Hooker,  I  can  assure  [you]  that  we 
both  most  truly  enjoyed  your  and  Mrs.  Hooker's  visit  here. 
Farewell. 

My  dear  Hooker,  your  sincere  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

March  7  [1855]. 
...  I    have   just   finished   working   well    at  Wollaston's  f 
*  Insecta  Maderensia  '  :  it  is  an  admirable  work.     There  is  a 

*  On  the  award  to  him  of  the  1878.      His    health     forcing    him 

Royal  Society's  Medal.  in    early    manhood   to    winter    in 

t   Thomas   Vernon   Wollaston,  the   south,  he   devoted  himself  to 

born  March  9,  1821  ;  died  Jan.   4,  a     study    of    the     Coleoptera     of 


I855-] 


IXSECTA   MADERENSIA. 


45 


very  curious  point  in  the  astounding  proportion  of  Coleoptera 
that  are  apterous  ;  and  I  think  I  have  guessed  the  reason, 
viz.  that  powers  of  flight  would  be  injurious  to  insects  inhab- 
iting a  confined  locality,  and  expose  them  to  be  blown  to  the 
sea  :  to  test  this,  I  find  that  the  insects  inhabiting  the  Dezerte 
Grande,  a  quite  small  islet,  would  be  still  more  exposed  to 
this  danger,  and  here  the  proportion  of  apterous  insects  is 
even  considerably  greater  than  on  Madeira  proper.  Wollaston 
speaks  of  Madeira  and  the  other  Archipelagoes  as  being 
"sure  and  certain  witnesses  of  Forbes'  old  continent,"  and  of 
course  the  Entomological  world  implicitly  follows  this  view. 
But  to  my  eyes  it  would  be  difficult  to  imagine  facts  more 
opposed  to  such  a  view.  It  is  really  disgusting  and  humil- 
iating to  see  directly  opposite  conclusions  drawn  from  the 
same  facts. 

I  have  had  some  correspondence  with  Wollaston  on  this 
and  other  subjects,  and  I  find  that  he  coolly  assumes,  (i)  that 
formerly  insects  possessed  greater  migratory  powers  than 
now,  (2)  that  the  old  land  was  specially  rich  in  centres  of 
creation,  (3)  that  the  uniting  land  was  destroyed  before  the 
special  creations  had  time  to  diffuse,  and  (4)  that  the  land 
was  broken  down  before  certain  families  and  genera  had 
time  to  reach  from  Europe  or  Africa  the  points  of  land  in 
question.  Are  not  these  a  jolly  lot  of  assumptions  ?  and  yet 
I  shall  see  for  the  next  dozen  or  score  of  years  Wollaston 


Madeira,  the  Cape  de  Verdes, 
and  St.  Helena,  whence  he  deduced 
evidence  in  support  of  the  belief 
in  the  submerged  continent  of 
'Atlantis.'  In  an  obituary  notice 
by  Mr.  Rye  ('Nature,'  1878)  he 
is  described  as  working  persis- 
tently "  upon  a  broad  conception  of 
the  science  to  which  he  was  de- 
voted," while  being  at  the  same 
time  "accurate,  elaborate,  and 
precise  ad  fiunctum,  and  naturally 


of  a  minutely  critical  habit."  His 
first  scientific  paper  was  written 
when  he  was  an  undergraduate  at 
Jesus  College,  Cambridge.  While 
at  the  University,  he  was  an  Asso- 
ciate and  afterwards  a  Member  of 
the  Ray  Club  :  this  is  a  small 
society  which  still  meets  once  a 
week,  and  where  the  undergraduate 
members,  or  Associates,  receive 
much  kindly  encouragement  from 
their  elders. 


46  GROWTH   OF  THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1855. 

quoted    as   proving   the   former   existence   of   poor   Forbes' 
Atlantis. 

I  hope  I  have  not  wearied  you,  but  I  thought  you  would 
like  to  hear  about  this  book,  which  strikes  me  as  excellent  in 
its  facts,  and  the  author  a  most  nice  and  modest  man. 

Most  truly  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Down,  March  19th  [1855]. 
My  dear  Fox, — How  long  it  is  since  we  have  had  any 
communication,  and  I  really  want  to  hear  how  the  world 
goes  with  you  ;  but  my  immediate  object  is  to  ask  you  to 
observe  a  point  for  me,  and  as  I  know  now  you  are  a  very 
busy  man  with  too  much  to  do,  I  shall  have  a  good  chance 
of  your  doing  what  I  want,  as  it  would  be  hopeless  to  ask  a 
quite  idle  man.  As  you  have  a  Noah's  Ark,  I  do  not  doubt 
that  you  have  pigeons.  (How  I  wish  by  any  chance  they  were 
fantails  !)  Now  what  I  want  to  know  is,  at  what  age  nestling 
pigeons  have  their  tail  feathers  sufficiently  developed  to  be 
counted.  I  do  not  think  I  ever  saw  a  young  pigeon.  I  am 
hard  at  work  at  my  notes  collecting  and  comparing  them,  in 
order  in  some  two  or  three  years  to  write  a  book  with  all  the 
facts  and  arguments,  which  I  can  collect,  for  and  versus  the 
immutability  of  species.  I  want  to  get  the  young  of  our 
domestic  breeds,  to  see  how  young,  and  to  what  degree  the 
differences  appear.  I  must  either  breed  myself  (which  is  no 
amusement  but  a  horrid  bore  to  me)  the  pigeons  or  buy  their 
young ;  and  before  I  go  to  a  seller,  whom  I  have  heard  of 
from  Yarrell,  I  am  really  anxious  to  know  something  about 
their  development,  not  to  expose  my  excessive  ignorance, 
and  therefore  be  excessively  liable  to  be  cheated  and  gulled. 
With  respect  to  the  one  point  of  the  tail  feathers,  it  is  of 
course  in  relation  to  the  wonderful  development  of  tail  feathers 
in  the  adult  fantail.     If  you  had  any  breed  of  poultry  pure,  I 


I855-]  FEATHERS — SKELETONS.  47 

would  beg  a  chicken  with  exact  age  stated,  about  a  week  or  fort- 
night old !  to  be  sent  in  a  box  by  post,  if  you  could  have  the  heart 
to  kill  one  ;  and  secondly,  would  let  me  pay  postage  .  .  .  Indeed, 
I  should  be  very  glad  to  have  a  nestling  common  pigeon  sent, 
for  I  mean  to  make  skeletons,  and  have  already  just  begun 
comparing  wild  and  tame  ducks.  And  I  think  the  results 
rather  curious,*  for  on  weighing  the  several  bones  very  care- 
fully, when  perfectly  cleaned  the  proportional  weights  of  the 
two  have  greatly  varied,  the  foot  of  the  tame  having  largely 
increased.  How  I  wish  I  could  get  a  little  wild  duck  of  a 
week  old,  but  that  I  know  is  almost  impossible. 

With  respect  to  ourselves,  I  have  not  much  to  say ;  we 
have  now  a  terribly  noisy  house  with  the  whooping  cough, 
but  otherwise  are  all  well.  Far  the  greatest  fact  about  myself 
is  that  I  have  at  last  quite  done  with  the  everlasting  barnacles. 
At  the  end  of  the  year  we  had  two  of  our  little  boys  very  ill 
with  fever  and  bronchitis,  and  all  sorts  of  ailments.  Partly 
for  amusement,  and  partly  for  change  of  air,  we  went  to 
London  and  took  a  house  for  a  month,  but  it  turned  out 
a  great  failure,  for  that  dreadful  frost  just  set  in  when  we 
went,  and  all  our  children  got  unwell,  and  E.  and  I  had 
coughs  and  colds  and  rheumatism  nearly  all  the  time.  We 
had  put  down  first  on  our  list  of  things  to  do,  to  go  and 
see  Mrs.  Fox,  but  literally  after  waiting  some  time  to  see 
whether  the  weather  would  not  improve,  we  had  not  a  day 
when  we  both  could  go  out. 

I  do  hope  before  very  long  you  will  be  able  to  manage 
to  pay  us  a  visit.  Time  is  slipping  away,  and  we  are 
getting  oldish.  Do  tell  us  about  yourself  and  all  your  large 
family. 

I    know   you  will   help   me   if  you  can  with   information 

*  "  I  have  just  been  testing  prac-  find  the  tame-duck  wing  ought,  ac- 

tically  what  disuse  does  in  reducing  cording  to  scale  of  wild  prototype, 

parts  ;    I    have   made    skeleton   of  to  have  its  two  wings  360  grains  in 

wild  and  tame  duck  (oh,  the  smell  weight,  but  it  has  it  only  317." — 

of  well-boiled,  high  duck  !  !)  and  I  A  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  1855. 


48  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1855. 

about  the  young  pigeons ;  and  anyhow  do  write  before  very 
long. 

My  dear  Fox,  your  sincere  old  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — Amongst  all  sorts  of  odds  and  ends,  with  which  I  am 
amusing  myself,  I  am  comparing  the  seeds  of  the  variations 
of  plants.  I  had  formerly  some  wild  cabbage  seeds,  which  I 
gave  to  some  one,  was  it  to  you  ?  It  is  a  thousand  to  one  it 
was  thrown  away,  if  not  I  should  be  very  glad  of  a  pinch  of  it. 

[The  following  extract  from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Fox  (March  27th, 
1855)  refers  to  the  same  subject  as  the  last  letter,  and  gives 
some  account  of  the  "  species  work  :"  "  The  way  I  shall  kill 
young  things  will  be  to  put  them  under  a  tumbler  glass  with  a 
teaspoon  of  ether  or  chloroform,  the  glass  being  pressed  down 
on  some  yielding  surface,  and  leave  them  for  an  hour  or  two, 
young  have  such  power  of  revivification.     (I  have  thus  killed 
moths  and  butterflies.)     The  best  way  would  be  to  send  them 
as  you   procure  them,  in    pasteboard  chip-boxes  by  post,  on 
which  you  could  write  and  just  tie  up  with  string  ;  and  you  will 
really  make  me  happier  by  allowing  me  to  keep  an  account 
of  postage,  &c.     Upon  my  word  I  can  hardly  believe  that 
any  one  could  be  so  good-natured  as  to  take  such  trouble 
and  do  such  a  very  disagreeable  thing  as  kill  babies  ;  and  I 
am  very  sure  I  do  not  know  one  soul  who,  except  yourself, 
would  do  so.      I  am   going  to  ask  one  thing  more  ;  should 
old  hens  of  any  above  poultry  (not  duck)  die  or  become  so 
old   as  to  be  7iseless,  I  wish  you  would  send  her  to  me  per 
rail,  addressed  to  '  C.  Darwin,  care  of  Mr.  Acton,  Post-office, 
Bromley,   Kent.'     Will  you  keep  this  address  ?    as   shortest 
way  for  parcels.     But  I  do  not  care  so  much  for  this,  as  I 
could  buy  the  old  birds  dead  at  Baily's  to  make  skeletons. 
I  should  have  written  at  once  even  if  I  had  not  heard  from 
you,  to  beg  you  not  to  take  trouble  about  pigeons,  for  Yarrell 
has  persuaded  me  to  attempt  it,  and  I  am  now  fitting  up  a 


1 85 5.]  MUTABILITY   OF   SPECIES.  49 

place,  and  have  written  to  Baily  about  prices,  &c.  &c.  Some- 
time (when  you  are  better)  I  should  like  very  much  to  hear 
a  little  about  your  "  Little  Call  Duck  "  ;  why  so  called  ?  And 
where  you  got  it  ?  and  what  it  is  like  ?  .  .  .  I  was  so  ignorant 
I  did  not  even  know  there  were  three  varieties  of  Dorking 
fowl :  how  do  they  differ  ?  .  .  . 

I  forget  whether  I  ever  told  you  what  the  object  of  my 
present  work  is, — it  is  to  view  all  facts  that  I  can  master 
(eheu,  eheu,  how  ignorant  I  find  I  am)  in  Natural  History 
(as  on  geographical  distribution,  palaeontology,  classification, 
hybridism,  domestic  animals  and  plants,  &c.  &c.  &c.)  to  see 
how  far  they  favour  or  are  opposed  to  the  notion  that  wild 
species  are  mutable  or  immutable  :  I  mean  with  my  utmost 
power  to  give  all  arguments  and  facts  on  both  sides.  I  have 
a  number  of  people  helping  me  in  every  way,  and  giving  me 
most  valuable  assistance ;  but  I  often  doubt  whether  the 
subject  will  not  quite  overpower  me. 

So  much  for  the  quasi-business  part  of  my  letter.  I  am 
very  very  sorry  to  hear  so  indifferent  an  account  of  your 
health  :  with  your  large  family  your  life  is  very  precious,  and 
I  am  sure  with  all  your  activity  and  goodness  it  ought  to 
be  a  happy  one,  or  as  happy  as  can  reasonably  be  expected 
with  all  the  cares  of  futurity  on  one. 

One  cannot  expect  the  present  to  be  like  the  old  Crux- 
major  days  at  the  foot  of  those  noble  willow  stumps,  the 
memory  of  which  I  revere.  I  now  find  my  little  entomology, 
which  I  wholly  owe  to  you,  comes  in  very  useful.  I  am  very 
glad  to  hear  that  you  have  given  yourself  a  rest  from  Sunday 
duties.  How  much  illness  you  have  had  in  your  life ! 
Farewell,  my  dear  Fox.  I  assure  you  I  thank  you  heartily 
for  your  proffered  assistance."] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Down,  May  7th  [1855]. 
My  DEAR  Fox, — My  correspondence  has  cost  you  a  deal  of 
trouble,  though  this  note  will  not.     I  found  yours  on  my  return 
VOL.  II.  E 


50  GROWTH   OF  THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1855. 

home  'on  Saturday  after  a  week's  work  in  London.  Whilst 
there  I  saw  Yarrell,  who  told  me  he  had  carefully  examined 
all  points  in  the  Call  Duck,  and  did  not  feel  any  doubt 
about  it  being  specifically  identical,  and  that  it  had  crossed 
freely  with  common  varieties  in  St.  James's  Park.  I  should 
therefore  be  very  glad  for  a  seven-days'  duckling  and  for  one 
of  the  old  birds,  should  one  ever  die  a  natural  death.  Yarrell 
told  me  that  Sabine  had  collected  forty  varieties  of  the 
common  duck  !  . . .  Well,  to  return  to  business  ;  nobody,  I  am 
sure,  could  fix  better  for  me  than  you  the  characteristic  age  of 
little  chickens ;  with  respect  to  skeletons,  I  have  feared  it 
would  be  impossible  to  make  them,  but  I  suppose  I  shall  be 
able  to  measure  limbs,  &c,  by  feeling  the  joints.  What  you 
say  about  old  cocks  just  confirms  what  I  thought,  and  I  will 
make  my  skeletons  of  old  cocks.  Should  an  old  wild  turkey 
ever  die,  please  remember  me  ;  I  do  not  care  for  a  baby  tur- 
key, nor  for  a  mastiff.  Very  many  thanks  for  your  offer.  I 
have  puppies  of  bull-dogs  and  greyhound  in  salt,  and  I  have 
had  cart-horse  and  race-horse  young  colts  carefully  mea- 
sured. Whether  I  shall  do  any  good  I  doubt.  I  am  getting 
out  of  my  depth.     Most  truly  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

[An  extract  from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Fox  may  find  a  place 
here,  though  of  a  later  date,  viz.  July,  1855  : 

"  Many  thanks  for  the  seven  days  old  white  Dorking,  and 
for  the  other  promised  ones.  I  am  getting  quite  '  a  chamber 
of  horrors ; '  I  appreciate  your  kindness  even  more  than 
before,  for  I  have  done  the  black  deed  and  murdered  an 
angelic  little  fantail,  and  a  pouter  at  ten  days  old.  I  tried 
chloroform  and  ether  for  the  first,  and  though  evidently  a 
perfectly  easy  death,  it  was  prolonged  ;  and  for  the  second  I 
tried  putting  lumps  of  cyanide  of  potassium  in  a  very  large 
damp   bottle,   half  an  hour  before  putting    in   the   pigeon, 


1855.]  PIGEON    FANCYING.  5 1 

and  the  prussic  acid  gas   thus   generated   was  very  quickly 
fatal." 

A  letter  to  Mr.  Fox  (May  23rd,  1855)  gives  the  first 
mention  of  my  father's  laborious  piece  of  work  on  the 
breeding  of  pigeons  : 

"  I  write  now  to  say  that  I  have  been  looking  at  some  of 
our  mongrel  chickens,  and   I  should  say  one  week  old  would 
do  very  well.     The  chief  points  which  I  am,  and  have  been 
for  years,   very  curious    about,   is   to   ascertain   whether   the 
yotuig  of  our  domestic  breeds  differ  as  much  from  each  other 
as  do  their  parents,  and  I  have  no  faith  in  anything  short 
of  actual  measurement  and  the  Rule  of  Three.     I  hope  and 
believe  I  am  not  giving  so  much  trouble  without  a  motive  of 
sufficient  worth.     I  have  got  my  fantails  and  pouters  (choice 
birds,  I  hope,  as  I  paid  20s.  for  each  pair  from  Baily)  in  a 
grand  cage  and  pigeon-house,  and  they  are  a  decided  amuse- 
ment to  me,  and  delight  to  H." 

In  the  course  of  my  father's  pigeon-fancying  enterprise  he 
necessarily  became  acquainted  with  breeders,  and  was  fond  of 
relating  his  experiences  as  a  member  of  the  Columbarian 
and  Philoperistera  Clubs,  where  he  met  the  purest  enthusiasts 
of  the  "  fancy,"  and  learnt  much  of  the  mysteries  of  their  art. 
In  writing  to  Mr.  Huxley  some  years  afterwards,  he  quotes 
from  a  book  on  Pigeons  by  Mr.  J.  Eaton,  in  illustration  of 
the  "  extreme  attention  and  close  observation  "  necessary  to 
be  a  good  fancier. 

"  In  his  [Mr.  Eaton's]  treatise,  devoted  to  the  Almond 
Tumbler  alone,  which  is  a  sub-variety  of  the  short-faced 
variety,  which  is  a  variety  of  the  Tumbler,  as  that  is  of  the 
Rock-pigeon,  Mr.  Eaton  says  :  '  There  are  some  of  the 
young  fanciers  who  are  over-covetous,  who  go  for  all  the 
five  properties  at  once  {i.e.  the  five  characteristic  points 
which  are  mainly  attended  to, — C.  D.),  they  have  their  reward 

E  2 


52  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1855. 

by  getting  nothing.'  In  short,  it  is  almost  beyond  the  human 
intellect  to  attend  to  all  the  excellencies  of  the  Almond 
Tumbler ! 

"  To  be  a  good  breeder,  and  to  succeed  in  improving  any 
breed,  beyond  everything  enthusiasm  is  required.  Mr.  Eaton 
has  gained  lots  of  prizes,  listen  to  him. 

" '  If  it  was  possible  for  noblemen  and  gentlemen  to  know 
the  amazing  amount  of  solace  and  pleasure  derived  from  the 
Almond  Tumbler,  when  they  begin  to  understand  their  {i.e. 
the  tumbler's)  properties,  I  should  think  that  scarce  any 
nobleman  or  gentleman  would  be  without  their  aviaries  of 
Almond  Tumblers.' " 

My  father  was  fond  of  quoting  this  passage,  and  always 
with  a  tone  of  fellow-feeling  for  the  author,  though,  no  doubt, 
he  had  forgotten  his  own  wonderings  as  a  child  that  "  every 
gentleman  did  not  become  an  ornithologist."  —  ('Autobio- 
graphy,' p.  35.) 

To  Mr.  W.  B.  Tegetmeier,  the  well-known  writer  on  poultry, 
&c,  he  was  indebted  for  constant  advice  and  co-operation. 
Their  correspondence  began  in  1855,  and  lasted  to  1881, 
when  my  father  wrote :  "  I  can  assure  you  that  I  often  look 
back  with  pleasure  to  the  old  days  when  I  attended  to 
pigeons,  fowls,  &c,  and  when  you  gave  me  such  valuable 
assistance.  I  not  rarely  regret  that  I  have  had  so  little 
strength  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  keep  up  old  acquaint- 
ances and  friendships."  My  father's  letters  to  Mr.  Teget- 
meier consist  almost  entirely  of  series  of  questions  relating 
to  the  different  breeds  of  fowls,  pigeons,  &c.,  and  are  not, 
therefore,  interesting.  In  reading  through  the  pile  of  letters, 
one  is  much  struck  by  the  diligence  of  the  writer's  search  for 
facts,  and  it  is  made  clear  that  Mr.  Tegetmeier's  knowledge 
and  judgment  were  completely  trusted  and  highly  valued  by 
him.  Numerous  phrases,  such  as  "  your  note  is  a  mine  of 
wealth  to  me,"  occur,  expressing  his  sense  of  the  value  of 
Mr.  Tegetmeier's  help,  as  well  as  words  expressing  his  warm 


I855-]  MR«   TEGETMEIER.  53 

appreciation  of  Mr.  Tegetmeier's  unstinting  zeal  and  kindness, 
or  his  "  pure  and  disinterested  love  of  science."  On  the 
subject  of  hive-bees  and  their  combs,  Mr.  Tegetmeier's  help 
was  also  valued  by  my  father,  who  wrote,  "your  paper  on 
1  Bees-cells,'  read  before  the  British  Association,  was  highly 
useful  and  suggestive  to  me." 

To  work  out  the  problems  on  the  Geographical  Distri- 
butions of  animals  and  plants  on  evolutionary  principles,  he 
had  to  study  the  means  by  which  seeds,  eggs,  &c,  can  be 
transported  across  wide  spaces  of  ocean.  It  was  this  need 
which  gave  an  interest  to  the  class  of  experiment  to  which 
the  following  letters  allude.] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Down,  May  17th  [1855]. 
My  DEAR  Fox, — You  will  hate  the  very  sight  of  my  hand- 
writing ;  but  after  this  time  I  promise  I  will  ask  for  nothing 
more,  at  least  for  a  long  time.  As  you  live  on  sandy  soil, 
have  you  lizards  at  all  common  ?  If  you  have,  should  you 
think  it  too  ridiculous  to  offer  a  reward  for  me  for  lizard's 
eggs  to  the  boys  in  your  school  ;  a  shilling  for  every  half- 
dozen,  or  more  if  rare,  till  you  got  two  or  three  dozen  and 
send  them  to  me?  If  snake's  eggs  were  brought  in  mistake 
it  would  be  very  well,  for  I  want  such  also ;  and  we  have 
neither  lizards  nor  snakes  about  here.  My  object  is  to  see 
whether  such  eggs  will  float  on  sea  water,  and  whether  they 
will  keep  alive  thus  floating  for  a  month  or  two  in  my  cellar. 
I  am  trying  experiments  on  transportation  of  all  organic 
beings  that  I  can  ;  and  lizards  are  found  on  every  island,  and 
therefore  I  am  very  anxious  to  see  whether  their  eggs  stand 
sea  water.  Of  course  this  note  need  not  be  answered,  without, 
by  a  strange  and  favourable  chance,  you  can  some  day  answer 
it  with  the  eggs.     Your  most  troublesome  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 


54  GROWTH   OF  THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1855. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

April  13th  [1855]. 
...  I  have  had  one  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  succeeded  ;  but  this,  with 
infinite  baseness,  I  did  not  tell,  in  hopes  that  you  would 
say  that  you  would  eat  all  the  plants  which  I  could  raise 
after  immersion.  It  is  very  aggravating  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  tempera- 
ture, cress,  radish,  cabbages,  lettuces,  carrots,  and  celery,  and 
onion  seed — four  great  families.  These,  after  immersion  for 
exactly  one  week,  have  all  germinated,  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,  I  think,  dead.  One  would  have  thought,  from  their 
native  habitat,  that  the  cabbage  would  have  stood  well.  The 
Umbelliferae  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 

*  A  few  words  asking  for  infor-  (p.  789)  he  sent  a  P.S.  to  his  former 

mation.    The  results  were  published  paper,  correcting  a  misprint   and 

in  the  '  Gardeners'  Chronicle,'  May  adding  a  few  words  on  the  seeds  of 

26,  Nov.  24,  1855.    In  the  same  year  the   Leguminosae.     A  fuller  paper 


1855.]  GERMINATION   EXPERIMENTS.  55 

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.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  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  I  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  ! 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  [1855.] 

My  dear  Hooker, — You  have  been  a  very  good  man  to 
exhale  some  of  your  satisfaction  in  writing  two  notes  to  me  ; 


on  the  germination  of  seeds  after  treatment  in  salt  water,  appeared  in  the 
*  Linnean  Soc.  Journal,'  1857,  p.  130. 


56  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [ I S 5 5. 

you  could  not  have  taken  a  better  line,  in  my  opinion  ;  but  as 
for  showing  your  satisfaction  in  confounding  my  experiments> 
I  assure  you  I  am  quite  enough  confounded — those  horrid 
seeds,  which,  as  you  truly  observe,  if  they  sink  they  won't 
float. 

I  have  written  to  Scoresby  and  have  had  a  rather  dry 
answer,  but  very  much  to  the  purpose,  and  giving  me  no 
hopes  of  any  law  unknown  to  me  which  might  arrest  their 
everlasting  descent  into  the  deepest  depths  of  the  ocean.  By 
the  way  it  was  very  odd,  but  I  talked  to  Col.  Sabine  for  half 
an  hour  on  the  subject,  and  could  not  make  him  see  with 
respect  to  transportal  the  difficulty  of  the  sinking  question  ! 
The  bore  is,  if  the  confounded  seeds  will  sink,  I  have  been 
taking  all  this  trouble  in  salting  the  ungrateful  rascals  for 
nothing. 

Everything  has  been  going  wrong  with  me  lately  ;  the  fish 
at  the  Zoolog.  Soc.  ate  up  lots  of  soaked  seeds,  and  in 
imagination  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.* 

But  I  am  not  going  to  give  up  the  floating  yet :  in  first 
place  I  must  try  fresh  seeds,  though  of  course  it  seems  far 
more  probable  that  they  will  sink  ;  and  secondly,  as  a  last 
resource,  I  must  believe  in  the  pod  or  even  whole  plant  or 
branch  being  washed  into  the  sea  ;  with  floods  and  slips  and 

*  In  describing  these  troubles  to  "  I  find  fish  will  greedily  eat  seeds 
Mr.  Fox,  my  father  wrote  : — "  All  of  aquatic  grasses,  and  that  millet- 
nature  is  perverse  and  will  not  do  •  seed  put  into  fish  and  given  to  a 
as  I  wish  it ;  and  just  at  present  I  stork,  and  then  voided,  will  germi- 
wish  I  had  my  old  barnacles  to  nate.  So  this  is  the  nursery  rhyme-1 
work  at,  and  nothing  new."  The  of '  this  is  the  stick  that  beats  the 
experiment  ultimately  succeeded,  pig,'  &c.  &c." 
and  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  Hooker  : — 


1855.]  SEEDS   FLOATING.  57 

earthquakes  ;  this  must  continually  be  happening,  and  if  kept 
wet,  I  fancy  the  pods,  &c.  &c,  would  not  open  and  shed  their 
seeds.     Do  try  your  Mimosa  seed  at  Kew. 

I  had  intended  to  have  asked  you  whether  the  Mimosa 
scandens  and  Giiilandina  bondnc  grows  at  Kew,  to  try  fresh 
seeds.  R.  Brown  tells  me  he  believes  four  W.  Indian  seeds 
have  been  washed  on  shores  of  Europe.  I  was  assured  at 
Keeling  Island  that  seeds  were  not  rarely  washed  on  shore  : 
so  float  they  must  and  shall !  What  a  long  yarn  I  have  been 
spinning. 

If  you  have  several  of  the  Loffoden  seeds,  do  soak  some  in 
tepid  water,  and  get  planted  with  the  utmost  care  :  this  is  an 
experiment  after  my  own  heart,  with  chances  1000  to  1  against 
its  success. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  May  nth  [1855]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — I  have  just  received  your  note.  I 
am  most  sincerely  and  heartily  glad  at  the  news  *  it  contains, 
and  so  is  my  wife.  Though  the  income  is  but  a  poor  one, 
yet  the  certainty,  I  hope,  is  satisfactory  to  yourself  and  Mrs. 
Hooker.  As  it  must  lead  in  future  years  to  the  Directorship, 
I  do  hope  you  look  at  it  as  a  piece  of  good  fortune.  For  my 
own  taste  I  cannot  fancy  a  pleasanter  position,  than  the  Head 
of  such  a  noble  and  splendid  place  ;  far  better,  I  should  think, 
than  a  Professorship  in  a  great  town.  The  more  I  think  of 
it,  the  gladder  I  am.  But  I  will  say  no  more ;  except  that  I 
hope  Mrs.  Hooker  is  pretty  well  pleased.  .  *  . 

As  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle  put  in  my  question,  and 
took  notice  of  it,  I  think  I  am  bound  to  send,  which  I  had 
thought  of  doing  next  week,  my  first  report  to  Lindley  to 
give  him  the  option  of  inserting  it ;  but  I  think  it  likely  that 
he  may  not  think  it  fit  for  a  Gardening  periodical.     When 

*  The  appointment  of  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  as  Assistant  Director  of  the 
Royal  Gardens  at  Kew. 


58  GROWTH   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1855. 

my  experiments  are  ended  (should  the  results  appear  worthy) 
and  should  the  '  Linnean  Journal '  not  object  to  the  previous 
publication  of  imperfect  and  provisional  reports,  I  should  be 
delighted  to  insert  the  final  report  there  ;  for  it  has  cost  me  so 
much  trouble,  that  I  should  think  that  probably  the  result 
was  worthy  of  more  permanent  record  than  a  newspaper ; 
but  I  think  I  am  bound  to  send  it  first  to  Lindley. 

I  begin  to  think  the  floating  question  more  serious  than  the 
germinating  one ;  and  am  making  all  the  enquiries  which  I 
can  on  the  subject,  and  hope  to  get  some  little  light  on  it  .  .  . 

I  hope  you  managed  a  good  meeting  at  the  Club.  The 
Treasurership  must  be  a  plague  to  you,  and  I  hope  you  will 
not  be  Treasurer  for  long :  I  know  I  would  much  sooner  give 
up  the  Club  than  be  its  Treasurer. 

Farewell,  Mr.  Assistant  Director  and  dear  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Danvin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

June  5th,  1855. 

....  Miss  Thorley  *  and  I  are  doing  a  little  Botanical 
work  !  for  our  amusement,  and  it  does  amuse  me  very  much, 
viz.  making  a  collection  of  all  the  plants,  which  grow  in  a  field, 
which  has  been  allowed  to  run  waste  for  fifteen  years,  but 
which  before  was  cultivated  from  time  immemorial ;  and  we 
are  also  collecting  all  the  plants  in  an  adjoining  and  similar 
but  cultivated  field  ;  just  for  the  fun  of  seeing  what  plants 
have  arrived  or  died  out.  Hereafter  we  shall  want  a  bit  of 
help  in  naming  puzzlers.  How  dreadfully  difficult  it  is  to 
name  plants. 

What  a  remarkably  nice  and  kind  letter  Dr.  A.  Gray  has 
sent  me  in  answer  to  my  troublesome  queries ;  I  retained 
your  copy  of  his  '  Manual '  till  I  heard  from  him,  and  when  I 
have  answered  his  letter,  I  will  return  it  to  you. 

I  thank  you  much  for  Hedysarum  :  I  do  hope  it  is  not  very 

*  A  lady  who  was  for  many  years  a  governess  in  the  family. 


1 85 5.]  COLLECTING   PLANTS.  59 

precious,  for  as  I  told  you  it  is  for  probably  a  most  foolish 
purpose.  I  read  somewhere  that  no  plant  closes  its  leaves 
so  promptly  in  darkness,  and  I  want  to  cover  it  up  daily  for 
half  an  hour,  and  see  if  I   can  teach  it  to  close  by  itself,  or 

more  easily  than  at  first  in  darkness I  cannot  make 

out  why  you  would  prefer  a  continental  transmission,  as  I 
think  you  do,  to  carriage  by  sea.  I  should  have  thought  you 
would  have  been  pleased  at  as  many  means  of  transmission 
as  possible.  For  my  own  pet  theoretic  notions,  it  is  quite 
indifferent  whether  they  are  transmitted  by  sea  or  land,  as 
long  as  some  tolerably  probable  way  is  shown.  But  it  shocks 
my  philosophy  to  create  land,  without  some  other  and  inde- 
pendent evidence.  Whenever  we  meet,  by  a  very  few  words 
I  should,  I  think,  more  clearly  understand  your  views.  .  .  . 

I  have  just  made  out  my  first  grass,  hurrah !  hurrah !  I 
must  confess  that  fortune  favours  the  bold,  for,  as  good  luck 
would  have  it,  it  was  the  easy  A  nthoxanthum  odoratum : 
nevertheless  it  is  a  great  discovery  ;  I  never  expected  to 
make  out  a  grass  in  all  my  life,  so  hurrah !  It  has  done  my 
stomach  surprising  good.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  [June?]  15th,  [1855]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — I  just  write  one  line  to  say  that  the 
Hedysarum  is  come  quite  safely,  and  thank  you  for  it. 

You  cannot  imagine  what  amusement  you  have  given  me 
by  naming  those  three  grasses  :  I  have  just  got  paper  to  dry 
and  collect  all  grasses.  If  ever  you  catch  quite  a  beginner, 
and  want  to  give  him  a  taste  for  Botany,  tell  him  to  make 
a  perfect  list  of  some  little  field  or  wood.  Both  Miss  Thorley 
and  I  agree  that  it  gives  a  really  uncommon  interest  to  the 
work,  having  a  nice  little  definite  world  to  work  on,  instead  of 
the  awful  abyss  and  immensity  of  all  British  Plants. 

Adios.     I  was  really  consummately  impudent  to  express 


6o 


GROWTH   OF  THE   'ORIGIN.' 


[1855. 


my  opinion  "  on  the  retrograde  step,"  *  and  I  deserved  a  good 
snub,  and  upon  reflection  I  am  very  glad  you  did  not  answer 
me  in  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle. 

I  have  been  very  much  interested  with  the  Florula.  f 

[Writing  on  June  5th  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  my  father 
mentions  a  letter  from  Dr.  Asa  Gray.  The  letter  referred  to 
was  an  answer  to  the  following  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray.% 

Down,  April  25th  [1855]. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — I  hope  that  you  will  remember  that  I  had 
the  pleasure  of  being  introduced  to  you  at  Kew.  I  want  to 
beg  a  great  favour  of  you,  for  which  I  well  know  I  can  offer 
no  apology.  But  the  favour  will  not,  I  think,  cause  you  much 
trouble,  and  will  greatly  oblige  me.  As  I  am  no  botanist,  it 
will  seem  so  absurd  to  you  my  asking  botanical  questions  ; 
that  I  may  premise  that  I  have  for  several  years  been  collect- 
ing facts  on  "  variation,"  and  when  I  find  that  any  general 
remark  seems  to  hold  good  amongst  animals,  I  try  to  test 
it  in  Plants.  [Here  follows  a  request  for  information  on 
American  Alpine  plants,  and  a  suggestion  as  to  publishing 
on  the  subject.]  I  can  assure  you  that  I  perceive  how  pre- 
sumptuous it  is  in  me,  not  a  botanist,  to  make  even  the  most 


*  "To  imagine  such  enormous 
geological  changes  within  the  period 
of  the  existence  of  now  living  beings, 
on  no  other  ground  but  to  account 
for  their  distribution,  seems  to  me, 
in  our  present  state  of  ignorance 
on  the  means  of  transportal,  an 
almost  retrograde  step  in  science." 
— Extract  from  the  paper  on  '  Salt 
Water  and  Seeds  '  in  the  Gardeners* 
Chronicle,  May  26,  1855.  . 

t  Godron's  l  Florula  Juvenalis,' 
which  gives  an  interesting  account  of 


plants  introduced  in  imported  wooL 
%  The  well-known  American 
Botanist.  My  father's  friendship 
with  Dr.  Gray  began  with  the  cor- 
respondence of  which  the  present  is 
the  first  letter.  An  extract  from  a 
letter  to  Sir  J.  Hooker,  1857,  shows 
that  my  father's  strong  personal 
regard  for  Dr.  Gray  had  an  early 
origin  :  "  I  have  been  glad  to  see 
A.  Gray's  letters  ;  there  is  always 
something  in  them  that  shows  that 
he  is  a  very  lovable  man." 


1855.]  SUGGESTIONS   AND   QUERIES.  6l 

trifling  suggestion  to  such  a  botanist  as  yourself;  but  from 
what  I  saw  and  have  heard  of  you  from  our  dear  and  kind 
friend  Hooker,  I  hope  and  think  that  you  will  forgive  me,  and 
believe  me,  with  much  respect, 

Dear  sir,  yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  June  8th  [1855]. 

My  DEAR  SIR, — I  thank  you  cordially  for  your  remarkably 
kind  letter  of  the  22nd  ult.,  and  for  the  extremely  pleasant 
and   obliging  manner  in  which  you  have  taken   my  rather 
troublesome    questions.     I    can    hardly  tell   you   how  much 
your  list  of  Alpine  plants  has  interested  me,  and  I  can  now 
in  some  degree  picture  to  myself  the  plants  of  your  Alpine 
summits.     The  new  edit,  of  your  Manual  is  capital  news  for 
me.     I    know  from   your   preface  how  pressed    you  are  for 
room,  but  it  would  take  no  space  to  append  (Eu)  in  brackets 
to  any  European   plant,  and,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  this 
would    answer   every  purpose.*     From   my  own  experience, 
whilst  making  out  English  plants  in  our  manuals,  it  has  often 
struck  me  how  much  interest  it  would  give  if  some  notion 
of  their  range  had  been  given ;  and  so,  I  cannot  doubt,  your 
American  inquirers  and  beginners  would  much  like  to  know 
which  of  their  plants  were  indigenous  and  which  European. 
Would  it  not  be  well  in  the  Alpine  plants  to  append  the  very 
same  addition  which  you  have  now  sent  me  in  MS.  ?  though 
here,  owing  to  your  kindness,  I  do  not  speak  selfishly,  but 
merely  pro  bono  Americano  publico.     I  presume  it  would  be 
too  troublesome  to  give  in  your  manual  the  habitats  of  those 
plants  found  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  likewise  those 
found   in   Eastern  Asia,  taking  the  Yenesei'  (?), — which,  if  I 
remember  right,  according  to  Gmelin,  is  the  main  partition 

*  This  suggestion  Dr.  Gray  adopted  in  subsequent  editions. 


62  GROWTH   OF   THE    'ORIGIN.'  [1855. 

line  of  Siberia.  Perhaps  Siberia  more  concerns  the  northern 
Flora  of  North  America.  The  ranges  of  the  plants  to  the 
east  and  west,  viz.  whether  most  found  are  in  Greenland  and 
Western  Europe,  or  in  E.  Asia,  appears  to  me  a  very  interest- 
ing point  as  tending  to  show  whether  the  migration  has  been 
eastward  or  westward.  Pray  believe  me  that  I  am  most 
entirely  conscious  that  the  only  use  of  these  remarks  is  to 
show  a  botanist  what  points  a  non-botanist  is  curious  to 
learn  ;  for  I  think  every  one  who  studies  profoundly  a  subject 
often  becomes  unaware  [on]  what  points  the  ignorant  require 
information.  I  am  so  very  glad  that  you  think  of  drawing  up 
some  notice  on  your  geographical  distribution,  for  the  area 
of  the  Manual  strikes  me  as  in  some  points  better  adapted 
for  comparison  with  Europe  than  that  of  the  whole  of  North 
America.  You  ask  me  to  state  definitely  some  of  the  points 
on  which  I  much  wish  for  information  ;  but  I  really  hardly 
can,  for  they  are  so  vague  ;  and  I  rather  wish  to  see  what 
results  will  come  out  from  comparisons,  than  have  as  yet 
defined  objects.  I  presume  that,  like  other  botanists,  you 
would  give,  for  your  area,  the  proportion  (leaving  out  intro- 
duced plants)  to  the  whole  of  the  great  leading  families  :  this 
is  one  point  I  had  intended  (and,  indeed,  have  done  roughly) 
to  tabulate  from  your  book,  but  of  course  I  could  have  done 
it  only  very  imperfectly.  I  should  also,  of  course,  have  ascer- 
tained the  proportion,  to  the  whole  Flora,  of  the  European 
plants  (leaving  out  introduced)  and  of  the  separate  great 
families,  in  order  to  speculate  on  means  of  transportal.  By 
the  way,  I  ventured  to  send  a  few  days  ago  a  copy  of  the 
Gardeners*  Chronicle  with  a  short  report  by  me  of  some 
trifling  experiments  which  I  have  been  trying  on  the  power 
of  seeds  to  withstand  sea  water.  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  has  struck  you,  but  it  has  me,  that  it  would  be  advisable 
for  botanists  to  give  in  whole  numbers,  as  well  as  in  the 
lowest  fraction,  the  proportional  numbers  of  the  families,  thus 
I  make  out  from  your  Manual  that  of  the  indigenous  plants 


I855-]  SUGGESTIONS   AND   QUERIES.  63 

the  proportion  of  the  Umbelliferae  are  ,;fJ8  =^- ;  for,  without 
one  knows  the  whole  numbers,  one  cannot  judge  how  really 
close  the  numbers  of  the  plants  of  the  same  family  are  in  two 
distant  countries  ;  but  very  likely  you  may  think  this  super- 
fluous. Mentioning  these  proportional  numbers,  I  may  give 
you  an  instance  of  the  sort  of  points,  and  how  vague  and 
futile  they  often  are,  which  I  attempt  to  work  out  .  .  .  ; 
reflecting  on  R.  Brown's  and  Hooker's  remark,  that  near 
identity  of  proportional  numbers  of  the  great  families  in  two 
countries,  shows  probably  that  they  were  once  continuously 
united,  I  thought  I  would  calculate  the  proportions  of,  for 
instance,  the  introduced  Composite  in  Great  Britain  to  all  the 
introduced  plants,  and  the  result  was  ±±  =  —.  In  our  abori- 
ginal or  indigenous  flora  the  proportion  is  — ;  and  in  many 
other  cases  I  found  an  equally  striking  correspondence.  I 
then  took  your  Manual,  and  worked  out  the  same  question  ; 
here  I  find  in  the  Compositae  an  almost  equally  striking 
correspondence,  viz.  -^±^  =  \  in  the  introduced  plants,  and  *fg% 
5= -J-  m  tne  indigenous  ;  but  when  I  came  to  the  other 
families  I  found  the  proportion  entirely  different,  showing 
that  the  coincidences  in  the  British  Flora  were  probably 
accidental ! 

You  will,  I  presume,  give  the  proportion  of  the  species 
to  the  genera,  i.e.  show  on  an  average  how  many  species  each 
genus  contains  ;  though  I  have  done  this  for  myself. 

If  it  would  not  be  too  troublesome,  do  you  not  think  it  would 
be  very  interesting,  and  give  a  very  good  idea  of  your  Flora, 
to  divide  the  species  into  three  groups,  viz.  (a)  species  com- 
mon to  the  old  world,  stating  numbers  common  to  Europe 
and  Asia  ;  (b)  indigenous  species,  but  belonging  to  genera 
found  in  the  Old  World  ;  and  (c)  species  belonging  to  genera 
confined  to  America  or  the  New  World  ?  To  make  (according 
to  my  ideas)  perfection  perfect,  one  ought  to  be  told  whether 
there  are  other  cases,  like  Erica,  of  genera  common  in  Europe 
or  in  Old  World  not  found  in  your  area.     But  honestly  I  feel 


64  GROWTH   OF  THE   'ORIGIN.'  [1855. 

that  it  is  quite  ridiculous  my  writing  to  you  at  such  length  on 
the  subject ;  but,  as  you  have  asked  me,  I  do  it  gratefully,  and 
write  to  you  as  I  should  to  Hooker,  who  often  laughs  at  me 
unmercifully,  and  I  am  sure  you  have  better  reason  to  do  so. 

There  is  one  point  on  which  I  am  most  anxious  for  inform- 
ation, and  I  mention  it  with  the  greatest  hesitation,  and 
only  in  the  full  belief  that  you  will  believe  me  that  I  have 
not  the  folly  and  presumption  to  hope  for  a  second  that  you 
will  give  it,  without  you  can  with  very  little  trouble.  The 
point  can  at  present  interest  no  one  but  myself,  which  makes 
the  case  wholly  different  from  geographical  distribution.  The 
only  way  in  which,  I  think,  you  possibly  could  do  it  with  little 
trouble  would  be  to  bear  in  mind,  whilst  correcting  your  proof- 
sheets  of  the  Manual,  my  question  and  put  a  cross  or  mark 
to  the  species,  and  whenever  sending  a  parcel  to  Hooker  to 
let  me  have  such  old  sheets.  But  this  would  give  you  the 
trouble  of  remembering  my  question,  and  I  can  hardly  hope 
or  expect  that  you  will  do  it.  But  I  will  just  mention  what  I 
want ;  it  is  to  have  marked  the  "  close  species  "  in  a  Flora,  so 
as  to  compare  in  different  Floras  whether  the  same  genera 
have  "close  species,"  and  for  other  purposes  too  vague  to 
enumerate.  I  have  attempted,  by  Hooker's  help,  to  ascertain 
in  a  similar  way  whether  the  different  species  of  the  same 
genera  in  distant  quarters  of  the  globe  are  variable  or 
present  varieties.  The  definition  I  should  give  of  a  "  close 
species"  was  one  that  you  thought  specifically  distinct,  but 
which  you  could  conceive  some  other  good  botanist  might 
think  only  a  race  or  variety ;  or,  again,  a  species  that  you 
had  trouble,  though  having  opportunities  of  knowing  it  well, 
in  discriminating  from  some  other  species.  Supposing  that 
you  were  inclined  to  be  so  very  kind  as  to  do  this,  and  could 
(which  I  do  not  expect)  spare  the  time,  as  I  have  said,  a 
mere  cross  to  each  such  species  in  any  useless  proof-sheets 
would  give  me  the  information  desired,  which,  I  may  add, 
I  know  must  be  vague. 


3S5-] 


VITALITY   OF   SEEDS. 


65 


How  can  I  apologise  enough  for  all  my  presumption  and 
the  extreme  length  of  this  letter?  The  great  good  nature 
of  your  letter  to  me  has  been  partly  the  cause,  so  that,  as  is 
too  often  the  case  in  this  world,  you  are  punished  for  your 
good  deeds.     With  hearty  thanks,  believe  me, 

Yours  very  truly  and  gratefully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  1 8th  [July,  1855]. 

...  I  think  I  am  getting  a  mild  case  about  Charlock 
seed;*  but  just  as  about  salting,  ill  luck  to  it,  I  cannot 
remember  how  many  years  you  would  allow  that  Charlock 
seed  might  live  in  the  ground.  Next  time  you  write,  show 
a  bold  face,  and  say  in  how  many  years,  you  think,  Charlock 
seed  would  probably  all  be  dead.  A  man  told  me  the  other 
day  of,  as  I  thought,  a  splendid  instance, — and  splendid  it 
was,  for  according  to  his  evidence  the  seed  came  up  alive  out 
of  the  lower  part  of  the  London  Clay  !  !  !  I  disgusted  him  by 
telling  him  that  Palms  ought  to  have  come  up. 

You  ask  how  far  I  go  in  attributing  organisms  to  a  common 
descent :  I  answer  I  know  not  ;  the  way  in  which  I  intend 
treating  the  subject,  is  to  show  (as  far  as  I  can)  the  facts  and 
arguments  for  and  against  the  common  descent  of  the  species 
of  the  same  genus  ;  and  then  show  how  far  the  same  argu- 
ments tell  for  or  against  forms,  more  and  more  widely 
different :  and  when  we  come  to  forms  of  different  orders  and 


*  In  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle, 
185 5,  p.  758,  appeared  a  notice 
(half  a  column  in  length)  by  my 
father  on  the  "  Vitality  of  Seeds." 
The  facts  related  refer  to  the  "  Sand- 
walk  " ;  the  wood  was  planted  in 
1846  on  a  piece  of  pasture  land 
laid  down  as  grass  in  1840.  In 
1855,   on  the    soil    being    dug    in 

VOL.  II. 


several  places,  Charlock  {Brassica 
sinapistrum)  sprang  up  freely.  The 
subject  continued  to  interest  him, 
and  I  find  a  note  dated  July  2nd, 
1874,  in  which  my  father  recorded 
that  forty-six  plants  of  Charlock 
sprang  up  in  that  year  over  a  space 
(14  x  7  feet)  which  had  been  dug 
to  a  considerable  depth. 

F 


66  GROWTH   OF  THE   'ORIGIN.'  Q1855. 

classes,  there  remain  only  some  such  arguments  as  those  which 
can  perhaps  be  deduced  from  similar  rudimentary  structures, 
and  very  soon  not  an  argument  is  left. 

[The  following  extract  from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Fox  [Oct. 
1855*  gives  a  brief  mention  of  the  last  meeting  of  the  British 
Association  which  he  attended  :]  "  I  really  have  no  news  : 
the  only  thing  we  have  done  for  a  long  time,  was  to  go  to 
Glasgow ;  but  the  fatigue  was  to  me  more  than  it  was  worth, 
and  E.  caught  a  bad  cold.  On  our  return  we  stayed  a 
single  day  at  Shrewsbury,  and  enjoyed  seeing  the  old  place. 
I  saw  a  little  of  Sir  Philip  f  (whom  I  liked  much),  and  he 
asked  me  'why  on  earth  I  instigated  you  to  rob  his  poultry- 
yard  ?'  The  meeting  was  a  good  one,  and  the  Duke  of 
Argyll  spoke  excellently."] 

*  In    this    year    he     published  across  a  submarine  undulatory  sur- 

('  Phil.  Mag.'  x.)  a  paper  "  On  the  face." 

power  of  icebergs  to  make  recti-  f  Sir  P.  Egerton  was  a  neigh- 
linear    uniformly-directed   grooves  bour  of  Mr.  Fox. 


(    6/     ) 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE     UNFINISHED     BOOK. 
MAY    1856  TO   JUNE    1 858. 

[In  the  Autobiographical  chapter  (Vol.  I.  p.  84)  my  father 
wrote  :— "  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."  The  letters 
in  the  present  chapter  are  chiefly  concerned  with  the  prepara- 
tion 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.  Wallace's  MS.  During  the  two  years  which  we  are  now 
considering,  he  wrote  ten  chapters  (that  is  about  one-haif)  of 
the  projected  book.  He  remained  for  the  most  part  at  home, 
but  paid  several  visits  to  Dr.  Lane's  Water- Cure  Establish- 
ment at  Moor  Park,  during  one  of  which  he  made  a  pilgrimage 
to  the  shrine  of  Gilbert  White  at  Selborne.] 


LETTERS. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell 

May  3  [1856J. 
.  .  .  With  respect  to  your  suggestion  of  a  sketch   of  my 
views,  I  hardly  know  what  to  think,  but  will  reflect  on  it,  but 

F  2 


68  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

it  goes  against  my  prejudices.  To  give  a  fair  sketch  would  be 
absolutely  impossible,  for  every  proposition  requires  such  an 
array  of  facts.  If  I  were  to  do  anything,  it  could  only  refer 
to  the  main  agency  of  change — selection — and  perhaps  point 
out  a  very  few  of  the  leading  features,  which  countenance 
such  a  view,  and  some  few  of  the  main  difficulties.  But  I  do 
not  know  what  to  think  ;  I  rather  hate  the  idea  of  writing 
for  priority,  yet  I  certainly  should  be  vexed  if  any  one 
were  to  publish  my  doctrines  before  me.  Anyhow,  I  thank 
you  heartily  for  your  sympathy.  I  shall  be  in  London  next 
week,  and  I  will  call  on  you  on  Thursday  morning  for  one 
hour  precisely,  so  as  not  to  lose  much  of  your  time  and  my 
own  ;  but  will  you  let  me  this  time  come  as  early  as  9  o'clock, 
for  I  have  much  which  I  must  do  in  the  morning  in  my 
strongest  time  ?     Farewell,  my  dear  old  patron. 

Yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

By  the  way,  three  plants  have  come  up  out  of  the  earth, 
perfectly  enclosed  in  the  roots  of  the  trees.  And  twenty- 
nine  plants  in  the  table-spoonful  of  mud,  out  of  the  little 
pond  ;  Hooker  was  surprised  at  this,  and  struck  with  it,  when 
I  showed  him  how  much  mud  I  had  scraped  off  one  duck's  feet. 

If  I  did  publish  a  short  sketch,  where  on  earth  should  I 
publish  it  ? 

If  I  do  not  hear,  I  shall  understand  that  I  may  come  from 
9  to  10  on  Thursday. 

C.  Darwin  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 


1856.]  THE    UNFINISHED    BOOK.  69 

anything  it   must  be  a  very  thin  and  little  volume,  giving  a 

sketch  of  my  views  and  difficulties  ;  but  it  is  really  dreadfully 

unphilosophical  to  give  a  resume,  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  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  impossible  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, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

May  nth  [1856]. 
.  .  .  Now  for  a  more  important  I  subject,  viz.  my  own  self: 
I   am   extremely  glad   you   think  well   of  a  separate   "  Pre- 

*  The  interval  of  eighteen  years,  letter  to  1855,  not  1856,  nevertheless 
from  1837  when  he  began  to  collect  the  latter  seems  the  more  probable 
facts,  would  bring  the  date  of  this      date. 


TO  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856- 

liminary  Essay"  {i.e.  if  anything  whatever  is  published;  for 
Lyell  seemed  rather  to  doubt  on  this  head)*  ;  but  I  cannot  bear 
the  idea  of  begging  some  Editor  and  Council  to  publish,  and 
then  perhaps  to  have  to  apologise  humbly  for  having  led  them 
into  a  scrape.  In  this  one  respect  I  am  in  the  state  which, 
according  to  a  very  wise  saying  of  my  father's,  is  the  only 
fit  state  for  asking  advice,  viz.  with  my  mind  firmly  made  up, 
and  then,  as  my  father  used  to  say,  good  advice  was  very 
comfortable,  and  it  was  easy  to  reject  bad  advice.  But 
Heaven  knows  I  am  not  in  this  state  with  respect  to  publish- 
ing at  all  any  preliminary  essay.  It  yet  strikes  me  as  quite 
unphilosophical  to  publish  results  without  the  full  details 
which  have  led  to  such  results. 

It  is  a  melancholy,  and  I  hope  not  quite  true  view  of  yours 
that  facts  will  prove  anything,  and  are  therefore  superfluous  ! 
But  I  have  rather  exaggerated,  I  see,  your  doctrine.  I  do 
not  fear  being  tied  down  to  error,  i.e.  I  feel  pretty  sure  I 
should  give  up  anything  false  published  in  the  preliminary 
essay,  in  my  larger  work  ;  but  I  may  thus,  it  is  very  true,  do 
mischief  by  spreading  error,  which  as  I  have  often  heard  you 
say  is  much  easier  spread  than  corrected.  I  confess  I  lean 
more  and  more  to  at  least  making  the  attempt  and  drawing 
up  a  sketch  and  trying  to  keep  my  judgment,  whether  to 
publish,  open.  But  I  always  return  to  my  fixed  idea  that  it 
is  dreadfully  unphilosophical  to  publish  without  full  details. 
I  certainly  think  my  future  work  in  full  would  profit  by 
hearing  what  my  friends  or  critics  (if  reviewed)  thought  of 
the  outline. 

To  any  one  but  you  I  should  apologise  for  such  long  discus- 
sion on  so  personal  an  affair ;  but  I  believe,  and  indeed  you 
have  proved  it  by  the  trouble  you  have  taken,  that  this  would 

be  superfluous. 

Yours  truly  obliged, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

*  The  meaning  of  the  sentence  in  parentheses  is  obscure. 


1856.]  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  fl 

P.S. — What  you  say  (for  I  have  just  re-read  your  letter) 
that  the  Essay  might  supersede  and  take  away  all  novelty 
and  value  from  any  future  larger  Book,  is  very  true  ;  and 
that  would  grieve  me  beyond  everything.  On  the  other 
hand  (again  from  Lyell's  urgent  advice),  I  published  a  pre- 
liminary sketch  of  the  Coral  Theory,  and  this  did  neither  good 
nor  harm.  I  begin  most  heartily  to  wish  that  Lyell  had  never 
put  this  idea  of  an  Essay  into  my  head. 

From  a  Letter  to  Sir  C.  Lyell  [July,  1856]. 

"  I  am  delighted  that  I  may  say  (with  absolute  truth)  that 
my  essay  is  published  at  your  suggestion,  but  I  hope  it  will 
not  need  so  much  apology  as  I  at  first  thought ;  for  I  have 
resolved  to  make  it  nearly  as  complete  as  my  present 
materials  allow.  I  cannot  put  in  all  which  you  suggest,  for 
it  would  appear  too  conceited." 

From  a  Letter  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Down,  June  14th  [1856]. 
"...  What  you  say  about  my  Essay,  I  dare  say  is  very  true  ; 
and  it  gave  me  another  fit  of  the  wibber-gibbers  :  I  hope  that 
I  shall  succeed  in  making  it  modest.  One  great  motive  is 
to  get  information  on  the  many  points  on  which  I  want  it. 
But  I  tremble  about  it,  which  I  should  not  do,  if  I  allowed 
some  three  or  four  more  years  to  elapse  before  publishing 
anything.  .  .  ." 

[The  following  extracts  from  letters  to  Mr.  Fox  are  worth 
giving,  as  showing  how  great  was  the  accumulation  of  material 
which  now  had  to  be  dealt  with. 

June  14th  [1856]. 
"  Very  many  thanks  for  the  capital  information  on  cats  ;  I 
see  I  had  blundered  greatly,  but  I  know  I  have  somewhere 
your  original  notes  ;  but  my  notes  are  so  numerous  during 


72  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

nineteen  years'  collection,  that  it  would  take  me  at  least  a 
year  to  go  over  and  classify  them." 

Nov.  1856.  "Sometimes  I  fear  I  shall  break  down,  for  my 
subject  gets  bigger  and  bigger  with  each  month's  work."] 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  1 6th  [June,  1856]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  am  going  to  do  the  most  impudent 
thing  in  the  world.  But  my  blood  gets  hot  with  passion  and 
turns  cold  alternately  at  the  geological  strides,  which  many 
of  your  disciples  are  taking. 

Here,  poor  Forbes  made  a  continent  to  [i.e.  extending  to] 
North  America  and  another  (or  the  same)  to  the  Gulf  weed  ; 
Hooker  makes  one  from  New  Zealand  to  South  America  and 
round  the  World  to  Kerguelen  Land.  Here  is  Wollaston 
speaking  of  Madeira  and  P.  Santo  "  as  the  sure  and  certain 
witnesses  of  a  former  continent."  Here  is  Woodward  writes 
to  me,  if  you  grant  a  continent  over  200  or  300  miles  of  ocean 
depths  (as  if  that  was  nothing),  why  not  extend  a  continent  to 
every  island  in  the  Pacific  and  Atlantic  Oceans  ?  And  all 
this  within  the  existence  of  recent  species !  If  you  do  not 
stop  this,  if  there  be  a  lower  region  for  the  punishment  of 
geologists,  I  believe,  my  great  master,  you  will  go  there. 
Why,  your  disciples  in  a  slow  and  creeping  manner  beat  all 
the  old  Catastrophists  who  ever  lived.  You  will  live  to  be 
the  great  chief  of  the  Catastrophists. 

There,  I  have  done  myself  a  great  deal  of  good,  and  have 
exploded  my  passion. 

So  my  master,  forgive  me,  and  believe  me,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — Don't  answer  this,  I  did  it  to  ease  myself. 


1856.]  CONTINENTAL   EXTENSION.  73 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Down  [June]  17th,  1856. 
...  I  have  been  very  deeply  interested  by  Wollaston's  book,* 
though  I  differ  greatly  from  many  of  his  doctrines.  Did  you 
ever  read  anything  so  rich,  considering  how  very  far  he  goes, 
.as  his  denunciations  against  those  who  go  further  :  "  most 
mischievous,"  "  absurd,"  M  unsound."  Theology  is  at  the 
bottom  of  some  of  this.  I  told  him  he  was  like  Calvin 
burning  a  heretic.  It  is  a  very  valuable  and  clever  book  in 
my  opinion.  He  has  evidently  read  very  little  out  of  his  own 
line.  I  urged  him  to  read  the  New  Zealand  essay.  His 
Geology  also  is  rather  eocene,  as  I  told  him.  In  fact  I  wrote 
most  frankly  ;  I  fear  too  frankly  ;  he  says  he  is  sure  that 
ultra-honesty  is  my  characteristic  :  I  do  not  know  whether 
he  meant  it  as  a  sneer  ;  I  hope  not.  Talking  of  eocene  geology, 
I  got  so  wroth  about  the  Atlantic  continent,  more  especially 
from  a  note  from  Woodward  (who  has  published  a  capital 
book  on  shells),  who  does  not  seem  to  doubt  that  every  island 
in  the  Pacific  and  Atlantic  are  the  remains  of  continents,  sub- 
merged within  period  of  existing  species,  that  I  fairly  ex- 
ploded, and  wrote  to  Lyell  to  protest,  and  summed  up  all  the 
continents  created  of  late  years  by  Forbes  (the  head  sinner  !) 
yourself,  Wollaston,  and  Woodward,  and  a  pretty  nice  little 
extension  of  land  they  make  altogether  !  I  am  fairly  rabid 
on  the  question  and  therefore,  if  not  wrong  already,  am 
pretty  sure  to  become  so  .  .  . 

I  have  enjoyed  your  note  much.     Adios, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S.  [June]  1 8th. — Lyell  has  written  me  a  capital  letter  on 
your  side,  which  ought  to  upset  me  entirely,  but  I  cannot 
say  it  does  quite. 

Though  I  must  try  and  cease  being  rabid  and  try  to  feel 


*  i 


The  Variation  of  Species,'  1856. 


74  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

humble,  and  allow  you  all  to  make  continents,  as  easily  as  a. 
cook  does  pancakes. 


C.  Darwin  to  C,  LyelL 

Down,  June  25th  [1856]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  will  have  the  following  tremendous 
letter  copied  to  make  the  reading  easier,  and  as  I  want  to 
keep  a  copy. 

As  you  say  you  would  like  to  hear  my  reasons  for  being 
most  unwilling  to  believe  in  the  continental  extensions  of  late 
authors,  I  gladly  write  them,  as,  without  I  am  convinced  of 
my  error,  I  shall  have  to  give  them  condensed  in  my  essay, 
when  I  discuss  single  and  multiple  creation  ;  I  shall  therefore 
be  particularly  glad  to  have  your  general  opinion  on  them. 
I  may  quite  likely  have  persuaded  myself  in  my  wrath  that 
there  is  more  in  them  than  there  is.  If  there  was  much  more 
reason  to  admit  a  continental  extension  in  any  one  or  two 
instances  (as  in  Madeira)  than  in  other  cases,  I  should  feel  no 
difficulty  whatever.  But  if  on  account  of  European  plants, 
and  littoral  sea  shells,  it  is  thought  necessary  to  join  Madeira 
to  the  mainland,  Hooker  is  quite  right  to  join  New  Holland 
to  New  Zealand,  and  Auckland  Island  (and  Raoul  Island  to 
N.E.),  and  these  to  S.  America  and  the  Falklands,  and  these 
to  Tristan  d'Acunha,  and  these  to  Kerguelen  Land ;  thus 
making,  either  strictly  at  the  same  time,  or  at  different  periods, 
but  all  within  the  life  of  recent  beings,  an  almost  circumpolar 
belt  of  land.  So  again  Galapagos  and  Juan  Fernandez  must 
be  joined  to  America  ;  and  if  we  trust  to  littoral  sea  shells,  the 
Galapagos  must  have  been  joined  to  the  Pacific  Islands  (2400 
miles  distant)  as  well  as  to  America,  and  as  Woodward  seems 
to  think  all  the  islands  in  the  Pacific  into  a  magnificent  con- 
tinent ;  also  the  islands  in  the  Southern  Indian  Ocean  into 
another  continent,  with  Madagascar  and  Africa,  and  perhaps 
India.     In  the  North  Atlantic,  Europe  will  stretch  half-way- 


1856.]  CONTINENTAL   EXTENSION.  75; 

across  the  ocean  to  the  Azores,  and  further  north  right  across. 
In  short,  we  must  suppose  probably,  half  the  present  ocean 
was  land  within  the  period  of  living  organisms.  The  Globe 
within  this  period  must  have  had  a  quite  different  aspect. 
Now  the  only  way  to  test  this,  that  I  can  see,  is  to  consider 
whether  the  continents  have  undergone  within  this  same  pe- 
riod such  wonderful  permutations.  In  all  North  and  South 
and  Central  America,  we  have  both  recent  and  miocene  (or 
eocene)  shells,  quite  distinct  on  the  opposite  sides,  and  hence 
I  cannot  doubt  that  fundamentally  America  has  held  its  place 
since  at  least,  the  miocene  period.  In  Africa  almost  all  the 
living  shells  are  distinct  on  the  opposite  sides  of  the  inter- 
tropical regions,  short  as  the  distance  is  compared  to  the  range 
of  marine  mollusca,  in  uninterrupted  seas  ;  hence  I  infer  that 
Africa  has  existed  since  our  present  species  were  created. 
Even  the  isthmus  of  Suez  and  the  Aralo-Caspian  basin  have 
had  a  great  antiquity.  So  I  imagine,  from  the  tertiary  depos- 
its, has  India.  In  Australia  the  great  fauna  of  extinct  mar- 
supials shows  that  before  the  present  mammals  appeared.. 
Australia  was  a  separate  continent.  I  do  not  for  one  second 
doubt  that  very  large  portions  of  all  these  continents  have: 
undergone  great  changes  of  level  within  this  period,  but  yet  I 
conclude  that  fundamentally  they  stood  as  barriers  in  the  sea, 
where  they  now  stand  ;  and  therefore  I  should  require  the 
weightiest  evidence  to  make  me  believe  in  such  immense, 
changes  within  the  period  of  living  organisms  in  our  oceans, 
where,  moreover,  from  the  great  depths,  the  changes  must 
have  been  vaster  in  a  vertical  sense. 

Secondly.  Submerge  our  present  continents,  leaving  a  few 
mountain  peaks  as  islands,  and  what  will  the  character  of  the 
islands  be  ? — Consider  that  the  Pyrenees,  Sierra  Nevada, 
Apennines,  Alps,  Carpathians,  are  non-volcanic,  Etna  and 
Caucasus,  volcanic.  In  Asia,  Altai  and  Himalaya,  I  believe 
non-volcanic.  In  North  Africa  the  non-volcanic,  as  I  imagine, 
Alps  of  Abyssinia  and  of  the  Atlas.     In  South  Africa,  the 


76  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

Snow  Mountains.  In  Australia,  the  non-volcanic  Alps.  In 
North  America,  the  White  Mountains,  Alleghanies  and  Rocky- 
Mountains — some  of  the  latter  alone,  I  believe,  volcanic.  In 
South  America  to  the  east,  the  non-volcanic  [Silla]  of  Caracas, 
and  Itacolumi  of  Brazil,  further  south  the  Sierra  |Ventanas, 
and  in  the  Cordilleras,  many  volcanic  but  not  all.  Now 
compare  these  peaks  with  the  oceanic  islands  ;  as  far  as 
known  all  are  volcanic,  except  St.  Paul's  (a  strange  bedevilled 
rock),  and  the  Seychelles,  if  this  latter  can  be  called  oceanic, 
in  the  line  of  Madagascar  ;  the  Falklands,  only  500  miles  off, 
are  only  a  shallow  bank  ;  New  Caledonia,  hardly  oceanic,  is 
another  exception.  This  argument  has  to  me  great  weight. 
Compare  on  a  Geographical  Map,  islands  which,  we  have 
several  reasons  to  suppose,  were  connected  with  mainland,  as 
Sardinia,  and  how  different  it  appears.  Believing,  as  I  am 
inclined,  that  continents  as  continents,  and  oceans  as  oceans, 
arc  of  immense  antiquity — I  should  say  that  if  any  of  the 
existing  oceanic  islands  have  any  relation  of  any  kind  to 
continents,  they  are  forming  continents  ;  and  that  by  the 
time  they  could  form  a  continent,  the  volcanoes  would  be 
denuded  to  their  cores,  leaving  peaks  of  syenite,  diorite,  or 
porphyry.  But  have  we  nowhere  any  last  wreck  of  a  con- 
tinent, in  the  midst  of  the  ocean  ?  St.  Paul's  Rock,  and  such 
old  battered  volcanic  islands,  as  St.  Helena,  may  be  ;  but 
I  think  we  can  see  some  reason  why  we  should  have  less 
evidence  of  sinking  than  of  rising  continents  (if  my  view  in 
my  Coral  volume  has  any  truth  in  it,  viz.  :  that  volcanic 
outbursts  accompany  rising  areas),  for  during  subsidence 
there  will  be  no  compensating  agent  at  work,  in  rising  areas 
there  will  be  the  additional  element  of  outpoured  volcanic 
matter. 

Thirdly.  Considering  the  depth  of  the  ocean,  I  was,  before  I 
got  your  letter,  inclined  vehemently  to  dispute  the  vast 
amount  of  subsidence,  but  I  must  strike  my  colours.  With 
respect  to  coral  reefs,  I  carefully  guarded  against  its  being 


1856.]  CONTINENTAL   EXTENSION.  J? 

supposed  that  a  continent  was  indicated  by  the  groups  of 
atolls.  It  is  difficult  to  guess,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the 
amount  of  subsidence  indicated  by  coral  reefs  ;  but  in  such 
large  areas  as  the  Lowe  Archipelago,  the  Marshall  Archi- 
pelago, and  Laccadive  group,  it  would,  judging  from  the 
heights  of  existing  oceanic  archipelagoes,  be  odd,  if  some 
peaks  of  from  8000  to  10,000  feet  had  not  been  buried.  Even 
after  your  letter  a  suspicion  crossed  me  whether  it  would  be 
fair  to  argue  from  subsidences  in  the  middle  of  the  greatest 
oceans  to  continents  ;  but  refreshing  my  memory  by  talking 
with  Ramsay  in  regard  to  the  probable  thickness  in  one  vertical 
line  of  the  Silurian  and  carboniferous  formation,  it  seems  there 
must  have  been  at  least  10,000  feet  of  subsidence  during  these 
formations  in  Europe  and  North  America,  and  therefore 
during  the  continuance  of  nearly  the  same  set  of  organic 
beings.  But  even  12,000  feet  would  not  be  enough  for  the 
Azores,  or  for  Hooker's  continent ;  I  believe  Hooker  does  not 
infer  a  continuous  continent,  but  approximate  groups  of 
islands,  with,  if  we  may  judge  from  existing  continents,  not 
profotindly  deep  sea  between  them  ;  but  the  argument  from 
the  volcanic  nature  of  nearly  every  existing  oceanic  island 
tells  against  such  supposed  groups  of  islands, — for  I  presume 
he  does  not  suppose  a  mere  chain  of  volcanic  islands  belting 
the  southern  hemisphere. 

Fourthly.  The  supposed  continental  extensions  do  not  seem 
to  me,  perfectly  to  account  for  all  the  phenomena  of  distri- 
bution on  islands ;  as  the  absence  of  mammals  and  Batra- 
chians ;  the  absence  of  certain  great  groups  of  insects  on 
Madeira,  and  of  Acacias  and  Banksias,  &c,  in  New  Zealand  ; 
the  paucity  of  plants  in  some  cases,  &c.  Not  that  those  who 
believe^  in  various  accidental  means  of  dispersal,  can  explain 
most  of  these  cases  ;  but  they  may  at  least  say  that  these 
facts  seem  hardly  compatible  with  former  continuous  land. 

Finally.  For  these  several  reasons,  and  especially  con- 
sidering it  certain  (in  which  you  will  agree)  that  we  are  ex- 


78  THE    UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

tremely  ignorant  of  means  of  dispersal,  I  cannot  avoid  think- 
ing that  Forbes'  '  Atlantis '  was  an  ill-service  to  science,  as 
checking  a  close  study  of  means  of  dissemination.  I  shall  be 
really  grateful  to  hear,  as  briefly  as  you  like,  whether  these 
arguments  have  any  weight  with  you,  putting  yourself  in  the 
position  of  an  honest  judge.  I  told  Hooker  I  was  going  to 
write  to  you  on  this  subject ;  and  I  should  like  him  to  read 
this  ;  but  whether  he  or  you  will  think  it  worth  time  and 
postage  remains  to  be  proved. 

Yours  most  truly, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[On  July  8th  he  wrote  to  Sir  Charles  Lyell. 

"  I  am  sorry  you  cannot  give  any  verdict  on  Continental 
extensions  ;  and  I  infer  that  you  think  my  argument  of  not 
much  weight  against  such  extensions.  I  know  I  wish  I  could 
believe  so."] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  July  20th  [1856]. 

...  It  is  not  a  little  egotistical,  but  I  should  like  to  tell 
you  (and  I  do  not  think  I  have)  how  I  view  my  work. 
Nineteen  years  (!)  ago  it  occurred  to  me  that  whilst  otherwise 
employed  on  Nat.  Hist.,  I  might  perhaps  do  good  if  I  noted 
any  sort  of  facts  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  origin  of 
species,  and  this  I  have  since  been  doing.  Either  species 
have  been  independently  created,  or  they  have  descended 
from  other  species,  like  varieties  from  one  species.  I  think  it 
can  be  shown  to  be  probable  that  man  gets  his  most  distinct 
varieties  by  preserving  such  as  arise  best  worth  keeping  and 
destroying  the  others,  but  I  should  fill  a  quire  if  I  were  to  go 
on.  To  be  brief,  I  assume  that  species  arise  like  our  domestic 
varieties  with  much  extinction  ;  and  then  test  this  hypothesis 
by  comparison  with  as  many  general  and  pretty  well-esta- 
blished propositions  as  I  can  find  made  out, — in  geographical 


1856.]  GEOGRAPHICAL   DISTRIBUTION.  79 

distribution,  geological  history,  affinities,  &c.  &c.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that,  supposing  that  such  hypothesis  were  to 
explain  such  general  propositions,  we  ought,  in  accordance 
with  the  common  way  of  following  all  sciences,  to  admit  it  till 
some  better  hypothesis  be  found  out.  For  to  my  mind  to 
say  that  species  were  created  so  and  so  is  no  scientific  explan- 
ation, only  a  reverent  way  of  saying  it  is  so  and  so.  But  it 
is  nonsensical  trying  to  show  how  I  try  to  proceed,  in  the 
compass  of  a  note.  But  as  an  honest  man,  I  must  tell  you  that 
I  have  come  to  the  heterodox  conclusion,  that  there  are  no 
such  things  as  independently  created  species — that  species  are 
only  strongly  defined  varieties.  I  know  that  this  will  make 
you  despise  me.  I  do  not  much  underrate  the  many  huge 
difficulties  on  this  view,  but  yet  it  seems  to  me  to  explain  too 
much,  otherwise  inexplicable,  to  be  false.  Just  to  allude  to 
one  point  in  your  last  note,  viz.  about  species  of  the  same 
genus  generally  having  a  common  or  continuous  area  ;  if  they 
are  actual  lineal  descendants  of  one  species,  this  of  course 
would  be  the  case  ;  and  the  sadly  too  many  exceptions  (for 
me)  have  to  be  explained  by  climatal  and  geological  changes. 
A  fortiori  on  this  view  (but  on  exactly  same  grounds),  all  the 
individuals  of  the  same  species  should  have  a  continuous 
distribution.  On  this  latter  branch  of  the  subject  I  have  put 
a  chapter  together,  and  Hooker  kindly  read  it  over.  I 
thought  the  exceptions  and  difficulties  were  so  great  that  on 
the  whole  the  balance  weighed  against  my  notions,  but  I  was 
much  pleased  to  find  that  it  seemed  to  have  considerable 
weight  with  Hooker,  who  said  he  had  never  been  so  much 
staggered  about  the  permanence  of  species. 

I  must  say  one  word  more  in  justification  (for  I  feel  sure 
that  your  tendency  will  be  to  despise  me  and  my  crotchets), 
that  all  my  notions  about  how  species  change  are  derived 
from  long-continued  study  of  the  works  of  (and  converse 
with)  agriculturists  and  horticulturists ;  and  I  believe  I 
see  my  way  pretty  clearly  on  the  means  used  by  nature  to 


So  THE    UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

change  her  species  and  adapt  them  to  the  wondrous  and  ex- 
quisitely beautiful  contingencies  to  which  every  living  being- 
is  exposed.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  July  30th,  1856. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Your  letter  is  of  much  value  to  me, 
I  was  not  able  to  get  a  definite  answer  from  Lyell,*  as  you  will 
see  in  the  enclosed  letters,  though  I  inferred  that  he  thought 
nothing  of  my  arguments.  Had  it  not  been  for  this  corre- 
spondence, I  should  have  written  sadly  too  strongly.  You 
may  rely  on  it  I  shall  put  my  doubts  moderately.  There 
never  was  such  a  predicament  as  mine  :  here  you  continental 
extensionists  would  remove  enormous  difficulties  opposed  to- 
me, and  yet  I  cannot  honestly  admit  the  doctrine,  and  must 
therefore  say  so.  I  cannot  get  over  the  fact  that  not  a  frag- 
ment of  secondary  or  palaeozoic  rock  has  been  found  on  any 
island  above  500  or  600  miles  from  a  mainland.  You  rather 
misunderstand  me  when  you  think  I  doubt  the  possibility  of 
subsidence  of  20,000  or  30,000  feet ;  it  is  only  probability,  con- 
sidering such  evidence  as  we  have  independently  of  distribution. 
I  have  not  yet  worked  out  in  full  detail  the  distribution  of 
mammalia,  both  identical  and  allied,  with  respect  to  the  one 
element  of  depth  of  the  sea ;  but  as  far  as  I  have  gone,  the 
results  are  to  me  surprisingly  accordant  with  my  very  most 
troublesome  belief  in  not  such  great  geographical  changes  as 
you  believe  ;  and  in  mammalia  we  certainly  know  more  of 
means  of  distribution  than  in  any  other  class.  Nothing  is  so 
vexatious  to  me,  as  so  constantly  finding  myself  drawing 
different  conclusions  from  better  judges  than  myself,  from 
the  same  facts. 

I  fancy  I  have  lately  removed  many  (not  geographical) 
great  difficulties  opposed  to  my  notions,  but  God  knows  it 
may  be  all  hallucination. 

*  On  the  continental  extensions  of  Forbes  and  others. 


1856.]  CLASSIFICATION.  8 1 

Please  return  Lyell's  letters. 

What  a  capital  letter  of  Lyell's  that  to  you  is,  and  what  a 
wonderful  man  he  is.  I  differ  from  him  greatly  in  thinking 
that  those  who  believe  that  species  are  not  fixed  will  multiply 
specific  names  :  I  know  in  my  own  case  my  most  frequent 
source  of  doubt  was  whether  others  would  not  think  this  or 
that  was  a  God-created  Barnacle,  and  surely  deserved  a 
name.  Otherwise  I  should  only  have  thought  whether  the 
amount  of  difference  and  permanence  was  sufficient  to  justify 
a  name  :  I  am,  also,  surprised  at  his  thinking  it  immaterial 
whether  species  are  absolute  or  not :  whenever  it  is  proved 
that  all  species  are  produced  by  generation,  by  laws  of  change, 
what  good  evidence  we  shall  have  of  the  gaps  in  formations. 
And  what  a  science  Natural  History  will  be,  when  we  are  in 
our  graves,  when  all  the  laws  of  change  are  thought  one  of 
the  most  important  parts  of  Natural  History. 

I  cannot  conceive  why  Lyell  thinks  such  notions  as  mine 
or  of  'Vestiges,'  will  invalidate  specific  centres.  But  I  must 
not  run  on  and  take  up  your  time.  My  MS.  will  not,  I  fear, 
be  copied  before  you  go  abroad.     With  hearty  thanks. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — After  giving  much  condensed,  my  argument  versus 
continental  extensions,  I  shall  append  some  such  sentence, 
as  that  two  better  judges  than  myself  have  considered  these 
arguments,  and  attach  no  weight  to  them. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  August  5th  [1856]. 

...  I  quite  agree  about  Lyell's  letters  to  me,  which, 
though  to  me  interesting,  have  afforded  me  no  new  light. 
Your  letters,  under  the  geological  point  of  view,  have  been 
more  valuable  to  me.  You  cannot  imagine  how  earnestlv 
I  wish  I  could  swallow  continental  extension,  but  I  cannot ; 

VOL.  II.  G 


82  THE    UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856- 

the  more  I  think  (and  I  cannot  get  the  subject  out  of  my 
head),  the  more  difficult  I  find  it.  If  there  were  only  some 
half-dozen  cases,  I  should  not  feel  the  least  difficulty  ;  but 
the  generality  of  the  facts  of  all  islands  (except  one  or  two) 
having  a  considerable  part  of  their  productions  in  common 
with  one  or  more  mainlands  utterly  staggers  me.  What  a 
wonderful  case  of  the  Epacridae  !  It  is  most  vexatious,  also* 
humiliating,  to  me  that  I  cannot  follow  and  subscribe  to  the 
way  in  which  you  strikingly  put  your  view  of  the  case. 
I  look  at  your  facts  (about  Eucalyptus,  &c.)  as  damning' 
against  continental  extension,  and  if  you  like  also  damning 
against  migration,  or  at  least  of  enormous  difficulty.  I  see 
the  ground  of  our  difference  (in  a  letter  I  must  put  myself 
on  an  equality  in  arguing)  lies,  in  my  opinion,  that  scarcely 
anything  is  known  of  means  of  distribution.  I  quite  agree 
with  A.  De  Candolle's  (and  I  dare  say  your)  opinion  that  it 
is  poor  work  putting  together  the  merely  possible  means  of 
distribution  ;  but  I  see  no  other  way  in  which  the  subject  can, 
be  attacked,  for  I  think  that  A.  De  Candolle's  argument,, 
that  no  plants  have  been  introduced  into  England  except  by 
man's  agency,  of  no  weight.  I  cannot  but  think  that  the 
theory  of  continental  extension  does  do  some  little  harm 
as  stopping  investigation  of  the  means  of  dispersal,  which, 
whether  negative  or  positive,  seems  to  me  of  value  ;  when 
negatived,  then  every  one  who  believes  in  single  centres  will 
have  to  admit  continental  extensions. 

...  I  see  from  your  remarks  that  you  do  not  understand 
my  notions  (whether  or  no  worth  anything)  about  modifica- 
tion ;  I  attribute  very  little  to  the  direct  action  of  climate,  &c. 
I  suppose,  in  regard  to  specific  centres,  we  are  at  cross 
purposes  ;  I  should  call  the  kitchen  garden  in  which  the  red 
cabbage  was  produced,  or  the  farm  in  which  Bakewell  made 
the  Shorthorn  cattle,  the  specific  centre  of  these  species  t 
And  surely  this  is  centralisation  enough  ! 

I  thank  you  most  sincerely  for  all  your  assistance ;  and 


1856.]  SPECIFIC  CENTRES.  S$ 

whether  or  no  my  book  may  be  wretched,  you  have  done  your 
best  to  make  it  less  wretched.  Sometimes  I  am  in  very  good 
spirits  and  sometimes  very  low  about  it.  My  own  mind  is 
decided  on  the  question  of  the  origin  of  species  ;  but,  good 
heavens,  how  little  that  is  worth  !  .  .  . 

[With  regard  to  "  specific  centres,"  a  passage  from  a  letter 
dated  July  25,  1856,  from  Sir  Charles  Lyell  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker 
('  Life,'  vol.  ii.  p.  216)  is  of  interest : 

"  I  fear  much  that  if  Darwin  argues  that  species  are 
phantoms,  he  will  also  have  to  admit  that  single  centres  of 
dispersion  are  phantoms  also,  and  that  would  deprive  me 
of  much  of  the  value  which  I  ascribe  to  the  present  provinces 
of  animals  and  plants,  as  illustrating  modern  and  tertiary 
changes  in  physical  geography." 

He  seems  to  have  recognised,  however,  that  the  phantom 
doctrine  would  soon  have  to  be  faced,  for  he  wrote  in  the 
same  letter  :  "  Whether  Darwin  persuades  you  and  me  to 
renounce  our  faith  in  species  (when  geological  epochs  are 
considered)  or  not,  I  foresee  that  many  will  go  over  to  the 
indefinite  modifiability  doctrine." 

In  the  autumn  my  father  was  still  working  at  geographical 
distribution,  and  again  sought  aid  from  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker. 

"In  the  course  of  some  weeks,  you  unfortunate  wretch,  you 
will  have  my  MS.  on  one  point  of  Geographical  Distribution. 
I  will,  however,  never  ask  such  a  favour  again  ;  but  in  regard 
to  this  one  piece  of  MS.,  it  is  of  infinite  importance  to  me  for 
you  to  see  it  ;  for  never  in  my  life  have  I  felt  such  difficulty 
what  to  do,  and  I  heartily  wish  I  could  slur  the  whole  subject 
over." 

In  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (June,  1856),  the  following 
characteristic    passage    occurs,   suggested,  no  doubt,    by  the 

G  2 


84  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

kind  of  work  which  his  chapter  on  Geographical  Distribution 
entailed  : 

"  There  is  wonderful  ill  logic  in  his  [E.  Forbes']  famous 
and  admirable  memoir  on  distribution,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
now  that  I  have  got  it  up  so  as  to  give  the  heads  in  a  page. 
Depend  on  it,  my  saying  is  a  true  one,  viz.  that  a  compiler 
is  a  great  man,  and  an  original  man  a  commonplace  man. 
Any  fool  can  generalise  and  speculate ;  but,  oh,  my  heavens ! 
to  get  up  at  second  hand  a  New  Zealand  Flora,  that  is  work,"] 


C.  Darwin  to  W.  D.  Fox, 

Oct.  3  [1856]. 

...  I    remember    you    protested    against    Lyell's    advice 
of  writing  a  sketch  of  my  species  doctrines.     Well,  when   I 
began  I    found    it    such   unsatisfactory    work   that    I    have 
desisted,  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.     Thus  far  and  no  farther  I  shall  follow  Lyell's 
urgent  advice.     Your  remarks  weighed  with  me  considerably. 
I  find  to  my  sorrow  it  will  run  to  quite  a  big  book.     I  have 
found  my  careful  work  at  pigeons  really  invaluable,  as  en- 
lightening me  on  many  points  on  variation  under  domesti- 
cation.    The  copious  old  literature,  by  which  I  can  trace  the 
gradual   changes  in  the  breeds  of  pigeons  has  been  extra- 
ordinarily useful  to  me.     I  have  just  had  pigeons  and  fowls 
alive  from  the  Gambia  !     Rabbits  and  ducks  I  am  attending 
to  pretty  carefully,  but  less  so  than  pigeons.     I  find  most  re- 
markable differences  in  the  skeletons  of  rabbits.     Have  you 
ever  kept  any  odd  breeds  of  rabbits,  and  can  you  give  me 
any  details  ?     One  other  question.     You  used  to  keep  hawks  ; 
do  you  at  all  know,  after  eating  a  bird,  how  soon  after  they 
throw  up  the  pellet  ? 


1856.]  BOTANICAL   GEOGRAPHY.  85 

No  subject  gives  me  so  much  trouble  and  doubt  and  diffi- 
culty as  the  means  of  dispersal  of  the  same  species  of  terrestrial 
productions  on  the  oceanic  islands.  Land  mollusca  drive  me 
mad,  and  I  cannot  anyhow  get  their  eggs  to  experimentise  their 
power  of  floating  and  resistance  to  the  injurious  action  of 
salt  water.  I  will  not  apologise  for  writing  so  much  about 
my  own  doings,  as  I  believe  you  will  like  to  hear.  Do  some- 
time, I  beg  you,  let  me  hear  how  you  get  on  in  health  ;  and 
if  so  i?iclinedi  let  me  have  some  words  on  call-ducks. 

My  dear  Fox,  yours  affectionately, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[With  regard  to  his  book  he  wrote  (Nov.  10th)  to  Sir 
Charles  Lyell : 

"  I  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  acceleration  I  owe  to  you."] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Sunday  [Oct.  1856]. 

My  DEAR  Hooker, — The  seeds  are  come  all  safe,  many 
thanks  for  them.  I  was  very  sorry  to  run  away  so  soon  and 
miss  any  part  of  my  most  pleasant  evening  ;  and  I  ran  away 
like  a  Goth  and  Vandal  without  wishing  Mrs.  Hooker  good- 
bye ;  but  I  was  only  just  in  time,  as  I  got  on  the  platform 
the  train  had  arrived. 

I  was  particularly  glad  of  our  discussion  after  dinner ; 
fighting  a  battle  with  you  always  clears  my  mind  wonder- 
fully. I  groan  to  hear  that  A.  Gray  agrees  with  you  about 
the  condition  of  Botanical  Geography.  All  I  know  is  that 
if  you  had  had  to  search  for  light  in  Zoological  Geography 
you  would  by  contrast,  respect  your  own  subject  a  vast  deal 


S6  THE    UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

more  than  you  now  do.  The  hawks  have  behaved  like 
gentlemen,  and  have  cast  up  pellets  with  lots  of  seeds  in 
them  ;  and  I  have  just  had  a  parcel  of  partridge's  feet  well 
caked  with  mud  ! ! !  *     Adios. 

Your  insane  and  perverse  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Nov.  4th  [1856]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  thank  you  more  cordially  than  you 
will  think  probable,  for  your  note.  Your  verdict  f  has  been 
a  great  relief.  On  my  honour  I  had  no  idea  whether  or  not 
you  would  say  it  was  (and  I  knew  you  would  say  it  very 
kindly)  so  bad,  that  you  would  have  begged  me  to  have 
burnt  the  whole.  To  my  own  mind  my  MS.  relieved  me 
of  some  few  difficulties,  and  the  difficulties  seemed  to  me 
pretty  fairly  stated,  but  I  had  become  so  bewildered  with 
conflicting  facts,  evidence,  reasoning  and  opinions,  that  I  felt 
to  myself  that  I  had  lost  all  judgment.  Your  general  verdict 
is  incomparably  more  favourable  than  I  had  anticipated  .  .  . 

■  C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Nov.  23rd  [1856]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  fear  I  shall  weary  you  with  letters, 
but  do  not  answer  this,  for  in  truth  and  without  flattery,  I  so 
value  your  letters,  that  after  a  heavy  batch,  as  of  late,  I  feel 
that  I  have  been  extravagant  and  have  drawn  too  much 
money,  and  shall  therefore  have  to  stint  myself  on  another 
occasion. 

When  I  sent  my  MS.  I  felt  strongly  that  some  preliminary 
questions  on  the  causes  of  variation  ought  to  have  been  sent 
you.     Whether  I  am  right  or  wrong  in  these  points  is  quite  a 

*  The  mud  in  such  cases  often  f  On  the  MS.    relating  to  geo- 

contains  seeds,  so  that  plants  are      graphical  distribution, 
thus  transported. 


1856.]  NATURAL   SELECTION.  87 

separate  question,  but  the  conclusion  which  I  have  come  to, 
quite  independently  of  geographical  distribution,  is  that 
external  conditions  (to  which  naturalists  so  often  appeal)  do 
by  themselves  very  little.  How  much  they  do  is  the  point  of 
all  others  on  which  I  feel  myself  very  weak.  I  judge  from 
the  facts  of  variation  under  domestication,  and  I  may  yet  get 
more  light.  But  at  present,  after  drawing  up  a  rough  copy 
on  this  subject,  my  conclusion  is  that  external  conditions  do 
.extremely  little,  except  in  causing  mere  variability.  This 
mere  variability  (causing  the  child  not  closely  to  resemble  its 
parent)  I  look  at  as  very  different  from  the  formation  of  a 
marked  variety  or  new  species.  (No  doubt  the  variability  is 
governed  by  laws,  some  of  which  I  am  endeavouring  very 
obscurely  to  trace.)  The  formation  of  a  strong  variety  or 
species  I  look  at  as  almost  wholly  due  to  the  selection  of 
what  may  be  incorrectly  called  chance  variations  or  variability. 
This  power  of  selection  stands  in  the  most  direct  relation  to 
time,  and  in  the  state  of  nature  can  be  only  excessively  slow. 
Again,  the  slight  differences  selected,  by  which  a  race  or 
species  is  at  last  formed,  stands,  as  I  think  can  be  shown 
(even  with  plants,  and  obviously  with  animals),  in  a  far  more 
important  relation  to  its  associates  than  to  external  conditions. 
Therefore,  according  to  my  principles,  whether  right  or  wrong, 
I  cannot  agree  with  your  proposition  that  time,  and  altered 
conditions,  and  altered  associates,  are  "  convertible  terms."  I 
look  at  the  first  and  the  last  as  far  more  important :  time 
being  important  only  so  far  as  giving  scope  to  selection. 
God  knows  whether  you  will  perceive  at  what  I  am  driving. 
I  shall  have  to  discuss  and  think  more  about  your  difficulty  of 
the  temperate  and  sub-arctic  forms  in  the  S.  hemisphere  than 
I  have  yet  done.  But  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  I  am  right 
(if  my  general  principles  are  right),  that  there  would  be  little 
tendency  to  the  formation  of  a  new  species,  during  the  period 
of  migration,  whether  shorter  or  longer,  though  considerable 
'variability  may  have  supervened.  .  .  . 


S8  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1856. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Dec.  24th  [1856]. 

.  .  .  How  I  do  wish  I  lived  near  you  to  discuss  matters 
with.  I  have  just  been  comparing  definitions  of  species,  and 
stating  briefly  how  systematic  naturalists  work  out  their 
subjects.  Aquilegia  in  the  Flora  Indica  was  a  capital 
example  for  me.  It  is  really  laughable  to  see  what  different 
ideas  are  prominent  in  various  naturalists'  minds,  when  they 
speak  of  "species  ;"  in  some,  resemblance  is  everything  and 
descent  of  little  weight — in  some,  resemblance  seems  to  go  for 
nothing,  and  Creation  the  reigning  idea — in  some,  descent  is 
the  key, — in  some,  sterility  an  unfailing  test,  with  others  it  is 
not  worth  a  farthing.  It  all  comes,  I  believe,  from  trying  to 
define  the  undefinable.  I  suppose  you  have  lost  the  odd 
black  seed  from  the  birds'  dung,  which  germinated, — anyhow, 
it  is  not  worth  taking  trouble  over.  I  have  now  got  about  a 
dozen  seeds  out  of  small  birds'  dung.     Adios, 

My  dear  Hooker,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  Jan.  1st  [1857  ?] 

My  DEAR  Dr.  Gray, — I  have  received  the  second  part  of 
your  paper,*  and  though  I  have  nothing  particular  to  say,  I 
must  send  you  my  thanks  and  hearty  admiration.  The  whole 
paper  strikes  me  as  quite  exhausting  the  subject,  and  I  quite 
fancy  and  flatter  myself  I  now  appreciate  the  character  of 
your  Flora.  What  a  difference  in  regard  to  Europe  your 
remark  in  relation  to  the  genera  makes !  I  have  been 
eminently  glad  to  see  your  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  species 
of  large  genera  widely  ranging ;  it  is  in  strict  conformity  with 

*  '  Statistics  of  the  Flora  of  the  Northern  United  States.' — Sillimaii's 
Journal,  1857. 


1 857.]  TREES   AND   SHRUBS.  89 

the  results  I  have  worked  out  in  several  ways.  It  is  of  great 
importance  to  my  notions.  By  the  way  you  have  paid  me  a 
great  compliment :  *  to  be  simply  mentioned  even  in  such  a 
paper  I  consider  a  very  great  honour.  One  of  your  con- 
clusions makes  me  groan,  viz.  that  the  line  of  connection  of 
the  strictly  Alpine  plants  is  through  Greenland.  I  should 
extremely  like  to  see  your  reasons  published  in  detail,  for  it 
"riles"  me  (this  is  a  proper  expression,  is  it  not?)  dreadfully. 
Lyell  told  me,  that  Agassiz  having  a  theory  about  when 
Saurians  were  first  created,  on  hearing  some  careful  observa- 
tions opposed  to  this,  said  he  did  not  believe  it,  "  for  Nature 
never  lied."  I  am  just  in  this  predicament,  and  repeat  to 
you  that,  "  Nature  never  lies,"  ergo,  theorisers  are  always 
right.  .  .  . 

Overworked  as  you  are,  I  dare  say  you  will  say  that  I  am 
an  odious  plague  ;  but  here  is  another  suggestion  !  I  was  led 
by  one  of  my  wild  speculations  to  conclude  (though  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  geographical  distribution,  yet  it  has  with 
your  statistics)  that  trees  would  have  a  strong  tendency  to  have 
flowers  with  dioecious,  monoecious  or  polygamous  structure. 
Seeing  that  this  seemed  so  in  Persoon,  I  took  one  little 
British  Flora,  and  discriminating  trees  from  bushes  according 
to  Loudon,  I  have  found  that  the  result  was  in  species,  genera 
and  families,  as  I  anticipated.  So  I  sent  my  notions  to  Hooker 
to  ask  him  to  tabulate  the  New  Zealand  Flora  for  this  end, 
and  he  thought  my  result  sufficiently  curious,  to  do  so  ;  and 
the  accordance  with  Britain  is  very  striking,  and  the  more  so, 
as  he  made  three  classes  of  trees,  bushes,  and  herbaceous 
plants.  (He  says  further  he  shall  work  the  Tasmanian  Flora 
on  the  same  principle.)  The  bushes  hold  an  intermediate 
position  between  the  other  two  classes.     It  seems  to  me   a 

*  "  From  some  investigations  of  range  over  a  larger  area  than  the 
his  own,  this  sagacious  naturalist  species  of  small  genera  do." — Asa 
inclines  to  think  that  large  genera       Gray,  loc.  cit. 


90  THE    UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857. 


curious  relation  in  itself,  and  is  very  much  so,  if  my  theory 
and  explanation  are  correct.* 

With  hearty  thanks,  your  most  troublesome  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  April  12th  [1857]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Your  letter  has  pleased  me  much, 
for  I  never  can  get  it  out  of  my  head,  that  I  take  unfair 
advantage  of  your  kindness,  as  I  receive  all  and  give  nothing. 
What  a  splendid  discussion  you  could  write  on  the  whole 
subject  of  variation  !  The  cases  discussed  in  your  last  note 
are  valuable  to  me  (though  odious  and  damnable),  as  showing 
how  profoundly  ignorant  we  are  on  the  causes  of  variation. 
I  shall  just  allude  to  these  cases,  as  a  sort  of  sub-division 
of  polymorphism  a  little  more  definite,  I  fancy,  than  the 
variation  of,  for  instance,  the  Rubi,  and  equally  or  more 
perplexing. 

I  have  just  been  putting  my  notes  together  on  variations 
apparently  due  to  the  immediate  and  direct  action  of  external 
causes  ;  and  I  have  been  struck  with  one  result.  The  most 
firm  sticklers  for  independent  creation  admit,  that  the  fur  of 
the  same  species  is  thinner  towards  the  south  of  the  range  of 
the  same  species  than  to  the  north — that  the  same  shells  are 
brighter-coloured  to  the  south  than  north ;  that  the  same 
[shell]  is  paler-coloured  in  deep  water — that  insects  are 
smaller  and  darker  on  mountains — more  livid  and  testaceous 
near  the  sea — that  plants  are  smaller  and  more  hairy  and  with 
brighter  flowers  on  mountains  :  now  in  all  such,  and  other 
cases,  distinct  species  in  the  two  zones  follow  the  same  rule, 
which  seems  to  me  to  be  most  simply  explained  by  species, 
being  only  strongly  marked  varieties,  and  therefore  following 

*  See  '  Origin,'  ed.  i.  p.  100. 


1I857-]  WATER-CURE.  91 

the  same  laws  as  recognised  and  admitted  varieties.  I  mention 
all  this  on  account  of  the  variation  of  plants  in  ascending 
mountains  ;  I  have  quoted  the  foregoing  remark  only  generally 
with  no  examples,  for  I  add,  there  is  so  much  doubt  and  dispute 
what  to  call  varieties  ;  but  yet  I  have  stumbled  on  so  many 
casual  remarks  on  varieties  of  plants  on  mountains  being  so 
characterised,  that  I  presume  there  is  some  truth  in  it.  What 
think  you  ?  Do  you  believe  there  is  any  tendency  in  varieties, 
.as  generally  so  called,  of  plants  to  become  more  hairy,  and 
with  proportionally  larger  and  brighter-coloured  flowers  in 
ascending  a  mountain  ? 

I  have  been  interested  in  my  "  weed  garden,"  of  3  x  2  feet 
square :  I  mark  each  seedling  as  it  appears,  and  I  am 
astonished  at  the  number  that  come  up,  and  still  more  at 
the  number  killed  by  slugs,  &c.  Already  59  have  been  so 
killed  ;  I  expected  a  good  many,  but  I  had  fancied  that  this 
was  a  less  potent  check  than  it  seems  to  be,  and  I  attributed 
almost  exclusively  to  mere  choking,  the  destruction  of  the 
seedlings.     Grass-seedlings  seem    to   suffer   much   less    than 

o  o 

exogens.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  jf.  D.  Hooker. 

Moor  Park,  Farnham,  [April  (?)   1857.] 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Your  letter  has  been  forwarded  to 
me  here,  where  I  am  undergoing  hydropathy  for  a  fortnight, 
having  been  here  a  week,  and  having  already  received  an 
amount  of  good  which  is  quite  incredible  to  myself  and  quite 
unaccountable.  I  can  walk  and  eat  like  a  hearty  Christian, 
and  even  my  nights  are  good.  I  cannot  in  the  least  under- 
stand how  hydropathy  can  act  as  it  certainly  does  on  me. 
It  dulls  one's  brain  splendidly  ;  I  have  not  thought  about 
a  single  species  of  any  kind  since  leaving  home.  Your  note 
has  taken  me  aback  ;  I  thought  the  hairiness,  &c,  of  Alpine 
species  was  generally   admitted  ;    I   am  sure   I  have   seen  it 


92  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857. 

alluded  to  a  score  of  times.  Falconer  was  haranguing  on 
it  the  other  day  to  me.  Meyen  or  Gay,  or  some  such  fellow 
(whom  you  would  despise),  I  remember,  makes  some  remark 
on  Chilian  Cordillera  plants.  Wimmer  has  written  a  little  book 
on  the  same  lines,  and  on  varieties  being  so  characterized  in. 
the  Alps.  But  after  writing  to  you,  I  confess  I  was  staggered 
by  finding  one  man  (Moquin-Tandon,  I  think)  saying  that 
Alpine  flowers  are  strongly  inclined  to  be  white,  and  Linnaeus 
saying  that  cold  makes  plants  apetalous,  even  the  same 
species !  Are  Arctic  plants  often  apetalous  ?  My  general 
belief  from  my  compiling  work  is  quite  to  agree  with  what 
you  say  about  the  little  direct  influence  of  climate  ;  and  I 
have  just  alluded  to  the  hairiness  of  Alpine  plants  as  an  ex- 
ception. The  odoriferousness  would  be  a  good  case  for  me  if 
I  knew  of  varieties  being  more  odoriferous  in  dry  habitats. 

I  fear  that  I  have  looked  at  the  hairiness  of  Alpine  plants  as 
so  generally  acknowledged  that  I  have  not  marked  passages, 
so  as  at  all  to  see  what  kind  of  evidence  authors  advance. 
I  must  confess,  the  other  day,  when  I  asked  Falconer,  whether 
he  knew  of  individual  plants  losing  or  acquiring  hairiness 
when  transported,  he  did  not.  But  now  this  second,  my 
memory  flashes  on  me,  and  I  am  certain  I  have  somewhere 
got  marked  a  case  of  hairy  plants  from  the  Pyrenees  losing 
hairs  when  cultivated  at  Montpellier.  Shall  you  think  me 
very  impudent  if  I  tell  you  that  I  have  sometimes  thought 
that  (quite  independently  of  the  present  case),  you  are  a  little 
too  hard  on  bad  observers  ;  that  a  remark  made  by  a  bad 
observer  cannot  be  right  ;  an  observer  who  deserves  to  be 
damned,  you  would  utterly  damn.  I  feel  entire  deference 
to  any  remark  you  make  out  of  your  own  head  ;  but  when  in 
opposition  to  some  poor  devil,  I  somehow  involuntarily  feel 
not  quite  so  much,  but  yet  much  deference  for  your  opinion. 
I  do  not  know  in  the  least  whether  there  is  any  truth  in  this 
my  criticism  against  you,  but  I  have  often  thought  I  would 
tell  you  it. 


1857J  NOVARA   EXPEDITION.  93 

I  am  really  very  much  obliged  for  your  letter,  for,  though  I 
intended  to  put  only  one  sentence  and  that  vaguely,  I  should 
probably  have  put  that  much  too  strongly. 

Ever,  my  dear  Hooker,  yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — This  note,  as  you  see,  has  not  anything  requiring  an 
answer. 

The  distribution  of  fresh-water  molluscs  has  been  a  horrid 
incubus  to  me,  but  I  think  I  know  my  way  now  ;  when  first 
hatched  they  are  very  active,  and  I  have  had  thirty  or  forty 
crawl  on  a  dead  duck's  foot ;  and  they  cannot  be  jerked  off, 
and  will  live  fifteen  and  even  twenty-four  hours  out  of  water. 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  the  expedition  of  the  Austrian 
frigate  Novara  ;  Lyell  had  asked  my  father  for  suggestions.] 

« 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  Feb.  nth  [1857]. 
My  DEAR  Lyell, — I  was  glad  to  see  in  the  newspapers 
about  the  Austrian  Expedition.  I  have  nothing  to  add  geolo- 
gically to  my  notes  in  the  Manual.*  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  Expedition  is  tied  down  to  call  at  only  fixed  spots.  But 
if  there  be  any  choice  or  power  in  the  scientific  men  to 
influence  the  places — this  would  be  most  desirable.  It  is  my 
most  deliberate  conviction  that  nothing  would  aid  more, 
Natural  History,  than  careful  collecting  and  investigating  all 
the  productions  of  the  most  isolated  islands,  especially  of  the 
southern  hemisphere.  Except  Tristan  dAcunha  and  Ker- 
guelen  Land,  they  are  very  imperfectly  known  ;  and  even  at 
Kerguelen  Land,  how  much  there  is  to  make  out  about  the 
lignite  beds,  and  whether  there  are  signs  of  old  Glacial  action. 
Every  sea-shell  and  insect  and  plant  is  of  value  from  such 
spots.     Some  one  in  the  Expedition  especially  ought  to  have 

*  The   article   "Geology"   in   the 'Admiralty   'Manual   of   Scientific 
Enquiry.' 


94  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857.. 

Hooker's  New  Zealand  Essay.  What  grand  work  to  explore 
Rodriguez,  with  its  fossil  birds,  and  little  known  productions 
of  every  kind.  Again  the  Seychelles,  which,  with  the  Cocos 
so  near,  must  be  a  remnant  of  some  older  land.  The  outer 
island  of  Juan  Fernandez  is  little  known.  The  investigation 
of  these  little  spots  by  a  band  of  naturalists  would  be  grand  ;; 
St.  Paul's  and  Amsterdam  would  be  glorious,  botanically,  and 
geologically.  Can  you  not  recommend  them  to  get  my 
'  Journal '  and  '  Volcanic  Islands  '  on  account  of  the  Galapagos. 
If  they  come  from  the  north  it  will  be  a  shame  and  a  sin  if 
they  do  not  call  at  Cocos  Islet,  one  of  the  Galapagos.  I 
always  regretted  that  I  was  not  able  to  examine  the  great- 
craters  on  Albemarle  Island,  one  of  the  Galapagos.  In 
New  Zealand  urge  on  them  to  look  out  for  erratic  boulders 
and  marks  of  old  glaciers. 

Urge  the  use  of  the  dredge  in  the  Tropics  ;  how  little  or 
nothing  we  know  of  the  limit  of  life  downward  in  the  hot 
seas  ? 

My  present  work  leads  me  to  perceive  how  much  the 
domestic  animals  have  been  neglected  in  out  of  the  way 
countries. 

The  Revillagigedo  Island  off  Mexico,  I  believe,  has  never 
been  trodden  by  foot  of  naturalist. 

If  the   expedition    sticks    to   such   places    as    Rio,    Cape 

of  Good   Hope,   Ceylon   and  Australia,  &c,  it   will    not   do 

much. 

Ever  yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

[The  following  passage  occurs  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Fox,. 
February  22,  1857,  and  has  reference  to  the  book  on  Evolution 
on  which  he  was  still  at  work  : 

"  I  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 


I857.]  ARGUMENT   FROM   DOMESTICATION.  9$ 

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."] 


C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Moor  Park,  May  1st,  1857. 
My  DEAR  Sir, — 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  in  a  state 
of  nature,  distinct ;  but  I  have  sometimes  doubted  of  the 
wisdom  of  this,  and  therefore  I  am  glad  to  be  backed  by  your 
opinion.     I   must  confess,  however,  I  rather  doubt  the  truth 

*  "  On  the  Law  that  has  regulated  the  Introduction  of  New  Species.' r 
— Ann.  Nat.  Hist,  1853. 


96  THE    UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857. 

of  the  now  very  prevalent  doctrine  of  all  our  domestic  animals 
having  descended  from  several  wild  stocks  ;  though  I  do  not 
doubt  that  it  is  so  in  some  cases.  I  think  there  is  rather 
better  evidence  on  the  sterility  of  hybrid  animals  than  you 
seem  to  admit :  and  in  regard  to  plants  the  collection  of 
carefully  recorded  facts  by  Kolreuter  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  attributed  to  such  influences,  but  I  fully  believe  that 
they  are  very  slight.  It  is  really  impossible  to  explain  my 
views  (in  the  compass  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  !  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker? 

Moor  Park,  Saturday  [May  2nd,  1857]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — You  have  shaved  the  hair  off  the 
Alpine  plants  pretty  effectually.  The  case  of  the  Anthyllis 
will  make  a  "  tie  "  with  the  believed  case  of  Pyrenees  plants 
becoming  glabrous  at  low  levels.  If  I  do  find  that  I  have 
marked  such  facts,  I  will  lay  the  evidence  before  you. 
I  wonder  how  the  belief  could  have  originated  !  Was  it 
through  final  causes  to  keep  the  plants  warm  ?  Falconer  in 
talk  coupled  the  two  facts  of  woolly  Alpine  plants  and 
mammals.  How  candidly  and  meekly  you  took  my  Jeremiad 
on  your  severity  to  second-class  men.  After  I  had  sent 
it  off,  an  ugly  little  voice  asked  me,  once  or  twice,  how  much 
of  my  noble  defence  of  the  poor  in  spirit  and  in  fact,  was 
owing  to  your  having  not  seldom  smashed  favourite  notions 
of  my  own.  I  silenced  the  ugly  little  voice  with  contempt, 
but  it  would  whisper  again  and  again.     I  sometimes  despise 


1 857.]  VARIABILITY.  97 

myself  as  a  poor  compiler  as  heartily  as  you  could  do,  though 
I  do  not  despise  my  whole  work,  as  I  think  there  is  enough 
known  to  lay  a  foundation  for  the  discussion  on  the  origin  of 
species.  I  have  been  led  to  despise  and  laugh  at  myself 
as  a  compiler,  for  having  put  down  that  "  Alpine  plants  have 
large  flowers,"  and  now  perhaps  I  may  write  over  these  very 
words,  "Alpine  plants  have  small  or  apetalous  flowers  !  "  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down   [May]  16th  [1857]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — You  said — I  hope  honestly — that 
you  did  not  dislike  my  asking  questions  on  general  points, 
you  of  course  answering  or  not  as  time  and  inclination 
might  serve.  I  find  in  the  animal  kingdom  that  .... 
any  part  or  organ  developed  normally,  {i.e.  not  a  mon- 
strosity) in  a  species  in  any  high  or  unusual  degree,  com- 
pared with  the  same  part  or  organ  in  allied  species,  tends 
to  be  highly  variable.  I  cannot  doubt  this  from  my  mass 
of  collected  facts.  To  give  an  instance,  the  Cross-bill  is  very 
abnormal  in  the  structure  of  its  bill  compared  with  other 
allied  Fringillidse,  and  the  beak  is  eminently  variable.  The 
Himantopus,  remarkable  from  the  wonderful  length  of  its  legs, 
is  very  variable  in  the  length  of  its  legs.  I  could  give  many 
most  striking  and  curious  illustrations  in  all  classes ;  so  many 
that  I  think  it  cannot  be  chance.  But  I  have  none  in  the 
vegetable  kingdom,  owing,  as  I  believe,  to  my  ignorance. 
If  Nepenthes  consisted  of  one  or  two  species  in  a  group  with 
a  pitcher  developed,  then  I  should  have  expected  it  to  have 
been  very  variable  ;  but  I  do  not  consider  Nepenthes  a  case 
in  point,  for  when  a  whole  genus  or  group  has  an  organ, 
however  anomalous,  I  do  not  expect  it  to  be  variable, — 
it  is  only  when  one  or  few  species  differ  greatly  in  some  one 
part  or  organ  from  the  forms  closely  allied  to  it  in  all  other 
respects,  that  I  believe  such  part  or  organ  to  be  highly  vari- 

VOL.  II.  H 


gS  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857U 

able.     Will  you  turn  this  in  your  mind  ?  it  is  an  important 
apparent  law  (!)  for  me. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  do  not  know  how  far  you  will  care  to  hear,  but 
I  find  Moquin-Tandon  treats  in  his  '  Teratologic '  on  villosity 
of  plants,  and  seems  to  attribute  more  to  dryness  than 
altitude  ;  but  seems  to  think  that  it  must  be  admitted  that 
mountain  plants  are  villose,  and  that  this  villosity  is  only 
in  part  explained  by  De  Candolle's  remark  that  the  dwarfed 
condition  of  mountain  plants  would  condense  the  hairs,  and 
so  give  them  the  appearci7ice  of  being  more  hairy.  He  quotes 
Senebier,  '  Physiologie  Vegetale,'  as  authority — I  suppose 
the  first  authority,  for  mountain  plants  being  hairy. 

If  I  could  show  positively  that  the  endemic  species  were 
more  hairy  in  dry  districts,  then  the  case  of  the  varieties 
becoming  more  hairy  in  dry  ground  would  be  a  fact  for  me. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  June  3rd  [185 7 J. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  am  going  to  enjoy  myself  by 
having  a  prose  on  my  own  subjects  to  you,  and  this  is  a 
greater  enjoyment  to  me  than  you  will  readily  understand,  as 
I  for  months  together  do  not  open  my  mouth  on  Natural 
History.  Your  letter  is  of  great  value  to  me,  and  staggers  me 
in  regard  to  my  proposition.  I  dare  say  the  absence  of 
botanical  facts  may  in  part  be  accounted  for  by  the  difficulty 
of  measuring  slight  variations.  Indeed,  after  writing,  this 
occurred  to  me  ;  for  I  have  Crucianella  stylosa  coming  into 
flower,  and  the  pistil  ought  to  be  very  variable  in  length,  and 
thinking  of  this  I  at  once  felt  how  could  one  judge  whether  it 
was  variable  in  any  high  degree.  How  different,  for  instance, 
from  the  beak  of  a  bird  !  But  I  am  not  satisfied  with  this  ex- 
planation, and  am  staggered.     Yet  I  think  there  is  something 


1857.]  VARIABILITY.  99 

in  the  law ;  I  have  had  so  many  instances,  as  the  following : 
I  wrote  to  Wollaston  to  ask  him  to  run  through  the  Madeira 
Beetles  and  tell  me  whether  any  one  presented  anything  very 
anomalous  in  relation  to  its  allies.     He  gave  me  a  unique  case 
of  an  enormous  head  in  a  female,  and  then  I  found  in  his  book, 
already  stated,  that   the   size  of  the  head  was  astonishingly 
variable.     Part  of  the  difference  with  plants  may  be  accounted 
for  by  many  of  my  cases    being   secondary   male  or  female 
characters  but  then  I  have  striking  cases  with  hermaphrodite 
Cirripedes.     The   cases   seem   to   me    far   too    numerous  for 
accidental  coincidences  of  great  variability  and  abnormal  de- 
velopment.    I  presume  that  you  will  not  object  to  my  put- 
ting a  note  saying  that  you  had  reflected  over  the  case,  and 
though  one  or  two  cases  seemed  to  support,  quite  as  many 
or  more  seemed  wholly  contradictory.   This  want  of  evidence  is 
the  more  surprising  to  me,  as  generally  I  find  any  proposition 
more  easily  tested  by  observations  in  botanical  works,  which 
I  have  picked  up,  than  in  zoological  works.     I  never  dreamed 
that  you  had  kept  the  subject  at  all  before  your  mind.     Alto- 
gether the  case  is  one  more  of  my  many  horrid  puzzles.     My 
obseivations,  though   on   so  infinitely  a  small   scale,  on  the 
struggle  for  existence,  begin  to  make  me  see  a  little  clearer 
how  the  fight  goes  on.     Out  of  sixteen  kinds  of  seed  sown  on 
my   meadow,   fifteen   have    germinated,   but    now   they   are 
perishing  at  such  a  rate  that  I  doubt  whether  more  than  one 
will   flower.     Here  we  have  choking  which  has  taken  place 
likewise  on  a  great  scale,  with  plants  not  seedlings,  in  a  bit  of 
my  lawn  allowed  to  grow  up.     On  the  other  hand,  in  a  bit  of 
ground,  2  by  3  feet,  I  have  daily  marked  each  seedling  weed 
as  it  has  appeared  during  March,  April  and  May,  and  357  have 
come  up,  and  of  these  277  have  already  been  killed,  chiefly  by 
slugs.     By  the  way,  at  Moor  Park,  I  saw  rather  a  pretty  case 
of  the  effects  of  animals  on  vegetation  :  there  are  enormous 
commons  with   clumps  of  old   Scotch  firs  on  the  hills,  and 
about  eight  or  ten  years  ago  some  of  these  commons  were 

H  2 


100  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857. 

enclosed,  and  all  round  the  clumps  nice  young  trees  are 
springing  up  by  the  million,  looking  exactly  as  if  planted,  so 
many  are  of  the  same  age.  In  other  parts  of  the  common,  not 
yet  enclosed,  I  looked  for  miles  and  not  one  young  tree  could 
be  seen.  I  then  went  near  (within  quarter  of  a  mile  of  the 
clumps)  and  looked  closely  in  the  heather,  and  there  I  found 
tens  of  thousands  of  young  Scotch  firs  (thirty  in  one  square 
yard)  with  their  tops  nibbled  off  by  the  few  cattle  which 
occasionally  roam  over  these  wretched  heaths.  One  little  tree, 
three  inches  high,  by  the  rings  appeared  to  be  twenty-six  years 
old,  with  a  short  stem  about  as  thick  as  a  stick  of  sealing-wax. 
What  a  wondrous  problem  it  is,  what  a  play  of  forces,  determi- 
ning the  kind  and  proportion  of  each  plant  in  a  square  yard 
of  turf !  It  is  to  my  mind  truly  wonderful.  And  yet  we  are 
pleased  to  wonder  when  some  animal  or  plant  becomes 
extinct. 

I  am  so  sorry  that  you  will  not  be  at  the  Club.  I  see  Mrs. 
Hooker  is  going  to  Yarmouth  ;  I  trust  that  the  health  of  your 
children  is  not  the  motive.     Good-bye. 

My  dear  Hooker,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  believe  you  are  afraid  to  send  me  a  ripe  Edwardsia 
pod,  for  fear  I  should  float  it  from  New  Zealand  to  Chile !  !  ! 

C.  Darwin  to  jf.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  June  5  [1857]. 
My   DEAR    HOOKER, — I  honour   your  conscientious  care 
about  the  medals.*     Thank  God  !  I  am  only  an  amateur  (but 
a  much  interested  one)  on  the  subject. 

It  is  an  old  notion  of  mine  that  more  good  is  done  by  giving 
medals  to  younger  men  in  the  early  part  of  their  career,  than  as 
a  mere  reward  to  men  whose  scientific  career  is  nearly  finished. 
Whether  medals  ever  do  any  good  is  a  question  which  does 

*  The  Royal  Society's  medals. 


1 857.]  MEDALS.  101 

not  concern  us,  as  there  the  medals  are.  I  am  almost  inclined 
to  think  that  I  would  rather  lower  the  standard,  and  give 
medals  to  young  workers  than  to  old  ones  with  no  especial 
claims.  With  regard  to  especial  claims,  I  think  it  just 
deserving  your  attention,  that  if  general  claims  are  once 
admitted,  it  opens  the  door  to  great  laxity  in  giving  them. 
Think  of  the  case  of  a  very  rich  man,  who  aided  solely  with 
his  money,  but  to  a  grand  extent — or  such  an  inconceivable 
prodigy  as  a  minister  of  the  Crown  who  really  cared  for 
science.  Would  you  give  such  men  medals  ?  Perhaps 
medals  could  not  be  better  applied  than  exclusively  to  such 
men.  I  confess  at  present  I  incline  to  stick  to  especial  claims 
which  can  be  put  down  on  paper.  .  .  . 

I  am  much  confounded  by  your  showing  that  there  are  not 
obvious  instances  of  my  (or  rather  Waterhouse's)  law  of 
abnormal  developments  being  highly  variable.  I  have  been 
thinking  more  of  your  remark  about  the  difficulty  of  judging 
or  comparing  variability  in  plants  from  the  great  general 
variability  of  parts.  I  should  look  at  the  law  as  more  com- 
pletely smashed  if  you  would  turn  in  your  mind  for  a  little 
while  for  cases  of  great  variability  of  an  organ,  and  tell  me 
whether  it  is  moderately  easy  to  pick  out  such  cases  ;  for  if 
they  can  be  picked  out,  and,  notwithstanding,  do  not  coincide 
with  great  or  abnormal  development,  it  v/ould  be  a  complete 
smasher.  It  is  only  beginning  in  your  mind  at  the  variability 
end  of  the  question  instead  of  at  the  abnormality  end.  Per- 
haps cases  in  which  a  part  is  highly  variable  in  all  the  species 
of  a  group  should  be  excluded,  as  possibly  being  something 
distinct,  and  connected  with  the  perplexing  subject  of  poly- 
morphism. Will  you  perfect  your  assistance  by  further 
considering,  for  a  little,  the  subject  this  way  ? 

I  have  been  so  much  interested  this  morning  in  comparing 
all  my  notes  on  the  variation  of  the  several  species  of  the  genus 
Equus  and  the  results  of  their  crossing.  Taking  most  strictly 
analogous  facts  amongst  the  blessed  pigeons  for  my  guide, 


.102  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857. 

I  believe  I  can  plainly  see  the  colouring  and  marks  of  the 

grandfather  of  the  Ass,  Horse,  Quagga,  Hemionus  and  Zebra, 

some   millions   of  generations    ago !      Should    not    I    [have] 

sneer[ed]  at  any  one  who  made  such  a  remark  to  me  a  few 

years  ago ;  but  my  evidence  seems  to  me  so  good  that  I  shall 

publish  my  vision  at  the  end  of  my  little  discussion  on  this 

genus. 

I  have  of  late  inundated  you  with  my  notions,  you  best  of 

friends  and  philosophers. 

Adios, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Moor  Park,  Farnham,  June  25th  [1857]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — This  requires  no  answer,  but  I  will 
ask  you  whenever  we  meet.  Look  at  enclosed  seedling 
gorses,  especially  one  with  the  top  knocked  off.  The  leaves 
succeeding  the  cotyledons  being  almost  clover-like  in  shape, 
seems  to  me  feebly  analogous  to  embryonic  resemblances 
in  young  animals,  as,  for  instance,  the  young  lion  being 
striped.     I  shall  ask  you  whether  this  is  so.*  .  .  . 

Dr.  Lanef  and   wife,  and   mother-in-law,  Lady  Drysdale, 
are  some  of  the  nicest  people  I  have  ever  met. 

I  return  home  on  the  30th.     Good-bye,  my  dear  Hooker. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

[Here  follows  a  group  of  letters,  of  various  dates,  bearing 
on  the  question  of  large  genera  varying.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

March  nth  [1858]. 
...  I  was  led  to  all  this  work  by  a  remark  of  Fries,  that 
the  species  in  large  genera  were  more  closely  related  to  each 

*  See  '  Power  of  Movements  in  Plants,'  p.  414. 
f  The  physician  at  Moor  Park. 


3857.]  LARGE   GENERA  VARYING.  IO3 

■other  than  in  small  genera ;  and  if  this  were  so,  seeing  that 

varieties  and  species  are  so  hardly  distinguishable,  I  concluded 

that  I  should  find  more  varieties  in  the  large  genera  than  in 

the    small.  .  .  .  Some   day   I   hope  you  will   read  my  short 

•discussion  on  the  whole  subject.     You  have  done  me  infinite 

service,  whatever  opinion  I  come  to,  in  drawing  my  attention 

to   at   least   the   possibility  or  the    probability  of  botanists 

recording  more  varieties  in  the  large  than  in  the  small  genera. 

It  will  be  hard  work  for  me  to  be  candid  in  coming  to  my 

conclusion. 

Ever  yours,  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  shall  be  several  weeks  at  my  present  job.  The 
work  has  been  turning  out  badly  for  me  this  morning,  and  I 
am  sick  at  heart  ;  and,  oh  !  how  I  do  hate  species  and  varieties. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

July  14th  [1857?] 

^  .  .  I  write  now  to  supplicate  most  earnestly  a  favour, 
viz.  the  loan  of  Borean,  Flore  du  centre  de  la  France,  either 
1st  or  2nd  edition,  last  best ;  also  "  Flora  Ratisbonensis,"  by 
Dr.  Furnrohr,  in  '  Naturhist.  Topographie  von  Regensburg, 
1839.'  If  y°u  can  possibly  spare  them,  will  you  send  them  at 
once  to  the  enclosed  address.  If  you  have  not  them,  will 
you  send  one  line  by  return  of  post  :  as  I  must  try  whether 
Kippist  *  can  anyhow  find  them,  which  I  fear  will  be  nearly 
impossible  in  the  Linnean  Library,  in  which  I  know  they  are. 

I  have  been  making  some  calculations  about  varieties,  &c, 
and  talking  yesterday  with  Lubbock,  he  has  pointed  out  to  me 
the  grossest  blunder  which  I  have  made  in  principle,  and 
which  entails  two  or  three  weeks'  lost  work ;  and  I  am  at  a 
dead-lock  till  I  have  these  books  to  go  over  again,  and  see 

*  The   late   Mr.  Kippist  was  at  this  time  in  charge  of  the  Linnean 
Society's  Library. 


104  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857. 

what  the  result  of  calculation  on  the  right  principle  is.     I  am 

the  most  miserable,  bemuddled,  stupid  dog  in  all  England, 

and   am    ready  to  cry  with  vexation  at  my  blindness  and 

presumption. 

Ever  yours,  most  miserably, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  John  Lubbock. 

Down,  [July]  14th  [1857]. 

My  DEAR  Lubbock, — You  have  done  me  the  greatest 
possible  service  in  helping  me  to  clarify  my  brains.  If  I  am 
as  muzzy  on  all  subjects  as  I  am  on  proportion  and  chance, 
— what  a  book  I  shall  produce ! 

I  have  divided  the  New  Zealand  Flora  as  you  suggested. 
There  are  339  species  in  genera  of  4  and  upwards,  and  323  in 
genera  of  3  and  less. 

The  339  species  have  51  species  presenting  one  or  more 
varieties.  The  323  species  have  only  37.  Proportionately 
(339  :  323  ::  51  :  48'S)  they  ought  to  have  had  48J  species 
presenting  vars.  So  that  the  case  goes  as  I  want  it,  but  not 
strong  enough,  without  it  be  general,  for  me  to  have  much 
confidence  in.  I  am  quite  convinced  yours  is  the  right  way : 
I  had  thought  of  it,  but  should  never  have  done  it  had  it  not 
been  for  my  most  fortunate  conversation  with  you. 

I  am  quite  shocked  to  find  how  easily  I  am  muddled,  for  I 
had  before  thought  over  the  subject  much,  and  concluded  my 
way  was  fair.     It  is  dreadfully  erroneous. 

What  a  disgraceful  blunder  you  have  saved  me  from.     I 

heartily  thank  you. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — It  is  enough  to  make  me  tear  up  all  my  MS.  and 
give  up  in  despair. 

It  will  take  me  several  weeks  to  go  over  all  my  materials. 
But  oh,  if  you  knew  how  thankful  I  am  to  you  ! 


1857.]  LARGE   GENERA  VARYING.  105 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Aug.  [1857]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — It  is  a  horrid  bore  you  cannot  come 
soon,  and  I  reproach  myself  that  I  did  not  write  sooner.  How 
busy  you  must  be !  with  such  a  heap  of  botanists  at  Kew. 
Only  think,  I  have  just  had  a  letter  from  Henslow,  saying  he 
will  come  here  between  nth  and  15th!  Is  not  that  grand? 
Many  thanks  about  Furnrohr.  I  must  humbly  supplicate 
Kippist  to  search  for  it :  he  most  kindly  got  Boreau  for  me. 

I  am  got  extremely  interested  in  tabulating,  according  to 
mere  size  of  genera,  the  species  having  any  varieties  marked 
by  Greek  letters  or  otherwise  :  the  result  (as  far  as  I  have  yet 
gone)  seems  to  me  one  of  the  most  important  arguments  I 
have  yet  met  with,  that  varieties  are  only  small  species — or 
species  only  strongly  marked  varieties.  The  subject  is  in 
many  ways  so  very  important  for  me  ;  I  wish  much  you  would 
think  of  any  well-worked  Floras  with  from  1000-2000  species, 
with  the  varieties  marked.  It  is  good  to  have  hair-splitters 
and  lumpers.*     I  have  done,  or  am  doing : — 

Babington  .         .  .         .         .  "j 

Henslow      ......>     British  Flora. 

London  Catalogue.     H.  C.  Watson        .     J 

Boreau        ....       France. 

Miquel         ....       Holland. 

Asa  Gray  U.  States. 

TT     ,  (   N.  Zealand. 

Hooker        .         .  .         .   {    _  ._,.__ 

[   Fragment  of  Indian  Flora. 

Wollaston   ....       Madeira  insects. 


Has  not  Koch  published  a  good  German  Flora  ?  Does  he 
mark  varieties  ?  Could  you  send  it  me  ?  Is  there  not  some 
grand  Russian  Flora,  which  perhaps  has  varieties  marked  ? 
The  Floras  ought  to  be  well  known. 

*  Those  who  make  many  species  are  the  "  splitters,"  and  those  who 
make  few  are  the  "  lumpers." 


106  THE    UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857. 

I  am  in  no  hurry  for  a  few  weeks.  Will  you  turn  this  in 
your  head,  when,  if  ever,  you  have  leisure  ?  The  subject  is 
very  important  for  my  work,  though  I  clearly  see  many  causes 
•of  error.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  Feb.  21st  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — My  last  letter  begged  no  favour,  this 
one  does :  but  it  will  really  cost  you  very  little  trouble  to 
answer  me,  and  it  will  be  of  very  great  service  to  me, 
•owing  to  a  remark  made  to  me  by  Hooker,  which  I  cannot 
credit,  and  which  was  suggested  to  him  by  one  of  my  letters. 
He  suggested  my  asking  you,  and  I  told  him  I  would  not 
give  the  least  hint  what  he  thought.  I  generally  believe 
Hooker  implicitly,  but  he  is  sometimes,  I  think,  and  he 
confesses  it,  rather  over-critical,  and  his  ingenuity  in  discover- 
ing flaws  seems  to  me  admirable.  Here  is  my  question  : — 
"  Do  you  think  that  good  botanists  in  drawing  up  a  local 
Flora,  whether  small  or  large,  or  in  making  a  Prodromus  like 
De  Candolle's,  would  almost  universally,  but  unintentionally 
and  unconsciously,  tend  to  record  {i.e.  marking  with  Greek 
letters  and  giving  short  characters)  varieties  in  the  large  or 
in  the  small  genera  ?  Or  would  the  tendency  be  to  record  the 
varieties  about  equally  in  genera  of  all  sizes  ?  Are  you  your- 
self conscious  on  reflection  that  you  have  attended  to,  and 
recorded  more  carefully  the  varieties  in  large  or  small,  or  very 
small  genera  ?  " 

I  know  what  fleeting  and  trifling  things  varieties  very  often 
are  ;  but  my  query  applies  to  such  as  have  been  thought 
worth  marking  and  recording.  If  you  could  screw  time  to 
send  me  ever  so  brief  an  answer  to  this,  pretty  soon,  it  would 
be  a  great  service  to  me. 

Yours  most  truly  obliged, 

Ch.  Darwin. 


a 857.]  LARGE   GENERA   VARYING.  IO7 

P.S. — Do  you  know  whether  any  one  has  ever  published 
any  remarks  on  the  geographical  range  of  varieties  of  plants 
an  comparison  with  the  species  to  which  they  are  supposed  to 
belong?  I  have  in  vain  tried  to  get  some  vague  idea,  and 
with  the  exception  of  a  little  information  on  this  head  given 
me  by  Mr.  Watson  in  a  paper  on  Land  Shells  in  U.  States, 
I  have  quite  failed  ;  but  perhaps  it  would  be  difficult  for  you 
to  give  me  even  a  brief  answer  on  this  head,  and  if  so  I  am 
not  so  unreasonable,  /  assure  you,  as  to  expect  it. 

If  you  are  writing  to  England  soon,  you  could  enclose  other 
letters  [for]  me  to  forward. 

Please  observe,  the  question  is  not  whether  there  are  more 
or  fewer  varieties  in  larger  or  smaller  genera,  but  whether 
there  is  a  stronger  or  weaker  tendency  in  the  minds  of 
.botanists  to  record  such  in  large  or  small  genera. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  May  6th  [1858]. 

...  I  send  by  this  post  my  MS.  on  the  "commonness," 
*"  range,"  and  "  variation  "  of  species  in  large  and  small  genera. 
You  have  undertaken  a  horrid  job  in  so  very  kindly  offering 
to  read  it,  and  I  thank  you  warmly.  I  have  just  corrected 
the  copy,  and  am  disappointed  in  finding  how  tough  and 
obscure  it  is ;  but  I  cannot  make  it  clearer,  and  at  present  I 
loathe  the  very  sight  of  it.  The  style  of  course  requires 
further  correction,  and  if  published  I  must  try,  but  as  yet  see 
not  how,  to  make  it  clearer. 

If  you  have  much  to  say  and  can  have  patience  to  consider 
the  whole  subject,  I  would  meet  you  in  London  on  the  Phil.  Club 
day,  so  as  to  save  you  the  trouble  of  writing.  For  Heaven's 
sake,  you  stern  and  awful  judge  and  sceptic,  remember  that 
my  conclusions  may  be  true,  notwithstanding  that  Botanists 
may  have  recorded   more  varieties  in    large   than    in   small 


108  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1857. 

genera.     It  seems  to  me  a  mere  balancing  of  probabilities. 

Again  I  thank  you  most  sincerely,  but  I  fear  you  will  find  it 

a  horrid  job. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

[The  letters   now  continue  the  history  of  the  years    1857 
and  1858.] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  Dec.  22nd,  1857. 
My  DEAR  Sir, — I  thank  you  for  your  letter  of  Sept.  27th. 
I  am  extremely  glad  to  hear  that  you  are  attending  to  distri- 
bution in  accordance  with  theoretical  ideas.  I  am  a  firm 
believer  that  without  speculation  there  is  no  good  and  original 
observation.  Few  travellers  have  attended  to  such  points  as 
you  are  now  at  work  on  ;  and,  indeed,  the  whole  subject  of 
distribution  of  animals  is  dreadfully  behind  that  of  plants. 
You  say  that  you  have  been  somewhat  surprised  at  no  notice 
having  been  taken  of  your  paper  in  the  Annals.*  I  cannot  say 
that  I  am,  for  so  very  few  naturalists  care  for  anything  beyond 
the  mere  description  of  species.  But  you  must  not  suppose 
that  your  paper  has  not  been  attended  to  :  two  very  good 
men,  Sir  C.  Lyell,  and  Mr.  E.  Blyth  at  Calcutta,  specially 
called  my  attention  to  it.  Though  agreeing  with  you  on  your 
conclusions  in  that  paper,  I  believe  I  go  much  further  than 
you  ;  but  it  is  too  long  a  subject  to  enter  on  my  speculative 
notions.  I  have  not  yet  seen  your  paper  on  the  distribution 
of  animals  in  the  Am  Islands.  I  shall  read  it  with  the 
utmost  interest ;  for  I  think  that  the  most  interesting  quarter 
of  the  whole  globe  in  respect  to  distribution,  and  I  have  long 
been  very  imperfectly  trying  to  collect  data  for  the  Malay 
Archipelago.     I  shall  be  quite  prepared  to  subscribe  to  your 

*  "  On  the  Law  that  has  regulated  the  Introduction  of  New  Species.1* 
— Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  1855. 


1857.]  CONTINENTAL   EXTENSION.  IO9 

doctrine  of  subsidence  ;  indeed,  from  the  quite  independent 
evidence  of  the  Coral  Reefs  I  coloured  my  original  map  (in  my 
Coral  volume)  of  the  Aru  Islands  as  one  of  subsidence,  but 
got  frightened  and  left  it  uncoloured.  But  I  can  see  that  you 
are  inclined  to  go  much  further  than  I  am  in  regard  to  the 
former  connection  of  oceanic  islands  with  continents.  Ever 
since  poor  E.  Forbes  propounded  this  doctrine,  it  has  been 
eagerly  followed  ;  and  Hooker  elaborately  discusses  the 
former  connection  of  all  the  Antarctic  Islands  and  New  Zea- 
land and  South  America.  About  a  year  ago  I  discussed  this 
subject  much  with  Lyell  and  Hooker  (for  I  shall  have  to  treat 
of  it),  and  wrote  out  my  arguments  in  opposition  ;  but  you 
will  be  glad  to  hear  that  neither  Lyell  nor  Hooker  thought 
much  of  my  arguments.  Nevertheless,  for  once  in  my  life, 
I  dare  withstand  the  almost  preternatural  sagacity  of  Lyell. 

You  ask  about  land-shells  on  islands  far  distant  from  con- 
tinents :  Madeira  has  a  few  identical  with  those  of  Europe, 
and  here  the  evidence  is  really  good,  as  some  of  them  are  sub- 
fossil.  In  the  Pacific  Islands  there  are  cases  of  identity,  which 
I  cannot  at  present  persuade  myself  to  account  for  by  intro- 
duction through  man's  agency  ;  although  Dr.  Aug.  Gould  has 
conclusively  shown  that  many  land-shells  have  thus  been 
distributed  over  the  Pacific  by  man's  agency.  These  cases  of 
introduction  are  most  plaguing.  Have  you  not  found  it  so  in 
the  Malay  Archipelago  ?  It  has  seemed  to  me  in  the  lists  of 
mammals  of  Timor  and  other  islands,  that  several  in  all  pro- 
bability have  been  naturalised.  .  .  . 

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. 


IIO  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1858- 

I  have  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  ! 

I  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  Archi- 
pelago 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  myjvery  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. 

Pray  believe  me,  my  dear  sir,  yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Feb.  8th  [1858]. 
...  I  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 
Crcesus  overwhelmed  with  my  riches  in  facts,  and  I  mean 
to  make  my  book  as  perfect  as  ever  I  can.  I  shall  not 
go  to  press  at  soonest  for  a  couple  of  years.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Feb.  23rd  [1858]. 

...  I  was  not  much  struck  with  the  great  Buckle,  and  I 
admired  the  way  you  stuck  up  about  deduction  and  induction. 
I  am  reading  his  book,*  which,  with  much  sophistry,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  is  wonderfully  clever  and  original,  and  with 
astounding  knowledge. 

I  saw  that  you  admired  Mrs.  Farrer's  'Questa  tomba'  of 

*  '  The  History  of  Civilisation.' 


1858.]  STRIPED   HORSES.  II] 

Beethoven  thoroughly;  there  is  something  grand  in  her  sweet 
tones. 

Farewell.  I  have  partly  written  this  note  to  drive  bee's-cells 
out  of  my  head  ;  for  I  am  half-mad  on  the  subject  to  try  to 
make  out  some  simple  steps  from  which  all  the  wondrous 
angles  may  result.* 

I  was  very  glad  to  see  Mrs.  Hooker  on  Friday  ;  how  well 
she  appears  to  be  and  looks. 

Forgive  your  intolerable  but  affectionate  friend, 

C.  Darwin.. 


C.  Danvin  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Down,  April  16th  [1858J. 

My  DEAR  Fox, — I  want  you  to  observe  one  point  for  mer 
on  which  I  am  extremely  much  interested,  and  which  will  give 
you  no  trouble  beyond  keeping  your  eyes  open,  and  that  is  a. 
habit  I  know  full  well  that  you  have. 

I  find  horses  of  various  colours  often  have  a  spinal  band  or 
stripe  of  different  and  darker  tint  than  the  rest  of  the  body  ; 
rarely  transverse  bars  on  the  legs,  generally  on  the  under-side 
of  the  front  legs,  still  more  rarely  a  very  faint  transverse 
shoulder-stripe  like  an  ass. 

Is  there  any  breed  of  Delamere  forest  ponies  ?  I  have 
found  out  little  about  ponies  in  these  respects.  Sir  P.  Egerton, 
has,  I  believe,  some  quite  thoroughbred  chestnut  horses  ;  have.- 
any  of  them  the  spinal  stripe  ?  Mouse-coloured  ponies,  or 
rather  small  horses,  often  have  spinal  and  leg  bars.  So  have 
dun  horses  (by  dun  I  mean  real  colour  of  cream  mixed  with 
brown,  bay,  or  chestnut).  So  have  sometimes  chestnuts,  but  I 
have  not  yet  got  a  case  of  spinal  stripe  in  chestnut,  race  horsey 
or  in  quite  heavy  cart-horse.  Any  fact  of  this  nature  of  such 
stripes  in  horses  would  be  most  useful  to  me.      There  is  a. 

*  He  had  much  correspondence  on  this  subject  with  the  late  Professor 
Miller  of  Cambridge. 


112  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1858. 

parallel  case  in  the  legs  of  the  donkey,  and  I  have  collected 
some  most  curious  cases  of  stripes  appearing  in  various 
crossed  equine  animals.  I  have  also  a  large  mass  of  parallel 
facts  in  the  breeds  of  pigeons  about  the  wing  bars.  I  stispect 
it  will  throw  light  on  the  colour  of  the  primeval  horse.  So 
do  help  me  if  occasion  turns  up.  .  .  .  My  health  has  been 
lately  very  bad  from  overwork,  and  on  Tuesday  I  go  for  a 
fortnight's  hydropathy.  My  work  is  everlasting.  Farewell. 
My  dear  Fox,  I  trust  you  are  well.     Farewell, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darzvin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Moor  Park,  Farnham  [April  26th,  1858]. 
...  I  have  just  had  the  innermost  cockles  of  my  heart 
rejoiced  by  a  letter  from  Lyell.  I  said  to  him  (or  he  to  me) 
that  I  believed  from  the  character  of  the  flora  of  the  Azores, 
that  icebergs  must  have  been  stranded  there  ;  and  that  I  ex- 
pected erratic  boulders  would  be  detected  embedded  between 
the  upheaved  lava-beds  ;  and  I  got  Lyell  to  write  to  Hartung 
to  ask,  and  now  H.  says  my  question  explains  what  had 
astounded  him,  viz.  large  boulders  (and  some  polished)  of 
mica-schist,  quartz,  sandstone,  &c,  some  embedded,  and  some 
40  and  50  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea,  so  that  he  had 
inferred  that  they  had  not  been  brought  as  ballast.  Is  this 
not  beautiful  ? 

The  water-cure  has  done  me  some  good,  but  I  [am]  nothing 
to  boast  of  to-day,  so  good-bye. 

My  dear  friend,  yours, 

C,  D. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Moor  Park,  Farnham,  April  26th  [1858]. 
My   DEAR   LYELL, — I    have   come   here  for   a   fortnight's 
hydropathy,  as  my  stomach  had  got,  from  steady  work,  into  a 


1858.]  FLOATING   ICE.  113 

horrid  state.     I  am  extremely  much  obliged  to  you  for  send- 
ing me  Hartung's  interesting  letter.     The  erratic  boulders  are 
splendid.     It  is  a  grand  case  of  floating  ice  versus  glaciers. 
He  ought  to  have  compared  the  northern  and  southern  shores 
of  the  islands.     It  is  eminently  interesting  to  me,  for  I  have 
written  a  very  long  chapter  on  the  subject,  collecting  briefly 
all  the  geological  evidence  of  glacial  action  in  different  parts 
of  the  world,  and  then  at  great  length  (on  the  theory  of  species 
changing)  I  have  discussed  the  migration  and  modification  of 
plants  and  animals,  in  sea  and  land,  over  a  large  part  of  the 
world.     To  my  mind,  it  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  the  whole 
subject  of  distribution,  if  combined  with  the  modification  of 
species.      Indeed,  I  venture  to  speak  with   some  little  con- 
fidence on  this,  for  Hooker,  about  a  year  ago,  kindly  read 
over  my  chapter,  and  though  he  then  demurred  gravely  to 
the  general  conclusion,  I  was  delighted  to  hear  a  week  or  two 
ago  that  he  was  inclined  to  come  round  pretty  strongly  to  my 
views  of  distribution  and  change  during  the  glacial  period.     I 
had  a  letter  from  Thompson,  of  Calcutta,  the  other  day,  which 
helps  me  much,  as  he  is  making  out  for  me  what  heat  our 
temperate  plants  can  endure.     But  it  is  too  long  a  subject  for 
a  note ;   and  I  have  written  thus  only  because  Hartung's  note 
has  set  the  whole  subject  afloat  in  my  mind  again.      But  I 
will  write   no   more,  for  my  object  here   is  to  think   about 
nothing,  bathe  much,  walk  much,  eat  much,  and  read  much 
novels.     Farewell,  with  many  thanks,  and  very  kind  remem- 
brance to  Lady  Lyell. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 


£  Darwin  to  Mrs.  Darwin. 

Moor  Park,  Wednesday,  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, 
VOL.  11.  I 


114  THE   UNFINISHED   BOOK.  [1858. 

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 
woodpeckers  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, 
philanthropical,  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."  I  like  Miss  Craik  very  much,  though  we  have 
some  battles,  and  differ  on  every  subject.  I  like  also  the 
Hungarian  ;  a  thorough  gentleman,  formerly  attache  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  is]  a  sincere  patriot,  most  clever  and 
eloquent,  but  weak,  with  no  determination  of  character.  .  .  . 

*  Simon   Bernard   was   tried   in      Emperor  of  the  French.     The  ver- 
April    1858    as    an    accessory    to      diet  was  "  not  guilty." 
Orsini's  attempt  on  the  life  of  the 


II 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   WRITING  OF  THE   'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES. 
JUNE    1 8,    1858,    TO    NOVEMBER    1 859. 

[The  letters  given  in  the  present  chapter  tell  their  story  with 
sufficient  clearness,  and  need  but  a  few  words  of  explanation. 
Mr.  Wallace's  Essay,  referred  to  in  the  first  letter,  bore  the 
title,  '  On  the  Tendency  of  Varieties  to  depart  indefinitely 
from  the  Original  Type,'  and  was  published  in  the  Linnean 
Society's  'Journal'  (1858,  vol.  iii.  p.  53)  as  part  of  the  joint 
paper  of  "  Messrs.  C.  Darwin  and  A.  Wallace,"  of  which  the 
full  title  was  '  On  the  Tendency  of  Species  to  form  Varieties ; 
and  on  the  Perpetuation  of  Varieties  and  Species  by  Natural 
Means  of  Selection.' 

My  father's  contribution  of  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,  and  which  is 
given  at  p.  120.  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 

I  2 


Il6        THE  WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'      [1858.. 

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."] 


LETTERS. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  1 8th  [June  1858]. 

MY  DEAR  Lyell, — 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,  so  I  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, 

*  Annals  and  Mag.  of  Nat.  Hist.,  1855. 


185&]  MR.   WALLACE'S   MANUSCRIPT.  II7 

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, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  Friday  [June  25,  1858]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — 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  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  I  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 


IlS         THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'      [1858.. 

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, 

C.  Darwin. 

I  will  never  trouble  you  or  Hooker  on  the  subject  again. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

Down,  26th  [June  1858]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — 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  an 
abstract  of  your  views  till  you  received  my  communication. 
Is  it  fair  to  take  advantage  of  my  having  freely,  though 
unasked,  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 


1858.]  THE    "LINNEAN"   PAPER.  II9 

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, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  have  always  thought  you  would  make  a  first-rate 
Lord  Chancellor ;  and  I  now  appeal  to  you  as  a  Lord 
Chancellor. 

C.  Darzvin  to  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Down,  Tuesday  [June  29,  1858]. 

....  I  have  received  your  letters.  I  cannot  think  now  * 
on  the  subject,  but  soon  will.  But  I  can  see  that  you  have 
acted  with  more  kindness,  and  so  has  Lyell,  even  than  I  could 
have  expected  from  you  both,  most  kind  as  you  are. 

I  can  easily  get  my  letter  to  Asa  Gray  copied,  but  it  is  too 
short. 

....  God  bless  you.  You  shall  hear  soon,  as  soon  as  I 
can  think. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darzvin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Tuesday  night  [June  29,  1858]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — 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  f  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 

*  So  soon  after  the  death,  from  sense  also  it  occurs  in  the  '  Linnean 

scarlet  fever,  of  his  infant  child.  Journal/  where  the  sources  of  my 

t  "  Abstract "   is    here    used   in  father's  paper  are  described, 
the   sense   of  "  extract ; "   in    this 


120        THE  WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1858. 

care  about  it.  But  you  are  too  generous  to  sacrifice  so  much 
time  and  kindness.  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. 

Yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  is  that  already  referred  to  as  forming 
part  of  the  joint  paper  published  in  the  Linnean  Society's 
4  Journal/  1858]  :— 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray, 

Down,  Sept.*  5th  [1857]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — I  forget  the  exact  words  which  I  used 
in  my  former  letter,  but  I  dare  say  I  said  that  I  thought  you 
would  utterly  despise  me  when  I  told  you  what  views  I  had 
arrived  at,  which  I  did  because  I  thought  I  was  bound  as  an 
honest  man  to  do  so.  I  should  have  been  a  strange  mortal, 
seeing  how  much  I  owe  to  your  quite  extraordinary  kindness,  if 
in  saying  this  I  had  meant  to  attribute  the  least  bad  feeling  to 
you.  Permit  me  to  tell  you  that,  before  I  had  ever  cor- 
responded with  you,  Hooker  had  shown  me  several  of  your 
letters  (not  of  a  private  nature),  and  these  gave  me  the 
warmest  feeling  of  respect  to  you  ;  and  I  should  indeed  be 

*  The  date  is  given  as  October  possession,  on  which  he  had  written, 

in    the    '  Linnean   Journal/      The  "  This  was  sent  to  Asa  Gray  8  or  9 

extracts  were  printed  from  a  dupli-  months  ago,  I  think  October  1857." 
cate  undated  copy  in   my  father's 


1858.]  THE   LETTER   TO    DR.   GRAY.  121 

ungrateful  if  your  letters  to  me,  and  all  I  have  heard  of  you, 
had  not  strongly  enhanced  this  feeling.  But  I  did  not  feel  in 
the  least  sure  that  when  you  knew  whither  I  was  tending, 
you  might  not  think  me  so  wild  and  foolish  in  my  views  (God 
knows,  arrived  at  slowly  enough,  and  I  hope  conscientiously), 
that  you  would  think  me  worth  no  more  notice  or  assistance. 
To  give  one  example :  the  last  time  I  saw  my  dear  old  friend 
Falconer,  he  attacked  me  most  vigorously,  but  quite  kindly, 
and  told  me,  "  You  will  do  more  harm  than  any  ten  Naturalists 
will  do  good.  I  can  see  that  you  have  already  corrupted  and 
half-spoiled  Hooker  ! !  "  Now  when  I  see  such  strong  feeling 
in  my  oldest  friends,  you  need  not  wonder  that  I  always  ex- 
pect my  views  to  be  received  with  contempt.  But  enough  and 
too  much  of  this. 

I  thank  you  most  truly  for  the  kind  spirit  of  your  last  letter. 
I  agree  to  every  word  in  it,  and  think  I  go  as  far  as  almost 
any  one  in  seeing  the  grave  difficulties  against  my  doctrine. 
With  respect  to  the  extent  to  which  I  go,  all  the  arguments 
in  favour  of  my  notions  fall  rapidly  away,  the  greater  the  scope 
of  forms  considered.  But  in  animals,  embryology  leads  me  to 
an  enormous  and  frightful  range.  The  facts  which  kept  me 
longest  scientifically  orthodox  are  those  of  adaptation — the 
pollen-masses  in  asclepias  —  the  mistletoe,  with  its  pollen 
carried  by  insects,  and  seed  by  birds — the  woodpecker,  with 
its  feet  and  tail,  beak  and  tongue,  to  climb  the  tree  and  secure 
insects.  To  talk  of  climate  or  Lamarckian  habit  producing 
such  adaptations  to  other  organic  beings  is  futile.  This  diffi- 
culty I  believe  I  have  surmounted.  As  you  seem  interested 
in  the  subject,  and  as  it  is  an  immense  advantage  to  me  to 
write  to  you  and  to  hear,  ever  so  briefly,  what  you  think, 
I  will  enclose  (copied,  so  as  to  save  you  trouble  in  reading) 
the  briefest  abstract  of  my  notions  on  the  means  by  which 
Nature  makes  her  species.  Why  I  think  that  species  have 
really  changed,  depends  on  general  facts  in  the  affinities, 
embryology,  rudimentary  organs,  geological  history,  and  geo- 


122        THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1858. 

graphical  distribution  of  organic  beings.  In  regard  to  my 
Abstract,  you  must  take  immensely  on  trust,  each  paragraph 
occupying  one  or  two  chapters  in  my  book.  You  will, 
perhaps,  think  it  paltry  in  me,  when  I  ask  you  not  to  mention 
my  doctrine ;  the  reason  is,  if  any  one,  like  the  author  of  the 
'  Vestiges/  were  to  hear  of  them,  he  might  easily  work  them 
in,  and  then  I  should  have  to  quote  from  a  work  perhaps 
despised  by  naturalists,  and  this  would  greatly  injure  any 
chance  of  my  views  being  received  by  those  alone  whose 
opinions  I  value.  [Here  follows  a  discussion  on  "  large 
genera  varying,"  which  has  no  direct  connection  with  the 
remainder  of  the  letter.] 

I.  It  is  wonderful  what  the  principle  of  Selection  by  Man, 
that  is  the  picking  out  of  individuals  with  any  desired  quality, 
and  breeding  from  them,  and  again  picking  out,  can  do. 
Even  breeders  have  been  astonished  at  their  own  results. 
They  can  act  on  differences  inappreciable  to  an  uneducated 
eye.  Selection  has  been  methodically  followed  in  Europe  for 
only  the  last  half  century.  But  it  has  occasionally,  and  even 
in  some  degree  methodically,  been  followed  in  the  most 
ancient  times.  There  must  have  been  also  a  kind  of  uncon- 
scious selection  from  the  most  ancient  times,  namely,  in  the 
preservation  of  the  individual  animals  (without  any  thought  of 
their  offspring)  most  useful  to  each  race  of  man  in  his  par- 
ticular circumstances.  The  "roguing,"  as  nursery-men  call  the 
destroying  of  varieties,  which  depart  from  their  type,  is  a  kind 
of  selection.  I  am  convinced  that  intentional  and  occasional 
selection  has  been  the  main  agent  in  making  our  domestic 
races.  But,  however  this  may  be,  its  great  power  of  modifi- 
cation has  been  indisputably  shown  in  late  times.  Selection 
acts  only  by  the  accumulation  of  very  slight  or  greater 
variations,  caused  by  external  conditions,  or  by  the  mere 
fact  that  in  generation  the  child  is  not  absolutely  similar  to 
its  parent.  Man,  by  this  power  of  accumulating  variations,, 
adapts  living  beings  to  his  wants — he  may  be  said  to  make 


1858.]  THE   LETTER   TO    DR.  GRAY.  12 


-% 


the  wool   of  one   sheep   good  for  carpets,  and    another  for 
cloth,  &c. 

II.  Now,  suppose  there  was  a  being,  who  did  not  judge  by 
mere  external  appearance,  but  could  study  the  whole  internal 
organisation — who  never  was  capricious — who  should  go  on 
selecting  for  one  end  during  millions  of  generations,  who  will 
say  what  he  might  not  effect !  In  nature  we  have  some  slight 
variations,  occasionally  in  all  parts  :  and  I  think  it  can  be 
shown  that  a  change  in  the  conditions  of  existence  is  the 
main  cause  of  the  child  not  exactly  resembling  its  parents  ;. 
and  in  nature,  geology  shows  us  what  changes  have  taken 
place,  and  are  taking  place.  We  have  almost  unlimited  time : 
no  one  but  a  practical  geologist  can  fully  appreciate  this  : 
think  of  the  Glacial  period,  during  the  whole  of  which  the 
same  species  of  shells  at  least  have  existed ;  there  must 
have  been  during  this  period,  millions  on  millions  of 
generations. 

III.  I  think  it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  such  an  unerring 
power  at  work,  or  Natural  Selection  (the  title  of  my  book), 
which  selects  exclusively  for  the  good  of  each  organic  being. 
The  elder  De  Candolle,  W.  Herbert,  and  Lyell,  have  written 
strongly  on  the  struggle  for  life ;  but  even  they  have  not 
written  strongly  enough.  Reflect  that  every  being  (even  the 
elephant)  breeds  at  such  a  rate  that,  in  a  few  years,  or  at  most 
a  few  centuries  or  thousands  of  years,  the  surface  of  the  earth 
would  not  hold  the  progeny  of  any  one  species.  I  have  found 
it  hard  constantly  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  increase  of  every 
single  species  is  checked  during  some  part  of  its  life,  or  during 
some  shortly  recurrent  generation.  Only  a  few  of  those 
annually  born  can  live  to  propagate  their  kind.  What  a 
trifling  difference  must  often  determine  which  shall  survive 
and  which  perish ! 

IV.  Now  take  the  case  of  a  country  undergoing  some 
change  ;  this  will  tend  to  cause  some  of  its  inhabitants  to  vary 
slightly ;  not  but  what  I  believe  most  beings  vary  at  all  times 


124         THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN    OF    SPECIES.'      [1858. 

enough  for  selection  to  act  on.  Some  of  its  inhabitants  will 
be  exterminated,  and  the  remainder  will  be  exposed  to  the 
mutual  action  of  a  different  set  of  inhabitants,  which  I  believe 
to  be  more  important  to  the  life  of  each  being  than  mere 
climate.  Considering  the  infinitely  various  ways  beings  have 
to  obtain  food  by  struggling  with  other  beings,  to  escape 
danger  at  various  times  of  life,  to  have  their  eggs  or  seeds 
disseminated,  &c.  &c,  I  cannot  doubt  that  during  millions  of 
generations  individuals  of  a  species  will  be  born  with  some 
slight  variation  profitable  to  some  part  of  its  economy ;  such 
will  have  a  better  chance  of  surviving,  propagating  this  varia- 
tion, which  again  will  be  slowly  increased  by  the  accumulative 
action  of  natural  selection  ;  and  the  variety  thus  formed  will 
either  coexist  with,  or  more  commonly  will  exterminate  its 
parent  form.  An  organic  being  like  the  woodpecker,  or 
the  mistletoe,  may  thus  come  to  be  adapted  to  a  score  of 
contingencies  ;  natural  selection,  accumulating  those  slight 
variations  in  all  parts  of  its  structure  which  are  in  any  way 
useful  to  it,  during  any  part  of  its  life. 

V.  Multiform  difficulties  will  occur  to  every  one  on  this 
theory.  Most  can,  I  think,  be  satisfactorily  answered. — 
"  Natura  non  facit  saltum  "  answer  some  of  the  most  obvi- 
ous. The  slowness  of  the  change,  and  only  a  very  few  under- 
going change  at  any  one  time  answers  others.  The  extreme 
imperfections  of  our  geological  records  answer  others. 

VI.  One  other  principle, which  maybe  called  the  principle 
of  divergence,  plays,  I  believe,  an  important  part  in  the  origin 
of  species.  The  same  spot  will  support  more  life  if  occupied 
by  very  diverse  forms  :  we  see  this  in  the  many  generic  forms 
in  a  square  yard  of  turf  (I  have  counted  twenty  species 
belonging  to  eighteen  genera),  or  in  the  plants  and  insects, 
on  any  little  uniform  islet,  belonging  to  almost  as  many 
genera  and  families  as  to  species.  We  can  understand  this 
with  the  higher  animals,  whose  habits  we  best  understand. 
We  know  that  it  has  been  experimentally  shown  that  a  plot 


1858.]  THE   LETTER   TO   DR.  GRAY.  125 

of  land  will  yield  a  greater  weight,  if  cropped  with  several 
species  of  grasses,  than  with  two  or  three  species.  Now  every 
single  organic  being,  by  propagating  rapidly,  may  be  said  to 
be  striving  its  utmost  to  increase  in  numbers.  So  it  will  be 
with  the  offspring  of  any  species  after  it  has  broken  into 
varieties,  or  sub-species,  or  true  species.  And  it  follows,  I 
think,  from  the  foregoing  facts,  that  the  varying  offspring  of 
each  species  will  try  (only  few  will  succeed)  to  seize  on  as 
many  and  as  diverse  places  in  the  economy  of  nature  as 
possible.  Each  new  variety  or  species  when  formed  will 
generally  take  the  place  of,  and  so  exterminate  its  less  well- 
fitted  parent.  This,  I  believe,  to  be  the  origin  of  the  classifi- 
cation or  arrangement  of  all  organic  beings  at  all  times. 
These  always  seem  to  branch  and  sub-branch  like  a  tree 
from  a  common  trunk  ;  the  flourishing  twigs  destroying  the 
less  vigorous — the  dead  and  lost  branches  rudely  representing 
extinct  genera  and  families. 

This  sketch  is  most  imperfect ;  but  in  so  short  a  space  I 
cannot  make  it  better.  Your  imagination  must  fill  up  many 
wide  blanks.  Without  some  reflection,  it  will  appear  all 
rubbish  ;  perhaps  it  will  appear  so  after  reflection. 

C.  D. 

P.S. — This  little  abstract  touches  only  the  accumulative 
power  of  natural  selection,  which  I  look  at  as  by  far  the  most 
important  element  in  the  production  of  new  forms.  The  laws 
governing  the  incipient  or  primordial  variation  (unimportant 
except  as  the  groundwork  for  selection  to  act  on,  in  which 
respect  it  is  all  important),  I  shall  discuss  under  several 
heads,  but  I  can  come,  as  you  may  well  believe,  only  to  very 
partial  and  imperfect  conclusions. 

[The  joint  paper  of  Mr.  Wallace  and  my  father  was  read  at 
the  Linnean  Society  on  the  evening  of  July  1st.  Sir  Charles 
Lyell  and  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  were  present,  and  both,  I  believe, 
made  a  few  remarks,  chiefly  with  a  view  of  impressing  on  those 


126        THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1858. 

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."] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  July  5th  [1858]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — We  are  become  more  happy  and 
less  panic-struck,  now  that  we  have  sent  out  of  the  house 
every  child,  and  shall  remove  H.,  as  soon  as  she  can  move. 
The  first  nurse  became  ill  with  ulcerated  throat  and  quinsy, 
and  the  second  is  now  ill  with  the  scarlet  fever,  but,  thank 
God,  is  recovering.  You  may  imagine  how  frightened  we 
have  been.  It  has  been  a  most  miserable  fortnight.  Thank 
you  much  for  your  note,  telling  me  that  all  had  gone  on 
prosperously  at  the  Linnean  Society.  You  must  let  me  once 
again  tell  you  how  deeply  I  feel  your  generous  kindness  and 
Lyell's  on  this  occasion.  But  in  truth  it  shames  me  that 
you  should  have  lost  time  on  a  mere  point  of  priority.  I 
shall  be  curious  to  see  the  proofs.  I  do  not  in  the  least 
understand  whether  my  letter  to  A.  Gray  is  to  be  printed ; 
I  suppose  not,  only  your  note  ;  but  I  am  quite  indifferent, 
and  place  myself  absolutely  in  your  and  Lyell's  hands. 

I  can  easily  prepare  an  abstract  of  my  whole  work,  but  I 
can  hardly  see  how  it  can  be  made  scientific  for  a  Journal, 
without  giving  facts,  which  would  be  impossible.  Indeed,  a 
mere  abstract  cannot  be  very  short.     Could  you  give  me  any 


1858.]  THE   PROPOSED   BOOK.  \2J 

idea  how  many  pages  of  the  Journal  could  probably  be  spared 


me  ? 


Directly  after  my  return  home,  I  would  begin  and  cut  my 
cloth  to  my  measure.  If  the  Referees  were  to  reject  it  as  not 
strictly  scientific,  I  could,  perhaps,  publish  it  as  a  pamphlet. 

With  respect  to  my  big  interleaved  abstract,*  would  you 
send  it  any  time  before  you  leave  England,  to  the  enclosed 
address?  If  you  do  not  go  till  August  ^th-ioth,  I  should 
prefer  it  left  with  you.  I  hope  you  have  jotted  criticisms  on 
my  MS.  on  big  Genera,  &c,  sufficient  to  make  you  remember 
your  remarks,  as  I  should  be  infinitely  sorry  to  lose  them. 
And  I  see  no  chance  of  our  meeting  if  you  go  soon  abroad. 
AVe  thank  you  heartily  for  your  invitation  to  join  you  :  I  can 
fancy  nothing  which  I  should  enjoy  more  ;  but  our  children 
are  too  delicate  for  us  to  leave  ;  I  should  be  mere  living 
lumber. 

Lastly,  you  said  you  would  write  to  Wallace  ;  I  certainly 
should  much  like  this,  as  it  would  quite  exonerate  me  :  if  you 
would  send  me  your  note,  sealed  up,  I  would  forward  it  with 
my  own,  as  I  know  the  address,  &c. 

Will  you  answer  me  some  time  about  your  notions  of  the 
length  of  my  abstract. 

If  you  see  Lyell,  will  you  tell  him  how  truly  grateful  I  feel 
for  his  kind  interest  in  this  affair  of  mine.  You  must  know  that 
I  look  at  it,  as  very  important,  for  the  reception  of  the  view 
of  species  not  being  immutable,  the  fact  of  the  greatest 
Geologist  and  Botanist  in  England  taking  any  sort  of  interest 
in  the  subject :  I  am  sure  it  will  do  much  to  break  down 
prejudices. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

*  The  Sketch  of  1844. 


128        THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1858. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Miss  Wedgwood's,  Hartfield,  Tunbridge  Wells, 

[July  13th,  1858]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — 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  shall 
order  Bentham  ;  is  it  not  a  pity  that  you  should  waste  time 
in  tabulating  varieties  ?  for  I  can  get  the  Down  schoolmaster 
to  do  it  on  my  return,  and  can  tell  you  all  the  results. 

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, — 
on  all  the  laws  of  variation, — on  the  genealogy  of  all  living 
beings, — on   their   lines   of  migration,  &c.  &c.     Pray   thank 


1858.]       THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIE-.         1 29 

Mrs.  Hooker  for  her  very  kind  little  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, 

C.  Darwin. 

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  Iwuse,  and  not 
field  niggers)  in  their  mouths  ! 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  it  is  a  true  generalisation  that, 
when  honey  is  secreted  at  one  point  of  the  circle  of  the  corolla, 
if  the  pistil  bends,  it  always  bends  into  the  line  of  the  gangway 
to  the  honey.  The  Larkspur  is  a  good  instance,  in  contrast 
to  Columbine, — if  you  think  of  it,  just  attend  to  this  little 
point. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

King's  Head  Hotel,  Sandown,  Isle  of  Wight. 

July  1 8th  [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 

VOL.  II.  K 


130        THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1858. 

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 
appearing  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, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[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.] 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

King's  Head  Hotel,  Sandown,  Isle  of  Wight. 

July  21st  [1858]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  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  publica- 
tion. 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 


1858.]  THE   'ABSTRACT.'  131 

lost  from  inattention.  I  am  particularly  glad  you  do  not 
object  to  my  stating  your  objections  in  a  modified  form,  for 
they  always  struck  me  as  very  important,  and  as  having 
much  inherent  value,  whether  or  no  they  were  fatal  to  my 
notions.     I  will  consider  and  reconsider  all  your  remarks.  .  .  . 

I  have  ordered  Bentham,  for,  as says,  it  will  be  very 

curious  to  see  a  Flora  written  by  a  man  who  knows  nothing 
of  British  plants  ! ! 

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  way^ 
you  have  aided  me  ! 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

[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.  85)  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  ii 
was  only  in  the  late  autumn  that  it  became  clear  that  it 
must  take  the  form  of  an  independent  volume.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Norfolk  House,  Shanklin,  Isle  of  Wight. 

Friday  [July]  30th  [1858]. 

My  DEAR  Hooker, — Will  you  give  the  enclosed  scrap  t 

Sir  William  to  thank  him  for  his  kindness  ;  and  this  gives  m 

an  excuse  to  amuse  myself  by  writing  to  you  a  note,  whic 

requires  no  answer. 

*  That  is  to  say,  he  would  help      prove    too    long    for  the   Linnea 
to  pay  for  the  printing,  if  it  should      Society. 

K  2 


132        THE  WRITING   OF  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1858. 

This  is  a  very  charming  place,  and  we  have  got  a  very 
comfortable  house.  But,  alas,  I  cannot  say  that  the  sea  has 
done  H.  or  L.  much  good.  Nor  has  my  stomach  recovered 
from  all  our  troubles.  I  am  very  glad  we  left  home,  for  six 
children  have  now  died  of  scarlet  fever  in  Down.  We  return 
on  the  14th  of  August. 

I  have  got  Bentham,*  and  am  charmed  with  it,  and 
William  (who  has  just  started  for  a  tour  abroad)  has  been 
making  out  all  sorts  of  new  (to  me)  plants  capitally.  The 
little  scraps  of  information  are  so  capital  .  .  .  The  English 
names  in  the  analytical  keys  drive  us  mad  :  give  them  by 
all  means,  but  why  on  earth  [not]  make  them  subordinate 
to  the  Latin ;  it  puts  me  in  a  passion.  W.  charged  into  the 
Compositse  and  Umbelliferae  like  a  hero,  and  demolished 
ever  so  many  in  grand  style. 

I  pass  my  time  by  doing  daily  a  couple  of  hours  of  my 
Abstract,  and  I  find  it  amusing  and  improving  work.  I  am 
now  most  heartily  obliged  to  you  and  Lyell  for  having  set 
me  on  this  ;  for  I  shall,  when  it  is  done,  be  able  to  finish  my 
work  with  greater  ease  and  leisure.  I  confess  I  hated  the 
thought  of  the  job ;  and  now  I  find  it  very  unsatisfactory  in 
not  being  able  to  give  my  reasons  for  each  conclusion. 

It  will  be  longer  than  I  expected  ;  it  will  take  thirty-five 
of  my  MS.  folio  pages  to  give  an  abstract  on  variation 
under  domestication  alone  ;  but  I  will  try  to  put  in  nothing 
which  does  not  seem  to  me  of  some  interest,  and  which  was 
once  new  to  me.  It  seems  a  queer  plan  to  give  an  abstract 
of  an  unpublished  work  ;  nevertheless,  I  repeat,  I  am  extremely 
glad  I  have  begun  in  earnest  on  it. 

I  hope  you  and  Mrs.  Hooker  will  have  a  very  very  pleasant 
tour.     Farewell,  my  dear  Hooker. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

*  '  British  Flora.' 


1858.]  THE    'ABSTRACT.'  1 33 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Norfolk  House,  Shanklin,  Isle  of  Wight. 

Thursday  [Aug.  5,  1858]. 

My  DEAR  Hooker, — I  should  think  the  note  apologetical 
about  the  style  of  the  Abstract  was  best  as  a  note  ....  But 
I  write  now  to  ask  you  to  send  me  by  return  of  post  the  MS. 
on  big  genera,  that  I  may  make  an  abstract  of  a  couple  of 
pages  in  length.  I  presume  that  you  have  quite  done  with  it, 
otherwise  I  would  not  for  anything  have  it  back.  If  you  tie 
it  with  string,  and  mark  it  MS.  for  printing,  it  will  not  cost, 
I  should  think,  more  than  \d.  I  shall  wish  much  to  say  that 
you  have  read  this  MS.  and  concur  ;  but  you  shall,  before  I 
read  it  to  the  Society,  hear  the  sentence. 

What  you  tell  me  after  speaking  with  Busk  about  the  length 
of  the  Abstract  is  an  immense  relief  to  me ;  it  will  make  the 
labour  far  less,  not  having  to  shorten  so  much  every  single 
subject ;  but  I  will  try  not  to  be  too  diffusive.  I  fear  it  will 
spoil  all  interest  in  my  book,*  whenever  published.  The 
Abstract  will  do  very  well  to  divide  into  several  parts  :  thus  I 
have  just  finished  "  Variation  under  Domestication,"  in  forty- 
four  MS.  pages,  and  that  would  do  for  one  evening  ;  but  I 
should  be  extremely  sorry  if  all  could  not  be  published 
together. 

What  else  you  say  about  my  Abstract  pleases  me  highly, 
but  frightens  me,  for  I  fear  I  shall  never  be  able  to  make 
it  good  enough.  But  how  I  do  run  on  about  my  own  affairs 
to  you  ! 

I  was  astonished  to  see  Sir  W.  Hooker's  card  here  two  or 
three  days  ago  :  I  was  unfortunately  out  walking.  Henslow, 
also,  has  written  to  me,  proposing  to  come  to  Down  on  the 
9th,  but  alas,  I  do  not  return  till  the  13th,  and  my  wife  not  till 
a  week  later  ;    so  that  I  am  also  most  sorry  to  think  I  shall 

*  The  larger  book  begun  in  1856. 


134        THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1858. 

not  see  you,  for  I  should  not  like  to  leave  home  so  soon. 
I  had  thought  of  goi 
hour  or  two  to  Kew. 


I  had  thought  of  going  to  London  and  running  down  for  an 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Norfolk  House,  Shanklin,  Isle  of  Wight. 

[August  1858.] 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — 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  coming  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. 


'fc>      *-AA<-     *-\_/«.OL.       .      .      I 


1858.]  CLIMATE   AND   MIGRATION.  1 35 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Aug.  nth  [1858]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — Your  note  of  July  27th  has  just  reached 
me  in  the  Isle  of  Wight.  It  is  a  real  and  great  pleasure  to  me 
to  write  to  you  about  my  notions ;  and  even  if  it  were  not  so, 
I  should  be  a  most  ungrateful  dog,  after  all  the  invalu- 
able assistance  which  you  have  rendered  me,  if  I  did  not  do 
anything  which  you  asked. 

I  have  discussed  in  my  long  MS.  the  later  changes  of 
climate  and  the  effect  on  migration,  and  I  will  here  give  you 
an  abstract  of  an  abstract  (which  latter  I  am  preparing  of 
my  whole  work  for  the  Linnean  Society).  I  cannot  give 
you  facts,  and  I  must  write  dogmatically,  though  I  do  not 
feel  so  on  any  point.  I  may  just  mention,  in  order  that  you 
may  believe  that  I  have  some  foundation  for  my  views,  that 
Hooker  has  read  my  MS.,  and  though  he  at  first  demurred  to 
my  main  point,  he  has  since  told  me  that  further  reflection 
and  new  facts  have  made  him  a  convert. 

In  the  older,  or  perhaps  newer,  Pliocene  age  (a  little 
before  the  Glacial  epoch)  the  temperature  was  higher  ;  of 
this  there  can  be  little  doubt  ;  the  land,  on  a  large  scale, 
held  much  its  present  disposition  :  the  species  were  mainly, 
judging  from  shells,  what  they  are  now.  At  this  period 
when  all  animals  and  plants  ranged  iO°  or  150  nearer  the 
poles,  I  believe  the  northern  part  of  Siberia  and  of  North 
America,  being  almost  continuous,  were  peopled  (it  is  quite 
possible,  considering  the  shallow  water,  that  Behring  Straits 
were  united,  perhaps  a  little  southward)  by  a  nearly  uniform 
fauna  and  flora,  just  as  the  Arctic  regions  now  are.  The 
climate  then  became  gradually  colder  till  it  became  what 
it  now  is ;  and  then  the  temperate  parts  of  Europe  and 
America  would  be  separated,  as  far  as  migration  is  concerned, 
just  as  they  now  are.  Then  came  on  the  Glacial  period, 
driving  far  south  all  living  things  ;  middle  or  even  southern 


136       THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1858. 

Europe  being  peopled  with  Arctic  productions  ;  as  the  warmth 
returned,  the  Arctic  productions  slowly  crawled  up  the  moun- 
tains as  they  became  denuded  of  snow ;  and  we  now  see  on 
their  summits  the  remnants  of  a  once  continuous  flora  and 
fauna.  This  is  E.  Forbes's  theory,  which,  however,  I  may 
add,  I  had  written  out  four  years  before  he  published. 

Some  facts  have  made  me  vaguely  suspect  that  between 
the  glacial  and  the  present  temperature  there  was  a  period 
of  slightly  greater  warmth.  According  to  my  modification- 
doctrines,  I  look  at  many  of  the  species  of  North  America 
which  closely  represent  those  of  Europe,  as  having  become 
modified  since  the  Pliocene  period,  when  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  world  there  was  nearly  free  communication  between 
the  old  and  new  worlds.  But  now  comes  a  more  important 
consideration  ;  there  is  a  considerable  body  of  geological 
evidence  that  during  the  Glacial  epoch  the  whole  world  was 
colder ;  I  inferred  that,  many  years  ago,  from  erratic  boulder 
phenomena  carefully  observed  by  me  on  both  the  east  and 
west  coast  of  South  America.  Now  I  am  so  bold  as  to 
believe  that  at  the  height  of  the  Glacial  epoch,  and  when  all 
Tropical  productions  mtist  have  been  considerably  distressed \ 
several  temperate  forms  slowly  travelled  into  the  heart  of  the 
Tropics,  and  even  reached  the  southern  hemisphere;  and  some 
few  southern  forms  penetrated  in  a  reverse  direction  north- 
ward. (Heights  of  Borneo  with  Australian  forms,  Abyssinia 
with  Cape  forms.)  Wherever  there  was  nearly  continuous  high 
land,  this  migration  would  have  been  immensely  facilitated  ; 
hence  the  European  character  of  the  plants  of  Tierra  del  Fuego 
and  summits  of  Cordilleras  ;  hence  ditto  on  Himalaya.  As  the 
temperature  rose,  all  the  temperate  intruders  would  crawl  up 
the  mountains.  Hence  the  European  forms  on  Nilgherries, 
Ceylon,  summit  of  Java,  Organ  Mountains  of  Brazil.  But 
these  intruders  being  surrounded  with  new  forms  would  be 
very  liable  to  be  improved  or  modified  by  natural  selection, 
to  adapt  them  to  the  new  forms  with  which   they   had    to 


1858.]  CLIMATE   AND   MIGRATION.  1 37 

compete  ;  hence  most  of  the  forms  on  the  mountains  of  the 
Tropics  are  not  identical,  but  representative  forms  of  North 
temperate  plants. 

There  are  similar  classes  of  facts  in  marine  productions. 
All  this  will  appear  very  rash  to  you,  and  rash  it  may  be  ; 
but  I  am  sure  not  so  rash  as  it  will  at  first  appear  to  you  : 
Hooker  could  not  stomach  it  at  all  at  first,  but  has  become 
largely  a  convert.  From  mammalia  and  shallow  sea,  I  believe 
Japan  to  have  been  joined  to  main  land  of  China  within  no 
remote  period ;  and  then  the  migration  north  and  south 
before,  during,  and  after  the  Glacial  epoch  would  act  on 
Japan,  as  on  the  corresponding  latitude  of  China  and  the 
United  States. 

I  should  beyond  anything  like  to  know  whether  you  have 
any  Alpine  collections  from  Japan,  and  what  is  their  character. 
This  letter  is  miserably  expressed,  but  perhaps  it  will  suffice 
to  show  what  I  believe  have  been  the  later  main  migrations 
and  changes  of  temperature.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

[Down,]  Oct.  6th,  1858. 

...  If  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  are  doing? 
There  is  a  comprehensive  text. 

You  cannot  tell  how  I  enjoyed  your  little  visit  here.  It 
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,  but  it 
grows  to  an  inordinate  length  ;  yet  fully  to  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 


138       THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1858. 

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. 

I  have  been  reading  with  much  interest  your  (as  I  believe 
it  to  be)  capital  memoir  of  R.  Brown  in  the  Gardeners' 
Chronicle.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Oct.  1 2th,  1858. 

...  I  have  sent  eight  copies  *  by  post  to  Wallace,  and 
will  keep  the  others  for  him,  for  I  could  not  think  of  any  one 
to  send  any  to. 

I  pray  you  not  to  pronounce  too  strongly  against  Natural 
Selection,  till  you  have  read  my  Abstract,  for  though  I  dare  say 
you  will  strike  out  many  difficulties,  which  have  never  occurred 
to  me :  yet  you  cannot  have  thought  so  fully  on  the  subject 
as  I  have. 

I  expect  my  Abstract  will  run  into  a  small  volume,  which 
will  have  to  be  published  separately.  .  .  . 

What  a  splendid  lot  of  work  you  have  in  hand. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Oct.  13th,  1858. 

...  I  have  been  a  little  vexed  at  myself  at  having  asked 
you  not  "to  pronounce  too  strongly  against  Natural  Selection." 
I  am  sorry  to  have  bothered  you,  though  I  have  been  much 
interested  by  your  note  in  answer.  I  wrote  the  sentence 
without  reflection.  But  the  truth  is,  that  I  have  so  accustomed 
myself,  partly  from  being  quizzed  by  my  non-naturalist  rela- 
tions, to  expect  opposition  and  even  contempt,  that  I  forgot  for 

*  Of  the  joint  paper  by  C.  Darwin  and  A.  R.  Wallace. 


1858.]  SIR  J.   D.   HOOKER.  1 39 

the  moment  that  you  are  the  one  living  soul  from  whom  I  have 
constantly  received  sympathy.  Believe  [me]  that  I  never  forget 
for  even  a  minute  how  much  assistance  I  have  received  from 
you.  You  are  quite  correct  that  I  never  even  suspected  that 
my  speculations  were  a  "jam-pot"  to  you  ;  indeed,  I  thought, 
until  quite  lately,  that  my  MS.  had  produced  no  effect  on 
you,  and  this  has  often  staggered  me.  Nor  did  I  know  that 
you  had  spoken  in  general  terms  about  my  work  to  our 
friends,  excepting  to  dear  old  Falconer,  who  some  few  years 
ago  once  told  me  that  I  should  do  more  mischief  than  any  ten 
other  naturalists  would  do  good,  [and]  that  I  had  half-spoiled 
you  already !  All  this  is  stupid  egotistical  stuff,  and  I  write 
it  only  because  you  may  think  me  ungrateful  for  not  having 
valued  and  understood  your  sympathy  ;  which  God  knows  is 
not  the  case.  It  is  an  accursed  evil  to  a  man  to  become  so 
absorbed  in  any  subject  as  I  am  in  mine. 

I  was  in  London  yesterday  for  a  few  hours  with  Falconer, 
and  he  gave  me  a  magnificent  lecture  on  the  age  of  man.  We 
are  not  upstarts ;  we  can  boast  of  a  pedigree  going  far  back 
in  time  coeval  with  extinct  species.  He  has  a  grand  fact  of 
some  large  molar  tooth  in  the  Trias. 

I  am  quite  knocked  up,  and  am  going  next  Monday  to 
revive  under  Water-cure  at  Moor  Park. 

My  dear  Hooker,  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Nov.  1858. 

....  I  had  vowed  not  to  mention  my  everlasting 
Abstract  to  you  again,  for  I  am  sure  I  have  bothered  you 
far  more  than  enough  about  it ;  but,  as  you  allude  to  its 
publication,  I  may  say  that  I  have  the  chapters  on  Instinct 
and  Hybridism  to  abstract,  which  may  take  a  fortnight  each  ; 
and  my  materials  for  Palaeontology,  Geographical  Distribution, 


140        THE   WRITING  OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1858. 

and  Affinities,  being  less  worked  up,  I  dare  say  each  of  these 
will  take  me  three  weeks,  so  that  I  shall  not  have  done  at 
soonest  till  April,  and  then  my  Abstract  will  in  bulk  make 
a  small  volume.  I  never  give  more  than  one  or  two  instances, 
and  I  pass  over  briefly  all  difficulties,  and  yet  I  cannot  make 
my  Abstract  shorter,  to  be  satisfactory,  than  I  am  now  doing, 
and  yet  it  will  expand  to  a  small  volume.   .   .   . 

[About  this  time  my  father  revived  his  old  knowledge  of 
beetles  in  helping  his  boys  in  their  collecting.  He  sent  a 
short  notice  to  the  '  Entomologist's  Weekly  Intelligencer,'  June 
25th,  1859,  recording  the  capture  of  Licimis  silphoides,  Clytus 
mysticus,  Pa?iagceus  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  my  father  to  name,  and  the  excitement, 
in  which  he  fully  shared,  when  any  of  them  proved  to 
be  uncommon  ones.  The  following  letters  to  Mr.  Fox 
(November  13,  1858),  and  to  Sir  John  Lubbock,  illustrate 
this  point :] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Down,  Nov.  13th  [1858]. 
.  .  .  W.,  my  son,  is  now  at  Christ's  College,  in  the  rooms 
above  yours.  My  old  Gyp,  Impey,  was  astounded  to  hear 
that  he  was  my  son,  and  very  simply  asked,  "Why,  has 
he  been  long  married  ? "  What  pleasant  hours  those  were 
when  I  used  to  come  and  drink  coffee  with  you  daily !  I 
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  .  .  . 


1858.]  ENTOMOLOGY.  141 

C.  Darwin  to  John  Ltibbock. 

Thursday  [before  1857]. 

Dear  LUBBOCK, — I  do  not  know  whether  you  care  about 
beetles,  but  for  the  chance  I  send  this  in  a  bottle,  which  I 
never  remember  having  seen  ;  though  it  is  excessively  rash 
to  speak  from  a  twenty-five-year  old  remembrance.  When- 
ever we  meet  you  can  tell  me  whether  you  know  it.  .  .  . 

I  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  En- 
tomologia."    N.B.  I  have  not  now  been  drinking  any  glasses 

full  of  wine. 

Yours, 

CD. 

C.  Darwin  to  Herbert  Spencer, 

Down,  Nov.  25th  [1858]. 

DEAR  SIR, — I  beg  permission  to  thank  you  sincerely  for 
your  very  kind  present  of  your  Essays.*  I  have  already  read 
several  of  them  with  much  interest.  Your  remarks  on  the 
general  argument  of  the  so-called  development  theory  seems 
to  me  admirable.  I  am  at  present  preparing  an  Abstract  of  a 
larger  work  on  the  changes  of  species  ;  but  I  treat  the  subject 
simply  as  a  naturalist,  and  not  from  a  general  point  of  view, 
otherwise,  in  my  opinion,  your  argument  could  not  have  been 
improved  on,  and  might  have  been  quoted  by  me  with  great 
advantage.  Your  article  on  Music  has  also  interested  me 
much,  for  I  had  often  thought  on  the  subject,  and  had  come 

*  '  Essays,  Scientific,  Political,  and  Speculative/  by  Herbert  Spencer, 
1858-74. 


142        THE  WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1858. 

to  nearly  the  same  conclusion  with  you,  though  unable  to 
support  the  notion  in  any  detail.  Furthermore,  by  a  curious 
coincidence,  expression  has  been  for  years  a  persistent  subject 
with  me  for  loose  speculation,  and  I  must  entirely  agree  with 
you  that  all  expression  has  some  biological  meaning.  I  hope 
to  profit  by  your  criticism  on  style,  and  with  very  best  thanks, 
I  beg  leave  to  remain,  dear  Sir, 

Yours  truly  obliged, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Dec.  24th  [1858]. 

My   DEAR    HOOKER, — Your  news   about  your  unsolicited 

salary  and  house  is  jolly,  and  creditable  to  the  Government. 

My    room    (28  X  19),   with    divided    room    above,    with   all 

fixtures  (and  painted),   not  furniture,    and  plastered  outside, 

cost  about  ,£500.     I  am  heartily  glad  of  this  news. 

Your  facts  about  distribution  are,  indeed,  very  striking. 
I  remember  well  that  none  of  your  many  wonderful  facts 
in  your  several  works,  perplexed  me,  for  years,  more  than 
the  migration  having  been  mainly  from  north  to  south,  and  not 
in  the  reverse  direction.  I  have  now  at  last  satisfied  myself 
(but  that  is  very  different  from  satisfying  others)  on  this 
head  ;  but  it  would  take  a  little  volume  to  fully  explain 
myself.  I  did  not  for  long  see  the  bearing  of  a  conclusion 
at  which  I  had  arrived,  with  respect  to  this  subject.  It  is, 
that  species  inhabiting  a  very  large  area,  and  therefore  exist- 
ing in  large  numbers,  and  which  have  been  subjected  to  the 
severest  competition  with  many  other  forms,  will  have 
arrived,  through  natural  selection,  at  a  higher  stage  of  per- 
fection than  the  inhabitants  of  a  small  area.  Thus  I  ex- 
plain the  fact  of  so  many  anomalies,  or  what  may  be  called 
"  living  fossils,"  inhabiting  now  only  fresh  water,  having  been 
beaten    out,    and    exterminated    in    the    sea,    by   more   im- 


1858.]  PLANS   FOR   PUBLICATION.  143 

proved  forms  ;  thus  all  existing  Ganoid  fishes  are  fresh  water, 
as  [are]  Lepidosiren  and  Ornithorhynchus,  &c.  The  plants  of 
Europe  with  Asia,  as  being  the  largest  territory,  I  look  at  as 
the  most  "  improved,"  and  therefore  as  being  able  to  with- 
stand the  less-perfected  Australian  plants  ;  though  these  could 
not  resist  the  Indian.  See  how  all  the  productions  of  New 
Zealand  yield  to  those  of  Europe.  I  dare  say  you  will  think 
all  this  utter  bosh,  but  I  believe  it  to  be  solid  truth. 

You  will,  I  think,  admit  that  Australian  plants,  flourishing 
so  in  India,  is  no  argument  that  they  could  hold  their  own 
against  the  ten  thousand  natural  contingencies  of  other  plants, 
insects,  animals,  &c.  &c.  With  respect  to  South-West  Australia 
and  the  Cape,  I  am  shut  up,  and  can  only  d — n  the  whole 
case. 

.  .  .  You  say  you  should  like  to  see  my  MS.,  but  you  did 
read  and  approved  of  my  long  Glacial  chapter,  and  I  have 
not  yet  written  my  Abstract  on  the  whole  of  the  Geographical 
Distribution,  nor  shall  I  begin  it  for  two  or  three  weeks. 
But  either  Abstract  or  the  old  MS.  I  should  be  delighted  to 
send  you,  especially  the  Abstract  chapter.  .  .  . 

I  have  now  written  330  folio  pages  of  my  Abstract,  and  it 
will  require  150-200;  so  that  it  will  make  a  printed  volume 
of  400  pages,  and  must  be  printed  separately,  which  I  think 
will  be  better  in  many  respects.  The  subject  really  seems  to 
me  too  large  for  discussion  at  any  Society,  and  I  believe 
religion  would  be  brought  in  by  men  whom  I  know. 

I  am  thinking  of  a  i2mo.  volume,  like  Lyell's  fourth  or  fifth 
edition  of  the  '  Principles.'  .  .  . 

I  have  written  you  a  scandalously  long  note.  So  now 
good  bye,  my  dear  Hooker, 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 


144        THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Jan.  20th,  1859. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  should  very  much  like  to  borrow 
Heer  at  some  future  time,  for  I  want  to  read  nothing  per- 
plexing at  present  till  my  Abstract  is  done.  Your  last  very 
instructive  letter  shall  make  me  very  cautious  on  the  hyper- 
speculative  points  we  have  been  discussing. 

When  you  say  you  cannot  master  the  train  of  thoughts, 
I  know  well  enough  that  they  are  too  doubtful  and  obscure  to 
be  mastered.  I  have  often  experienced  what  you  call  the 
humiliating  feeling  of  getting  more  and  more  involved  in 
doubt,  the  more  one  thinks  of  the  facts  and  reasoning  on 
doubtful  points.  But  I  always  comfort  myself  with  thinking 
of  the  future,  and  in  the  full  belief  that  the  problems  which  we 
are  just  entering  on,  will  some  day  be  solved  ;  and  if  we  just 
break  the  ground  we  shall  have  done  some  service,  even  if  we 
reap  no  harvest. 

I  quite  agree  that  we  only  differ  in  degree  about  the  means 
of  dispersal,  and  that  I  think  a  satisfactory  amount  of  accord- 
ance. You  put  in  a  very  striking  manner  the  mutation  of  our 
continents,  and  I  quite  agree  ;  I  doubt  only  about  our  oceans. 

I  also  agree  (I  am  in  a  very  agreeing  frame  of  mind)  with 
your  argumentum  ad  hominem,  about  the  highness  of  the 
Australian  Flora  from  the  number  of  species  and  genera  ;  but 
here  comes  in  a  superlative  bothering  element  of  doubt,  viz. 
the  effects  of  isolation. 

The  only  point  in  which  I  presumptuously  rather  demur 
is  about  the  status  of  the  naturalised  plants  in  Australia.  I 
think  Miiller  speaks  of  their  having  spread  largely  beyond 
cultivated  ground  ;  and  I  can  hardly  believe  that  our  Euro- 
pean plants  would  occupy  stations  so  barren  that  the  native 
plants  could  not  live  there.  I  should  require  much  evidence 
to  make  me  believe  this.  I  have  written  this  note  merely  to 
thank  you,  as  you  will  see  it  requires  no  answer. 


1 859.]  MR.   WALLACE.  145 

I  have  heard  to  my  amazement  this  morning  from  Phillips 

that  the  Geological  Council  have  given  me   the  Wollaston 

Medal !  !  ! 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Jan.  23rd,  1859. 

...  I  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 !  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.    Wallace. 

Down,  Jan.  25th  [1859]. 

My  dear  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  hard  enough  with 
my  poor  health,  but  now,  thank  God,  I  am  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  produc- 

YOL.  II.  L 


146        THE  WRITING  OF  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

tions.  It  is  a  very  different  part,  as  you  suppose,  from  that 
played  by  "  Natural  Selection."  I  sent  oft^  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  selec- 
tion 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  pupae,  are  most  valuable 
for  measurements  and  examination.  Their  edges  should  be 
well  protected  against  abrasion. 

Every  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  apo- 
logy were  never  for  an  instant  intended  for  publication,  into 
the  shade. 

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 


1 859.]  GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION.  147 

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, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  March  2nd  [1859]. 

MY  DEAR  HOOKER, — Here  is  an  odd,  though  very  little, 
fact.  I  think  it  would  be  hardly  possible  to  name  a  bird 
which  apparently  could  have  less  to  do  with  distribution  than 
a  Petrel.  Sir  W.  Milner,  at  St.  Kilda,  cut  open  some  young 
nestling  Petrels,  and  he  found  large,  curious  nuts  in  their  crops  ; 
I  suspect  picked  up  by  parent  birds  from  the  Gulf  stream. 
He  seems  to  value  these  nuts  excessively.  I  have  asked  him 
(but  I  doubt  whether  he  will)  to  send  a  nut  to  Sir  William 
Hooker  (I  gave  this  address  for  grandeur's  sake)  to  see  if  any 
of  you  can  name  it  and  its  native  country.  Will  you  please 
mention  this  to  Sir  William  Hooker,  and  if  the  nut  does  ar- 
rive, will  you  oblige  me  by  returning  it  to  "  Sir  W. 
Milner,  Bart,  Nunappleton,  Tadcaster,"  in  a  registered 
letter,  and  I  will  repay  you  postage.  Enclose  slip  of  paper 
with  the  name  and  country  if  you  can,  and  let  me  hereafter 
know.  Forgive  me  asking  you  to  take  this  much  trouble  ;  for 
it  is  a  funny  little  fact  after  my  own  heart. 

Now  for  another  subject.  I  have  finished  my  Abstract  of 
the  chapter  on  Geographical  Distribution,  as  bearing  on  my 
subject.  I  should  like  you  much  to  read  it  ;  but  I  say  this, 
believing  that  you  will  not  do  so,  if,  as  I  believe  to  be  the 
case,  you  are  extra  busy.  On  my  honour,  I  shall  not  be 
mortified,  and  I  earnestly  beg  you  not  to  do  it,  if  it  will 
bother  you.  I  want  it,  because  I  here  feel  especially  unsafe, 
and  errors  may  have  crept  in.  Also,  I  should  much  like  to 
know  what  parts  you  will  most  veliemently  object  to.     I  know 

L  2 


148        THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

we  do,  and  must,  differ  widely  on  several  heads.  Lastly,  I 
should  like  particularly  to  know  whether  I  have  taken  any- 
thing from  you,  which  you  would  like  to  retain  for  first  publi- 
cation ;  but  I  think  I  have  chiefly  taken  from  your  published 
works,  and,  though  I  have  several  times,  in  this  chapter  and 
elsewhere,  acknowledged  your  assistance,  I  am  aware  that  it 
is  not  possible  for  me  in  the  Abstract  to  do  it  sufficiently.* 
But  again  let  me  say  that  you  must  not  offer  to  read  it  if  very 
irksome.  It  is  long — about  ninety  pages,  I  expect,  when 
fully  copied  out. 

I  hope  you  are  all  well.    Moor  Park  has  done  me  some  good. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — Heaven  forgive  me,  here  is  another  question  :  How 
far  am  I  right  in  supposing  that  with  plants,  the  most  import- 
ant characters  for  main  divisions  are  embryological  ?  The 
seed  itself  cannot  be  considered  as  such,  I  suppose,  nor  the 
albumen,  &c.  But  I  suppose  the  cotyledons  and  their  posi- 
tion, and  the  position  of  the  plumule  and  the  radicle,  and  the 
position  and  form  of  the  whole  embryo  in  the  seed  are 
embryological,  and  how  far  are  these  very  important  ?  I  wish 
to  instance  plants  as  a  case  of  high  importance  of  embryo- 
logical characters  in  classification.  In  the  Animal  Kingdom 
there  is,  of  course,  no  doubt  of  this. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  March  5th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Hooker, — Many  thanks  about  the  seed  .  .  . 
it  is  curious.     Petrels  at  St.  Kilda  apparently  being  fed  by 

"  I  never   did   pick   any  one's  much  do  I  owe  to  your  writings  and 

pocket,  but  whilst  writing  my  pre-  conversation,  so  much   more  than 

sent  chapter  I  keep  on  feeling  (even  mere    acknowledgments    show." — 

when  differing  most  from  you)  just  Letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  1859. 
as  if  I  were  stealing  from  you,  so 


1 859.]  GEOGRAPHICAL   DISTRIBUTION.  1 49 

seeds  raised  in  the  West  Indies.  It  should  be  noted  whether 
it  is  a  nut  ever  imported  into  England.  I  am  very  glad  you 
will  read  my  Geographical  MS.  ;  it  is  now  copying,  and  it  will 
(I  presume)  take  ten  days  or  so  in  being  finished  ;  it  shall  be 
sent  as  soon  as  done.  .  .  . 

I  shall  be  very  glad  to  see  your  embryological  ideas  on 
plants  ;  by  the  sentence  which  I  sent  you,  you  will  see  that 
I  only  want  one  sentence  ;  if  facts  are  at  all,  as  I  suppose, 
and  I  shall  see  this  from  your  note,  for  sending  which  very 
many  thanks. 

I  have  been  so  poorly,  the  last  three  days,  that  I  sometimes 
doubt  whether  I  shall  ever  get  my  little  volume  done,  though 
so  nearly  completed.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  March  15th  [1859]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  am  pleased  at  what  you  say  of  my 
chapter.  You  have  not  attacked  it  nearly  so  much  as  I 
feared  you  would.  You  do  not  seem  to  have  detected  many 
errors.  It  was  nearly  all  written  from  memory,  and  hence  I 
was  particularly  fearful ;  it  would  have  been  better  if  the 
whole  had  first  been  carefully  written  out,  and  abstracted 
afterwards.  I  look  at  it  as  morally  certain  that  it  must 
include  much  error  in  some  of  its  general  views.  I  will  just 
run  over  a  few  points  in  your  note,  but  do  not  trouble  yourself 
to  reply  without  you  have  something  important  to  say.  .  .  . 

...  I  should  like  to  know  whether  the  case  of  endemic 
bats  in  islands  struck  you  ;  it  has  me  especially ;  perhaps  too 
strongly. 

With  hearty  thanks,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — You   cannot   tell  what    a   relief   it    has   been  to  me 
your  looking  over  this  chapter,  as  I  felt  very  shaky  on  it. 
I   shall   to-morrow  finish    my    last  chapter  (except    a    re- 


150        THE  WRITING   OF  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

capitulation)  on  Affinities,  Homologies,  Embryology,  &c., 
and  the  facts  seem  to  me  to  come  out  very  strong  for 
mutability  of  species. 

I  have  been  much  interested  in  working  out  the  chapter. 

I  shall  now,  thank  God,  begin  looking  over  old  first  chapters 
for  press. 

But  my  health  is  now  so  very  poor,  that  even  this  will  take 
me  long. 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Down,  [March]  24th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Fox, — It  was  very  good  of  you  to  write  to  me 
in  the  midst  of  all  your  troubles,  though  you  seem  to  have 
got  over  some  of  them,  in  the  recovery  of  your  wife's  and 
your  own  health,  I  had  not  heard  lately  of  your  mother's 
health,  and  am  sorry  to  hear  so  poor  an  account.  But  as 
she  does  not  suffer  much,  that  is  the  great  thing ;  for  mere 
life  I  do  not  think  is  much  valued  by  the  old.  What  a  time 
you  must  have  had  of  it,  when  you  had  to  go  backwards 
and  forwards. 

We  are  all  pretty  well,  and  our  eldest  daughter  is  improving. 
I  can  see  daylight  through  my  work,  and  am  now  finally 
correcting  my  chapters  for  the  press  ;  and  I  hope  in  a  month 
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  over- 
work 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  truth.  How  glad  I  should  be  if  you  could 
sometime  come  to  Down  ;  especially  when  I  get  a  little  better, 


1 859.]  PLANS   FOR   PUBLICATION.  151 

as  I  still  hope  to  be.  We  have  set  up  a  billiard  table,  and  I 
find  it  does  me  a  deal  of  good,  and  drives  the  horrid  species 
out  of  my  head.     Farewell,  my  dear  old  friend. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  March  28th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Lyell, — 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 
expression  in  Lady  Lyell's  note,  I  fancy  that  you  have 
spoken  to  Murray.  Is  it  so  ?  And  is  he  willing  to  publish 
my  Abstract  ?  If  you  will  tell  me  whether  anything,  and 
what  has  passed,  I  will  then  write  to  him.  Does  he  know  at 
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  first  ask  him  to  propose  terms  ?  And  what  do  you 
think  would  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 
have  a  much  larger  and  full  book  on  the  same  subject  nearly 
ready. 

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, 

C.  Darwin. 


152       THE   WRITING  OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1859. 

Very  sincere  thanks  to  you  for  standing  my  proxy  for  the 
Wollaston  Medal 

P.S. — Would  you  advise  me  to  tell  Murray  that  my  book 
is  not  more  &?z-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  more  than  any  Geological  Treatise  which  runs  slap 
counter  to  Genesis. 

Enclosure. 

AN  ABSTRACT  OF  AN  ESSAY 

ON   THE 

ORIGIN 

OF 

SPECIES  AND  VARIETIES 

THROUGH   NATURAL   SELECTION 
BY 

Charles  Darwin,  M.A. 

FELLOW   OF   THE   ROYAL,   GEOLOGICAL,   AND   LINNEAN   SOCIETIES 


LONDON  : 

&C.  &.C.  &C.  &C. 

1859. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  March  30th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — 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  than  I  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 


1 859.]  PLANS   FOR   PUBLICATION.  I  53 

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 
references  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, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darivin  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  with- 
out seeing  the  MS.!  So  he  is  eager  enough;  I  think  I 
should  have  been  cautious,  anyhow,  but,  owing  to  your  letter, 
I  told  him  most  explicitly  that  I  accept  his  offer  solely  on  con- 
dition 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- 
scientific  men  ;  why  I  think  so  is,  because  I  have  found  in 
conversation  so  great  and  surprising  an  interest  amongst  such 
men,  and  some  O-scientific  [non-scientific]  men  on  this  subject, 


154        THE  WRITING  OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

and  all  my  chapters  are  not  nearly  so  dry  and  dull  as  that 
which  you  have  read  on  geographical  distribution.  Anyhow, 
Murray  ought  to  be  the  best  judge,  and  if  he  chooses  to  publish 
it,  I  think  I  may  wash  my  hands  of  all  responsibility.  I  am 
sure  my  friends,  i.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. 

....    I  am  tired,  so  no  more. 

My  dear  Hooker,  your  affectionate, 

C.  Darwin. 

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. 

....  I  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 
pride. 

I  know  that  Lyell  has  been  infinitely  kind  about  my  affair, 
but  your  dashed  [i.e.  underlined]  "  induce  "  gives  the  idea  that 
Lyell  had  unfairly  urged  Murray. 

C.  Darwi?i  to  Asa  Gray. 

April  4th  [1859]. 

....  You  ask  to  see  my  sheets  as  printed  off;  I  assure 
you  that  it  will  be  the  highest  satisfaction  to  me  to  do  so  :  I 
look  at  the  request  as  a  high  compliment.     I  shall  not,  you 


1859.]  DIFFICULTIES.  1 55 

may  depend,  forget  a  request  which  I  look  at  as  a  favour.  But 
(and  it  is  a  heavy  "  but "  to  me)  it  will  be  long  before  I  go  to 
press  ;  I  can  truly  say  I  am  never  idle  ;  indeed,  I  work  too 
hard  for  my  much  weakened  health ;  yet  I  can  do  only  three 
hours  of  work  daily,  and  I  cannot  at  all  see  when  I  shall  have 
finished  :  I  have  done  eleven  long  chapters,  but  I  have  got 
some  other  very  difficult  ones  :  as  palaeontology,  classifica- 
tions, and  embryology,  &c,  and  I  have  to  correct  and  add 
largely  to  all  those  done.  I  find,  alas  !  each  chapter  takes  me 
on  an  average  three  months,  so  slow  I  am.  There  is  no  end 
to  the  necessary  digressions.  I  have  just  finished  a  chapter 
on  instinct,  and  here  I  found  grappling  with  such  a  subject  as 
bees'  cells,  and  comparing  all  my  notes  made  during  twenty 
years,  took  up  a  despairing  length  of  time. 

But  I  am  running  on  about  myself  in  a  most  egotistical 
style.  Yet  I  must  just  say  how  useful  I  have  again  and  again 
found  your  letters,  which  I  have  lately  been  looking  over  and 
quoting !  but  you  need  not  fear  that  I  shall  quote  anything 
you  would  dislike,  for  I  try  to  be  very  cautious  on  this 
head.  I  most  heartily  hope  you  may  succeed  in  getting  your 
"  incubus  "  of  old  work  off  your  hands,  and  be  in  some  degree 
a  free  man 

Again  let  me  say  that  I  do  indeed  feel  grateful  to  you  .  .  «. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  Murray. 

Down,  April  5th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — 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 


156       THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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,  and  a  plain  and  interesting 
one,  in  my  opinion. 

As  soon  as  you  have  done  with  the  MS.,  please  to  send  it 
by  car ef til  messenger,  a?id  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. 

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  XL,  but  please  to  inform 

me  on  this  head. 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  April  nth  [1859]. 

...  I  write  one  line  to  say  that  I  heard  from  Murray 
yesterday,  and  he  says  he  has  read  the  first  three  chapters  of 
one  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 : 

"  I  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  having 
looked  over  my  chapter,  except  the  third  part  returned.  I 
am  very  sorry  Mrs.  Hooker  took  the  trouble  of  copying  the 
two  pages."] 


1 859.]  STYLE.  157 

C.  Darwin  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,  Haughtoris  Address  to  the  Geological  Society,  Dublin* 

"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  fact." 

Q.  E.  D. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  May  nth  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — 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,  f  I  never  for  a  moment 

*  Feb.  9,  1858.  mutual  muddle  with  respect  to  each 

f  "  When  I  go  over  the  chapter  other,    from    starting    from    some 

I   will   see   what   I    can  do,  but  I  fundamentally  different  notions." — 

hardly  know  how   I    am   obscure,  Letter  of  May  6,  1859. 
and  I  think  we  are  somehow  in  a 


158        THE   WRITING  OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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. 
"  Reversion "  again  (a  form  of  inheritance),  I  look  at  as  in 
no  way  directly  connected  with  Variation,  though  of  course 
inheritance  is  of  fundamental  importance  to  us,  for  if  a 
variation  be  not  inherited,  it  is  of  no  signification  to  us.  It 
was  on  such  points  as  these  I  fancied  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  grandfather  called 
Unitarianism,  "  a  feather  bed  to  catch  a  falling  Christian."  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  May  18th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — My  health  has  quite  failed.  I  am 
off  to-morrow  for  a  week  of  Hydropathy.  I  am  very  very 
sorry  to  say  that  I  cannot  look  over  any  proofs  *  in  the  week, 
as  my  object  is  to  drive  the  subject  out  of  my  head.  I  shall 
return  to-morrow  week.  If  it  be  worth  while,  which  probably 
it  is  not,  you  could  keep  back  any  proofs  till  my  return  home. 

In  haste,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

*  Of  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker's  Introduction  to  the  e  Flora  of  Australia.' 


I859-]  PROOF   SHEETS.  159 

[Ten  days  later  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker : 

"...  I  write  one  word  to  say  that  I  shall  return  on 
Saturday,  and  if  you  have  any  proof-sheets  to  send,  I  shall 
be  glad  to  do  my  best  in  any  criticisms. 

I  had  .  .  .  great  prostration  of  mind  and  body,  but  entire 
rest,  and  the  douche,  and  '  Adam  Bede,'  have  together  done 
me  a  world  of  good."] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  Mtirray. 

Down,  June  14th  [1859]. 
My  DEAR   Sir, — 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 
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  cor- 
rections 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  have  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.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  have  been  looking  at  the  corrections,  and  consider- 
ing them.  It  seems  to  me  that  I  shall  put  you  to  a  quite  unfair 
expense.  If  you  please  I  should  like  to  enter  into  some 
such  arrangement  as  the  following :  When  work  completed, 
you  to  allow  in  the  account  a  fairly  moderately  heavy  charge 
for  corrections,  and  all  excess  over  that  to  be  deducted  from 
my  profits,  or  paid  by  me  individually. 


l6o       THE  WRITING   OF   THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      L1859. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  June  21st  [1859]. 

...  I  am  working  very  hard,  but  get  on  slowly,  for  I  find 
that  my  corrections  are  terrifically  heavy,  and  the  work  most 
difficult  to  me.  I  have  corrected  130  pages,  and  the  volume 
will  be  about  500.  I  have  tried  my  best  to  make  it  clear  and 
striking,  but  very  much  fear  that  I  have  failed — so  many  dis- 
cussions are  and  must  be  very  perplexing.  I  have  done  my 
best.  If  you  had  all  my  materials,  I  am  sure  you  would  have 
made  a  splendid  book.  I  long  to  finish,  for  I  am  nearly 
worn  out. 

My  dear  Lyell,  ever  yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  22nd  [June,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  Hooker, — I  did  not  answer  your  pleasant  note, 
with  a  good  deal  of  news  to  me,  of  May  30th,  as  I  have 
been  expecting  proofs  from  you.  But  now,  having  nothing 
particular  to  do,  I  will  fly  a  note,  though  I  have  nothing 
particular  to  say  or  ask.  Indeed,  how  can  a  man  have  any- 
thing to  say,  who  spends  every  day  in  correcting  accursed 
proofs  ;  and  such  proofs  !  I  have  fairly  to  blacken  them,  and 
fasten  slips  of  paper  on,  so  miserable  have  I  found  the  style. 
You  say  that  you  dreamt  that  my  book  was  entertaining ;  that 
dream  is  pretty  well  over  with  me,  and  I  begin  to  fear  that 
the  public  will  find  it  intolerably  dry  and  perplexing.  But  I 
will  never  give  up  that  a  better  man  could  have  made  a 
splendid  book  out  of  the  materials.  I  was  glad  to  hear  about 
Prestwich's  paper.*     My  doubt  has  been  (and  I  see  Wright 

*  Mr.    Prestwich   wrote    on   the      animals  in  France. — Proc.  R.  Soc, 
occurrence  of  flint  instruments  as-       1859. 
sociated  with  the  remains  of  extinct 


1859J  PROOF   SHEETS.  l6l 

has  inserted  the  same  in  the  '  Athenaeum ')  whether  the  pieces 
of  flint  are  really  tools  ;  their  numbers  make  me  doubt,  and 
when  I  formerly  looked  at  Boucher  de  Perthe's  drawings,  I 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  angular  fragments 
broken  by  ice  action. 

Did  crossing  the  Acacia  do  any  good  ?  I  am  so  hard 
worked,  that  I  can  make  no  experiments.  I  have  got  only 
to  150  pages  in  first  proof. 

Adios,  my  dear  Hooker,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  ]\Iiirray. 

Down,  July  25th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — I  write  to  say  that  five  sheets  are  returned 
to  the  printers  ready  to  strike  off,  and  two  more  sheets  require 
only  a  revise  ;  so  that  I  presume  you  will  soon  have  to  decide 
what  number  of  copies  to  print  oft". 

I  am  quite  incapable  of  forming  any  opinion.  I  think  I 
have  got  the  style  fairly  good  and  clear,  with  infinite  trouble. 
But  whether  the  book  will  be  successful  to  a  degree  to  satisfy 
you,  I  really  cannot  conjecture.     I  heartily  hope  it  may. 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  Aug.  9th,  1859. 
My  DEAR  Mr.  WALLACE, — I  received  your  letter  and 
memoir  *  on  the  7th,  and  will  forward  it  to-morrow  to  the 
Linnean  Society.  But  you  will  be  aware  that  there  is  no 
meeting  till  the  beginning  of  November.  Your  paper  seems 
to  me  admirable  in  matter,  style,  and  reasoning ;  and  I  thank 

*  This  seems  to  refer  to  Mr.  Geography  of  the  Malay  Archi- 
Wallace's  paper,  "On  the  Zoological      pelago,"  'Linn.  Soc.  Journ.,'  i860. 

VOL.  II.  M 


1 62        THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859.. 

you  for  allowing  me  to  read  it.  Had  I  read  it  some  months 
ago,  I  should  have  profited  by  it  for  my  forthcoming  volume.. 
But  my  two  chapters  on  this  subject  are  in  type,  and,  though 
not  yet  corrected,  I  am  so  wearied  out  and  weak  in  health, 
that  I  am  fully  resolved  not  to  add  one  word,  and  merely 
improve  the  style.  So  you  will  see  that  my  views  are  nearly 
the  same  with  yours,  and  you  may  rely  on  it  that  not  one 
word  shall  be  altered  owing  to  my  having  read  your  ideas. 
Are  you  aware  that  Mr.  W.  Earl  *  [sic]  published  several  years- 
ago  the  view  of  distribution  of  animals  in  the  Malay  Archi- 
pelago, in  relation  to  the  depth  of  the  sea  between  the  islands  ? 
I  was  much  struck  with  this,  and  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
noting  all  facts  in  distribution  in  that  archipelago,  and  else- 
where, in  this  relation.  I  have  been  led  to  conclude  that 
there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  naturalisation  in  the  different 
Malay  islands,  and  which  I  have  thought,  to  a  certain  extent,, 
would  account  for  anomalies.  Timor  has  been  my  greatest 
puzzle.  What  do  you  say  to  the  peculiar  Felis  there?  I 
wish  that  you  had  visited  Timor ;  it  has  been  asserted  that  a 
fossil  mastodon's  or  elephant's  tooth  (I  forget  which)  has  been 
found  there,  which  would  be  a  grand  fact.  I  was  aware  that 
Celebes  was  very  peculiar ;  but  the  relation  to  Africa  is  quite 
new  to  me,  and  marvellous,  and  almost  passes  belief.  It  is  as 
anomalous  as  the  relation  of  plants  in  S.W.  Australia  to  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope.  I  differ  wholly 'from  you  on  the  colonisa- 
tion of  oceanic  islands,  but  you  will  have  every  one  else 
on  your  side.  I  quite  agree  with  respect  to  all  islands  not- 
situated  far  in  the  ocean.  I  quite  agree  on  the  little  occa- 
sional intermigration  between  lands  [islands?]  when  once 
pretty  well  stocked  with  inhabitants,  but  think  this  does  not 
apply  to  rising  and  ill-stocked  islands.  Are  you  aware  that 
annually  birds  are  blown  to  Madeira,  the  Azores  (and  to 
Bermuda  from  America)  ?  I  wish  I  had  given  a  fuller  abstract 
of  my  reasons  for  not  believing  in  Forbes's  great  continental 
*  Probably  Mr.  W.  Earle's  paper,  Geographical  Soc.  Journal,  1845. 


1 859.]  HEALTH.  163 

extensions ;  but  it  is  too  late,  for  I  will  alter  nothing — I  am 
worn  out,  and  must  have  rest.  Owen,  I  do  not  doubt,  will 
bitterly  oppose  us.  .  .  .  Hooker  is  publishing  a  grand  In- 
troduction to  the  Flora  of  Australia,  and  goes  the  whole 
length.  I  have  seen  proofs  of  about  half.  With  every 
good  wish. 

Believe  me,  yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Sept.  1st  [1859]. 

...  I  am  not  surprised  at  your  finding  your  Introduction 
very  difficult.  But  do  not  grudge  the  labour,  and  do  not  say 
you  "have  burnt  your  fingers,"  and  are  "deep  in  the  mud"; 
for  I  feel  sure  that  the  result  will  be  well  worth  the  labour. 
Unless  I  am  a  fool,  I  must  be  a  judge  to  some  extent  of  the 
value  of  such  general  essays,  and  I  am  fully  convinced  that 
yours  are  the  most  valuable  ever  published. 

I  have  corrected  all  but  the  last  two  chapters  of  my  book, 
and  hope  to  have  done  revises  and  all  in  about  three  weeks, 
and  then  I  (or  we  all)  shall  start  for  some  months'  hydropathy  ; 
my  health  has  been  very  bad,  and  I  am  becoming  as  weak  as  a 
child,  and  incapable  of  doing  anything  whatever,  except  my 
three  hours  daily  work  at  proof-sheets.  God  knows  whether 
I  shall  ever  be  good  for  anything  again,  perhaps  a  long  rest 
and  hydropathy  may  do  something. 

I  have  not  had  A.  Gray's  Essay,  and  should  not  feel  up  to 
criticise  it,  even  if  I  had  the  impertinence  and  courage.  You 
will  believe  me  that  I  speak  strictly  the  truth  when  I  say 
that  your  Australian  Essay  is  extremely  interesting  to  me, 
rather  too  much  so.  I  enjoy  reading  it  over,  and  if  you  think 
my  criticisms  are  worth  anything  to  you,  I  beg  you  to  send 
the  sheets  (if  you  can  give  me  time  for  good  days)  ;  but 
unless  I  can  render  you  any  little,  however  little  assistance, 

M   2 


164       THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

I  would  rather  read  the  essay  when  published.  Pray  under- 
stand that  I  should  be  truly  vexed  not  to  read  them,  if  you 
wish  it  for  your  own  sake. 

I  had  a  terribly  long  fit  of  sickness  yesterday,  which  makes 
the  world  rather  extra  gloomy  to-day,  and  I  have  an  insanely 
strong  wish  to  finish  my  accursed  book,  such  corrections  every 
page  has  required  as  I  never  saw  before.  It  is  so  weariful, 
killing  the  whole  afternoon,  after  12  o'clock  doing  nothing 
whatever.  But  I  will  grumble  no  more.  So  farewell,  we 
shall  meet  in  the  winter  I  trust. 

Farewell,  my  dear  Hooker,  your  affectionate  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  Sept.  2nd  [1859]. 

...  I  am  very  glad  you  wish  to  see  my  clean  sheets  :  I  should 
have  offered  them,  but  did  not  know  whether  it  would  bore 
you  ;  I  wrote  by  this  morning's  post  to  Murray  to  send  them. 
Unfortunately  I  have  not  got  to  the  part  which  will  interest 
you,  I  think  most,  and  which  tells  most  in  favour  of  the  view, 
viz.  Geological  Succession,  Geographical  Distribution,  and  espe- 
cially Morphology,  Embryology  and  Rudimentary  Organs.  I 
will  see  that  the  remaining  sheets,  when  printed  off,  are  sent  to 
you.  But  would  you  like  for  me  to  send  the  last  and  perfect 
revises  of  the  sheets  as  I  correct  them  ?  if  so,  send  me  your 
address  in  a  blank  envelope.  I  hope  that  you  will  read  all, 
whether  dull  (especially  latter  part  of  Chapter  II.)  or  not,  for 
I  am  convinced  there  is  not  a  sentence  which  has  not  a 
bearing  on  the  whole  argument.  You  will  find  Chapter  IV. 
perplexing  and  unintelligible,  without  the  aid  of  the  enclosed 
queer  diagram,*  of  which  I  send  an  old  and  useless  proof.  I 
have,  as  Murray  says,  corrected  so  heavily,  as  almost  to  have 
re-written  it ;  but  yet  I  fear  it  is  poorly  written.     Parts  are 

*  The  diagram  illustrates  descent  with  divergence. 


1859.]  FROOF   SHEETS   FINISHED.  16$ 

intricate  ;  and  I  do  not  think  that  even  you  could  make  them 
quite  clear.  Do  not,  I  beg,  be  in  a  hurry  in  committing 
yourself  (like  so  many  naturalists)  to  go  a  certain  length  and 
no  further ;  for  I  am  deeply  convinced  that  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  go  the  whole  vast  length,  or  stick  to  the  creation 
of  each  separate  species  ;  I  argue  this  point  briefly  in  the  last 
chapter.  Remember  that  your  verdict  will  probably  have 
more  influence  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 
posterity  will  marvel  as  much  about  the  current  belief  as  we 
do  about  fossil  shells  having  been  thought  to  have  been 
created  as  we  now  see  them.  But  forgive  me  for  running 
on  about  my  hobby-horse.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  [Sept.]  nth  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — 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 
send  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  Ilkley, 
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  ! 


1 66        THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

I  hope  to  God,  you  do  not  think  me  a  brute  about  your 
proof-sheets. 

Farewell,  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell, 

Down,  Sept.  20th  [1859]. 

My  dear  Lyell. — 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.  Although  your  previously  felt  doubts  on  the  immutability 
of  species,  may  have  more  influence  in  converting  you  (if  you 
be  converted)  than  my  book ;  yet  as  I  regard  your  verdict 
as  far  more  important  in  my  own  eyes,  and  I  believe  in  the 
eyes  of  the  world  than  of  any  other  dozen  men,  I  am 
naturally  very  anxious  about  it.  Therefore  let  me  beg  you 
to  keep  your  mind  open  till  you  receive  (in  perhaps  a 
fortnight's   time)    my   latter   chapters,   which    are    the   most 


*  Sir  Charles  was  President  of 
the  Geological  section  at  the  meet- 
ing of  the  British  Association  at 
Aberdeen  in  1859.  The  following 
passage  occurs  in  the  address  : 
"  On  this  difficult  and  mysterious 
subject  a  work  will  very  shortly 
appear  by  Mr.  Charles  Darwin,  the 
result  of  twenty  years  of  observa- 
tions and  experiments  in  Zoology, 
Botany,  and  Geology,  by  which  he 
has  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that 
those  powers  of  nature  which  give 
rise  to  races  and  permanent  varieties 


in  animals  and  plants,  are  the  same 
as  those  which  in  much  longer 
periods  produce  species,  and  in  a 
still  longer  series  of  ages  give  rise 
to  differences  of  generic  rank.  He 
appears  to  me  to  have  succeeded 
by  his  investigations  and  reasonings 
in  throwing  a  flood  of  light  on 
many  classes  of  phenomena  con- 
nected with  the  affinities,  geographi- 
cal distribution,  and  geological  suc- 
cession of  organic  beings,  for  which 
no  other  hypothesis  has  been  able, 
or  has  even  attempted  to  account." 


1 859-]  ENCOURAGEMENT,  l6/ 

important  of  all  on  the  favourable  side.  The  last  chapter, 
which  sums  up,  and  balances  in  a  mass,  all  the  arguments 
contra  and  pro,  will,  I  think,  be  useful  to  you.  I  cannot  too 
strongly  express  my  conviction  of  the  general  truth  of  my 
doctrines,  and  God  knows  I  have  never  shirked  a  difficulty. 
I  am  foolishly  anxious  for  your  verdict,  not  that  I  shall  be 
disappointed  if  you  are  not  converted  ;  for  I  remember  the 
long  years  it  took  me  to  come  round  ;  but  I  shall  be  most 
deeply  delighted  if  you  do  come  round,  especially  if  I  have  a 
fair  share  in  the  conversion,  I  shall  then  feel  that  my  career 
is  run,  and  care  little  whether  I  ever  am  good  for  anything 
again  in  this  life. 

Thank  you  much  for  allowing  me  to  put  in  the  sentence 
about  your  grave  doubt*  So  much  and  too  much  about 
myself. 

I  have  read  with  extreme  interest  in  the  Aberdeen  paper 
about  the  flint  tools  ;  you  have  made  the  whole  case  far 
clearer  to  me ;  I  suppose  that  you  did  not  think  the  evidence 
sufficient  about  the  Glacial  period. 

With  cordial  thanks  for  your  splendid  notice  of  my  book. 
Believe  me,  my  dear  Lyell,  your  affectionate  disciple, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  VV.  D.  Fox. 

Down,  Sept.  23rd  [1859]. 
My  DEAR  Fox, — I  was  very  glad  to  get  your  letter  a  few 
days  ago.  I  was  wishing  to  hear  about  you,  but  have  been 
in  such  an  absorbed,  slavish,  overworked  state,  that  I  had  not 
heart  without  compulsion  to  write  to  any  one  or  do  anything 
beyond  my  daily  work.  Though  your  account  of  yourself  is 
better,  I  cannot  think  it  at  all  satisfactory,  and  I  wish  you 
would  soon  go  to  Malvern  again.  My  father  used  to  believe 
largely  in  an  old  saying  that,  if  a  man  grew  thinner  between 

*  As  to  the  immutability  of  species,  '  Origin,'  ed.  i.,  p.  310. 


1 68        THE  WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859, 

fifty  and  sixty  years  of  age,  his  chance  of  long  life  was  poor,  and 
that  on  the  contrary  it  was  a  very  good  sign  if  he  grew  fatter  ; 
so  that  your  stoutness,  I  look  at  as  a  very  good  omen.  My 
health  has  been  as  bad  as  it  well  could  be  all  this  summer  ;  and 
I  have  kept  on  my  legs,  only  by  going  at  short  intervals  to 
Moor  Park  ;  but  I  have  been  better  lately,  and,  thank  Heaven, 
I  have  at  last  as  good  as  done  my  book,  having  only  the 
index  and  two  or  three  revises  to  do.  It  will  be  published 
in  the  first  week  in  November,  and  a  copy  shall  be  sent  you. 
Remember  it  is  only  an  Abstract  (but  has  cost  me  above 
thirteen  months  to  write  !  !),  and  facts  and  authorities  are  far 
from  given  in  full.  I  shall  be  curious  to  hear  what  you  think 
of  it,  but  I  am  not  so  silly  as  to  expect  to  convert  you. 
Lyell  has  read  about  half  of  the  volume  in  clean  sheets,  and 
gives  me  very  great  kudos.  He  is  wavering  so  much  about 
the  immutability  of  species,  that  I  expect  he  will  come  round. 
Hooker  has  come  round,  and  will  publish  his  belief  soon.  So 
much  for  my  abominable  volume,  which  has  cost  me  so  much, 
labour  that  I  almost  hate  it.  On  October  3rd  I  start  for 
Ilkley,  but  shall  take  three  days  for  the  journey  !  It  is  so 
late  that  we  shall  not  take  a  house  ;  but  I  go  there  alone  for 
three  or  four  weeks  ;  then  return  home  for  a  week  and  go  to 
Moor  Park  for  three  or  four  weeks,  and  then  I  shall  get  a 
moderate  spell  of  hydropathy  ;  and  I  intend,  if  I  can  keep  to 
my  resolution,  of  being  idle  this  winter.  But  I  fear  ennui 
will  be  as  bad  as  a  bad  stomach.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  Sept.  25th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  send  by  this  post  four  corrected  sheets. 
I  have  altered  the  sentence  about  the  Eocene  fauna  being  beaten 
by  recent,  thanks  to  your  remark.  But  I  imagined  that  it 
would  have  been  clear  that  I  supposed  the  climate  to  be 
nearly  similar ;  you  do  not  doubt,  I  imagine,  that  the  climate 


1S59.]  ENCOURAGEMENT.  1 69 

of  the  Eocene  and  recent  periods  in  different  parts  of  the 
world  could  be  matched.  Not  that  I  think  climate  nearly  so 
important  as  most  naturalists  seem  to  think.  In  my  opinion 
no  error  is  more  mischievous  than  this. 

I  was  very  glad  to  find  that  Hooker,  who  read  over,  in 
MS.,  my  Geographical  chapters,  quite  agreed  in  the  view  of 
the  greater  importance  of  organic  relations.  I  should  like 
you  to  consider  p.  JJ  and  reflect  on  the  case  of  any  organism 
in  the  midst  of  its  range. 

I  shall  be  curious  hereafter  to  hear  what  you  think  of  dis- 
tribution during  the  glacial  and  preceding  warmer  periods. 
I  am  so  glad  you  do  not  think  the  Chapter  on  the  Imperfec- 
tion of  the  Geological  Record  exaggerated  ;  I  was  more 
fearful  about  this  chapter  than  about  any  part. 

Embryology  in  Chapter  VIII.  is  one  of  my  strongest  points 
I  think.  But  I  must  not  bore  you  by  running  on.  My  mind 
is  so  wearisomely  full  of  the  subject. 

I  do  thank  you  for  your  eulogy  at  Aberdeen.  I  have 
been  so  wearied  and  exhausted  of  late  that  I  have  for  months 
doubted  whether  I  have  not  been  throwing  away  time  and 
labour  for  nothing.  But  now  I  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.  .  .  . 

Farewell, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  Sept.  30th  [1859]. 
My  DEAR  Lyell, — I  sent  off  this  morning  the  last  sheets, 
but  without  index,  which  is  not  in  type.     I  look  at  you  as  my 
Lord    High    Chancellor   in    Natural    Science,    and    therefore 


170        THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

I  request  you,  after  you  have  finished,  just  to  re-run  over  the 
heads  in  the  recapitulation -part  of  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  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. 

I  suppose  that  I  am  a  very  slow  thinker,  for  you  would  be 
surprised  at  the  number  of  years  it  took  me  to  see  clearly  what 
some  of  the  problems  were  which  had  to  be  solved,  such  as 
the  necessity  of  the  principle  of  divergence  of  character,  the 
extinction  of  intermediate  varieties,  on  a  continuous  area,  with 
graduated  conditions ;  the  double  problem  of  sterile  first 
crosses  and  sterile  hybrids,  &c.  &c. 

Looking  back,  I  think  it  was  more  difficult  to  see  what 
the  problems  were  than  to  solve  them,  so  far  as  I  have  suc- 
ceeded 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  Ilkley  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.  Never  mind  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. 


1 859.]  FINISHED.  171 

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, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire,  Oct.  15th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Be  a  good  man  and  screw  out  time 
enough  to  write  me  a  note  and  tell  me  a  little  about  yourself, 
your  doings,  and  belongings. 

Is  your  Introduction  fairly  finished  ?  I  know  you  will  abuse 
it,  and  I  know  well  how  much  I  shall  like  it.  I  have  been 
here  nearly  a  fortnight,  and  it  has  done  me  very  much  good, 
though  I  sprained  my  ankle  last  Sunday,  which  has  quite 
stopped  walking.  All  my  family  come  here  on  Monday  to 
stop  three  or  four  weeks,  and  then  I  shall  go  back  to  the  great 
establishment,  and  stay  a  fortnight ;  so  that  if  I  can  keep  my 
spirits,  I  shall  stay  eight  weeks  here,  and  thus  give  hydro- 
pathy a  fair  chance.  Before  starting  here  I  was  in  an  awful 
state  of  stomach,  strength,  temper,  and  spirits.  My  book  has 
been  completely  finished  some  little  time  ;  as  soon  as  copies 
are  ready,  of  course  one  will  be  sent  you.  I  hope  you  will 
mark  your  copy  with  scores,  so  that  I  may  profit  by  any 
criticisms.  I  should  like  to  hear  your  general  impression. 
From  Lyell's  letters,  he  thinks  favourably  of  it,  but  seems 
staggered  by  the  lengths  to  which  I  go.  But  if  you  go  any 
considerable  length  in  the  admission  of  modification,  I  can  see 
no  possible  means  of  drawing  the  line,  and  saying  here  you 
must  stop.  Lyell  is  going  to  reread  my  book,  and  I  yet  enter- 
tain hopes  that  he  will  be  converted,  or  perverted,  as  he  calls 
it.  Lyell  has  been  extremely  kind  in  writing  me  three  volume- 
like letters  ;  but  he  says  nothing  about  dispersal  during  the 


172        THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

Glacial  period.  I  should  like  to  know  what  he  thinks  on  this 
head.  I  have  one  question  to  ask :  Would  it  be  any  good  to 
send  a  copy  of  my  book  to  Decaisne  ?  and  do  you  know  any 
philosophical  botanists  on  the  Continent,  who  read  English 
and  care  for  such  subjects?  if  so,  give  me  their  addresses. 
How  about  Andersson  in  Sweden  ?  You  cannot  think  how 
refreshing  it  is  to  idle  away  the  whole  day,  and  hardly  ever 
think  in  the  least  about  my  confounded  book  which  half- 
killed  me.  I  much  wish  I  could  hear  of  your  taking  a  real 
rest.  I  know  how  very  strong  you  are  mentally,  but  I  never 
will  believe  you  can  go  on  working  as  you  have  worked  of 
late  with  impunity.  You  will  some  day  stretch  the  string 
too  tight.     Farewell,  my  good,  and  kind,  and  dear  friend, 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Danvin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire,  Oct.  15th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  HUXLEY, —  I  am  here  hydropathising  and 
coming  to  life  again,  after  having  finished  my  accursed  book, 
which  would  have  been  easy  work  to  any  one  else,  but  half- 
killed  me.  I  have  thought  you  would  give  me  one  bit  of 
information,  and  I  know  not  to  whom  else  to  apply ;  viz.,  the 
addresses  of  Barrande,  Von  Siebold,  Keyserling  (I  dare  say 
Sir  Roderick  would  know  the  latter). 

Can  you  tell  me  of  any  good  and  speculative  foreigners  to 
whom  it  would  be  worth  while  to  send  copies  of  my  book,  on 
the  '  Origin  of  Species  '  ?  I  doubt  whether  it  is  worth  sending 
to  Siebold.  I  should  like  to  send  a  few  copies  about,  but 
how  many  I  can  afford  I  know  not  yet  till  I  hear  what  price 
Murray  affixes. 

I  need  not  say  that  I  will  send,  of  course,  one  to  you,  in 
the  first  week  of  November.  I  hope  to  send  copies  abroad 
immediately.     I  shall  be  intensely  curious  to  hear  what  effect 


1 859.]  RESTING   AT   ILKLEY.  1 73 

the  book  produces  on  you.  I  know  that  there  will  be  much 
in  it  which  you  will  object  to,  and  I  do  not  doubt  many 
errors.  I  am  very  far  from  expecting  to  convert  you  to 
many  of  my  heresies  ;  but  if,  on  the  whole,  you  and  two  or 
three  others  think  I  am  on  the  right  road,  I  shall  not  care 
what  the  mob  of  naturalists  think.  The  penultimate  chapter,* 
though  I  believe  it  includes  the  truth,  will,  I  much  fear,  make 
you  savage.  Do  not  act  and  say,  like  Macleay  versus 
Fleming,  "  I  write  with  aqua  fortis  to  bite  into  brass." 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwi?i  to  C.  Lyell. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire. 

Oct.  20th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  have  been  reading  over  all  your  let- 
ters consecutively,  and  I  do  not  feel  that  I  have  thanked  you 
half  enough  for  the  extreme  pleasure  which  they  have  given 
me,  and  for  their  utility.  I  see  in  them  evidence  of  fluctua- 
tion in  the  degree  of  credence  you  give  to  the  theory  ;  nor  am 
I  at  all  surprised  at  this,  for  many  and  many  fluctuations  I 
have  undergone. 

There  is  one  point  in  your  letter  which  I  did  not  notice, 
about  the  animals  (and  many  plants)  naturalised  in  Australia, 
which  you  think  could  not  endure  without  man's  aid.  I  can- 
not see  how  man  does  aid  the  feral  cattle.  But,  letting  that 
pass,  you  seem  to  think,  that  because  they  suffer  prodigious 
destruction  during  droughts,  they  would  all  be  destroyed.  In 
the  "  grandes  secos  "  of  La  Plata,  the  indigenous  animals,  such 
as  the  American  deer,  die  by  thousands,  and  suffer  apparently 
as  much  as  the  cattle.  In  parts  of  India,  after  a  drought,  it 
takes  ten  or  more  years  before  the  indigenous  mammals  get 

*  Chapter  XIII.  is  on  Classification,  Morphology,  Embryology,  and 
Rudimentary  Organs. 


174        THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859.. 

up  to  their  full  number  again.     Your  argument  would,  I  think, 
apply  to  the  aborigines  as  well  as  to  the  feral. 

An  animal  or  plant  which  becomes  feral  in  one  small  ter- 
ritory might  be  destroyed  by  climate,  but  I  can  hardly 
believe  so,  when  once  feral  over  several  large  territories. 
Again,  I  feel  inclined  to  swear  at  climate :  do  not  think  me 
impudent  for  attacking  you  about  climate.  You  say  you 
doubt  whether  man  could  have  existed  under  the  Eocene 
climate,  but  man  can  now  withstand  the  climate  of  Esqui- 
maux-land and  West  Equatorial  Africa;  and  surely  you  do 
not  think  the  Eocene  climate  differed  from  the  present 
throughout  all  Europe,  as  much  as  the  Arctic  regions  differ 
from  Equatorial  Africa  ? 

With  respect  to  organisms  being  created  on  the  American 
type  in  America,  it  might,  I  think,  be  said  that  they  were 
so  created  to  prevent  them  being  too  well  created,  so  as 
to  beat  the  aborigines  ;  but  this  seems  to  me,  somehow,  a 
monstrous  doctrine. 

I  have  reflected  a  good  deal  on  what  you  say  on  the  neces- 
sity of  continued  intervention  of  creative  power.  I  cannot  see 
this  necessity  ;  and  its  admission,  I  think,  would  make  the 
theory  of  Natural  Selection  valueless.  Grant  a  simple  Arche- 
typal creature,  like  the  Mud-fish  or  Lepidosiren,  with  the  five 
senses  and  some  vestige  of  mind,  and  I  believe  natural  selection 
will  account  for  the  production  of  every  vertebrate  animal. 

Farewell  ;  forgive  me  for  indulging  in  this  prose,  and 
believe  me,  with  cordial  thanks, 

Your  ever  attached  disciple, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — When,  and  if,  you  reread,  I  supplicate  you  to  write  on 
the  margin  the  word  "  expand,"  when  too  condensed,  or  "  not 
clear,"  or  "  ? ".  Such  marks  would  cost  you  little  trouble,  and 
I  could  copy  them  and  reflect  on  them,  and  their  value 
would  be  infinite  to  me. 


1 S 59-]  RESTING   AT   ILKLEY.  1 75 

My  larger  book  will  have  to  be  wholly  re-written,  and  not 
merely  the  present  volume  expanded  ;  so  that  I  want  to  waste 
as  little  time  over  this  volume  as  possible,  if  another  edition 
be  called  for  ;  but  I  fear  the  subject  will  be  too  perplexing,  as 
I  have  treated  it,  for  general  public. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire. 

Sunday  [Oct.  23rd,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  congratulate  you  on  your  '  Intro- 
duction '  *  being  in  fact  finished.  I  am  sure  from  what  I  read 
of  it  (and  deeply  I  shall  be  interested  in  reading  it  straight 
through),  that  it  must  have  cost  you  a  prodigious  amount  of 
labour  and  thought.  I  shall  like  very  much  to  see  the  sheet, 
which  you  wish  me  to  look  at.  Now  I  am  so  completely  a 
gentleman,  that  I  have  sometimes  a  little  difficulty  to  pass  the 
day ;  but  it  is  astonishing  how  idle  a  three  weeks  I  have 
passed.  If  it  is  any  comfort  to  you,  pray  delude  yourself  by 
saying  that  you  intend  "  sticking  to  humdrum  science."  But 
I  believe  it  just  as  much  as  if  a  plant  were  to  say  that,  "  I  have 
been  growing  all  my  life,  and,  by  Jove,  I  will  stop  growing." 
You  cannot  help  yourself;  you  are  not  clever  enough  for  that. 
You  could  not  even  remain  idle,  as  I  have  done,  for  three 
weeks  !  What  you  say  about  Lyell  pleases  me  exceedingly  ; 
I  had  not  at  all  inferred  from  his  letters  that  he  had  come  so 
much  round.  I  remember  thinking,  above  a  year  ago,  that  if 
ever  I  lived  to  see  Lyell,  yourself,  and  Huxley  come  round, 
partly  by  my  book,  and  partly  by  their  own  reflections,  I 
should  feel  that  the  subject  is  safe,  and  all  the  world  might 
rail,  but  that  ultimately  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection 
(though,  no  doubt,  imperfect  in  its  present  condition,  and 
embracing  many  errors)  would  prevail.  Nothing  will  ever 
convince  me  that  three  such  men,  with  so  much  diversified 


*  1 


Australian  Flora.' 


176        THE   WRITING   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

knowledge,  and  so  well  accustomed  to  search  for  truth,  could 
err  greatly.  I  have  spoken  of  you  here  as  a  convert  made 
by  me  ;  but  I  know  well  how  much  larger  the  share  has  been 
of  your  own  self-thought.  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. 

But,  how  I  am  running  on  !  You  see  how  idle  I  am  ;  but  I 
have  so  enjoyed  your  letter  that  you  must  forgive  me.  With 
respect  to  migration  during  the  Glacial  period  :  I  think  Lyell 
quite  comprehends,  for  he  has  given  me  a  supporting  fact. 
But,  perhaps,  he  unconsciously  hates  (do  not  say  so  to  him) 
the  view,  as  slightly  staggering  him  on  his  favourite  theory  of 
all  changes  of  climate  being  due  to  changes  in  the  relative 
position  of  land  and  water. 

I  will  send  copies  of  my  book  to  all  the  men  specified  by 
you  ;  .  .  .  would  you  be  so  kind  as  to  add  title,  as  Doctor, 
or  Professor,  or  Monsieur,  or  Von,  and  initials  (when  wanted), 
and  addresses  to  the  names  on  the  enclosed  list,  and  let 
me  have  it  pretty  soon,  as  towards  the  close  of  this  week 
Murray  says  the  copies  to  go  abroad  will  be  ready.  I  am 
anxious  to  get  my  view  generally  known,  and  not,  I  hope  and 
think,  for  mere  personal  conceit 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire,  Oct.  25th  [1859]. 
.  .  .  Our  difference  on  "principle  of  improvement"  and 
"  power  of  adaptation "  is  too  profound  for  discussion  by 
letter.  If  I  am  wrong,  I  am  quite  blind  to  my  error.  If 
I  am  right,  our  difference  will  be  got  over  only  by  your 
re-reading  carefully  and  reflecting  on  my  first  four  chapters. 
I  supplicate  you  to  read  these  again  carefully.  The  so-called 
improvement  of  our  Shorthorn  cattle,  pigeons,  &c,  does  not 
presuppose  or  require  any  aboriginal  "  power  of  adaptation," 
or  "  principle  of  improvement ; "  it  requires  only  diversified 


1 859-]  NATURAL  SELECTION.  1 77 

variability,  and   man  to  select   or  take    advantage    of  those 
modifications  which  are  useful  to  him  ;  so  under  nature  any 
slight  modification  which  chances  to  arise,  and  is  useful  to  any 
creature,  is  selected  or  preserved  in  the  struggle  for  life  ;  any 
modification  which  is  injurious  is  destroyed  or  rejected  ;   any 
which  is  neither  useful  nor  injurious  will  be  left  a  fluctuating 
element.    When  you  contrast  natural  selection  and  "  improve- 
ment," you  seem  always  to  overlook   (for  I  do  not  see  how 
you  can  deny)  that  every  step  in  the  natural  selection  of  each 
species  implies  improvement  in  that  species  in  relation  to  its 
conditions  of  life.     No  modification  can  be  selected  without 
it  be  an  improvement  or  advantage.     Improvement  implies, 
I  suppose,   each  form  obtaining  many  parts  or  organs,    all 
excellently  adapted   for  their  functions.     As   each  species  is 
improved,  and  as  the  number  of  forms  will  have  increased,  if 
we  look  to  the  whole  course  of  time,  the  organic  condition  of 
life  for  other  forms  will  become  more  complex,  and  there  will 
be  a  necessity  for  other  forms  to  become  improved,  or  they 
will  be  exterminated  ;   and  I  can  see  no  limit  to  this  process 
of  improvement,  without  the   intervention  of  any  other  and. 
direct  principle  of  improvement.     All  this  seems  to  me  quite 
compatible  with   certain   forms   fitted   for  simple  conditions, 
remaining  unaltered,  or  being  degraded. 

If  I  have  a  second  edition,  I  will  reiterate  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion, and  as  a  general  consequence,  Natural  Improvement." 

As  you  go,  as  far  as  you  do,  I  begin  strongly  to  think, 
judging  from  myself,  that  you  will  go  much  further.  How 
slowly  the  older  geologists  admitted  your  grand  views  on 
existing  geological  causes  of  change  ! 

If  at  any  time  you  think  I  can  answer  any  question,  it  is  a 
real  pleasure  to  me  to  write. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 


VOL.  II.  N 


178        THE   WRITING   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

.    C.  Darwin  to  J.  Murray* 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — I  have  received  your  kind  note  and  the 
copy  ;  I  am  infinitely  pleased  and  proud  at  the  appearance  of 
my  child. 

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  £j2  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, 

Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — Please  do  not  forget  to  let  me  hear  about  two  days 
before  the  copies  are  distributed. 

I  do  not  know  when  I  shall  leave  this  place,  certainly  not 
for  several  weeks.  Whenever  I  am  in  London  I  will  call 
on  you. 


(     i/9     ) 


CHAPTER  V. 

BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY 


ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 

To  the  present  generation,  that  is  to  say,  the  people  a  few 
years  on  the  hither  and  thither  side  of  thirty,  the  name  of 
Charles  Darwin  stands  alongside  of  those  of  Isaac  Newton  and 
Michael  Faraday  ;  and,  like  them,  calls  up  the  grand  ideal  of 
a  searcher  after  truth  and  interpreter  of  Nature.  They  think 
•of  him  who  bore  it  as  a  rare  combination  of  genius,  industry, 
and  unswerving  veracity,  who  earned  his  place  among  the 
most  famous  men  of  the  age  by  sheer  native  power,  in  the 
teeth  of  a  gale  of  popular  prejudice,  and  uncheered  by  a 
sign  of  favour  or  appreciation  from  the  official  fountains  of 
honour  ;  as  one  who,  in  spite  of  an  acute  sensitiveness  to 
praise  and  blame,  and  notwithstanding  provocations  which 
might  have  excused  any  outbreak,  kept  himself  clear  of  all 
envy,  hatred,  and  malice,  nor  dealt  otherwise  than  fairly  and 
justly  with  the  unfairness  and  injustice  which  was  showered 
upon  him  ;  while,  to  the  end  of  his  days,  he  was  ready  to 
listen  with  patience  and  respect  to  the  most  insignificant  of 
reasonable  objectors. 

And  with  respect  to  that  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  forms  of 
life  peopling  our  globe,  with  which  Darwin's  name  is  bound  up 
as  closely  as  that  of  Newton  with  the  theory  of  gravitation, 
nothing  seems  to  be  further  from  the  mind  of  the  present 
generation  than  any  attempt  to  smother  it  with  ridicule  or 
to  crush  it  by  vehemence  of  denunciation.     "  The  struggle  for 

N    2 


180  ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 

existence,"  and  "  Natural  selection,"  have  become  household 
words  and  every-day  conceptions.     The  reality  and  the  im- 
portance  of  the  natural  processes  on  which  Darwin  founds 
his  deductions  are  no    more  doubted  than  those  of  growth 
and  multiplication  ;  and,  whether  the  full  potency  attributed 
to  them  is  admitted  or  not,  no  one  doubts  their  vast  and  far- 
reaching  significance.     Wherever  the  biological  sciences  are 
studied,  the  '  Origin  of  Species '  lights  the   path   of  the  in- 
vestigator ;  wherever  they  are  taught  it  permeates  the  course 
of  instruction.     Nor   has   the  influence   of  Darwinian  ideas 
been   less   profound,  beyond    the   realms   of  Biology.      The 
oldest  of  all  philosophies,  that  of  Evolution,  was  bound  hand 
and  foot  and  cast  into  utter  darkness  during  the  millennium 
of  theological  scholasticism.     But  Darwin  poured  new  life- 
blood    into   the   ancient    frame ;    the    bonds    burst,    and   the 
revivified  thought  of  ancient  Greece  has  proved  itself  to  be 
a  more  adequate  expression  of  the  universal  order  of  things 
than  any  of  the  schemes  which  have  been  accepted  by  the 
credulity  and  welcomed  by  the  superstition  of  seventy  later 
generations  of  men. 

To  any  one  who  studies  the  signs  of  the  times,  the 
emergence  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.  But  the 
most  effective  weapons  of  the  modern  champions  of  Evolution 
were  fabricated  by  Darwin  ;  and  the  '  Origin  of  Species '  has 
enlisted  a  formidable  body  of  combatants,  trained  in  the  se- 
vere school  of  Physical  Science,  whose  ears  might  have  long 
remained  deaf  to  the  speculations  of  a  priori  philosophers. 

I  do  not  think  that  any  candid  or  instructed  person  will 
deny  the  truth  of  that  which  has  just  been  asserted.  He  may 
hate  the  very  name  of  Evolution,  and  may  deny  its  pretensions 
as  vehemently  as  a  Jacobite  denied  those  of  George  the  Second. 
But  there  it  is — not  only  as  solidly  seated  as  the  Hanoverian 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF    SPECIES.'  l8l 

dynasty,  but  happily  independent  of  Parliamentary  sanction — 
and  the  dullest  antagonists  have  come  to  see  that  thcv  have 
to  deal  with  an  adversary  whose  bones  are  to  be  broken  by 
no  amount  of  bad  words. 

Even  the  theologians  have  almost  ceased  to  pit  the  plain 
meaning  of  Genesis  against  the  no  less  plain  meaning  of 
Nature.  Their  more  candid,  or  more  cautious,  representatives 
have  given  up  dealing  with  Evolution  as  if  it  were  a  damnable 
heresy,  and  have  taken  refuge  in  one  of  two  courses.  Either 
they  deny  that  Genesis  was  meant  to  teach  scientific  truth, 
and  thus  save  the  veracity  of  the  record  at  the  expense  of  its 
authority  ;  or  they  expend  their  energies  in  devising  the  cruel 
ingenuities  of  the  reconciler,  and  torture  texts  in  the  vain 
hope  of  making  them  confess  the  creed  of  Science.  But  when 
the  peine  forte  et  dure  is  over,  the  antique  sincerity  of  the  vener- 
able sufferer  always  reasserts  itself.  Genesis  is  honest  to  the 
core,  and  professes  to  be  no  more  than  it  is,  a  repository  of 
venerable  traditions  of  unknown  origin,  claiming  no  scientific 
authority  and  possessing  none. 

As  my  pen  finishes  these  passages,  I  can  but  be 
amused  to  think  what  a  terrible  hubbub  would  have  been 
made  (in  truth  was  made)  about  any  similar  expressions  of 
opinion  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.  In  fact,  the  contrast 
between  the  present  condition  of  public  opinion  upon  the 
Darwinian  question  ;  between  the  estimation  in  which 
Darwin's  views  are  now  held  in  the  scientific  world  ;  between 
the  acquiescence,  or  at  least  quiescence,  of  the  theologians  of 
the  self-respecting  order  at  the  present  day  and  the  out- 
burst of  antagonism  on  all  sides  in  1858-9,  when  the  new 
theory  respecting  the  origin  of  species  first  became  known  to 
the  older  generation  to  which  I  belong,  is  so  startling  that, 
except  for  documentary  evidence,  I  should  be  sometimes 
inclined  to  think  my  memories  dreams.  I  have  a  great 
respect  for  the  younger  generation  myself  (they  can  write  our 
lives,  and  ravel  out  all  our  follies,  if  they  choose  to  take  the 


182 


ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 


trouble,  by  and  by),  and  I  should  be  glad  to  be  assured  that 
the  feeling  is  reciprocal ;  but  I  am  afraid  that  the  story  of  our 
dealings  with  Darwin  may  prove  a  great  hindrance  to  that 
veneration  for  our  wisdom  which  I  should  like  them  to  dis- 
play. We  have  not  even  the  excuse  that,  thirty  years  ago, 
Mr.  Darwin  was  an  obscure  novice,  who  had  no  claims  on  our 
attention.  On  the  contrary,  his  remarkable  zoological  and 
geological  investigations  had  long  given  him  an  assured  posi- 
tion among  the  most  eminent  and  original  investigators  of 
the  day  ;  while  his  charming  '  Voyage  of  a  Naturalist '  had 
justly  earned  him  a  wide-spread  reputation  among  the  general 
public.  I  doubt  if  there  was  any  man  then  living  who  had  a 
better  right  to  expect  that  anything  he  might  choose  to  say 
on  such  a  question  as  the  Origin  of  Species  would  be  listened 
to  with  profound  attention,  and  discussed  with  respect ;  and 
there  was  certainly  no  man  whose  personal  character  should 
have  afforded  a  better  safeguard  against  attacks,  instinct  with 
malignity  and  spiced  with  shameless  impertinences. 

Yet  such  was  the  portion  of  one  of  the  kindest  and  truest 
men  that  it  was  ever  my  good  fortune  to  know ;  and  years 
had  to  pass  away  before  misrepresentation,  ridicule,  and 
denunciation,  ceased  to  be  the  most  notable  constituents  of 
the  majority  of  the  multitudinous  criticisms  of  his  work  which 
poured  from  the  press.  I  am  loth  to  rake  any  of  these  ancient 
scandals  from  their  well-deserved  oblivion  ;  but  I  must  make 
good  a  statement  which  may  seem  overcharged  to  the  present 
generation,  and  there  is  no  piece  justificative  more  apt  for  the 
purpose,  or  more  worthy  of  such  dishonour,  than  the  article  in 
the  '  Quarterly  Review '  for  July  i860*    Since  Lord  Brougham 


*  I  was  not  aware  when  I  wrote 
these  passages  that  the  authorship 
of  the  article  had  been  publicly 
acknowledged.  Confession  unac- 
companied by  penitence,  however, 
affords  no  ground  for  mitigation  of 
judgment  ;  and  the  kindliness  with 


which  Mr.  Darwin  speaks  of  his  as- 
sailant, Bishop  Wilberforce  (Vol.  II. 
PP-  325 1 329, 332) ,  is  so  striking  an  ex- 
emplification of  his  singular  gentle- 
ness and  modesty,  that  it  rather 
increases  one's  indignation  against 
the  presumption  of  his  critic. 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  1 83 

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  which  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."  And  all  this  high  and  mighty  talk,  which 
would  have  been  indecent  in  one  of  Mr.  Darwin's  equals, 
proceeds  from  a  writer  whose  want  of  intelligence,  or  of  con- 
science, or  of  both,  is  so  great,  that,  by  way  of  an  objection  to 
Mr.  Darwin's  views,  he  can  ask, "  Is  it  credible  that  all  favour- 
able varieties  of  turnips  are  tending  to  become  men  ; "  who  is 
so  ignorant  of  paleontology,  that  he  can  talk  of  the  "  flowers 
and  fruits  "  of  the  plants  of  the  carboniferous  epoch  ;  of  com- 
parative anatomy,  that  he  can  gravely  affirm  the  poison  appa- 
ratus of  the  venomous  snakes  to  be  "  entirely  separate  from 
the  ordinary  laws  of  animal  life,  and  peculiar  to  themselves  ;" 
of  the  rudiments  of  physiology,  that  he  can  ask,  "  what 
advantage  of  life  could  alter  the  shape  of  the  corpuscles  into 
which  the  blood  can  be  evaporated  ? "  Nor  does  the  reviewer 
fail  to  flavour  this  outpouring  of  preposterous  incapacity  with 
a  little  stimulation  of  the  odium  tlieologiatm.  Some  inkling 
of  the  history  of  the  conflicts  between  Astronomy,  Geology, 
and  Theology,  leads  him  to  keep  a  retreat  open  by  the 
proviso  that  he  cannot  "  consent  to  test  the  truth  of  Natural 
Science  by  the  word  of  Revelation  ; "  but,  for  all  that,  he 
devotes  pages  to  the  exposition  of  his  conviction  that  Mr. 
Darwin's  theory  "  contradicts  the  revealed  relation  of  the 
creation  to  its  Creator,"  and  is  "inconsistent  with  the  fulness 
of  his  glory." 

If  I  confine  my  retrospect  of  the  reception  of  the  '  Origin 
of  Species '  to  a  twelvemonth,  or  thereabouts,  from  the  time 


1 84  ON    THE   RECEPTION    OF 

of  its  publication,  I  do  not  recollect  anything  quite  so  foolish 
and  unmannerly  as  the  '  Quarterly  Review '  article,  unless, 
perhaps,  the  address  of  a  Reverend  Professor  to  the  Dublin 
Geological  Society  might  enter  into  competition  with  it.  But 
a  large  proportion  of  Mr.  Darwin's  critics  had  a  lamentable 
resemblance  to  the  '  Quarterly '  reviewer,  in  so  far  as  they 
lacked  either  the  will,  or  the  wit,  to  make  themselves  masters 
of  his  doctrine  ;  hardly  any  possessed  the  knowledge  required 
to  follow  him  through  the  immense  range  of  biological  and 
geological  science  which  the  '  Origin '  covered  ;  while,  too 
commonly,  they  had  prejudged  the  case  on  theological 
grounds,  and,  as  seems  to  be  inevitable  when  this  happens, 
eked  out  lack  of  reason  by  superfluity  of  railing. 

But  it  will  be  more  pleasant  and  more  profitable  to  consider 
those  criticisms,  which  were  acknowledged  by  writers  of 
scientific  authority,  or  which  bore  internal  evidence  of  the 
greater  or  less  competency  and,  often,  of  the  good  faith,  of 
their  authors.  Restricting  my  survey  to  a  twelvemonth,  or 
thereabouts,  after  the  publication  of  the  '  Origin,'  I  find 
among  such  critics  Louis  Agassiz ;  *  Murray,  an  excellent 
entomologist  ;  Harvey,  a  botanist  of  considerable  repute ; 
and  the  author  of  an  article  in  the  '  Edinburgh  Review,'  all 
strongly  adverse  to  Darwin.  Pictet,  the  distinguished  and 
widely  learned  paleontologist  of  Geneva,  treats  Mr.  Darwin 
with  a  respect  which  forms  a  grateful  contrast  to  the  tone  of 
some  of  the  preceding  writers,  but  consents  to  go  with  him 

*  "The  arguments  presented  by  from   that   now  generally  assigned 

Darwin    in    favor    of    a    universal  to  them,  I  shall  therefore  consider 

derivation  from  one  primary  form  the  transmutation  theory  as  a  scien- 

of  all  the  peculiarities  existing  now  tific  mistake,  untrue  in  its  facts,  un- 

among  living  beings  have  not  made  scientific   in  its  method,   and  mis- 

the  slightest  impression  on  my  mind.  chievous   in   its     tendency." — Silli- 

"  Until  the   facts   of  Nature  are  man's  'Journal,' July  i860,  pp.  143, 

shown   to   have   been  mistaken  by  154.     Extract  from  the  3rd  vol.  of 

those  who  have  collected  them,  and  '  Contributions  to  the  Natural  His- 

that  they  have  a  different  meaning  tory  of  the  United  States.' 


THE   'ORIGIN    OF    SPECIES.'  l8$ 

only  a  very  little  way.*  On  the  other  hand,  Lyell,  up  to 
that  time  a  pillar  of  the  anti-transmutationists  (who  regarded 
him,  ever  afterwards,  as  Pallas  Athene  may  have  looked 
at  Dian,  after  the  Endymion  affair),  declared  himself  a 
Darwinian,  though  not  without  putting  in  a  serious  caveat. 
Nevertheless,  he  was  a  tower  of  strength,  and  his  courageous 
stand  for  truth  as  against  consistency,  did  him  infinite 
.honour.  As  evolutionists,  sans  p/wase,  I  do  not  call  to  mind 
among  the  biologists  more  than  Asa  Gray,  who  fought  the 
battle  splendidly  in  the  United  States  ;  Hooker,  who  was  no 
less  vigorous  here  ;  the  present  Sir  John  Lubbock  and  my- 
self. Wallace  was  far  away  in  the  Malay  Archipelago  ;  but, 
apart  from  his  direct  share  in  the  promulgation  of  the 
theory  of  natural  selection,  no  enumeration  of  the  influences 
at  work,  at  the  time  I  am  speaking  of,  would  be  com- 
plete without  the  mention  of  his  powerful  essay  '  On  the 
Law  which  has  regulated  the  Introduction  of  New  Species,' 
which  was  published  in  1855.  On  reading  it  afresh,  I  have 
been  astonished  to  recollect  how  small  was  the  impression 
it  made. 

In  France,  the  influence  of  Elie  de  Beaumont  and  of  Flourens, 
— the  former  of  whom  is  said  to  have  "  damned  himself  to 
everlasting  fame "  by  inventing  the  nickname  of  "  la  science 
moussante  "  for  Evolutionism,! — to  say  nothing  of  the  ill-will 
of  other  powerful   members  of  the  Institut,   produced   for  a 

*  "I  see  no  serious  objections  to  tions." — '  Sur  l'Origine  de  l'Espece. 

the  formation  of  varieties  by  natural  Par  Charles  Darwin.'    'Archives  des 

.selection  in  the  existing  world,  and  Sc.  de  la  Bibliotheque  Universelle 

that,  so  far  as  earlier  epochs  are  con-  de  Geneve,'  pp.  242,  243,  Mars  i860, 

cerned,  this  law  may  be  assumed  f  One  is  reminded  of  the  effect 

to  explain  the  origin  of  closely  allied  of  another  small  academic  epigram, 

species,  supposing  for  this  purpose  a  The    so-called  vertebral   theory  of 

very  long  period  of  time.  the  skull  is  said  to  have  been  nipped 

"  With  regard  to  simple  varieties  in  the  bud  in  France  by  the  whisper 

and  closely  allied  species,  I  believe  of  an  academician  to  his  neighbour, 

that     Mr.     Darwin's    theory    may  that,  in  that  case,  one's  head  was  a 

explain  many  things,  and  throw  a  "vertebre  pensante" 
great   light   upon    numerous   ques- 


1 86  ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 

long  time  the  effect  of  a  conspiracy  of  silence  ;  and  many 
years  passed  before  the  Academy  redeemed  itself  from  the 
reproach  that  the  name  of  Darwin  was  not  to  be  found  on  the 
list  of  its  members.  However,  an  accomplished  writer,  out  of 
the  range  of  academical  influences,  M.  Laugel,  gave  an  excel- 
lent and  appreciative  notice  of  the  '  Origin '  in  the  '  Revue 
des  Deux  Mondes.'  Germany  took  time  to  consider  ;  Bronn 
produced  a  slightly  Bowdlerized  translation  of  the  '  Origin '  ; 
and  '  Kladderadatsch '  cut  his  jokes  upon  the  ape  origin  of 
man  ;  but  I  do  not  call  to  mind  that  any  scientific  notability 
declared  himself  publicly  in  i860.*  None  of  us  dreamed  that, 
in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  the  strength  (and  perhaps  I  may  add 
the  weakness)  of  "  Darwinismus  "  would  have  its  most  exten- 
sive and  most  brilliant  illustrations  in  the  land  of  learning. 
If  a  foreigner  may  presume  to  speculate  on  the  cause  of  this 
curious  interval  of  silence,  I  fancy  it  was  that  one  moiety  of 
the  German  biologists  were  orthodox  at  any  price,  and  the 
other  moiety  as  distinctly  heterodox.  The  latter  were  evo- 
lutionists, a  priori^  already,  and  they  must  have  felt  the  dis- 
gust natural  to  deductive  philosophers  at  being  offered  an 
inductive  and  experimental  foundation  for  a  conviction  which 
they  had  reached  by  a  shorter  cut.  It  is  undoubtedly  trying 
to  learn  that,  though  your  conclusions  may  be  all  right,  your 
reasons  for  them  are  all  wrong,  or,  at  any  rate,  insufficient. 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Darwin's  views 
in  i860  were  numerically  extremely  insignificant.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  doubt  that,  if  a  general  council  of  the  Church 
scientific  had  been  held  at  that  time,  we  should  have  been  con- 
demned by  an  overwhelming  majority.  And  there  is  as  little 
doubt  that,  if  such  a  council  gathered  now,  the  decree  would 
be  of  an  exactly  contrary  nature.     It  would  indicate  a  lack 

*  However,  the  man  who  stands  lutionist  views.     His  phrase,  "  J'ai 

next  to  Darwin  in  his  influence  on  enonce  les  memes    idees  .  .  .  que 

modern  biologists,  K.  E.  von  Bar,  M.    Darwin "    (vol.    ii.    p.    329),   is 

wrote  to  me,  in  August   i860,  ex-  shown  by  his  subsequent  writings 

pressing  his  general  assent  to  evo-  to  mean  no  more  than  this. 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  I $? 

of  sense,  as  well  as  of  modesty,  to  ascribe  to  the  men  of  that 
generation  less  capacity  or  less  honesty  than  their  successors 
possess.  What,  then,  are  the  causes  which  led  instructed  and 
fair-judging-  men  of  that  day  to  arrive  at  a  judgment  so 
different  from  that  which  seems  just  and  fair  to  those  who 
follow  them  ?  That  is  really  one  of  the  most  interesting  of  all 
questions  connected  with  the  history  of  science,  and  I  shall 
try  to  answer  it.  I  am  afraid  that  in  order  to  do  so  I  must 
run  the  risk  of  appearing  egotistical.  However,  if  I  tell  my 
own  story  it  is  only  because  I  know  it  better  than  that  of 
other  people. 

I  think  I  must  have  read  the  '  Vestiges '  before  I  left  Eng- 
land in  1846 ;  but,  if  I  did,  the  book  made  very  little  impres- 
sion upon  me,  and  I  was  not  brought  into  serious  contact  with 
the  'Species'  question  until  after  1850.  At  that  time,  I  had 
long  done  with  the  Pentateuchal  cosmogony,  which  had  been 
impressed  upon  my  childish  understanding  as  Divine  truth, 
with  all  the  authority  of  parents  and  instructors,  and  from 
which  it  had  cost  me  many  a  struggle  to  get  free.  But  my 
mind  was  unbiassed  in  respect  of  any  doctrine  which  presented 
itself,  if  it  professed  to  be  based  on  purely  philosophical  and 
scientific  reasoning.  It  seemed  to  me  then  (as  it  does  now) 
that  "  creation,"  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  is  perfectly 
conceivable.  I  find  no  difficulty  in  imagining  that,  at  some 
former  period,  this  universe  was  not  in  existence  ;  and  that 
it  made  its  appearance  in  six  days  (or  instantaneously,  if 
that  is  preferred),  in  consequence  of  the  volition  of  some  pre- 
existent  Being.  Then,  as  now,  the  so-called  a  priori  argu- 
ments against  Theism,  and,  given  a  Deity,  against  the 
possibility  of  creative  acts,  appeared  to  me  to  be  devoid  of 
reasonable  foundation.  I  had  not  then,  and  I  have  not  now, 
the  smallest  a  priori  objection  to  raise  to  the  account  of  the 
creation  of  animals  and  plants  given  in  '  Paradise  Lost,'  in 
which  Milton  so  vividly  embodies  the  natural  sense  of  Genesis. 
Far  be  it  from  me  to  say  that  it  is  untrue  because  it  is  impos- 


1 88  ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 

sible.  I  confine  myself  to  what  must  be  regarded  as  a  modest 
and  reasonable  request  for  some  particle  of  evidence  that  the 
existing  species  of  animals  and  plants  did  originate  in  that 
way,  as  a  condition  of  my  belief  in  a  statement  which  appears 
to  me  to  be  highly  improbable. 

And,  by  way  of  being  perfectly  fair,  I  had  exactly  the 
same  answer  to  give  to  the  evolutionists  of  185 1-8.  Within 
the  ranks  of  the  biologists,  at  that  time,  I  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  compelled  respect,  and  who 
was,  at  the  same  time,  a  thorough-going  evolutionist,  was  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer,  whose  acquaintance  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.  Many  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. 

In  those  days  I  had  never  even  heard  of  Treviranus' 
1  Biologie.'  However,  I  had  studied  Lamarck  attentively  and 
I  had  read  the  '  Vestiges  '  with  due  care  ;  but  neither  of  them 
afforded  me  any  good  ground  for  changing  my  negative 
and  critical  attitude.  As  for  the  'Vestiges,'  I  confess  that 
the  book  simply  irritated  me  by  the  prodigious  ignorance 
and  thoroughly  unscientific  habit  of  mind  manifested  by  the 
writer.  If  it  had  any  influence  on  me  at  all,  it  set  me 
against  Evolution  ;  and  the  only  review  I  ever  have  qualms 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  1 89 

of  conscience  about,  on  the  ground  of  needless  savagery,  is 
one  I  wrote  on  the  '  Vestiges '  while  under  that  influence. 

With  respect  to  the  '  Philosophic  Zoologique,'  it  is  no 
reproach  to  Lamarck  to  say  that  the  discussion  of  the  Species 
question  in  that  work,  whatever  might  be  said  for  it  in  1809, 
was  miserably  below  the  level  of  the  knowledge  of  half  a 
century  later.  In  that  interval  of  time  the  elucidation  of 
the  structure  of  the  lower  animals  and  plants  had  given  rise 
to  wholly  new  conceptions  of  their  relations  ;  histology  and 
embryology,  in  the  modern  sense,  had  been  created  ;  physio- 
logy had  been  reconstituted ;  the  facts  of  distribution, 
geological  and  geographical,  had  been  prodigiously  multi- 
plied and  reduced  to  order.  To  any  biologist  whose  studies 
had  carried  him  beyond  mere  species-mongering  in  1850,  one- 
half  of  Lamarck's  arguments  were  obsolete  and  the  other 
half  erroneous,  or  defective,  in  virtue  of  omitting  to  deal  with 
the  various  classes  of  evidence  which  had  been  brought  to 
light  since  his  time.  Moreover  his  one  suggestion  as  to  the 
cause  of  the  gradual  modification  of  species — effort  excited 
by  change  of  conditions — was,  on  the  face  of  it,  inapplicable  to 
the  whole  vegetable  world.  I  do  not  think  that  any  impartial 
judge  who  reads  the  ' Philosophie  Zoologique'  now,  and  who 
afterwards  takes  up  Lyell's  trenchant  and  effectual  criticism 
(published  as  far  back  as  1830),  will  be  disposed  to  allot 
to  Lamarck  a  much  higher  place  in  the  establishment  of 
biological  evolution  than  that  which  Bacon  assigns  to  himself 
in  relation  to  physical  science  generally, — buccinator  tantum* 

But,  by  a  curious  irony  of  fate,  the  same  influence  which 
led  me  to  put  as  little  faith  in  modern  speculations  on  this 
subject,  as  in  the  venerable  traditions  recorded  in  the  first  two 
chapters  of  Genesis,  was  perhaps  more  potent  than  any  other 

*  Erasmus  Darwin  first  promul-  claims  have  failed  to  show  that  he, 

gated  Lamarck's  fundamental  con-  in    any    respect,    anticipated     the 

ceptions,  and,  with  greater  logical  central    idea    of     the    '  Origin    of 

consistency,  he  had   applied  them  Species.' 
to  plants.     But  the  advocates  of  his 


igo  ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 

in  keeping  alive  a  sort  of  pious  conviction  that  Evolution, 
after  all,  would  turn  out  true.  I  have  recently  read  afresh 
the  first  edition  of  the  'Principles  of  Geology' ;  and  when  I 
consider  that  this  remarkable  book  had  been  nearly  thirty 
years  in  everybody's  hands,  and  that  it  brings  home  to  any 
reader  of  ordinary  intelligence  a  great  principle  and  a  great 
fact — the  principle,  that  the  past  must  be  explained  by  the 
present,  unless  good  cause  be  shown  to  the  contrary  ;  and  the 
fact,  that,  so  far  as  our  knowledge  of  the  past  history  of  life 
on  our  globe  goes,  no  such  cause  can  ber  shown  * — I  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  ordinary  agencies  would  be  a  vastly  greater 
"  catastrophe "  than  any  of  those  which  Lyell  successfully 
eliminated  from  sober  geological  speculation. 

In  fact,  no  one  was  better  aware  of  this  than  Lyell  himself. f 
If  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, 

*  The   same   principle    and   the  which  was  beyond  our  comprehen- 

same   fact   guide  and   result  from  sion  ;    it   remained   for  Darwin   to 

all   sound   historical   investigation.  accumulate  proof  that  there  is   no 

Grote's   'History   of  Greece  '   is  a  break  between  the  incoming  and  the 

product    of    the   same   intellectual  outgoing  species,  that  they  are  the 

movement  as  Lyell's  '  Principles/  work  of  evolution,  and  not  of  special 

f  Lyell,  with  perfect  right,  claims  creation.  .  .  . 
this  position  for  himself.    He  speaks  "I    had   certainly   prepared    the 

of  having  "advocated  a  law  of  con-  way  in  this  country,  in  six  editions 

tinuity  even  in  the  organic  world,  so  of  my  work  before  the  '  Vestiges  of 

far  as  possible  without  adopting  La-  Creation'  appeared  in  1842  [1844], 

marck's  theory  of  transmutation. . . .  for  the  reception  of  Darwin's  gradual 

"  But  while  I  taught  that  as  often  and  insensible  evolution  of  species." 

as    certain   forms    of  animals    and  — '  Life     and    Letters,'    Letter     to 

plants  disappeared,  for  reasons  quite  Haeckel,  vol.  ii.  p.  436.     Nov.  23, 

intelligible  to  us,  others  took  their  1868. 
place    by    virtue    of    a    causation 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


I9I 


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  name  of  creation  for  a 
natural  process  which  he  imagined  to  be  incomprehensible. 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  Mantell  (dated  March  2,  1827), 
Lyell  speaks  of  having  just  read  Lamarck  ;  he  expresses  his 
delight  at  Lamarck's  theories,  and  his  personal  freedom  from 
any  objections  based  on  theological  grounds.  And  though  he 
is  evidently  alarmed  at  the  pithecoid  origin  of  man  involved 
in  Lamarck's  doctrine,  he  observes  : — 

"  But,  after  all,  what  changes  species  may  really  undergo  ! 
How  impossible  will  it  be  to  distinguish  and  lay  down  a  line, 
beyond  which  some  of  the  so-called  extinct  species  have 
never  passed  into  recent  ones." 

Again,  the  following  remarkable  passage  occurs  in  the  post- 
script of  a  letter  addressed  to  Sir  John  Herschel  in  1836  : — 

"  In  regard  to  the  origination  of  new  species,  I  am  very 
glad  to  find  that  you  think  it  probable  that  it  may  be  carried 
on  through  the  intervention  of  intermediate  causes.  I  left  this 
rather  to  be  inferred,  not  thinking  it  worth  while  to  offend  a 
certain  class  of  persons  by  embodying  in  words  what  would 
only  be  a  speculation."  *  He  goes  on  to  refer  to  the  criticisms 
which  have  been  directed  against  him  on  the  ground  that,  by 
leaving  species  to  be  originated  by  miracle,  he  is  inconsistent 
with  his  own  doctrine  of  uniformitarianism  ;   and  he  leaves  it 


*  In  the  same  sense,  see  the  letter 
to  Whewell,  March  7,  1837,  vol.  ii., 
p.  5  :— 

"  In  regard  to  this  last  subject 
[the  changes  from  one  set  of  animal 
and  vegetable  species  to  another] . . . 
you  remember  what  Herschel  said 
in  his  letter  to  me.  If  I  had  stated 
as  plainly  as  he  has  done  the  possi- 
bility of  the  introduction  or  origina- 


tion of  fresh  species  being  a  natural, 
in  contradistinction  to  a  miraculous 
process,  I  should  have  raised  a  host 
of  prejudices  against  me,  which  are 
unfortunately  opposed  at  every  step 
to  any  philosopher  who  attempts  to 
address  the  public  on  these  mys- 
terious subjects."  See  also  letter  to 
Sedgwick,    Jan.    20,    1838,   vol.   ii. 

P-  35- 


192  ON    THE   RECEPTION   OF 

to  be  understood  that  he  had  not  replied,  on  the  ground  of  his 
general  objection  to  controversy. 

Lyell's  contemporaries  were  not  without  some  inkling  of 
his  esoteric  doctrine.  Whewell's  '  History  of  the  Inductive 
Sciences,'  whatever  its  philosophical  value,  is  always  worth 
reading  and  always  interesting,  if  under  no  other  aspect  than 
that  of  an  evidence  of  the  speculative  limits  within  which  a 
highly-placed  divine  might,  at  that  time,  safely  range  at 
will.  In  the  course  of  his  discussion  of  uniformitarianism,  the 
encyclopaedic  Master  of  Trinity  observes  : — 

"  Mr.  Lyell,  indeed,  has  spoken  of  an  hypothesis  that  'the 
successive  creation  of  species  may  constitute  a  regular  part  of 
the  economy  of  nature,'  but  he  has  nowhere,  I  think,  so 
described  this  process  as  to  make  it  appear  in  what  depart- 
ment of  science  we  are  to  place  the  hypothesis.  Are  these 
new  species  created  by  the  production,  at  long  intervals,  of 
an  offspring  different  in  species  from  the  parents  ?  Or  are 
the  species  so  created  produced  without  parents?  Are  they 
gradually  evolved  from  some  embryo  substance  ?  Or  do  they 
suddenly  start  from  the  ground,  as  in  the  creation  of  the 
poet?  .  .  . 

"  Some  selection  of  one  of  these  forms  of  the  hypothesis, 
rather  than  the  others,  with  evidence  for  the  selection,  is 
requisite  to  entitle  us  to  place  it  among  the  known  causes  of 
change,  which  in  this  chapter  we  are  considering.  The  bare 
conviction  that  a  creation  of  species  has  taken  place,  whether 
once  or  many  times,  so  long  as  it  is  unconnected  with  our 
organical  sciences,  is  a  tenet  of  Natural  Theology  rather 
than  of  Physical  Philosophy."  * 

The  earlier  part  of  this  criticism  appears  perfectly  just  and 
appropriate  ;  but,  from  the  concluding  paragraph,  Whewell 
evidently  imagines  that  by  "  creation  "  Lyell  means  a  preter- 
natural intervention  of  the  Deity  ;  whereas  the  letter  to 
Herschel  shows  that,  in  his  own  mind,  Lyell  meant  natural 

*  Whewell's  '  History,'  vol.  iii.  p.  639-640  (ed.  2,  1847). 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


193 


causation  ;  and  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt  *  that,  if  Sir  Charles 
could  have  avoided  the  inevitable  corollary  of  the  pithecoid 
origin  of  man — for  which,  to  the  end  of  his  life,  he  entertained 
a  profound  antipathy — he  would  have  advocated  the  efficiency 
of  causes  now  in  operation  to  bring  about  the  condition  of  the 
organic  world,  as  stoutly  as  he  championed  that  doctrine  in 
reference  to  inorganic  nature. 

The  fact  is,  that  a  discerning  eye  might  have  seen  that 
some  form  or  other  of  the  doctrine  of  transmutation  was 
inevitable,  from  the  time  when  the  truth  enunciated  by  William 


*  The  following  passages  in 
Lyell's  letters  appear  to  me  decisive 
on  this  point  : — ■ 

To  Darwin,  Oct.  3,  1859  (ii.  325), 
on  first  reading  the  '  Origin.' 

"  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 
instant,  [instead]  of  a  purely  un- 
known and  imaginary  one,  such  as 
the  word  '  creation,'  all  the  conse- 
quences must  follow." 

To  Darwin,  March  15,  1863 
(vol.  ii.  p.  365). 

"  I  remember  that  it  was  the  con- 
clusion he  [Lamarck]  came  to  about 
man  that  fortified  me  thirty  years 
ago  against  the  great  impression 
which  his  arguments  at  first  made 
on  my  mind,  all  the  greater  because 
Constant  Prevost,  a  pupil  of  Cuvier's 
forty  years  ago,  told  me  his  con- 
viction '  that  Cuvier  thought  species 
not  real,  but  that  science  could  not 

VOL.  II. 


advance  without  assuming  that  they 
were  so.' " 

To  Hooker,  March  9,  1863  (vol. 
ii.  p.  361),  in  reference  to  Darwin's 
feeling  about  the  '  Antiquity  of  Man.' 

"He  [Darwin]  seems  much  dis- 
appointed 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  convictions,  and  even  beyond 
my  state  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  Dar- 
win, and  are  even  now  against 
Huxley."  He  speaks  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  arch- 
angel ruined.' " 

See  the  same  sentiment  in  the 
letter  to  Darwin,  March  11,  1863, 
P-  363  :— 

"I  think  the  old  'creation'  is 
almost  as  much  required  as  ever, 
but  of  course  it  takes  a  new  form 
if  Lamarck's  views  improved  by 
yours  are  adopted." 

O 


194  ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 

Smith,  that  successive  strata  are  characterised  by  different 
kinds  of  fossil  remains,  became  a  firmly  established  law  of 
nature.  No  one  has  set  forth  the  speculative  consequences 
of  this  generalisation  better  than  the  historian  of  the  '  Induc- 
tive Sciences ' : — ■ 

"  But  the  study  of  geology  opens  to  us  the  spectacle  of 
many  groups  of  species  which  have,  in  the  course  of  the  earth's 
history,  succeeded  each  other  at  vast  intervals  of  time  ;  one 
set  of  animals  and  plants  disappearing,  as  it  would  seem, 
from  the  face  of  our  planet,  and  others,  which  did  not  before 
exist,  becoming  the  only  occupants  of  the  globe.  And  the 
dilemma  then  presents  itself  to  us  anew  : — either  we  must 
accept  the  doctrine  of  the  transmutation  of  species,  and  must 
suppose  that  the  organized  species  of  one  geological  epoch 
were  transmuted  into  those  of  another  by  some  long-con- 
tinued agency  of  natural  causes  ;  or  else,  we  must  believe  in 
many  successive  acts  of  creation  and  extinction  of  species, 
out  of  the  common  course  of  nature  ;  acts  which,  therefore, 
we  may  properly  call  miraculous."  * 

Dr.  Whewell  decides  in  favour  of  the  latter  conclusion.  And 
if  any  one  had  plied  him  with  the  four  questions  which  he 
puts  to  Lyell  in  the  passage  already  cited,  all  that  can  be  said 
now  is  that  he  would  certainly  have  rejected  the  first.  But 
would  he  really  have  had  the  courage  to  say  that  a  Rhinoceros 
ticJwrJiinus,  for  instance,  "  was  produced  without  parents  ; "  or 
was  "  evolved  from  some  embryo  substance ; "  or  that  it 
suddenly  started  from  the  ground  like  Milton's  lion  "pawing 
to  get  free  his  hinder  parts "  ?  I  permit  myself  to  doubt 
whether  even  the  Master  of  Trinity's  well-tried  courage — 
physical,  intellectual,  and  moral — would  have  been  equal  to 
this  feat.  No  doubt  the  sudden  concurrence  of  half-a-ton  of 
inorganic  molecules  into  a  live  rhinoceros  is  conceivable,  and 
therefore    may   be    possible.      But   does    such    an    event   lie 

*  Whevvell's  f  History  of  the  In-  vol.  iii.  p.  624-625.  See,  for  the 
ductive    Sciences.'      Ed.  ii.,    1847,       author's  verdict,  pp.  638-39. 


THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  195 

•sufficiently  within  the  bounds  of  probability  to  justify  the 
belief  in  its  occurrence  on  the  strength  of  any  attainable,  or, 
indeed,  imaginable,  evidence  ? 

In  view  of  the  assertion  (often  repeated  in  the  early  days 
of  the  opposition  to  Darwin)  that  he  had  added  nothing  to 
Lamarck,  it  is  very  interesting  to  observe  that  the  possibility 
of  a  fifth  alternative,  in  addition  to  the  four  he  has  stated,  has 
not  dawned  upon  Dr.  Whewell's  mind.  The  suggestion  that 
new  species  may  result  from  the  selective  action  of  external 
conditions  upon  the  variations  from  their  specific  type  which 
individuals  present — and  which  we  call  "spontaneous,"  because 
we  are  ignorant  of  their  causation — is  as  wholly  unknown  to 
the  historian  of  scientific  ideas  as  it  was  to  biological  spe- 
cialists before  1858.  But  that  suggestion  is  the  central  idea 
of  the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  and  contains  the  quintessence  of 
Darwinism. 

Thus,  looking  back  into  the  past,  it  seems  to  me  that  my 
own  position  of  critical  expectancy  was  just  and  reasonable, 
and  must  have  been  taken  up,  on  the  same  grounds,  by  many 
other  persons.  If  Agassiz  told  me  that  the  forms  of  life 
which  had  successivelv  tenanted  the  globe  were  the  incarna- 
tions  of  successive  thoughts  of  the  Deity  ;  and  that  He  had 
wiped  out  one  set  of  these  embodiments  by  an  appalling 
geological  catastrophe  as  soon  as  His  ideas  took  a  more 
advanced  shape,  I  found  myself  not  only  unable  to  admit  the 
accuracy  of  the  deductions  from  the  facts  of  paleontology, 
upon  which  this  astounding  hypothesis  was  founded,  but  I 
had  to  confess  my  want  of  any  means  of  testing  the  correctness 
of  his  explanation^  them.  And  besides  that,  I  could  by  no 
means  see  what  the  explanation  explained.  Neither  did  it 
help  me  to  be  told  bby  an  eminent  anatomist  that  species  had 
succeeded  one  another  in  time,  in  virtue  of  "  a  continuously 
operative  creational  law."  That  seemed  to  me  to  be  no  more 
than  saying  that  species  had  succeeded  one  another,  in  the 
form  of  a  vote-catching  resolution,  with  "  law  "  to  please  the 

O  2 


196  ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 

man  of  science,  and  "  creational "  to  draw  the  orthodox.  So 
I  took  refuge  in  that  "  tJidtige  Skepsis  "  which  Goethe  has  so 
well  defined  ;  and,  reversing  the  apostolic  precept  to  be  all 
things  to  all  men,  I  usually  defended  the  tenability  of  the 
received  doctrines,  when  I  had  to  do  with  the  transmuta- 
tionists  ;  and  stood  up  for  the  possibility  of  transmutation 
among  the  orthodox — thereby,  no  doubt,  increasing  an  already 
current,  but  quite  undeserved,  reputation  for  needless  com- 
bativeness. 

I  remember,  in  the  course  of  my  first  interview  with 
Mr.  Darwin,  expressing  my  belief  in  the  sharpness  of  the  lines 
of  demarcation  between  natural  groups  and  in  the  absence 
of  transitional  forms,  with  all  the  confidence  of  youth  and 
imperfect  knowledge.  I  was  not  aware,  at  that  time,  that  he 
had  then  been  many  years  brooding  over  the  species-ques- 
tion ;  and  the  humorous  smile  which  accompanied  his  gentle 
answer,  that  such  was  not  altogether  his  view,  long  haunted 
and  puzzled  me.  But  it  would  seem  that  four  or  five  years' 
hard  work  had  enabled  me  to  understand  what  it  meant ; 
for  Lyell,*  writing  to  Sir  Charles  Bunbury  (under  date  of 
April  30,  1S56),  says: — 

"  When  Huxley,  Hooker,  and  Wollaston  were  at  Darwin's 
last  week  they  (all  four  of  them)  ran  a  tilt  against  species — 
further,  I  believe,  than  they  are  prepared  to  go." 

I  recollect  nothing  of  this  beyond  the  fact  of  meeting  Mr. 
Wollaston  ;  and  except  for  Sir  Charles'  distinct  assurance 
as  to  "  all  four,"  I  should  have  thought  my  ontrectiidance  was 
probably  a  counterblast  to  Wollaston's  conservatism.  With 
regard  to  Hooker,  he  was  already,  like  Voltaire's  Habakkuk, 
"capable  de  tout"  in  the  way  of  advocating  Evolution. 

As  I  have  already  said,  I  imagine  that  most  of  those  of  my 
contemporaries  who  thought  seriously  about  the  matter,  were 
very  much  in  my  own  state  of  mind — inclined  to  say  to 
both    Mosaists    and    Evolutionists,  "  a  plague  on  both  your 

*  '  Life  and  Letters/  vol.  ii.  p.  212. 


THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'  1 97 

houses  ! "  and  disposed  to  turn  aside  from  an  interminable  and 
apparently  fruitless  discussion,  to  labour  in  the  fertile  fields 
of  ascertainable  fact.  And  I  may,  therefore,  further  suppose 
that  the  publication  of  the  Darwin  and  Wallace  papers  in 
1858,  and  still  more  that  of  the  'Origin'  in  1859,  had  the 
effect  upon  them  of  the  flash  of  light,  which  to  a  man  who 
has  lost  himself  in  a  dark  night,  suddenly  reveals  a  road 
which,  whether  it  takes  him  straight  home  or  not,  certainly 
goes  his  way.  That  which  we  were  looking  for,  and  could 
not  find,  was  a  hypothesis  respecting  the  origin  of  known 
organic  forms,  which  assumed  the  operation  of  no  causes  but 
such  as  could  be  proved  to  be  actually  at  work.  We  wanted, 
not  to  pin  our  faith  to  that  or  any  other  speculation,  but  to 
get  hold  of  clear  and  definite  conceptions  which  could  be 
brought  face  to  face  with  facts  and  have  their  validity  tested. 
The  '  Origin '  provided  us  with  the  working  hypothesis  we 
sought.  Moreover,  it  did  the  immense  service  of  freeing 
us  for  ever  from  the  dilemma — refuse  to  accept  the  creation 
hypothesis,  and  what  have  you  to  propose  that  can  be  accepted 
by  any  cautious  reasoner?  In  1857,  I  had  no  answer  ready, 
and  I  do  not  think  that  any  one  else  had.  A  year  later,  we 
reproached  ourselves  with  dulness  for  being  perplexed  by 
such  an  inquiry.  My  reflection,  when  I  first  made  myself 
master  of  the  central  idea  of  the  '  Origin/  was,  "  How  ex- 
tremely stupid  not  to  have  thought  of  that ! '  I  suppose  that 
Columbus'  companions  said  much  the  same  when  he  made 
the  egg  stand  on  end.  The  facts  of  variability,  of  the  struggle 
for  existence,  of  adaptation  to  conditions,  were  notorious 
enough  ;  but  none  of  us  had  suspected  that  the  road  to  the 
heart  of  the  species  problem  lay  through  them,  until  Darwin 
and  Wallace  dispelled  the  darkness,  and  the  beacon-fire  of 
the  '  Origin '  guided  the  benighted. 

Whether  the  particular  shape  which  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion, as  applied  to  the  organic  world,  took  in  Darwin's  hands, 
would  prove  to  be  final  or  not,  was,  to  me,  a  matter  of  indiffer- 


I9S  ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 

ence.  In  my  earliest  criticisms  of  the  '  Origin  '  I  ventured  to 
point  out  that  its  logical  foundation  was  insecure  so  long  as 
experiments  in  selective  breeding  had  not  produced  varieties 
which  were  more  or  less  infertile  ;  and  that  insecurity  remains 
up  to  the  present  time.  But,  with  any  and  every  critical  doubt 
which  my  sceptical  ingenuity  could  suggest,  the  Darwinian 
hypothesis  remained  incomparably  more  probable  than  the 
creation  hypothesis.  And  if  we  had  none  of  us  been  able  to 
discern  the  paramount  significance  of  some  of  the  most  patent, 
and  notorious  of  natural  facts,  until  they  were,  so  to  speak, 
thrust  under  our  noses,  what  force  remained  in  the  dilemma — 
creation  or  nothing?  It  was  obvious  that,  hereafter,  the 
probability  would  be  immensely  greater,  that  the  links  of 
natural  causation  were  hidden  from  our  purblind  eyes,  than 
that  natural  causation  should  be  incompetent  to  produce  all 
the  phenomena  of  nature.  The  only  rational  course  for  those 
who  had  no  other  object  than  the  attainment  of  truth,  was  to 
accept  "  Darwinism  "  as  a  working  hypothesis,  and  see  what 
could  be  made  of  it.  Either  it  would  prove  its  capacity  to 
elucidate  the  facts  of  organic  life,  or  it  would  break  down  under 
the  strain.  This  was  surely  the  dictate  of  common  sense  ; 
and,  for  once,  common  sense  carried  the  day.  The  result  has 
be sn  that  complete  volte-face  of  the  whole  scientific  world, 
which  must  seem  so  surprising  to  the  present  generation.  I 
do  not  mean  to  say  that  all  the  leaders  of  biological  science 
have  avowed  themselves  Darwinians  ;  but  I  do  not  think 
that  there  is  a  single  zoologist,  or  botanist,  or  palaeontologist, 
among  the  multitude  of  active  workers  of  this  generation, 
who  is  other  than  an  evolutionist,  profoundly  influenced  by 
Darwin's  views.  Whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  fate  of  the 
particular  theory  put  forth  by  Darwin,  I  venture  to  affirm  that,, 
so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  all  the  ingenuity  and  all  the 
learning  of  hostile  critics  has  not  enabled  them  to  adduce  a 
solitary  fact,  of  which  it  can  be  said,  this  is  irreconcilable  with 
the  Darwinian  theory.     In  the  prodigious  variety  and   com- 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF    SPECIES.'  1 99 

plexity  of  organic  nature,  there  are  multitudes  of  phenomena 
which  are  not  deducible  from  any  generalisations  we  have  yet 
reached.  But  the  same  may  be  said  of  every  other  class  of 
natural  objects.  I  believe  that  astronomers  cannot  yet  get 
the  moon's  motions  into  perfect  accordance  with  the  theory 
of  gravitation. 

It  would  be  inappropriate,  even  if  it  were  possible,  to  dis- 
cuss the  difficulties  and  unresolved  problems  which  have 
hitherto  met  the  evolutionist,  and  which  will  probably  continue 
to  puzzle  him  for  many  generations  to  come,  in  the  course  of 
this  brief  history  of  the  reception  of  M r.  Darwin's  great  work. 
But  there  are  two  or  three  objections  cf  a  more  general 
character,  based,  or  supposed  to  be  based,  upon  philosophical 
and  theological  foundations,  which  were  loudly  expressed  in 
the  early  days  of  the  Darwinian  controversy,  and  which, 
though  they  have  been  answered  over  and  over  again,  crop 
up  now  and  then  at  the  present  day. 

The  most  singular  of  these,  perhaps  immortal,  fallacies, 
which  live  on,  Tithonus-like,  when  sense  and  force  have  long 
deserted  them,  is  that  which  charges  Mr.  Darwin  with  having 
attempted  to  reinstate  the  old  pagan  goddess,  Chance.  It  is 
said  that  he  supposes  variations  to  come  about  "  by  chance," 
and  that  the  fittest  survive  the  "  chances  "  of  the  stru^crle  for 
existence,  and  thus  "chance"  is  substituted  for  providential 
design- 
It  is  not  a  little  wonderful  that  such  an  accusation  as  this 
should  be  brought  against  a  writer  who  has,  over  and  over 
again,  warned  his  readers  that  when  he  uses  the  word  "  spon- 
taneous," he  merely  means  that  he  is  ignorant  of  the  cause  of 
that  which  is  so  termed ;  and  whose  whole  theory  crumbles 
to  pieces  if  the  uniformity  and  regularity  of  natural  causation 
for  illimitable  past  ages  is  denied.  But  probably  the  best 
answer  to  those  who  talk  of  Darwinism  meaning  the  rei^n  of 
"  chance,"  is  to  ask  them  what  they  themselves  understand  by 


200  ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF 

"  chance."  Do  they  believe  that  anything  in  this  universe 
happens  without  reason  or  without  a  cause  ?  Do  they  really 
conceive  that  any  event  has  no  cause,  and  could  not  have 
been  predicted  by  any  one  who  had  a  sufficient  insight  into 
the  order  of  Nature?  If  they  do,  it  is  they  who  are  the 
inheritors  of  antique  superstition  and  ignorance,  and  whose 
minds  have  never  been  illumined  by  a  ray  of  scientific 
thought.  The  one  act  of  faith  in  the  convert  to  science,  is 
the  confession  of  the  universality  of  order  and  of  the  absolute 
validity,  in  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances,  of  the  law 
of  causation.  This  confession  is  an  act  of  faith,  because, 
by  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  truth  of  such  propositions  is 
not  susceptible  of  proof.  But  such  faith  is  not  blind,  but 
reasonable ;  because  it  is  invariably  confirmed  by  experi- 
ence, and  constitutes  the  sole  trustworthy  foundation  for  all 
action. 

If  one  of  these  people,  in  whom  the  chance-worship  of  our 
remoter  ancestors  thus  strangely  survives,  should  be  within 
reach  of  the  sea  when  a  heavy  gale  is  blowing,  let  him  betake 
himself  to  the  shore  and  watch  the  scene.  Let  him  note  the 
infinite  variety  of  form  and  size  of  the  tossing  waves  out  at 
sea  ;  or  of  the  curves  of  their  foam-crested  breakers,  as  they 
dash  against  the  rocks  ;  let  him  listen  to  the  roar  and  scream 
of  the  shingle  as  it  is  cast  up  and  torn  down  the  beach  ;  or 
look  at  the  flakes  of  foam  as  they  drive  hither  and  thither 
before  the  wind  ;  or  note  the  play  of  colours,  which  answers 
a  gleam  of  sunshine  as  it  falls  upon  their  myriad  bubbles. 
Surely  here,  if  anywhere,  he  will  say  that  chance  is  supreme, 
and  bend  the  knee  as  one  who  has  entered  the  very  penetralia 
of  his  divinity.  But  the  man  of  science  knows  that  here,  as 
everywhere,  perfect  order  is  manifested  ;  that  there  is  not  a 
curve  of  the  waves,  not  a  note  in  the  howling  chorus,  not  a 
rainbow-glint  on  a  bubble,  which  is  other  than  a  necessary 
consequence  of  the  ascertained  laws  of  nature  ;  and  that  with 
a  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  conditions,  competent  physico- 


THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'  201 

mathematical    skill   could    account    for,    and    indeed    predict, 
/every  one  of  these  "  chance  "  events. 

A  second  very  common  objection  to  Mr.  Darwin's  views 
was  (and  is),  that  they  abolish  Teleology,  and  eviscerate  the 
argument  from  design.  It  is  nearly  twenty  years  since  I 
ventured  to  offer  some  remarks  on  this  subject,  and  as  my 
arguments  have  as  yet  received  no  refutation,  I  hope  I  may 
be  excused  for  reproducing  them.  I  observed,  "  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Evolution  is  the  most  formidable  opponent  of  all  the 
commoner  and  coarser  forms  of  Teleology.  But  perhaps  the 
most  remarkable  service  to  the  philosophy  of  Biology  ren- 
dered 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  supposes  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  see,  has  undoubtedly 
received  its  death-blow.  Nevertheless,  it  is  necessary  to  re- 
member 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.  This  proposition  is 
that  the  whole  world,  living  and  not  living,  is  the  result  of  the 
mutual  interaction,  according  to  definite  laws,  of  the  forces  * 
possessed  by  the  molecules  of  which  the  primitive  nebulosity 
•of  the  universe  was  composed.  If  this  be  true,  it  is  no  less 
certain  that  the  existing  world  lay  potentially  in  the  cosmic 
vapour,  and  that  a  sufficient  intelligence  could,  from  a  know- 
ledge of  the  properties  of  the  molecules  of  that  vapour,  have 
predicted,  say  the  state  of  the  fauna  of  Britain  in  1869,  with 
as  much  certainty  as  one  can  say  what  will  happen  to  the 
vapour  of  the  breath  on  a  cold  winter's  day 

....  The  teleological  and  the  mechanical  views  of  nature 
are  not,  necessarily,  mutually  exclusive.  On  the  contrary,  the 
more  purely  a  mechanist  the  speculator  is,  the  more   firmly 

*   I  should  now  like  to  substitute  the  word  powers  for  "  forces." 


202  ON    THE   RECEPTION    OF 

does  he  assume  a  primordial  molecular  arrangement  of  which 
all  the  phenomena  of  the  universe  are  the  consequences,, 
and  the  more  completely  is  he  thereby  at  the  mercy  of  the 
teleologist,  who  can  always  defy  him  to  disprove  that  this 
primordial  molecular  arrangement  was  not  intended  to  evolve 
the  phenomena  of  the  universe."  * 

The  acute  champion  of  Teleology,  Paley,  saw  no  difficulty 
in  admitting  that  the  "production  of  things"  may  be  the 
result  of  trains  of  mechanical  dispositions  fixed  beforehand 
by  intelligent  appointment  and  kept  in  action  by  a  power  at 
the  centre,  f  that  is  to  say,  he  proleptically  accepted  the  modern 
doctrine  of  Evolution  ;  and  his  successors  might  do  well  to 
follow  their  leader,  or  at  any  rate  to  attend  to  his  weighty 
reasonings,  before  rushing  into  an  antagonism  which  has  no 
reasonable  foundation. 

Having  got  rid  of  the  belief  in  chance  and  the  disbelief  in 
design,  as  in  no  sense  appurtenances  of  Evolution,  the  third 
libel  upon  that  doctrine,  that  it  is  anti-theistic,  might  perhaps 
be  left  to  shift  for  itself.  But  the  persistence  with  which 
many  people  refuse  to  draw  the  plainest  consequences  from 
the  propositions  they  profess  to  accept,  renders  it  advisable 
to  remark  that  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  is  neither  Anti- 
theistic  nor  Theistic.  It  simply  has  no  more  to  do  with  Theism 
than  the  first  book  of  Euclid  has.  It  is  quite  certain  that  a 
normal  fresh-laid  egg  contains  neither  cock  nor  hen  ;  and  it 
is  also  as  certain  as  any  proposition  in  physics  or  morals,  that 
if  such  an  egg  is  kept  under  proper  conditions  for  three 
weeks,  a  cock  or  hen  chicken  will  be  found  in  it.  It  is  also 
quite  certain  that  if  the  shell  were  transparent  we  should  be 
able  to  watch  the  formation  of  the  young  fowl,  day  by  day, 
by  a  process  of  evolution,  from  a  microscopic  cellular  germ 
to   its   full    size   and    complication    of  structure.     Therefore 

*  The  "  Genealogy  of  Animals "  f  '  Natural      Theology,'      chap. 

('The  Academy,'    1S69),   reprinted      xxiii. 
in  '  Critiques  and  Addresses.' 


THE    'ORIGIN   OF    SPECIES.'  203 

Evolution,  in  the  strictest  sense,  is  actually  going  on  in  this 
and  analogous  millions  and  millions  of  instances,  wherever 
living  creatures  exist.  Therefore,  to  borrow  an  argument 
from  Butler,  as  that  which  now  happens  must  be  consistent 
with  the  attributes  of  the  Deity,  if  such  a  Being  exists, 
Evolution  must  be  consistent  with  those  attributes.  And,  if 
so,  the  evolution  of  the  universe,  which  is  neither  more  nor  less 
explicable  than  that  of  a  chicken,  must  also  be  consistent 
with  them.  The  doctrine  of  Evolution,  therefore,  does  not 
even  come  into  contact  with  Theism,  considered  as  a  philo- 
sophical doctrine.  That  with  which  it  does  collide,  and  with 
which  it  is  absolutely  inconsistent,  is  the  conception  of 
creation,  which  theological  speculators  have  based  upon  the 
history  narrated  in  the  opening  of  the  book  of  Genesis. 

There  is  a  greal  deal  of  talk  and  not  a  little  lamentation 
about  the  so-called  religious  difficulties  which  physical  science 
has  created.  In  theological  science,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
has  created  none.  Not  a  solitary  problem  presents  itself  to 
the  philosophical  Theist,  at  the  present  day,  which  has  not 
existed  from  the  time  that  philosophers  began  to  think  out 
the  logical  grounds  and  the  logical  consequences  of  Theism. 
All  the  real  or  imaginary  perplexities  which  flow  from  the 
conception  of  the  universe  as  a  determinate  mechanism,  are 
equally  involved  in  the  assumption  of  an  Eternal,  Omnipotent 
and  Omniscient  Deity.  The  theological  equivalent  of  the 
scientific  conception  of  order  is  Providence  ;  and  the  doctrine 
of  determinism  follows  as  surely  from  the  attributes  of  fore- 
knowledge assumed  by  the  theologian,  as  from  the  universality 
of  natural  causation  assumed  by  the  man  of  science.  The 
angels  in  '  Paradise  Lost '  would  have  found  the  task  of  en- 
lightening  Adam  upon  the  mysteries  of  "  Fate,  Foreknow- 
ledge, and  Free-will,"  not  a  whit  more  difficult,  if  their  pupil 
had  been  educated  in  a  "  Real-schule  "  and  trained  in  every 
laboratory  of  a  modern  university.  In  respect  of  the  great 
problems  of  Philosophy,  the   post-Darwinian    generation  is, 


204      ON   THE   RECEPTION   OF   THE   '  ORIGIN   OF    SPECIES.' 

in  one  sense,  exactly  where  the  prae-Darwinian  generations 
were.  They  remain  insoluble.  But  the  present  generation 
has  the  advantage  of  being  better  provided  with  the  means 
of  freeing  itself  from  the  tyranny  of  certain  sham  solutions. 

The  known  is  finite,  the  unknown  infinite  ;  intellectually 
we  stand  on  an  islet  in  the  midst  of  an  illimitable  ocean 
of  inexplicability.  Our  business  in  every  generation  is  to 
reclaim  a  little  more  land,  to  add  something  to  the  extent 
and  the  solidity  of  our  possessions.  And  even  a  cursory 
glance  at  the  history  of  the  biological  sciences  during  the 
last  quarter  of  a  century  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  assertion, 
that  the  most  potent  instrument  for  the  extension  of  the 
realm  of  natural  knowledge  which  has  come  into  men's  hands, 
since  the  publication  of  Newton's  '  Principia,'  is  Darwin's 
'  Origin  of  Species.' 

It  was  badly  received  by  the  generation  to  which  it  was 
first  addressed,  and  the  outpouring  of  angry  nonsense  to  which 
it  gave  rise  is  sad  to  think  upon.  But  the  present  generation 
will  probably  behave  just  as  badly  if  another  Darwin  should 
arise,  and  inflict  upon  them  that  which  the  generality  of  man- 
kind most  hate — the  necessity  of  revising  their  convictions. 
Let  them,  then,  be  charitable  to  us  ancients  ;  and  if  they 
behave  no  better  than  the  men  of  my  day  to  some  new 
benefactor,  let  them  recollect  that,  after  all,  our  wrath  did  not 
come  to  much,  and  vented  itself  chiefly  in  the  bad  language 
of  sanctimonious  scolds.  Let  them  as  speedily  perform  a 
strategic  right-about-face,  and  follow  the  truth  wherever  it 
leads.  The  opponents  of  the  new  truth  will  discover,  as  those 
of  Darwin  are  doing,  that,  after  all,  theories  do  not  alter  facts, 
and  that  the  universe  remains  unaffected  even  though  texts 
crumble.  Or,  it  may  be,  that,  as  history  repeats  itself,  their 
happy  ingenuity  will  also  discover  that  the  new  wine  is 
exactly  of  the  same  vintage  as  the  old,  and  that  (rightly 
viewed)  the  old  bottles  prove  to  have  been  expressly  made 
for  holding  it. 


( -os )     4^^& 


4 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.' 
OCTOBER    3,    1859,  TO    DECEMBER    3 1,   1 859. 


1859. 

[UNDER  the  date  of  October  1st,  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." 

On  October  2nd  he  started  for  a  water-cure  establishment 
at  Ilkley,  near  Leeds,  where  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  to  C.  Darwin* 

October  3rd,  1859. 
My  DEAR   DARWIN, — I   have  just  finished  your  volume 
and  right  glad    I   am  that  I  did  my  best  with  Hooker  to 

*  Part  of  this  letter  is  'given  in  the  '  Life  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell,'  vol.  ii. 
p.  325- 


:2o6        PUBLICATION   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1859. 

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  substan- 
tial argument  throughout  so  many  pages  ;  the  condensation 
immense,  too  great  perhaps  for  the  uninitiated,  but  an  effective 
and  important  preliminary  statement,  which  will  admit,  even 
before  your  detailed  proofs  appear,  of  some  occasional  useful 
exemplification,  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  state- 
ments of  facts  for  granted,  that  I  do  not  think  the  "  pieces 
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  unknpwn  and  imagin- 
ary one,  such  as  the  word  "  Creation,"  all  the  consequences 
must  follow. 

I  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 — Rudimentar}r 
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 


1859.]  lyell's  congratulations.  207 

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  domestic- 
ated 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 
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.  Between  the 
throwing  down  of  such  a  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  the 
reader,  and  the  passage  to  the  working  ants,  in  p.  460,  there 
,are  pages  required  ;  and  these  ants  are  a  bathos  to  him  before 
he  has  recovered  from  the  shock  of  being  called  upon  to 
believe  the  eye  to  have  been  brought  to  perfection,  from  a 
state  of  blindness  or  purblindness,  by  such  variations  as  we 
witness.  I  think  a  little  omission  would  greatly  lessen  the 
objectionableness  of  these  sentences  if  you  have  not  time  to 
recast  and  amplify. 

....  But  these  are  small  matters,  mere  spots  on  the  sun. 
Your   comparison    of  the   letters    retained    in    words,    when 

*  In  the  published  copies  of  the  first  edition,  p.  480,  the  words  are 
""  eminent  living  naturalists." 


208         PUBLICATION    OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1859. 

no  longer  wanted   for  the   sound,  to  rudimentary  organs  is 
excellent,  as  both  are  truly  genealogical. 

The  want  of  peculiar  birds  in  Madeira  is  a  greater  difficulty 
than  seemed  to  me  allowed  for.  I  could  cite  passages  where 
you  show  that  variations  are  superinduced  from  the  new  cir- 
cumstances of  new  colonists,  which  would  require  some 
Madeira  birds,  like  those  of  the  Galapagos,  to  be  peculiar. 
There  has  been  ample  time  in  the  case  of  Madeira  and  Porto' 
Santo.  .  .  . 

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 
300  deluges  in  the  valley  of  Seine. 

With  my  hearty  congratulations  to  you  on  your  grand 
work,  believe  me, 

Ever  very  affectionately  yours, 

Chas.  Lyell. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 

October  nth  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  thank  you  cordially  for  giving  me  so 
much  of  your  valuable  time  in  writing  me  the  long  letter  of 
3rd,  and  still  longer  of  4th.  I  wrote  a  line  with  the  missing 
proof-sheet  to  Scarborough.  I  have  adopted  most  thankfully 
all  your  minor  corrections  in  the  last  chapter,  and  the  greater 
ones  as  far  as  I  could  with  little  trouble.  I  damped  the 
opening  passage  about  the  eye  (in  my  bigger  work  I  show 
the  gradations  in  structure  of  the  eye)  by  putting  merely 
"  complex  organs."  But  you  are  a  pretty  Lord  Chancellor  to 
tell  the  barrister  on  one  side  how  best  to  win  the  cause  L 
The  omission  of  "  living  "  before  eminent  naturalists  was  a 
dreadful  blunder. 


1 859.]  LYELL'S   CRITICISMS.  209 

Madeira  and  Bermuda  Birds  not  peculiar. — You  arc  right, 
there  is  a  screw  out  here  ;  I  thought  no  one  would  have 
detected  it ;  I  blundered  in  omitting  a  discussion,  which 
I  have  written  out  in  full.  But  once  for  all,  let  me  say  as  an 
excuse,  that  it  was  most  difficult  to  decide  what  to  omit. 
Birds,  which  have  struggled  in  their  own  homes,  when  settled 
in  a  body,  nearly  simultaneously  in  a  new  country,  would  not 
be  subject  to  much  modification,  for  their  mutual  relations 
would  not  be  much  disturbed.  But  I  quite  agree  with  you, 
that  in  time  they  ought  to  undergo  some.  In  Bermuda  and 
Madeira  they  have,  as  I  believe,  been  kept  constant  by  the 
frequent  arrival,  and  the  crossing  with  unaltered  immigrants 
of  the  same  species  from  the  main  land.  In  Bermuda  this 
can  be  proved,  in  Madeira  highly  probable,  as  shown  me  by 
letters  from  E.  V.  Harcourt.  Moreover,  there  are  ample  ground, 
for  believing  that  the  crossed  offspring  of  the  new  immigrants 
(fresh  blood  as  breeders  would  say),  and  old  colonists  of  the 
same  species  would  be  extra  vigorous,  and  would  be  the  most 
likely  to  survive  ;  thus  the  effects  of  such  crossing  in  keeping 
the  old  colonists  unaltered  would  be  much  aided. 

On  Galapagos  productions  having  American  type  on  view 
of  Creation. — I  cannot  agree  with  you,  that  species  if  created 
to  struggle  with  American  forms,  would  have  to  be  created  on 
the  American  type.  Facts  point  diametrically  the  other  way. 
Look  at  the  unbroken  and  untilled  ground  in  La  Plata, 
covered  with  European  products,  which  have  no  near  affinity 
to  the  indigenous  products.  They  are  not  American  types 
which  conquer  the  aborigines.  So  in  every  island  throughout 
the  world.  Alph.  De  Candolle's  result  (though  he  does  not 
see  its  full  importance),  that  thoroughly  well  naturalised 
[plants]  are  in  general  very  different  from  the  aborigines 
(belonging  in  large  proportion  of  cases  to  non-indigenous 
genera)  is  most  important  always  to  bear  in  mind.  Once 
for  all,  I  am  sure,  you  will  understand  that  I  thus  write 
dogmatically  for  brevity  sake. 

VOL.  II.  P 


2IO         PUBLICATION   OF   THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

On  the  continued  Creation  of  Monads. — This  doctrine  is 
superfluous  (and  groundless)  on  the  theory  of  Natural  Selec- 
tion, which  implies  no  necessary  tendency  to  progression.  A 
monad,  if  no  deviation  in  its  structure  profitable  to  it  under 
its  excessively  simple  conditions  of  life  occurred,  might  remain 
unaltered  from  long  before  the  Silurian  Age  to  the  present 
day.  I  grant  there  will  generally  be  a  tendency  to  advance 
in  complexity  of  organisation,  though  in  beings  fitted  for  very 
simple  conditions  it  would  be  slight  and  slow.  How  could 
a  complex  organisation  profit  a  monad  ?  if  it  did  not  profit 
it  there  would  be  no  advance.  The  Secondary  Infusoria  differ 
but  little  from  the  living.  The  parent  monad  form  might 
perfectly  well  survive  unaltered  and  fitted  for  its  simple 
conditions,  whilst  the  offspring  of  this  very  monad  might 
become  fitted  for  more  complex  conditions.  The  one  prim- 
ordial prototype  of  all  living  and  extinct  creatures  may, 
it  is  possible,  be  now  alive !  Moreover,  as  you  say,  higher 
forms  might  be  occasionally  degraded,  the  snake  Typhlops 
seems  (? !)  to  have  the  habits  of  earth-worms.  So  that  fresh 
creations  of  simple  forms  seem  to  me  wholly  superfluous. 

"  Must  you  not  assume  a  primeval  creative  power  which 
does  not  act  with  uniformity ',  or  how  could  man  supervene  ?  " — 
I  am  not  sure  that  I  understand  your  remarks  which  follow 
the  above.  We  must,  under  present  knowledge,  assume  the 
creation  of  one  or  of  a  few  forms  in  the  same  manner  as  philo- 
sophers assume  the  existence  of  a  power  of  attraction  without 
any  explanation.  But  I  entirely  reject,  as  in  my  judgment 
quite  unnecessary,  any  subsequent  addition  "  of  new  powers 
and  attributes  and  forces;"  or  of  any  "principle  of  improve- 
ment," except  in  so  far  as  every  character  which  is  naturally 
selected  or  preserved  is  in  some  way  an  advantage  or  improve- 
ment, otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  selected.  If  I  were 
convinced  that  I  required  such  additions  to  the  theory  of 
natural  selection,  I  would  reject  it  as  rubbish,  but  I  have  firm 
faith  in  it,  as  I  cannot  believe,  that  if  false,  it  would  explain  so 


1 859.]  LYELL'S   CRITICISMS.  211 

many  whole  classes  of  facts,  which,  if  I  am  in  my  senses,  it 
seems  to  explain.  As  far  as  I  understand  your  remarks  and 
illustrations,  you  doubt  the  possibility  of  gradations  of  intel- 
lectual powers.  Now,  it  seems  to  me,  looking  to  existing 
animals  alone,  that  we  have  a  very  fine  gradation  in  the  intel- 
lectual powers  of  the  Vertebrata,  with  one  rather  wide  gap  (not 
half  so  wide  as  in  many  cases  of  corporeal  structure),  between 
say  a  Hottentot  and  an  Ourang,  even  if  civilised  as  much 
mentally  as  the  dog  has  been  from  the  wolf.  I  suppose  that 
you  do  not  doubt  that  the  intellectual  powers  are  as  important 
for  the  welfare  of  each  being  as  corporeal  structure ;  if  so,  I 
can  see  no  difficulty  in  the  most  intellectual  individuals  of  a 
species  being  continually  selected  ;  and  the  intellect  of  the 
new  species  thus  improved,  aided  probably  by  effects  of 
inherited  mental  exercise.  I  look  at  this  process  as  now 
going  on  with  the  races  of  man  ;  the  less  intellectual  races 
being  exterminated.  But  there  is  not  space  to  discuss  this 
point.  If  I  understand  you,  the  turning-point  in  our  difference 
must  be,  that  you  think  it  impossible  that  the  intellectual 
powers  of  a  species  should  be  much  improved  by  the  con- 
tinued natural  selection  of  the  most  intellectual  individuals. 
To  show  how  minds  graduate,  just  reflect  how  impossible 
every  one  has  yet  found  it,  to  define  the  difference  in  mind 
of  man  and  the  lower  animals ;  the  latter  seem  to  have  the 
very  same  attributes  in  a  much  lower  stage  of  perfection  than 
the  lowest  savage.  I  would  give  absolutely  nothing  for  the 
theory  of  Natural  Selection,  if  it  requires  miraculous  additions 
at  any  one  stage  of  descent.  I  think  Embryology,  Homo- 
logy, Classification,  &c.  &c,  show  us  that  all  vertebrata  have 
descended  from  one  parent ;  how  that  parent  appeared  we 
know  not.  If  you  admit  in  ever  so  little  a  degree,  the 
explanation  which  I  have  given  of  Embryology,  Homology 
and  Classification,  you  will  find  it  difficult  to  say :  thus  far 
the  explanation  holds  good,  but  no  further;  here  we  must 
call  in  "the  addition  of  new  creative  forces."     I  think  you 

P  2 


212  PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

will  be  driven  to  reject  all  or  admit  all :  I  fear  by  your  letter 
it  will  be  the  former  alternative ;  and  in  that  case  I  shall  feel 
sure  it  is  my  fault,  and  not  the  theory's  fault,  and  this  will 
certainly  comfort  me.  With  regard  to  the  descent  of  the 
great  Kingdoms  (as  Vertebrata,  Articulata,  &c.)  from  one 
parent,  I  have  said  in  the  conclusion,  that  mere  analogy 
makes  me  think  it  probable ;  my  arguments  and  facts  are 
sound  in  my  judgment  only  for  each  separate  kingdom. 

The  forms  which  are  beaten  inheriting  some  inferiority  i7i 
common. — I  dare  say  I  have  not  been  guarded  enough,  but 
might  not  the  term  inferiority  include  less  perfect  adaptation 
to  physical  conditions  ? 

My  remarks  apply  not  to  single  species,  but  to  groups  or 
genera  ;  the  species  of  most  genera  are  adapted  at  least  to 
rather  hotter,  and  rather  less  hot,  to  rather  damper  and  dryer 
climates  ;  and  when  the  several  species  of  a  group  are  beaten 
and  exterminated  by  the  several  species  of  another  group,  it 
will  not,  I  think,  generally  be  from  each  new  species  being 
adapted  to  the  climate,  but  from  all  the  new  species  having 
some  common  advantage  in  obtaining  sustenance,  or  escaping 
enemies.  As  groups  are  concerned,  a  fairer  illustration  than 
negro  and  white  in  Liberia  would  be  the  almost  certain  future 
extinction  of  the  genus  ourang  by  the  genus  man,  not  owing 
to  man  being  better  fitted  for  the  climate,  but  owing  to  the 
inherited  intellectual  inferiority  of  the  Ourang-genus  to  Man- 
genus,  by  his  intellect,  inventing  fire-arms  and  cutting  down 
forests.  I  believe,  from  reasons  given  in  my  discussion,  that 
acclimatisation  is  readily  effected  under  nature.  It  has  taken 
me  so  many  years  to  disabuse  my  mind  of  the  too  great  import- 
ance of  climate — its  important  influence  being  so  conspicuous, 
whilst  that  of  a  struggle  between  creature  and  creature  is  so 
hidden — that  I  am  inclined  to  swear  at  the  North  Pole,  and 
as  Sydney  Smith  said,  even  to  speak  disrespectfully  of  the 
Equator.  I  beg  you  often  to  reflect  (I  have  found  nothing 
so  instructive)    on  the  case  of  thousands  of   plants   in    the 


1859.]  lyell's  criticisms.  213 

middle  point  of  their  respective  ranges,  and  which,  as  we 
positively  know,  can  perfectly  well  withstand  a  little  more 
heat  and  cold,  a  little  more  damp  and  dry,  but  which  in 
the  metropolis  of  their  range  do  not  exist  in  vast  numbers, 
although,  if  many  of  the  other  inhabitants  were  destroyed 
[they]  would  cover  the  ground.  We  thus  clearly  see  that 
their  numbers  are  kept  down,  in  almost  every  case,  not  by 
climate,  but  by  the  struggle  with  other  organisms.  All  this 
you  will  perhaps  think  very  obvious  ;  but,  until  I  repeated  it 
to  myself  thousands  of  times,  I  took,  as  I  believe,  a  wholly 
wrong  view  of  the  whole  economy  of  nature.  .  .  . 

Hybridism. — I  am  so  much  pleased  that  you  approve  of 
this  chapter ;  you  would  be  astonished  at  the  labour  this 
cost  me ;  so  often  was  I,  on  what  I  believe  was,  the  wrong 
scent. 

Rudimentary  Organs. — On  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection 
there  is  a  wide  distinction  between  Rudimentary  Organs  and 
what  you  call  germs  of  organs,  and  what  I  call  in  my  bigger 
book  "  nascent "  organs.  An  organ  should  not  be  called  rudi- 
mentary unless  it  be  useless — as  teeth  which  never  cut  through 
the  gums — the  papillae,  representing  the  pistil  in  male  flowers, 
wing  of  Apteryx,  or  better,  the  little  wings  under  soldered 
elytra.  These  organs  are  now  plainly  useless,  and  a  fortiori, 
they  would  be  useless  in  a  less  developed  state.  Natural  Selec- 
tion acts  exclusively  by  preserving  successive  slight,  tiseful 
modifications.  Hence  Natural  Selection  cannot  possibly  make 
a  useless  or  rudimentary  organ.  Such  organs  are  solely  due 
to  inheritance  (as  explained  in  my  discussion),  and  plainly 
bespeak  an  ancestor  having  the  organ  in  a  useful  condition. 
They  may  be,  and  often  have  been,  worked  in  for  other  pur- 
poses, and  then  they  are  only  rudimentary  for  the  original 
function,  which  is  sometimes  plainly  apparent.  A  nascent 
organ,  though  little  developed,  as  it  has  to  be  developed  must 
be  useful  in  every  stage  of  development.  As  we  cannot 
•prophesy,  we  cannot  tell  what  organs  are  now  nascent ;  and 


214         PUBLICATION   OF  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

nascent  organs  will  rarely  have  been  handed  down  by  certain 
members  of  a  class  from  a  remote  period  to  the  present  day, 
for  beings  with  any  important  organ  but  little  developed,  will 
generally  have  been  supplanted  by  their  descendants  with  the 
organ  well  developed.  The  mammary  glands  in  Ornitho- 
rhynchus  may,  perhaps,  be  considered  as  nascent  compared 
with  the  udders  of  a  cow — Ovigerous  frena,  in  certain  cirripedes, 
are  nascent  branchiae — in  [illegible]  the  swim  bladder  is  almost 
rudimentary  for  this  purpose,  and  is  nascent  as  a  lung.  The 
small  wing  of  penguin,  used  only  as  a  fin,  might  be  nascent 
as  a  wing  ;  not  that  I  think  so  ;  for  the  whole  structure  of  the 
bird  is  adapted  for  flight,  and  a  penguin  so  closely  resembles 
other  birds,  that  we  may  infer  that  its  wings  have  probably 
been  modified,  and  reduced  by  natural  selection,  in  accordance 
with  its  sub-aquatic  habits.  Analogy  thus  often  serves  as  a 
guide  in  distinguishing  whether  an  organ  is  rudimentary  or 
nascent.  I  believe  the  Os  coccyx  gives  attachment  to  certain 
muscles,  but  I  cannot  doubt  that  it  is  a  rudimentary  tail. 
The  bastard  wing  of  birds  is  a  rudimentary  digit ;  and  I 
believe  that  if  fossil  birds  are  found  very  low  down  in  the 
series,  they  will  be  seen  to  have  a  double  or  bifurcated  wing. 
Here  is  a  bold  prophecy ! 

To  admit  prophetic  germs,  is  tantamount  to  rejecting  the 
theory  of  Natural  Selection. 

I  am  very  glad  you  think  it  worth  while  to  run  through  my 
book  again,  as  much,  or  more,  for  the  subject's  sake  as  for  my 
own  sake.  But  I  look  at  your  keeping  the  subject  for  some 
little  time  before  your  mind — raising  your  own  difficulties 
and  solving  them — as  far  more  important  than  reading  my 
book.  If  you  think  enough,  I  expect  you  will  be  perverted, 
and  if  you  ever  are,  I  shall  know  that  the  theory  of  Natural 
Selection  is,  in  the  main,  safe  ;  that  it  includes,  as  now  put 
forth,  many  errors,  is  almost  certain,  though  I  cannot  see 
them.  Do  not,  of  course,  think  of  answering  this ;  but  if  you  have 
other  occasion  to  write  again,  just  say  whether  I  have,  in  ever 


I859-] 


AGASSIZ. 


215 


so  slight  a  degree,  shaken  any  of  your  objections.  Farewell. 
With  my  cordial  thanks  for  your  long  letters  and  valuable 
remarks, 

Believe  me,  yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — You  often  allude  to  Lamarck's  work  ;  I  do  not  know 
what  you  think  about  it,  but  it  appeared  to  me  extremely 
poor ;  I  got  not  a  fact  or  idea  from  it. 


C.  Darwin  to  L.  Agassiz* 

Down,  November  nth  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  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  you  will  at  least  give  me  credit,  however  erro- 
neous 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, 

Charles  Darwin. 


*  Jean  Louis  Rodolphe  Agassiz, 
born  at  Mortier,onthelakeof  Morat 
in  Switzerland,  on  May  28,  1807. 
He  emigrated  to  America  in  1846, 
where  he  spent  the  rest  of  his  life, 
and  died  Dec.  14,  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  feelings  towards  the 
great  American  naturalist  remained 
: strong  to  the  end  of  his  life  : — 


"  I  have  seldom  been  more  deeply 
gratified  than  by  receiving  your 
most  kind  present  of  '  Lake  Su- 
perior.' I  had  heard  of  it,  and  had 
much  wished  to  read  it,  but  I  con- 
fess that  it  was  the  very  great 
honour  of  having  in  my  posses- 
sion a  work  with  your  autograph 
as  a  presentation  copy,  that  has 
given  me  such  lively  and  sincere 
pleasure.  I  cordially  thank  you 
for  it.  I  have  begun  to  read  it 
with  uncommon  interest,  which  I 
see  will  increase  as  I  go  on." 


2l6         PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859.. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  De  Candolle. 

Down,  November  nth  [1859]. 

DEAR  SIR, — I  have  thought  that  you  would  permit  me  to 
send  you  (by  Messrs.  Williams  and  Norgate,  booksellers) 
a  copy  of  my  work  (as  yet  only  an  abstract)  on  the  '  Origin 
of  Species.'  I  wish  to  do  this,  as  the  only,  though  quite 
inadequate  manner,  by  which  I  can  testify  to  you  the  extreme 
interest  which  I  have  felt,  and  the  great  advantage  which  I 
have  derived,  from  studying  your  grand  and  noble  work  on 
Geographical  Distribution.  Should  you  be  induced  to  read 
my  volume,  I  venture  to  remark  that  it  will  be  intelligible 
only  by  reading  the  whole  straight  through,  as  it  is  very  much 
condensed.  It  would  be  a  high  gratification  to  me  if  any 
portion  interested  you.  But  I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that 
you  will  entirely  disagree  with  the  conclusion  at  which  I  have 
arrived. 

You  will  probably  have  quite  forgotten  me  ;  but  many 
years  ago  you  did  me  the  honour  of  dining  at  my  house  in 
London  to  meet  M.  and  Madame  Sismondi,*  the  uncle  and 
aunt  of  my  wife.     With  sincere  respect,  I  beg  to  remain, 

Yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 


C.  Darwi?i  to  Hugh  Falconer. 

Down,  November  nth  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  FALCONER, — I  have  told  Murray  to  send  you 
a  copy  of  my  book  on  the  '  Origin  of  Species/  which  as  yet 
is  only  an  abstract. 

If  you  read  it,  you  must  read  it  straight  through,  otherwise 
from  its  extremely  condensed  state  it  will  be  unintelligible. 

Lord,  how  savage  you  will  be,  if  you  read  it,  and  how  you 
will  long  to  crucify  me  alive !     I  fear  it  will  produce  no  other 

*  Jessie  Allen,  sister  of  Mrs.  Josiah  Wedgwood  of  Maer. 


1 8 59.]       DE  CANDOLLE — FALCONER — GRAY.         217 

effect  on  you  ;  but  if  it  should  stagger  you  in  ever  so  slight 
a  degree,  in  this  case,  I  am  fully  convinced  that  you  will 
become,  year  after  year,  less  fixed  in  your  belief  in  the  immut- 
ability of  species.      With  this  audacious  and  presumptuous 

conviction, 

I  remain,  my  dear  Falconer, 

Yours  most  truly, 

Charles  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  November  nth  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — I  have  directed  a  copy  of  my  book  (as 
yet  only  an  abstract)  on  the  '  Origin  of  Species '  to  be  sent 
you.  I  know  how  you  are  pressed  for  time  ;  but  if  you  can 
read  it,  I  shall  be  infinitely  gratified  ....  If  ever  you 
do  read  it,  and  can  screw  out  time  to  send  me  (as  I  value 
your  opinion  so  highly),  however  short  a  note,  telling  me 
what  you  think  its  weakest  and  best  parts,  I  should  be  ex- 
tremely grateful.  As  you  are  not  a  geologist,  you  will  excuse 
my  conceit  in  telling  you  that  Lyell  highly  approves  of  the 
two  Geological  chapters,  and  thinks  that  on  the  Imperfection 
of  the  Geological  Record  not  exaggerated.  He  is  nearly 
a  convert  to  my  views 

Let  me  add  I  fully  admit  that  there  are  very  many  diffi- 
culties not  satisfactorily  explained  by  my  theory  of  descent 
with  modification,  but  I  cannot  possibly  believe  that  a  false 
theory  would  explain  so  many  classes  of  facts  as  I  think  it 
certainly  does  explain.  On  these  grounds  I  drop  my  anchor, 
and  believe  that  the  difficulties  will  slowly  disappear.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  jf.  S.  Henslow. 

Down,  November  nth,  1859. 
My  DEAR  HENSLOW, — I  have  told  Murray  to  send  a  copy 
of  my  book  on  Species  to  you,  my  dear  old  master  in  Natural 


:2l8       [  PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

History ;  I  fear,  however,  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. 

If  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  unreasonable  as  to  wish  or  expect  you  to  write 
detailed  and  lengthy  criticisms,  but  merely  a  few  general 
remarks,  pointing  out  the  weakest  parts. 

If  you  are  in  even  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.     My  dear  Henslow, 

Yours  affectionately  and  gratefully, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  John  Ltibbock. 


* 


Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 
Saturday  [November  12th,  1859]. 

.  .  .  Thank  you  much  for  asking  me  to  Brighton.  I  hope 
much  that  you  will  enjoy  your  holiday.  I  have  told  Murray 
to  send  a  copy  for  you  to  Mansion  House  Street,  and  I  am 
surprised  that  you  have  not  received  it.  There  are  so  many 
valid  and  weighty  arguments  against  my  notions,  that  you, 
or  any  one,  if  you  wish  on  the  other  side,  will  easily  persuade 
yourself  that  I  am  wholly  in  error,  and  no  doubt  I  am  in  part 
in  error,  perhaps  wholly  so,  though  I  cannot  see  the  blindness 
of  my  ways.  I  dare  say  when  thunder  and  lightning  were 
first  proved  to  be  due  to  secondary  causes,  some  regretted  to 

*  The  present  Sir  John  Lubbock. 


1 859.]  HENSLOW — LUBBOCK — JENYNS.  219 

give  up  the  idea  that  each  flash  was  caused  by  the  direct 
hand  of  God. 

Farewell,  I  am  feeling  very  unwell  to-day,  so  no  more. 

Yours  very  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  John  Ltibbock. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 
Tuesday  [November  15th,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  LUBBOCK, — I  beg  pardon  for  troubling  you 
again.  I  do  not  know  how  I  blundered  in  expressing  myself 
in  making  you  believe  that  we  accepted  your  kind  invitation 
to  Brighton.  I  meant  merely  to  thank  you  sincerely  for 
wishing  to  see  such  a  worn-out  old  dog  as  myself.  I  hardly 
know  when  we  leave  this  place, — not  under  a  fortnight,  and 
then  we  shall  wish  to  rest  under  our  own  roof-tree. 

I  do  not  think  I  hardly  ever  admired  a  book  more  than 
Paley's  '  Natural  Theology.'  I  could  almost  formerly  have 
said  it  by  heart. 

I  am  glad  you  have  got  my  book,  but  I  fear  that  you  value 
it  far  too  highly.  I  should  be  grateful  for  any  criticisms.  I 
care  not  for  Reviews  ;  but  for  the  opinion  of  men  like  you 
and  Hooker  and  Huxley  and  Lyell,  &c. 

Farewell,   with   our    joint  thanks    to    Mrs.  Lubbock    and 

yourself.     Adios. 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  L.  Jenyns* 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire. 
November  13th,  1859. 

My  DEAR  JENYNS, — I  must  thank  you  for  your  very  kind 

note  forwarded  to  me  from  Down.     I  have  been  much  out 

of  health  this  summer,  and  have  been  hydropathising  here  for 

the  last  six  weeks  with  very  little  good  as  yet.     I  shall  stay 

*  Now  Rev.  L.  Blomefield. 


220        PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

here  for  another  fortnight  at  least.  Please  remember  that  my 
book  is  only  an  abstract,  and  very  much  condensed,  and,  to 
be  at  all  intelligible,  must  be  carefully  read.  I  shall  be  very 
grateful  for  any  criticisms.  But  I  know  perfectly  well  that 
you  will  not  at  all  agree  with  the  lengths  which  I  go.  It  took 
long  years  to  convert  me.  I  may,  of  course,  be  egregiously 
wrong ;  but  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  a  theory  which 
explains  (as  I  think  it  certainly  does)  several  large  classes  of 
facts,  can  be  wholly  wrong ;  notwithstanding  the  several  diffi- 
culties which  have  to  be  surmounted  somehow,  and  which 
stagger  me  even  to  this  day. 

I  wish  that  my  health  had  allowed  me  to  publish  in 
extenso ;  if  ever  I  get  strong  enough  I  will  do  so,  as  the 
greater  part  is  written  out,  and  of  which  MS.  the  present 
volume  is  an  abstract. 

I  fear  this  note  will  be  almost  illegible  ;  but  I  am  poorly  ? 
and  can  hardly  sit  up.  Farewell ;  with  thanks  for  your  kind 
note,  and  pleasant  remembrances  of  good  old  days. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Ilkley,  November  13th,  1859. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — 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  impression  of  the  book,  as  you  have  thought  so  pro- 
foundly 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 


1 859.]  MR.   WALLACE.  221 

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  overlooked  by  the  real  judges,  as 
Hooker,  Lyell,  Asa  Gray,  &c.  I  have  heard  from  Mr.  Sclater 
that  your  paper  on  the  Malay  Archipelago  has  been  read 
at  the  Linnean  Society,  and  that  he  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.  I  am  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, 

Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  think  that  I  told  you  before  that  Hooker  is  a 
complete  convert.  If  I  can  convert  Huxley  I  shall  be 
content. 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  D.  Fox. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 
Wednesday  [November  16th,  1859]. 

I  like  the  place  very  much,  and  the  children  have 

enjoyed  it  much,  and  it  has  done  my  wife  good.  It  did  H. 
good  at  first,  but  she  has  gone  back  again.  I  have  had  a 
series  of  calamities  ;  first  a  sprained  ankle,  and  then  a  badly 

*  Mr.  Wallace  was  in  the  Malay  Archipelago, 


222  PUBLICATION   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

swollen  whole  leg  and  face,  much  rash,  and  a  frightful  succes- 
sion of  boils — four  or  five  at  once.  I  have  felt  quite  ill,  and 
have  little  faith  in  this  "  unique  crisis,"  as  the  doctor  calls  it, 

doing  me  much  good You  will  probably  have 

received,  or  will  very  soon  receive,  my  weariful  book  on 
species.  I  naturally  believe  it  mainly  includes  the  truth,  but 
you  will  not  at  all  agree  with  me.  Dr.  Hooker,  whom  I  con- 
sider one  of  the  best  judges  in  Europe,  is  a  complete  convert, 
and  he  thinks  Lyell  is  likewise;  certainly,  judging  from  Lyell's 
letters  to  me  on  the  subject,  he  is  deeply  staggered.  Farewell. 
If  the  spirit  moves  you,  let  me  have  a  line.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  W.  B.  Carpenter. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 

November  18th  [1859]. 

My  dear  Carpenter, — I  must  thank  you  for  your  letter 
on  my  own  account,  and,  if  I  know  myself,  still  more  warmly 
for  the  subject's  sake.  As  you  seem  to  have  understood  my 
last  chapter  without  reading  the  previous  chapters,  you  must 
have  maturely  and  most  profoundly  self-thought  out  the  sub- 
ject; for  I  have  found  the  most  extraordinary  difficulty  in 
making  even  able  men  understand  at  what  I  was  driving. 
There  will  be  strong  opposition  to  my  views.  If  I  am  in  the 
main  right  (of  course  including  partial  errors  unseen  by  me), 
the  admission  of  my  views  will  depend  far  more  on  men,  like 
yourself,  with  well-established  reputations,  than  on  my  own 
writings.  Therefore,  on  the  supposition  that  when  you  have 
read  my  volume  you  think  the  view  in  the  main  true,  I  thank 
and  honour  you  for  being  willing  to  run  the  chance  of  unpopu- 
larity by  advocating  the  view.  I  know  not  in  the  least 
whether  any  one  will  review  me  in  any  of  the  Reviews.  I  do 
not  see  how  an  author  could  enquire  or  interfere ;  but  if  you 
are  willing  to  review  me  anywhere,  I  am  sure  from  the  admira- 
tion which  I  have  long  felt  and  expressed  for  your  '  Compara- 


1 859.]  DR.    CARPENTER.  223 

tive  Physiology,'  that  your  review  will  be  excellently  done,  and 
will  do  good  service  in  the  cause  for  which  I  think  I  am  not 
selfishly  deeply  interested.  I  am  feeling  very  unwell  to-day, 
and  this  note  is  badly,  perhaps  hardly  intelligibly,  expressed  ; 
but  you  must  excuse  me,  for  I  could  not  let  a  post  pass> 
without  thanking  you  for  your  note.  You  will  have  a  tough 
job  even  to  shake  in  the  slightest  degree  Sir  H.  Holland.  I 
do  not  think  (privately  I  say  it)  that  the  great  man  has  know- 
ledge enough  to  enter  on  the  subject.  Pray  believe  me  with 
sincerity, 

Yours  truly  obliged, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — As  you  are  not  a  practical  geologist,  let  me  add  that 
Lyell  thinks  the  chapter  on  the  Imperfection  of  the  Geological 
Record  not  exaggerated. 


C.  Darwin  to  W.  B.  Carpenter. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 

November  19th  [1859]. 

My  dear  Carpenter, — I  beg  pardon  for  troubling  you 
again.  If,  after  reading  my  book,  you  are  able  to  come  to  a 
conclusion  in  any  degree  definite,  will  you  think  me  very  un- 
reasonable 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 


224         PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'      [1859. 

themselves  of  the  truth  of  the  foolishest  doctrines,  I  feel 
sometimes  a  little  frightened,  whether  I  may  not  be  one  of 
these  monomaniacs. 

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, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  jf.  D.  Hooker. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 

Sunday  [November,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  have  just  read  a  review  on  my 
book  in  the  Athenoeum*  and  it  excites  my  curiosity  much 
who  is  the  author.  If  you  should  hear  who  writes  in  the 
Athenceum  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,f  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.  %  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  Ouatrefages,  who  is  inclined  to  go  a 
long  way  with  us.  He  says  that  he  exhibited  in  his  lecture 
a  diagram  closely  like  mine  ! 

*  Nov.  19,  1859.  ulties  "more  or  less  confidently." 
t  The   Reviewer   speaks   of  the  %  A  review  of  the  fourth  volume 

author's  u  evident  self-satisfaction,"  of  Watson's    '  Cybele    Britannica,' 

and  of  his  disposing  of  all  diffic-  Card.  C/iron.,  1859,  p.  911. 


1 859.]  OPINIONS   AND   REVIEWS.  225 

I  shall  stay  here  one  fortnight  more,  and  then  go  to  Down, 

staying  on  the  road  at  Shrewsbury  a  week.     I  have  been  very 

unfortunate  :  out  of  seven  weeks  I  have  been  confined  for  five 

to  the  house.     This  has  been  bad  for  me,  as  I  have  not  been 

able  to  help  thinking  to  a  foolish  extent  about  my  book.     If 

some  four  or  five  good  men  came  round  nearly  to  our  view,  I 

shall  not  fear  ultimate  success.     I  long  to  learn  what  Huxley 

thinks.     Is  your  Introduction*  published  ?    I  suppose  that  you 

will    sell  it  separately.       Please  answer   this,  for  I  want  an 

extra  copy  to  send  away  to  Wallace.     I  am  very  bothersome, 

farewell. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 
I  was  very  glad  to  see  the  Royal  Medal  for  Mr.  Bentham. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [November  21st,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Pray  give  my  thanks  to  Mrs.  Hooker 
for  her  extremely  kind  note,  which  has  pleased  me  much. 
We  are  very  sorry  she  cannot  come  here,  but  shall  be  delighted 
to  see  you  and  W.  (our  boys  will  be  at  home)  here  in  the 
2nd  week  of  January,  or  any  other  time.  I  shall  much  enjoy 
discussing  any  points  in  my  book  with  you.  .  .  . 

I  hate  to  hear  you  abuse  your  own  work.  I,  on  the  con- 
trary, so  sincerely  value  all  that  you  have  written.  It  is  an  old 
and  firm  conviction  of  mine,  that  the  Naturalists  who  accumu- 
late facts  and  make  many  partial  generalisations  are  the  real 
benefactors  of  science.  Those  who  merely  accumulate  facts  I 
cannot  very  much  respect. 

I  had  hoped  to  have  come  up  for  the  Club  to-morrow,  but 
very  much  doubt  whether  I  shall  be  able.  Ilkley  seems  to 
have  done  me  no  essential  good.     I  attended  the  Bench  on 

*  Introduction  to  the  '  Flora  of  Australia.' 
VOL.  II.  O 


226        PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'        [1859.. 

Monday,  and  was  detained  in  adjudicating  some  troublesome 
cases  1 J  hours  longer  than  usual,  and  came  home  utterly 
knocked   up,    and    cannot   rally.       I    am    not   worth   an   old 

button Many  thanks  for  your  pleasant  note. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  feel  confident  that  for  the  future  progress  of  the 
subject  of  the  origin,  and  manner  of  formation  of  species,  the 
assent  and  arguments  and  facts  of  working  naturalists,  like 
yourself,  are  far  more  important  than  my  own  book  ;  so  for 
God's  sake  do  not  abuse  your  Introduction. 

H\  C.  Watson  to  C.  Darwin. 

Thames  Ditton,  November  21st  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — Once  commenced  to  read  the  '  Origin,'  I 
could  not  rest  till  I  had  galloped  through  the  whole.  I  shall 
now  begin  to  re-read  it  more  deliberately.  Meantime  I  am 
tempted  to  write  you  the  first  impressions,  not  doubting  that 
they  will,  in  the  main,  be  the  permanent  impressions  : — 

1st.  Your  leading  idea  will  assuredly  become  recognised  as 
an  established  truth  in  science,  i.e.  "  Natural  selection."  It 
has  the  characteristics  of  all  great  natural  truths,  clarifying 
what  was  obscure,  simplifying  what  was  intricate,  adding 
greatly  to  previous  knowledge.  You  are  the  greatest  revo- 
lutionist in  natural  history  of  this  century,  if  not  of  all 
centuries. 

2nd.  You  will  perhaps  need,  in  some  degree,  to  limit  or 
modify,  possibly  in  some  degree  also  to  extend,  your  present 
applications  of  the  principle  of  natural  selection.  Without 
going  to  matters  of  more  detail,  it  strikes  me  that  there  is 
one  considerable  primary  inconsistency,  by  one  failure  in  the 
analogy  between  varieties  and  species ;  another  by  a  sort  of 
barrier  assumed  for  nature  on  insufficient  grounds,  and  arising 
from  "  divergence."     These   may,  however,  be  faults   in   my 


1859.]  H-    c-    WATSON.  227 

own  mind,  attributable  to  yet  incomplete  perception  of  your 
views.  And  I  had  better  not  trouble  you  about  them  before 
again  reading  the  volume. 

3rd.  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  C.  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. 
I  send  by  this  post  a  little  controversial  pamphlet  of  old 
date — Combe  and  Scott.  If  you  will  take  the  trouble  to 
glance  at  the  passages  scored  on  the  margin,  you  will  see 
that,  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  I  was  also  one  of  the  few  who 
then  doubted  the  absolute  distinctness  of  species,  and  special 
creations  of  them.  Yet  I,  like  the  rest,  failed  to  detect  the 
quo  modo  which  was  reserved  for  your  penetration  to  discover, 
and  your  discernment  to  apply. 

You  answered  my  query  about  the  hiatus  between  Satyrus 
and  Homo  as  was  expected.  The  obvious  explanation  really 
never  occurred  to  me  till  some  months  after  I  had  read  the 
papers  in  the  'Linnean  Proceedings.'  The  first  species  of 
Fere-homo  *  would  soon  make  direct  and  exterminating  war 
upon  his  Infra-homo  cousins.  The  gap  would  thus  be  made, 
and  then  go  on  increasing,  into  the  present  enormous  and 
still  widening  hiatus.  But  how  greatly  this,  with  your 
chronology  of  animal  life,  will  shock  the  ideas  of  many 
men ! 

Very  sincerely, 

Hewett  C.  Watson. 

*  "  Almost-man." 

Q  2 


228         PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'        [1859. 

J.  D.  Hooker  to  C.  Darwin, 

Athenaeum,  Monday  [Nov.  21,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  Darwin, — 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  suc- 
cessful. 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  com- 
pliment 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  com- 
pliments, and  if  I  am  dishonest  enough  to  be  pleased  with 
what  I  don't  deserve,  it  must  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  .  .  . 
All  well,  ever  yours  affectionately, 

Jos.  D.  Hooker. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire  [November,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  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  . 

*  This     refers     to     the    review  book,    leaves   the  author   to   "the 

in  the  AthencEiwi,  Nov.  19,  1859,  mercies  of  the  Divinity  Hall,  the 

where  the  reviewer,  after  touching  College,   the    Lecture   Room,   and 

on  the  theological  aspects  of  the  the  Museum." 


1S59]  TIIE    'ATHENAEUM.'  229 

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. 

...  I  had  a  letter  from  [Huxley]  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, 

C.  D. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lye  11. 

Ilkley  Wells,  Yorkshire, 

November  23rd  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Lyell, — You  seemed  to  have  worked  admirably 
on  the  species  question  ;  there  could  not  have  been  a  better 
plan  than  reading  up  on  the  opposite  side.  I  rejoice  pro- 
foundly that  you  intend  admitting  the  doctrine  of  modifica- 
tion 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,  one  side  of  a 
question  for  thirty  years,  and  then  deliberately  give  it  up,  is  a 

*   It   appears   from    Sir    Charles  lished  till  1865.     He  was,  however, 

Lyell's  published  letters  that  he  in-  at  work  on  the  '  Antiquity  of  Man' 

tended   to    admit   the   doctrine    of  in    i860,    and   had    already   deter- 

evolution  in  a  new  edition  of  the  mined  to  discuss  the   '  Origin '   at 

'  Manual,'   but  this  was   not   pub-  the  end  of  the  book. 


230        PUBLICATION   OF   THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'        [1859. 

fact  to  which  I  much  doubt  whether  the  records  of  science  offer 
a  parallel.  For  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  in- 
vestigators of  truth,  like  you  and  Hooker,  can  be  wholly 
wrong,  and  therefore  I  rest  in  peace.  Thank  you  for  criti- 
cisms, which,  if  there  be  a  second  edition,  I  will  attend  to. 
I  have  been  thinking  that  if  I  am  much  execrated  as  an 
atheist,  &c,  whether  the  admission  of  the  doctrine  of  natural 
selection  could  injure  your  works  ;  but  I  hope  and  think  not, 
for,  as  far  as  I  can  remember,  the  virulence  of  bigotry  is 
expended  on  the  first  offender,  and  those  who  adopt  his  views 
are  only  pitied  as  deluded,  by  the  wise  and  cheerful  bigots. 

I  cannot  help  thinking  that  you  overrate  the  importance  of 
the  multiple  origin  of  dogs.  The  only  difference  is,  that  in  the 
case  of  single  origins,  all  difference  of  the  races  has  originated 
since  man  domesticated  the  species.  In  the  case  of  multiple 
origins,  part  of  the  difference  was  produced  under  natural  con- 
ditions. I  should  infinitely  prefer  the  theory  of  single  origin 
in  all  cases,  if  facts  would  permit  its  reception.  But  there 
seems  to  me  some  a  priori  improbability  (seeing  how  fond 
savages  are  of  taming  animals),  that  throughout  all  times,  and 
throughout  all  the  world,  man  should  have  domesticated  one 
single  species  alone,  of  the  widely  distributed  genus  Canis. 
Besides  this,  the  close  resemblance  of  at  least  three  kinds  of 
American  domestic  dogs  to  wild  species  still  inhabiting  the 
countries  where  they  are  now  domesticated,  seems  to  almost 
compel  admission  that  more  than  one  wild  Canis  has  been 
domesticated  by  man. 

I  thank  you  cordially  for  all  the  generous  zeal  and  interest 
you  have  shown  about  my  book,  and  I  remain,  my  dear  Lyell, 
Your  affectionate  friend  and  disciple, 

Charles  Darwin. 


1 859J  MR-    HUXLEY'S   ADHERENCE.  23  I 

Sir  J.  Herschel,  to  whom  I  sent  a  copy,  is  going  to  read  my 
book.  He  says  he  leans  to  the  side  opposed  to  me.  If  you 
should  meet  him  after  he  has  read  me,  pray  find  out  what  he 
thinks,  for,  of  course,  he  will  not  write  ;  and  I  should  ex- 
cessively like  to  hear  whether  I  produce  any  effect  on  such  a 
mind. 


T.  H.  Huxley  to  C.  Darwin. 

Jermyn  Street,  W., 

November  23rd,  1859. 

My  DEAR  DARWIN, — I  finished  your  book  yesterday,  a 
lucky  examination  having  furnished  me  with  a  few  hours  of 
continuous  leisure. 

Since  I  read  Von  Bar's  *  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  sup- 
port of  Chapter  IX.,  and  most  parts  of  Chapters  X.,  XL,  XII., 
and  Chapter  XIII.  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 
with  all  the  principles  laid  down  in  them.  I  think  you  have 
demonstrated  a  true  cause  for  the  production  of  species,  and 
have  thrown  the  onus  probandi,  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 

*  Karl  Ernst  von  Baer,  b.  1792,       my.      He  practically  founded  the 
d.  at  Dorpat  1876 — one  of  the  most      modern  science  of  embryology. 
•  distinguished  biologists  of  the  cent- 


232         PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'        [1859. 

Chapters  III.,  IV.  and  V.,  and   I   will  write   no  more   about 
them  just  now. 

The  only  objections  that  have  occurred  to  me  are,  1st  that 
you  have  loaded  yourself  with  an  unnecessary  difficulty  in 
adopting  Natura  11011  facit  saltum  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  mis- 
representation 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, 

T.  H.  Huxley. 


C.  Danvin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Ilkley,  Nov.  25  [1859], 

My  DEAR  HUXLEY, — Your  letter  has  been  forwarded  to 
me  from  Down.  Like  a  G^ood  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 


1 859.]  MR.    HUXLEY'S  ADHERENCE.  233 

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  mentally  to  abide.  The  judges  were  Lyell, 
Hooker,  and  yourself.  It  was  this  which  made  me  so  exces- 
sively anxious  for  your  verdict.  I  am  now  contented,  and 
can  sing  my  "nunc  dimittis."  What  a  joke  it  would  be  if  I 
pat  you  on  the  back  when  you  attack  some  immovable  crea- 
tionists !  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, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — Hereafter  I  shall  be  particularly  curious  to  hear  what 
you  think  of  my  explanation  of  Embryological  similarity. 
On  classification  I  fear  we  shall  split.  Did  you  perceive  the 
argumentum  ad  hominem  Huxley  about  the  kangaroo  and 
bear? 

Erasmus  Darwin  to  C.  Darwin. 

November  23rd  [1859]. 

DEAR  CHARLES, — 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.*  has  said.  He  has  not  read  much 
above  half,  so  as  he  says  he  can  give  no  definite  conclusion, 
and  it  is  my  private  belief  he  wishes  to  remain  in  that  state. 
.  .  .  He  is  evidently  in  a  dreadful  state  of  indecision,  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 

*  Dr.,  afterwards  Sir  Henry  Holland. 


234        PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1859. 

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,  &c,  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 
without  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  know- 
ledge 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  palaeontologists  could 
distinguish  them.  In  fact  the  a  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, 

E.  A.  D. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Ilkley,  November  [24th,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  Lyell, — Again  I  have  to  thank  you  for  a  most 
valuable  lot  of  criticisms  in  a  letter  dated  22nd. 

This  morning  I  heard  also  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 

*  First  edition,  1250  copies. 


1 859.]  NEW   EDITION.  235 

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 
£ozcte. 

Madame  Belloc  wants  to  translate  my  book  into  French  ; 
I  have  offered  to  look  over  proofs  for  scientific  errors.  Did 
you  ever  hear  of  her  ?  I  believe  Murray  has  agreed  at  my 
urgent  advice,  but  I  fear  I  have  been  rash  and  premature. 
Ouatrefages  has  written  to  me,  saying  he  agrees  largely  with 
my  views.  He  is  an  excellent  naturalist.  I  am  pressed  for 
time.  Will  you  give  us  one  line  about  the  whales  ?  Again 
I  thank  you  for  never-tiring  advice  and  assistance  ;  I  do  in 
truth  reverence  your  unselfish  and  pure  love  of  truth. 

My  dear  Lyell,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

[With  regard  to  a  French  translation,  he  wrote  to  Mr. 
Murray  in  Nov.  1859:  "I  am  extremely  anxious,  for  the 
subject's  sake  (and  God  knows  not  for  mere  fame),  to  have 
my  book  translated  ;  and  indirectly  its  being  known  abroad 
will  do  good  to  the  English  sale.  If  it  depended  on  me, 
I  should  agree  without  payment,  and  instantly  send  a  copy, 
and  only  beg  that  she  [Mme.  Belloc]  would  get  some  scientific 
man  to  look  over  the  translation.  .  .  .  You  might  say  that, 
though  I  am  a  very  poor  French  scholar,  I  could  detect  any 
scientific  mistake,  and  would  read  over  the  French  proofs." 

The  proposed  translation  was  not  made,  and  a  second 
plan  fell  through  in  the  following  year.     He  wrote  to  M.  de 

*  The  passage  was  omitted  in  the  second  edition. 


236         PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'        [1859. 

Quatrefages  :  "  The  gentleman  who  wished  to  translate  my 
'  Origin  of  Species '  has  failed  in  getting  a  publisher. 
Bailliere,  Masson,  and  Hachette  all  rejected  it  with  contempt. 
It  was  foolish  and  presumptuous  in  me,  hoping  to  appear  in  a 
French  dress  ;  but  the  idea  would  not  have  entered  my  head 
had  it  not  been  suggested  to  me.  It  is  a  great  loss.  I  must 
console  myself  with  the  German  edition  which  Prof.  Bronn  is 
bringing  out."  * 

A  sentence  in  another  letter  to  M.  de  Quatrefages  shows 
how  anxious^  he  was  to  convert  one  of  the  greatest  of  contemp- 
orary Zoologists  :  "  How  I  should  like  to  know  whether 
Milne-Edwards  has  read  the  copy  which  I  sent  him,  and 
whether  he  thinks  I  have  made  a  pretty  good  case  on  our 
side  of  the  question.  There  is  no  naturalist  in  the  world 
for  whose  opinion  I  have  so  profound  a  respect.  Of  course  I 
am  not  so  silly  as  to  expect  to  change  his  opinion."] 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Ilkley,  [November  25th,  1859]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  24th. 
It  is  no  use  trying  to  thank  you  ;  your  kindness  is  beyond 
thanks.     I  will  certainly  leave  out  the  whale  and  bear  .  .  . 

The  edition  was  1250  copies.  When  I  was  in  spirits,  I 
sometimes  fancied  that  my  book  would  be  successful,  but  I 
never  even  built  a  castle  in  the  air  of  such  success  as  it  has 
met  with  ;  I  do  not  mean  the  sale,  but  the  impression  it  has 
made  on  you  (whom  I  have  always  looked  at  as  chief  judge) 
and  Hooker  and  Huxley.  The  whole  has  infinitely  exceeded 
my  wildest  hopes. 

Farewell,  I  am  tired,  for  I  have  been  going  over  the  sheets. 

My  kind  friend,  farewell,  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

*  See  letters  to  Bronn,  p.  276. 


1 359-] 


PROGRESS   OF   OPINION. 


237 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 

December  2nd  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Lyell, — Every  note  which  you  have  sent  me  has 
interested  me  much.  Pray  thank  Lady  Lyell  for  her  remark. 
In  the  chapters  she  refers  to,  I  was  unable  to  modify  the  pas- 
sage in  accordance  to  your  suggestion  ;  but  in  the  final 
chapter  I  have  modified  three  or  four.  Kingsley,  in  a  note  * 
to  me,  had  a  capital  paragraph  on  such  notions  as  mine  being 
not  opposed  to  a  high  conception  of  the  Deity.  I  have  inserted 
it  as  an  extract  from  a  letter  to  me  from  a  celebrated  author 
and  divine.  I  have  put  in  about  nascent  organs.  I  had  the 
greatest  difficulty  in  partially  making  out  Sedgwick's  letter,  and 
I  dare  say  I  did  greatly  underrate  its  clearness.  Do  what  I 
could,  I  fear  I  shall  be  greatly  abused.  In  answer  to  Sedg- 
wick's remark  that  my  book  would  be  "  mischievous,"  I  asked 
him  whether  truth  can  be  known  except  by  being  victorious 
over  all  attacks.  But  it  is  no  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  in  !  Crawford 
writes  to  me  that  his  notice  f  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.  He  is  a  real  Pallasian  ;  nearly  all 
our  domestic  races  descended  from  a  multitude  of  wild  species 
now  commingled.     I  expected  Murchison  to  be  outrageous. 


*  The  letter  is  given  at  Vol.  II. 
p.  287. 

f  John  Crawford,  orientalist,  eth- 
nologist, &c,  b.  1783,  d.  1868.  The 
review  appeared  in  the  Examiner, 
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  ten- 
dency of  which  is  to  show  that  all 
organic  beings,  man  included,  are 
in  a  perpetual  progress  of  ameliora- 
tion, and  that  is  expounded  in  the 
reverential  language  which  we  have 
quoted." 


238         PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'        [1859.. 

How  little  he  could  ever  have  grappled  with  the  subject 
of  denudation  !  How  singular  so  great  a  geologist  should 
have  so  unphilosophical  a  mind  !     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. 

I  fully  believe  that  I  owe  the  comfort  of  the  next  few  years 
of  my  life  to  your  generous  support,  and  that  of  a  very  few 
others.  I  do  not  think  I  am  brave  enough  to  have  stood 
being  odious  without  support ;  now  I  feel  as  bold  as  a  lion. 
But  there  ris  one  thing  I  can  see  I  must  learn,  viz.  to  think 
less  of  myself  and  my  book.     Farewell,  with  cordial  thanks, 

Yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

I  return  home  on  the  7th,  and  shall  sleep  at  Erasmus's.  I 
will  call  on  you  about  ten  o'clock,  on  Thursday,  the  8th,  and  sit 
with  you,  as  I  have  so  often  sat,  during  your  breakfast. 

[In  December  there  appeared  in  '  Macmillan's  Magazine' 
an  article,  "  Time  and  Life,"  by  Professor  Huxley.  It  is 
mainly  occupied  by  an  analysis  of  the  argument  of  the 
'  Origin,'  but  it  also  gives  the  substance  of  a  lecture  deliver- 
ed at  the!Royal  Institution  before  that  book  was  published. 
Professor  Huxley  spoke  strongly  in  favour  of  evolution  in  his 
Lecture,  and  explains  that  in  so  doing  he  was  to  a  great 
extent  resting  on  a  knowledge  of  "  the  general  tenor  of  the 
researches  in  which  Mr.  Darwin  had  been  so  long  engaged," 
and  was  supported  in  so  doing  by  his  perfect  confidence  in 
his  knowledge,  perseverance,  and  "  high-minded  love  of 
truth."  He  was  evidently  deeply  pleased  by  Mr.  Huxley's 
words,  and  wrote  : 

"  I  must  thank  you  for  your  extremely  kind  notice  of  my 
book  in  '  Macmillan.'    No  one  could  receive  a  more  delightful 


1 859.]  REVIEWS.  239 

and  honourable  compliment.  I  had  not  heard  of  your 
Lecture,  owing  to  my  retired  life.  You  attribute  much  too 
much  to  me  from  our  mutual  friendship.  You  have  explained 
my  leading  idea  with  admirable  clearness.  What  a  gift  you 
have  of  writing  (or  more  properly  thinking)  clearly."] 


C  Darwin  to  W.  B.  Carpenter. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 

December  3rd  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  CARPENTER, — I  am  perfectly  delighted  at  your 
letter.  It  is  a  great  thing  to  have  got  a  great  physiologist  on 
our  side.  I  say  "  our  "  for  we  are  now  a  good  and  compact 
body  of  really  good  men,  and  mostly  not  old  men.  In  the 
long-run  we  shall  conquer.  I  do  not  like  being  abused,  but  I 
feel  that  I  can  now  bear  it ;  and,  as  I  told  Lyell,  I  am  well 
convinced  that  it  is  the  first  offender  who  reaps  the  rich 
harvest  of  abuse.  You  have  done  an  essential  kindness  in 
checking  the  odium  theologicum  in  the  [?]  *  It  much  pains 
all  one's  female  relations  and  injures  the  cause. 

I  look  at  it  as  immaterial  whether  we  go  quite  the  same 
lengths  ;  and  I  suspect,  judging  from  myself,  that  you  will  go 
further,  by  thinking  of  a  population  of  forms  like  Ornitho- 
rhynchus,  and  by  thinking  of  the  common  homological  and 
embryological  structure  of  the  several  vertebrate  orders.  But 
this  is  immaterial.  I  quite  agree  that  the  principle  is  every- 
thing. In  my  fuller  MS.  I  have  discussed  a  good  many 
instincts  ;  but  there  will  surely  be  more  unfilled  gaps  here 
than  with  corporeal  structure,  for  we  have  no  fossil  instincts, 
and  know  scarcely  any  except  of  European  animals.  When 
I  reflect  how  very  slowly  I  came  round  myself,  I  am  in  truth 
astonished  at  the  candour  shown  by  Lyell,  Hooker,  Huxley, 

*  This  must  refer  to  Carpenter's  number  of  the  '  National  Review,' 
critique,  which  would  now  have  i860,  and  in  which  the  odium  theo- 
been  ready  to  appear  in  the  January      logicum  is  referred  to. 


240        PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1859. 

and  yourself.  In  my  opinion  it  is  grand.  I  thank  you  cor- 
dially for  taking  the  trouble  of  writing  a  review  for  the 
'  National.'  God  knows  I  shall  have  few  enough  in  any 
degree  favourable.* 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Saturday  [December  5th,  1859]. 
...  I  have  had  a  letter  from  Carpenter  this  morning.  He 
reviews  me  in  the  '  National.'  He  is  a  convert,  but  does  not 
go  quite  so  far  as  I,  but  quite  far  enough,  for  he  admits  that 
all  birds  are  from  one  progenitor,  and  probably  all  fishes  and 
reptiles  from  another  parent.  But  the  last  mouthful  chokes 
him.  He  can  hardly  admit  all  vertebrates  from  one  parent. 
He  will  surely  come  to  this  from  Homology  and  Embryology. 
I  look  at  it  as  grand  having  brought  round  a  great  physio- 
logist, for  great  I  think  he  certainly  is  in  that  line.  How 
curious  I  shall  be  to  know  what  line  Owen  will  take:  dead 
against  us,  I  fear ;  but  he  wrote  me  a  most  liberal  note  on  the 
reception  of  my  book,  and  said  he  was  quite  prepared  to 
consider  fairly  and  without  prejudice  my  line  of  argument. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  Saturday"[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 

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 

*  See  a  letter  to  Dr.  Carpenter,  Vol.  II.  p.  262. 


1 859.]  CRITICISM.  24I 

nearly  all  points,  than  that  I  should  toss  up  a  penny  and  get 
heads  twenty  times  running.  I  asked  him  what  he  thought 
the  weakest  part.  He  said  he  had  no  particular  objection  to 
any  part.     He  added  : — 

"  If  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  objec- 
tion, that  the  book  was  too  teres  atque  rotundus — that  it  ex- 
plained everything,  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  discourage- 
ment. 


C.  Darwin  to  JoJin  Lubbock. 

December  14th  [1859]. 

.  .  .  The  latter  part  of  my  stay  at  Ilkley  did  me  much 
good,  but  I  suppose  I  never  shall  be  strong,  for  the  work 
I  have  had  since  I  came  back  has  knocked  me  up  a  little 
more  than  once.  I  have  been  busy  in  getting  a  reprint  (with 
a  very  few  corrections)  through  the  press. 

My  book  has  been  as  yet  very  much  more  successful 
than  I  ever  dreamed  of:  Murray  is  now  printing  3000  copies. 
Have  you  finished  it  ?     If  so,  pray  tell  me  whether  you  are 

VOL.  II.  R 


242         PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'        [1859. 

with  me  on  the  general  issue,  or  against  me.  If  you  are 
against  me,  I  know  well  how  honourable,  fair,  and  candid  an 
opponent  I  shall  have,  and  which  is  a  good  deal  more  than 
I  can  say  of  all  my  opponents,  .  .  . 

Pray  tell  me  what  you  have  been  doing.  Have  you  had 
time  for  any  Natural  History  ?  .  .  . 

P.S. — I  have  got — I  wish  and  hope  I  might  say  that  we 
have  got — a  fair  number  of  excellent  men  on  our  side  of  the 
question  on  the  mutability  of  species. 


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.  I  am  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  marvelling  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.  Some- 
how it  reads  very  different  from  the  MS.,  and  I  often  fancy  that 
I  must  have  been  very  stupid  not  to  have  more  fully  followed 
it  in  MS.  Lyell  told  me  of  his  criticisms.  I  did  not  appre- 
ciate them  all,  and  there  are  many  little  matters  I  hope  one 
day  to  talk  over  with  you.     I  saw  a  highly  flattering  notice 

*  See,  however,  Vol.  II.  p.  22S. 


•i359.] 


CONVERTS. 


243 


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, 

Jos.  D.  Hooker. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  December  14th  [1859]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Your  approval  of  my  book,  for  many 
-reasons,  gives  me  intense  satisfaction  ;  but  I  must  make  some 
allowance  for  your  kindness  and  sympathy.  Any  one  with 
■ordinary  faculties,  if  he  had  patience  enough  and  plenty  of 
time,  could  have  written  my  book.  You  do  not  know  how  I 
admire  your  and  Lyell's  generous  and  unselfish  sympathy  ;  I 
do  not  believe  either  of  you  would  have  cared  so  much  about 
your  own  work.  My  book,  as  yet,  has  been  far  more  suc- 
cessful than  I  ever  even  formerly  ventured  in  the  wildest  day- 
dreams to  anticipate.  We  shall  soon  be  a  good  body  of 
working  men,  and  shall  have,  I  am  convinced,  all  young  and 
rising  naturalists  on  our  side.  I  shall  be  intensely  interested 
to  hear  whether  my  book  produces  any  effect  on  A.  Gray  ; 
from  what  I  heard  at  Lyell's,  I  fancy  your  correspondence  has 
brought  him  some  way  already.  I  fear  that  there  is  no 
■  chance  of  Bentham  being  staggered.  Will  he  read  my  book  ? 
Has  he  a  copy?  I  would  send  him  one  of  the  reprints  if  he 
has  not.  Old  J.  E.  Gray,*  at  the  British  Museum,  attacked 
me  in  fine  style  :  "  You  have  just  reproduced  Lamarck's  doc- 


*  John  Edward  Gray  (born  1800, 
died  1875)  was  the  son  of  S.  F. 
Gray,  author  of  the  '  Supplement 
rto  the  Pharmacopoeia.'  In  1821  he 
published  in  his  father's  name  '  The 
Natural  Arrangement  of  British 
Plants,'  one  of  the  earliest  works  in 
English  on  the  natural  method.  In 
.1824  he  became  connected  with  the 


Natural  History  Department  of  the 
British  Museum,  and  was  appointed 
Keeper  of  the  Zoological  collections 
in  1840.  He  was  the  author  of 
'  Illustrations  of  Indian  Zoology,' 
'The  Knowsley  Menagerie,'  &c, 
and  of  innumerable  descriptive 
Zoological  papers. 

R   2 


244         PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'        [1859. 

trine,  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  ridiculous  inconsistency,  &c,  &c." 

You  must  be  very  glad  to  be  settled  in  your  house,  and  I 
hope  all  the  improvements  satisfy  you.  As  far  as  my  expe- 
rience goes,  improvements  are  never  perfection.  I  am  very 
sorry  to  hear  that  you  are  still  so  very  busy,  and  have  so  much 
work.  And  now  for  the  main  purport  of  my  note,  which  is  to 
ask  and  beg  you  and  Mrs.  Hooker  (whom  it  is  really  an  age 
since  I  have  seen),  and  all  your  children,  if  you  like,  to  come 
and  spend  a  week  here.  It  would  be  a  great  pleasure  to  me 
and  to  my  wife.  .  .  .  As  far  as  we  can  see,  we  shall  be  at 
home  all  the  winter ;  and  all  times  probably  would  be  equally 
convenient  ;  but  if  you  can,  do  not  put  it  off  very  late,  as  it 
may  slip  through.  Think  of  this  and  persuade  Mrs.  Hooker^ 
and  be  a  good  man  and  come. 

Farewell,  my  kind  and  dear  friend, 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  shall  be  very  curious  to  hear  what  you  think  of  my 
discussion  on  Classification  in  Chap.  XIII.  ;  I  believe  Huxley 
demurs  to  the  whole,  and  says  he  has  nailed  his  colours  to 
the  mast,  and  I  would  sooner  die  than  give  up  ;  so  that 
we  are  in  as  fine  a  frame  of  mind  to  discuss  the  point  as  any 
two  religionists. 

Embryology  is  my  pet  bit  in  my  book,  and,  confound  my 
friends,  not  one  has  noticed  this  to  me. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  December  21st  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — I  have  just  received  your  most  kind, 
long,  and  valuable  letter.  I  will  write  again  in  a  few  days,  for 
I  am  at  present   unwell  and    much  pressed   with  business  :. 


1 859-]  AMERICAN   EDITION.  245 

to-day's  note  is  merely  personal.     I  should,  for  several  reasons, 

be  very  glad  of  an  American  Edition.     I   have   made  up  my 

mind  to  be  well  abused  ;  but  I  think  it  of  importance  that  my 

notions  should   be  read  by    intelligent   men,   accustomed  to 

scientific    argument,  though    not  naturalists.      It  may  seem 

absurd,  but   I   think  such   men  will    drag    after  them  those 

naturalists   who  have  too  firmly  fixed  in  their  heads  that  a 

species  is  an  entity.     The  first  edition  of  1250  copies  was  sold 

on  the   first  day,  and   now   my  publisher  is  printing  off,  as 

rapidly  as  possible,  3000  more  copies.     I  mention  this  solely 

because  it  renders  probable  a  remunerative  sale  in  America. 

I  should   be  infinitely  obliged  if  you  could  aid  an  American 

reprint ;  and  could  make,  for  my  sake  and  the  publisher's,  any 

arrangement  for  any  profit.    The  new  edition  is  only  a  reprint, 

yet  I  have  made  a  few  important  corrections.        I  will   have 

the  clean  sheets  sent  over  in  a  few  days  of  as  many  sheets  as 

are  printed  off,  and  the  remainder  afterwards,  and  you  can  do 

anything  you  like, — if  nothing,    there  is   no  harm  done.     I 

should  be  glad  for  the  new  edition  to  be  reprinted  and  not  the 

old. — In  great  haste,  and  with  hearty  thanks, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 
I  will  write  soon  again. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  22nd  [December,  1859], 
MY  DEAR  Lyell, — Thanks  about  "  Bears,"  *  a  word  of  ill- 
omen  to  me. 

I  am  too  unwell  to  leave  home,  so  shall  not  see  you. 

I  am  very  glad  of  your  remarks  on  Hooker,  f    I  have  not  yet 

*  See  '  Origin,' ed.  i.,  p.  184.  wide     botanical     experience,     and 

f  Sir  C.  Lyell  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  think  it  goes  very  far  to  raise  the 

Hooker,  Dec.   19,   1S59    ('  Life,'  ii.  variety-making   hypothesis   to   the 

p.  327)  :  "  I  have  just  finished  the  rank  of  a  theory,  as  accounting  for 

reading  of  your  splendid  Essay  [the  the  manner  in  which  new  species 

'  Flora  of  Australia ']  on  the  origin  enter  the  world." 
of  species,  as   illustrated  by  your 


246        PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'       [1859;. 

got  the  Essay.  The  parts  which  I  read  in  sheets  seemed  to> 
me  grand,  especially  the  generalization  about  the  Australian- 
flora  itself.  How  superior  to  Robert  Brown's  celebrated 
essay !  I  have  not  seen  Naudin's  paper,*  and  shall  not  be 
able  till  I  hunt  the  libraries.  I  am  very  anxious  to  see  it. 
Decaisne  seems  to  think  he  gives  my  whole  theory.  I  do 
not  know  when  I  shall  have  time  and  strength  to  grapple- 
with  Hooker.  .  .  . 

P.S. — I  have  heard  from  Sir  W.  Jardine  :f  his  criticisms  are 
quite  unimportant  ;  some  of  the  Galapagos  so-called  species 
ought  to  be  called  varieties,  which  I  fully  expected  ;  some  of 
the  sub-genera,  thought  to  be  wholly  endemic,  have  been  found 
on  the  Continent  (not  that  he  gives  his  authority),  but  I  do 
not  make  out  that  the  species  are  the  same.  His  letter  is. 
brief  and  vague,  but  he  says  he  will  write  again. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [23rd  December,  1859]! 

My   DEAR   HOOKER, — I  received  last   night   your  '  Intro- 
duction,' for  which  very  many  thanks  ;  I  am  surprised  to  see 


*  'Revue  Horticole,'  1852.  See 
Historical  Sketch  in  the  later  edi- 
tions of  the  '  Origin  of  Species.' 

t  Jardine,  Sir  William,  Bart., 
b.  1800,  d.  1874,  was  the  son  of 
Sir  A.  Jardine  of  Applegarth,  Dum- 
friesshire. He  was  educated  at 
Edinburgh,  and  succeeded  to  the 
title  on  his  father's  decease  in  1821. 
He  published,  jointly  with  Mr. 
Prideaux  J.  Selby,  Sir  Stamford 
Raffles,  Dr.  Horsfield,  and  other 
ornithologists,  '  Illustrations  of  Or- 
nithology,' and  edited  the  '  Na- 
turalist's Library,'  in  40  vols,  which 
included  the  four  branches  :  Mam- 
malia, Ornithology,  Ichthyology, 
and  Entomology.  Of  these  40  vols. 
14  were   written   by   himself.      In 


1836  he  became  editor  of  the '  Maga- 
zine of  Zoology  and  Botany,'  which,, 
two  years   later,  was   transformed 
into  '  Annals  of  Natural  History,' 
but  remained  under  his  direction. 
For  Bonn's    Standard    Library  he 
edited  White's  '  Natural  History  of 
Selborne.'    Sir  W.  Jardine  was  also* 
joint    editor    of    the    '  Edinburgh 
Philosophical    Journal,'    and    was 
author     of    '  British    Salmonidae,' 
'  Ichthyology  of  Annandale,'  '  Me- 
moirs of  the  late  Hugh  Strickland,' 
'  Contributions     to      Ornithology,' 
c  Ornithological     Synonyms,'     &c. 
— (Taken  from  Ward,  '  Men  of  the 
Reign,'  and  Cates,  '  Dictionary  of 
General  Biography.') 


1 859-]  NAUDIN.  247 

how  big  it  is  :  I  shall  not  be  able  to  read  it  very  soon.  It 
was  very  good  of  you  to  send  Naudin,  for  I  was  very  curious 
to  see  it.  I  am  surprised  that  Decaisne  should  say  it  was 
the  same  as  mine.  Naudin  gives  artificial  selection,  as  well 
as  a  score  of  English  writers,  and  when  he  says  species  were 
formed  in  the  same  manner,  I  thought  the  paper  would  cer- 
tainly prove  exactly  the  same  as  mine.  But  I  cannot  find 
one  word  like  the  struggle  for  existence  and  natural  selection. 
On  the  contrary,  he  brings  in  his  principle  (p.  103)  of  finality 
(which  I  do  not  understand),  which,  he  says,  with  some  authors 
is  fatality,  with  others  providence,  and  which  adapts  the  forms 
of  every  being,  and  harmonises  them  all  throughout  nature. 

He  assumes  like  old  geologists  (who  assumed  that  the  forces 
of  nature  were  formerly  greater),  that  species  were  at  first 
more  plastic.  His  simile  of  tree  and  classification  is  like 
mine  (and  others),  but  he  cannot,  I  think,  have  reflected 
much  on  the  subject,  otherwise  he  would  see  that  genealogy 
by  itself  does  not  give  classification  ;  I  declare  I  cannot  see  a 
much  closer  approach  to  Wallace  and  me  in  Naudin  than 
in  Lamarck — we  all  agree  in  modification  and  descent.  If 
I  do  not  hear  from  you  I  will  return  the  '  Revue  '  in  a  few 
days  (with  the  cover).  I  dare  say  Lyell  would  be  glad  to  see 
it.  By  the  way,  I  will  retain  the  volume  till  I  hear  whether 
I  shall  or  not  send  it  to  Lyell.  I  should  rather  like  Lyell 
to   see  this   note,  though   it  is  foolish  work  sticking  up  for 

independence  or  priority. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

A.  Sedgwick*  to  C.  Darwin. 

Cambridge,  December  24th,  1859. 

My  DEAR  Darwin, — I  write  to  thank  you  for  your  work  on 
the  '  Origin  of  Species.'     It  came,  I  think,  in   the  latter  part 

*  Rev.  Adam  Sedgwick,  Wood-  the  University  of  Cambridge.  Born 
vardian   Professor   of  Geology   in      1785,  died  1873. 


248         PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF    SPECIES.'       [1859. 

of  last  week  ;  but  it  may  have  come  a  few  days  sooner,  and 
been  overlooked  among  my  book-parcels,  which  often  remain 
unopened  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  em- 
ployed—  1st,  in  preparing  for  my  lecture  ;  2ndly,  in  attending 
a  meeting  of  my  brother  Fellows  to  discuss  the  final  proposi- 
tions 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 


1859.]  SEDGWICK.  249 

of  philosophical  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,  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,  comprehends,  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  meta- 
physical 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  classification 
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  preg- 
nant 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 
modification  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 


250        PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES'       [1859.. 

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  under- 
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  con- 
cluding 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  con- 
demned in  the  author  of  the  '  Vestiges ')  and  prophecy  of  things 
not  yet  in  the  womb  of  time,  nor  (if  we  are  to  trust  the  accumu- 
lated 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  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  pro- 
ductive 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  antitype  in  solid  fruition  of  what  is 
best  and  greatest.  But  on  one  condition  only — that  I  humbly 
accept  God's  revelation  of  Himself  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.  Sedgwick. 


1859.]  CREATION.  251 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  Dec.  25th  [1859]. 

My  DEAR  HUXLEY, — One  part  of  your  note  has  pleased 
me  so  much  that  I  must  thank  you  for  it.  Not  only  Sir 
H.  H.  [Holland],  but  several  others,  have  attacked  me  about 
analogy  leading  to  belief  in  one  primordial  created  form.* 
(By  which  I  mean  only  that  we  know  nothing  as  yet  [of]  how 
life  originates.)  I  thought  I  was  universally  condemned  on 
this  head.  But  I  answered  that  though  perhaps  it  would 
have  been  more  prudent  not  to  have  put  it  in,  I  would  not 
strike  it  out,  as  it  seemed  to  me  probable,  and  I  give  it  on 
no  other  grounds.  You  will  see  in  your  mind  the  kind  of 
arguments  which  made  me  think  it  probable,  and  no  one 
fact  had  so  great  an  effect  on  me  as  your  most  curious  remarks 
on  the  apparent  homologies  of  the  head  of  Vertebrata  and 
Articulata. 

You  have  done  a  real  good  turn  in  the  Agency  business  \ 
(I  never  before  heard  of  a  hard-working,  unpaid  agent  besides 
yourself),  in  talking  with  Sir  H.  H.,  for  he  will  have  great 
influence  over  many.  He  floored  me  from  my  ignorance 
about  the  bones  of  the  ear,  and  I  made  a  mental  note  to  ask 
you  what  the  facts  were. 

With  hearty  thanks  and  real  admiration  for  your  generous- 
zeal  for  the  subject. 

Yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

You  may  smile  about  the  care  and  precautions  I  have  taken 
about  my  ugly  MS.  ;  %  it  is  not  so  much  the  value  I  set  on 

*  '  Origin,'    edit.    i.    p.    484. —  into  which  life  was  first  breathed." 

"Therefore    I    should    infer    from  f  "My   General  Agent"  was   a 

analogy    that     probably     all     the  sobriquet  applied  at  this   time   by 

organic    beings   which   have   ever  my  father  to  Mr.  Huxley, 

lived  on  this  earth  have  descended  %  Manuscript  left  with  Mr.  Hux- 

from   some   one   primordial   form,  ley  for  his  perusal. 


252         PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'        [1859. 

them,  but  the  remembrance   of  the  intolerable  labour — for 
instance,  in  tracing  the  history  of  the  breeds  of  pigeons. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  25th  [December,  1859]. 

...  I  shall  not  write  to  Decaisne  ;  *  I  have  always  had 
a  strong  feeling  that  no  one  had  better  defend  his  own 
priority.  I  cannot  say  that  I  am  as  indifferent  to  the  subject 
as  I  ought  to  be,  but  one  can  avoid  doing  anything  in 
consequence, 

I  do  not  believe  one  iota  about  your  having  assimilated  any 
of  my  notions  unconsciously.  You  have  always  done  me  more 
than  justice.  But  I  do  think  I  did  you  a  bad  turn  by  getting 
you  to  read  the  old  MS.,  as  it  must  have  checked  your  own 
original  thoughts.  There  is  one  thing  I  am  fully  convinced 
of,  that  the  future  progress  (which  is  the  really  important 
point)  of  the  subject  will  have  depended  on  really  good  and 
well-known  workers,  like  yourself,  Lyell,  and  Huxley,  having 
taken  up  the  subject,  than  on  my  own  work.  I  see  plainly  it 
is  this  that  strikes  my  non-scientific  friends. 

Last  night  I  said  to  myself,  I  would  just  cut  your  Intro- 
duction, but  would  not  begin  to  read,  but  I  broke  down,  and 
had  a  good  hour's  read. 

Farewell,  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

December  28th,  1859. 
.  .  .  Have  you  seen  the  splendid  essay  and  notice  of  my 
book  in  the  Times  ?\     I  cannot  avoid  a  strong  suspicion  that 
it  is  by   Huxley ;  but  I   never  heard  that  he  wrote  in  the 
Times.     It  will  do  grand  service,  .  .  . 

*  With  regard  to  Naudin's  paper  in  the  '  Revue  Horticole,'  1852. 
t  Dec.  26th. 


I859-] 


THE   '  TIMES  '    REVIEW. 


2:^ 


C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  Dec.  28th  [1S59]. 

My  DEAR  HUXLEY, — 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.  I  was  charmed  with  those  unreasonable 
mortals,  who  know  anything,  all  thinking  fit  to  range  them- 
selves on  one  side.*  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  Olympius 
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  peri- 
odicals.    The  grand  way  he  soars   above  common  religious 


*  The  reviewer  proposes  to  pass 
by  the  orthodox  view,  according  to 
which  the  phenomena  of  the  organic 
world  are  "  the  immediate  product 
of  a  creative  fiat,  and  consequently 
are  out  of  the  domain  of  science 
altogether."  And  he  does  so  "  with 
less  hesitation,  as  it  so  happens 
that  those  persons  who  are  prac- 


tically conversant  with  the  facts  of 
the  case  (plainly  a  considerable 
advantage)  have  always  thought 
fit  to  range  themselves "  in  the 
category  of  those  holding  "  views 
which  profess  to  rest  on  a  scientific 
basis  only,  and  therefore  admit 
of  being  argued  to  their  conse- 
quences." 


-254        PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES/       [1859. 

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, 

C.  Darwin. 

[It  is  impossible  to  give  in  a  short  space  an  adequate  idea 
of  Mr.  Huxley's  article  in  the  Times  of  December  26.  It  is 
.admirably  planned,  so  as  to  claim  for  the  '  Origin  '  a  respectful 
hearing,  and  it  abstains  from  anything  like  dogmatism  in 
;asserting  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  therein  upheld.  A  few  pas- 
sages may  be  quoted  : — "  That  this  most  ingenious  hypothesis 
enables  us  to  give  a  reason  for  many  apparent  anomalies  in  the 
distribution  of  living  beings  in  time  and  space,  and  that  it  is  not 
contradicted  by  the  main  phenomena  of  life  and  organisation, 
appear  to  us  to  be  unquestionable."  Mr.  Huxley  goes  on  to 
recommend  to  the  readers  of  the  '  Origin '  a  condition  of 
"  thdtige  Skepsis " — a  state  of  "  doubt  which  so  loves  truth 
that  it  neither  dares  rest  in  doubting,  nor  extinguish  itself 
by  unjustified  belief."  The  final  paragraph  is  in  a  strong 
^contrast  to  Professor  Sedgwick  and  his  "ropes  of  bubbles" 
(see  p.  298).  Mr.  Huxley  writes  :  "  Mr.  Darwin  abhors  mere 
speculation  as  nature  abhors  a  vacuum.  He  is  as  greedy  of 
cases  and  precedents  as  any  constitutional  lawyer,  and  all  the 
principles  he  lays  down  are  capable  of  being  brought  to  the 
test  of  observation  and  experiment.  The  path  he  bids  us 
follow  professes  to  be  not  a  mere  airy  track,  fabricated  of 
ideal  cobwebs,  but  a  solid  and  broad  bridge  of  facts.  If  it  be 
so,  it  will  carry  us  safely  over  many  a  chasm  in  our  know- 
ledge, and  lead  us  to  a  region  free  from  the  snares  of  those 
fascinating  but  barren  virgins,  the  Final  Causes,  against  whom 
.a  high  authority  has  so  justly  warned  us." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  powerful  essay,  appearing 


1859.]  THE  'times'  review.  255 

as  it  did  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  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.  Whereupon  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. 

"  I  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  condi- 
tions ;  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  con- 
fidence in  the  publication  of  this  little  history,  if  you  think  it 
worth  the  space  it  will  occupy."] 


256  THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.' 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES' — {continued). 


i860. 

I  EXTRACT  a  few  entries  from  my  father's  Diary  : — 

"Jan.  7th.     The  second  edition,    3000  copies,  of  'Origin 

was  published." 

"  May  22nd.     The  first  edition  of  '  Origin  '  in  the  United 

States  was  2500  copies." 

My  father  has  here  noted  down  the  sums  received  for  the 
Origin.' 

First  Edition  .  .  . .  . .  £\%o     o     o 

Second  Edition       ..  ..  ..     636  13     4 


£816  13     4 

After  the  publication  of  the  second  edition  he  began  at 
once,  on  Jan.  9th,  looking  over  his  materials  for  the  '  Variation 
of  Animals  and  Plants  ; '  the  only  other  work  of  the  year  was 
on  Drosera. 

He  was  at  Down  during  the  whole  of  this  year,  except  for 
a  visit  to  Dr.  Lane's  Water-cure  Establishment  at  Sudbrooke, 
in  June,  and  for  visits  to  Miss  Elizabeth  Wedgwood's  house 
at  Hartfield,  in  Sussex  (July),  and  to  Eastbourne,  Sept.  22 
to  Nov.  16. 


i860.]  AUSTRALIAN   FLORA.  257 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  January  3rd  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  Hooker,— I  have  finished  your  Essay.*  As 
probably  you  would  like  to  hear  my  opinion,  though  a  non- 
botanist,  I  will  give  it  without  any  exaggeration.  To  my 
judgment  it  is  by  far  the  grandest  and  most  interesting  essay, 
on  subjects  of  the  nature  discussed,  I  have  ever  read.  You 
know  how  I  admired  your  former  essays,  but  this  seems  to 
me  far  grander.  I  like  all  the  part  after  p.  xxvi  better  than 
the  first  part,  probably  because  newer  to  me.  I  dare  say  you 
will  demur  to  this,  for  I  think  every  author  likes  the  most 
speculative  parts  of  his  own  productions.  How  superior  your 
essay  is  to  the  famous  one  of  Brown  (here  will  be  sneer  1st 
from  you).  You  have  made  all  your  conclusions  so  admirably 
clear,  that  it  would  be  no  use  at  all  to  be  a  botanist  (sneer 
No.  2).  By  Jove,  it  would  do  harm  to  affix  any  idea  to  the 
long  names  of  outlandish  orders.  One  can  look  at  your  con- 
clusions with  the  philosophic  abstraction  with  which  a  mathe- 
matician looks  at  his  a  X  x  +  y/  z  2,  &c.  &c.  I  hardly  know 
which  parts  have  interested  me  most  ;  for  over  and  over  again 
I  exclaimed,  "  this  beats  all."  The  general  comparison  of  the 
Flora  of  Australia  with  the  rest  of  the  world,  strikes  me  (as 
before)  as  extremely  original,  good,  and  suggestive  of  many 
reflections. 

....  The  invading  Indian  Flora  is  very  interesting,  but  I 
think  the  fact  you  mention  towards  the  close  of  the  essay — 
that  the  Indian  vegetation,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Ma- 
layan vegetation,  is  found  in  low  and  level  parts  of  the  Malay 
Islands,  greatly  lessens  the  difficulty  which  at  first  (page  1) 
seemed  so  great.  There  is  nothing  like  one's  own  hobby- 
horse. I  suspect  it  is  the  same  case  as  of  glacial  migration, 
and  of  naturalised  production — of  production  of  greater  area 

*  '  Australian  Flora. 
VOL.  II.  S 


258  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

conquering  those  of  lesser ;  of  course  the  Indian  forms  would 
have  a  greater  difficulty  in  seizing  on  the  cool  parts  of  Aus- 
tralia. I  demur  to  your  remarks  (page  1),  as  not  "  conceiving 
anything  in  soil,  climate,  or  vegetation  of  India,"  which  could 
stop  the  introduction  of  Australian  plants.  Towards  the  close 
of  the  essay  (page  civ),  you  have  admirable  remarks  on  our 
profound  ignorance  of  the  cause  of  possible  naturalisation 
or  introduction ;  I  would  answer  p.  1,  by  a  later  page,  viz. 
p.  civ. 

Your  contrast  of  the  south-west  and  south-east  corners  is 
one  of  the  most  wonderful  cases  I  ever  heard  of.  .  .  .  You 
show  the  case  with  wonderful  force.  Your  discussion  on 
mixed  invaders  of  the  south-east  corner  (and  of  New  Zealand) 
is  as  curious  and  intricate  a  problem  as  of  the  races  of  men  in 
Britain.  Your  remark  on  a  mixed  invading  Flora  keeping 
down  or  destroying  an  original  Flora,  which  was  richer  in 
number  of  species,  strikes  me  as  eminently  new  and  important. 
I  am  not  sure  whether  to  me  the  discussion  on  the  New  Zea- 
land Flora  is  not  even  more  instructive.  I  cannot  too  much 
admire  both.  But  it  will  require  a  long  time  to  suck  in  all 
the  facts.  Your  case  of  the  largest  Australian  orders  having 
none,  or  very  few,  species  in  New  Zealand,  is  truly  mar- 
vellous. Anyhow,  you  have  now  demonstrated  (together 
with  no  mammals  in  New  Zealand)  (bitter  sneer  No.  3),  that 
New  Zealand  has  never  been  continuously,  or  even  nearly 
continuously,  united  by  land  to  Australia !  !  At  p.  lxxxix, 
is  the  only  sentence  (on  this  subject)  in  the  whole  essay  at 
which  I  am  much  inclined  to  quarrel,  viz.  that  no  theory 
of  trans-oceanic  migration  can  explain,  &c.  &c.  Now  I 
maintain  against  all  the  world,  that  no  man  knows  anything 
about  the  trans-oceanic  power  of  migration.  You  do  not 
know  whether  or  not  the  absent  orders  have  seeds  which 
are  killed  by  sea-water,  like  almost  all  Leguminosse,  and 
like   another  order  which  I    forget.      Birds  do  not   migrate 


i860.]  AUSTRALIAN   FLORA.  259 

from  Australia  to  New  Zealand,  and  therefore  floatation  seems 
the  only  possible  means  ;  but  yet  I  maintain  that  we  do  not 
know  enough  to  argue  on  the  question,  especially  as  we  do 
not  know  the  main  fact  whether  the  seeds  of  Australian 
orders  are  killed  by  sea-water. 

The  discussion  on  European  Genera  is  profoundly  interest- 
ing ;  but  here  alone  I  earnestly  beg  for  more  information,  viz. 
to  know  which  of  these  genera  are  absent  in  the  Tropics  of 
the  world,  i.e.  confined  to  temperate  regions.  I  excessively 
wish  to  know,  on  the  notion  of  Glacial  Migration,  how  much 
modification  has  taken  place  in  Australia.  I  had  better 
explain  when  we  meet,  and  get  you  to  go  over  and  mark 
the  list. 

....  The  list  of  naturalised  plants  is  extremely  interest- 
ing, but  why  at  the  end,  in  the  name  of  all  that  is  good  and 
bad,  do  you  not  sum  up  and  comment  on  your  facts  ?  Come,  I 
will  have  a  sneer  at  you  in  return  for  the  many  which  you  will 
have  launched  at  this  letter.  Should  you  [not]  have  remarked 
on  the  number  of  plants  naturalised  in  Australia  and  the 
United  States  under  extremely  different  climates,  as  showing 
that  climate  is  so  important,  and  [on]  the  considerable 
sprinkling  of  plants  from  India,  North  America,  and  South 
Africa,  as  showing  that  the  frequent  introduction  of  seeds  is 
so  important  ?  With  respect  to  "  abundance  of  unoccupied 
ground  in  Australia,"  do  you  believe  that  European  plants 
introduced  by  man  now  grow  on  spots  in  Australia  which 
were  absolutely  bare  ?  But  I  am  an  impudent  dog,  one  must 
defend  one's  own  fancy  theories  against  such  cruel  men  as 
you.  I  dare  say  this  letter  will  appear  very  conceited,  but 
one  must  form  an  opinion  on  what  one  reads  with  attention, 
and  in  simple  truth,  I  cannot  find  words  strong  enough  to 
express  my  admiration  of  your  essay. 

My  dear  old  friend,  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 


s  2 


260  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

P.S. — I  differ  about  the  Saturday  Review*  One  cannot 
expect  fairness  in  a  reviewer,  so  I  do  not  complain  of  all 
the  other  arguments  besides  the  '  Geological  Record '  being 
omitted.  Some  of  the  remarks  about  the  lapse  of  years  are 
very  good,  and  the  reviewer  gives  me  some  good  and  well- 
deserved  raps — confound  it.  I  am  sorry  to  confess  the  truth  : 
but  it  does  not  at  all  concern  the  main  argument.  That  was 
a  nice  notice  in  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle.  I  hope  and  imagine 
that  Lindley  is  almost  a  convert.  Do  not  forget  to  tell  me 
if  Bentham  gets  at  all  more  staggered. 

With  respect  to  tropical  plants  during  the  Glacial  period, 
I  throw  in  your  teeth  your  own  facts,  at  the  base  of  the 
Himalaya,  on  the  possibility  of  the  co-existence  of  at  least 
forms  of  the  tropical  and  temperate  regions.  I  can  give  a 
parallel  case  for  animals  in  Mexico.  Oh  !  my  dearly  beloved 
puny  child,  how  cruel  men  are  to  you  !  I  am  very  glad  you 
approve  of  the  Geographical  chapters.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down  [January  4th,  i860]. 
My  DEAR  L. — Gardeners'  Chronicle  returned  safe.  Thanks 
for  note.  I  am  beyond  measure  glad  that  you  get  more 
and  more  roused  on  the  subject  of  species,  for,  as  I  have 
always  said,  I  am  well  convinced  that  your  opinions  and 
writings  will  do  far  more  to  convince  the  world  than  mine. 
You  will  make  a  grand  discussion  on  man.  You  are  very  bold 
in  this,  and  I  honour  you.  I  have  been,  like  you,  quite  sur- 
prised at  the  want  of  originality  in  opposed  arguments  and 
in  favour  too.  Gwyn  Jeffreys  attacks  me  justly  in  his  letter 
about  strictly  littoral  shells  not  being  often  embedded  at  least 

*  Saturday    Review,    Dec.    24,  remarks  that,  "if  a  million  of  cen- 

1859.     The   hostile   arguments   of  turies,  more  or  less,  is  needed  for 

the  reviewer  are  geological,  and  he  any  part  of  his  argument,  he  feels 

deals  especially  with  the  denuda-  no  scruple  in  taking  them  to  suit 

tion  of  the  Weald.     The  reviewer  his  purpose." 


i860.] 


ANDREW   MURRAY. 


26l 


in  Tertiary  deposits.     I  was  in  a  muddle,  for  I  was  thinking 

of  Secondary,  yet  Chthamalus  applied  to  Tertiary 

Possibly  you  might  like  to  see  the  enclosed  note  *  from 

Whewell,  merely  as  showing  that  he  is  not  horrified  with  us. 

You  can  return  it  whenever  you  have  occasion  to  write,  so  as 

not  to  waste  your  time. 

C.  D. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down  [January  4th  ?  i860]. 

I  have  had  a  brief  note  from  Keyserling,f  but  not 

worth  sending  you.  He  believes  in  change  of  species,  grants 
that  natural  selection  explains  well  adaptation  of  form,  but 
thinks  species  change  too  regularly,  as  if  by  some  chemical 
law,  for  natural  selection  to  be  the  sole  cause  of  change. 
I  can  hardly  understand  his  brief  note,  but  this  is  I  think 
the  upshot. 

I  will  send  A.  Murray's  paper  whenever  published.^ 


*  Dr.  Whewell  wrote  (Jan.  2, 
i860)  :  "...  I  cannot,  yet  at  least, 
become  a  convert.  But  there  is  so 
much  of  thought  and  of  fact  in 
what  you  have  written  that  it  is 
not  to  be  contradicted  without 
careful  selection  of  the  ground  and 
manner  of  the  dissent."  Dr.  Whe- 
well dissented  in  a  practical  manner 
for  some  years,  by  refusing  to  allow 
a  copy  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species ' 
to  be  placed  in  the  Library  of 
Trinity  College. 

f  Count  Keyserling,  geologist, 
joint  author  with  Murchison  of  the 
1  Geology  of  Russia,'  1845  ;  and 
mentioned  in  Prof.  Geikie's  '  Life 
of  Murchison.' 

X  The  late  Andrew  Murray 
wrote  two  papers  on  the  '  Origin ' 
in  the  Proc.  R.  Soc.  Edin.  i860. 
The  one  referred  to  here  is  dated 
Jan.    16,    i860.     The   following   is 


quoted  from  p.  6  of  the  separate 
copy  :  "  But  the  second,  and,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  by  much  the  most 
important  phase  of  reversion  to 
type  (and  which  is  practically,  if 
not  altogether  ignored  by  Mr.  Dar- 
win), is  the  instinctive  inclination 
which  induces  individuals  of  the 
same  species  by  preference  to  inter- 
cross with  those  possessing  the 
qualities  which  they  themselves 
want,  so  as  to  preserve  the  purity 
or  equilibrium  of  the  breed.  .  .  . 
It  is  trite  to  a  proverb,  that  tall 
men  marry  little  women  ...  a  man 
of  genius  marries  a  fool  .  .  .  and 
we  are  told  that  this  is  the  result 
of  the  charm  of  contrast,  or  of 
qualities  admired  in  others  because 
we  do  not  possess  them.  I  do  not 
so  explain  it.  I  imagine  it  is  the 
effort  of  nature  to  preserve  the 
typical  medium  of  the  race." 


262  THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

It  includes  speculations  (which  perhaps  he  will  modify)  so  rash, 
and  without  a  single  fact  in  support,  that  had  I  advanced  them 
he  or  other  reviewers  would  have  hit  me  very  hard.  I  am 
sorry  to  say  that  I  have  no  "  consolatory  view  "  on  the  dignity 
of  man.  I  am  content  that  man  will  probably  advance,  and 
care  not  much  whether  we  are  looked  at  as  mere  savages  in  a 
remotely  distant  future.     Many  thanks  for  your  last  note. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

I  have  received,  in  a  Manchester  newspaper,  rather  a  good 
squib,  showing  that  I  have  proved  "  might  is  right,"  and  there- 
fore that  Napoleon  is  right,  and  every  cheating  tradesman  is 
also  right. 

C.  Darzvin  to  W.  B.  Carpenter. 

Down,  January  6th  [i860]  ? 

My  dear  Carpenter, — I  have  just  read  your  excellent 
article  in  the  '  National.'  It  will  do  great  good  ;  especially  if  it 
becomes  known  as  your  production.  It  seems  to  me  to  give 
an  excellently  clear  account  of  Mr.  Wallace's  and  my  views. 
How  capitally  you  turn  the  flanks  of  the  theological  opposers 
by  opposing  to  them  such  men  as  Bentham  and  the  more 
philosophical  of  the  systematists  !  I  thank  you  sincerely  for 
the  extremely  honourable  manner  in  which  you  mention  me. 
I  should  have  liked  to  have  seen  some  criticisms  or  remarks 
on  embryology,  on  which  subject  you  are  so  well  instructed. 
I  do  not  think  any  candid  person  can  read  your  article  with- 
out being  much  impressed  with  it.  The  old  doctrine  of 
immutability  of  specific  forms  will  surely  but  slowly  die  away. 
It  is  a  shame  to  give  you  trouble,  but  I  should  be  very  much 
obliged  if  you  could  tell  me  where  differently  coloured  eggs 
in  individuals  of  the  cuckoo  have  been  described,  and  their 
laying  in  twenty-seven  kinds  of  nests.  Also  do  you  know 
from  your  own  observation  that  the  limbs  of  sheep  imported 


i36o.]  rev.  l.  elomefield.  263 

into  the  West  Indies  change  colour  ?  I  have  had  detailed  in- 
formation about  the  loss  of  wool ;  but  my  accounts  made  the 
change  slower  than  you  describe. 

With  most  cordial  thanks  and  respect,  believe  me,  my  dear 
Carpenter,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Danvin  to  L.  jfenyns* 

Down,  January  7th,  i860. 

My  DEAR  JENYNS, — I  am  very  much  obliged  for  your 
letter.  It  is  of  great  use  and  interest  to  me  to  know  what 
impression  my  book  produces  on  philosophical  and  instructed 
minds.  I  thank  you  for  the  kind  things  which  you  say ;  and 
you  go  with  me  much  further  than  I  expected.  You  will 
think  it  presumptuous,  but  I  am  convinced,  if  circumstances 
lead  yoit  to  keep  the  subject  in  mind,  that  you  will  go  further. 
No  one  has  yet  cast  doubts  on  my  explanation  of  the  sub- 
ordination of  group  to  group,  on  homologies,  embryology, 
and  rudimentary  organs ;  and  if  my  explanation  of  these 
classes  of  facts  be  at  all  right,  whole  classes  of  organic  beings 
must  be  included  in  one  line  of  descent. 

The  imperfection  of  the  Geological  Record  is  one  of  the 

greatest   difficulties During  the  earliest  period    the 

record  would  be  most  imperfect,  and  this  seems  to  me 
sufficiently  to  account  for  our  not  finding  intermediate  forms 
between  the  classes  in  the  same  great  kingdoms.  It  was 
certainly  rash  in  me  putting  in  my  belief  of  the  probability  of 
all  beings  having  descended  from  one  primordial  form  ;  but 
as  this  seems  yet  to  me  probable,  I  am  not  willing  to  strike 
it  out.  Huxley  alone  supports  me  in  this,  and  something 
could  be  said  in  its  favour.  With  respect  to  man,  I  am  very 
far  from  wishing  to  obtrude  my  belief;  but  I  thought  it 
dishonest   to   quite    conceal    my   opinion.     Of  course   it   is 

*  Rev.  L.  Blomefield. 


264 


THE  'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


open  to  every  one  to  believe  that  man  appeared  by  a 
separate  miracle,  though  I  do  not  myself  see  the  necessity  or 
probability. 

Pray  accept  my  sincere  thanks  for  your  kind  note.  Your 
going  some  way  with  me  gives  me  great  confidence  that  I  am 
not  very  wrong.  For  a  very  long  time  I  halted  half-way  ;  but 
I  do  not  believe  that  any  enquiring  mind  will  rest  half-way. 
People  will  have  to  reject  all  or  admit  all ;  by  all,  I  mean 
only  the  members  of  each  great  kingdom. 

My  dear  Jenyns,  yours  most  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 


* 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  January  10th  [i860]. 

...  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  f  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  summary,  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  cannot  refer  you  to  tables  of  mortality  of  children, 
&c.  &c.  I  have  notes  somewhere,  but  I  have  not  the  least 
idea  where  to  hunt,  and  my  notes  would  now  be  old.  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. 


*  The  second  edition  of  3000 
copies  of  the  '  Origin '  was  pub- 
lished on  January  7th. 

f  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  discus- 
sion 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. 


i860.]  second  edition.  265 

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  wrhole  volume ; 
although  by  the  sentence  (p.  489,  new  edition  *)  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.  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.  Psychologically,  I  have  done  scarcely  any- 
thing. Unless,  indeed,  expression  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.  By  the 
wray  I  sent  off  a  lot  of  questions  the  day  before  yesterday 
to  Tierra  del  Fuego  on  expression !  I  suspect  (for  I  have 
never  read  it)  that  Spencer's  '  Psychology '  has  a  bearing  on 
Psychology  as  we  should  look  at  it.  By  all  means  read  the 
Preface,  in  about  20  pages,  of  Hensleigh  Wedgwood's  new 
Dictionary,  on  the  first  origin  of  Language  ;  Erasmus  would 
lend  it.  I  agree  about  Carpenter,  a  very  good  article,  but 
with  not  much  original.  .  .  .  Andrew  Murray  has  criticised, 
in  an  address  to  the  Botanical  Society  of  Edinburgh,  the 
notice  in  the  '  Linnean  Journal,'  and  "has  disposed  of"  the 
whole  theory  by  an  ingenious  difficulty,  which  I  was  very 
stupid  not  to  have  thought  of;  for  I  express  surprise  at  more 
and  analogous  cases  not  being  known.  The  difficulty  is,  that 
amongst  the  blind  insects  of  the  caves  in  distant  parts  of  the 
world  there  are  some  of  the  same  genus,  and  yet  the  genus  is 
not  found  out  of  the  caves  or  living  in  the  free  world.  I  have 
little  doubt  that,  like  the  fish  Amblyopsis,  and  like  Proteus  in 
Europe,  these  insects  are  "  wrecks  of  ancient  life,"  or  "  living 
fossils,"  saved  from  competition  and  extermination.     But  that 

*  First  edition,  p.  488. 


266  THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

formerly  seeing  insects  of  the  same  genus  roamed  over  the 
whole  area  in  which  the  cases  are  included. 

Farewell,  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — Our  ancestor  was  an  animal  which  breathed  water, 
had  a  swim  bladder,  a  great  swimming  tail,  an  imperfect 
skull,  and  undoubtedly  was  an  hermaphrodite ! 

Here  is  a  pleasant  genealogy  for  mankind. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  January  14th  [i860]. 

...  I  shall  be  much  interested  in  reading  your  man  dis- 
cussion, and  will  give  my  opinion  carefully,  whatever  that 
may  be  worth  ;  but  I  have  so  long  looked  at  you  as  the  type 
of  cautious  scientific  judgment  (to  my  mind  one  of  the 
highest  and  most  useful  qualities),  that  I  suspect  my  opinion 
will  be  superfluous.  It  makes  me  laugh  to  think  what  a  joke 
it  will  be  if  I  have  to  caution  you,  after  your  cautions  on  the 
same  subject  to  me  ! 

I  will  order  Owen's  book ;  *  I  am  very  glad  to  hear 
Huxley's  opinion  on  his  classification  of  man ;  without 
having  due  knowledge,  it  seemed  to  me  from  the  very  first 
absurd ;  all  classifications  founded  on  single  characters  I 
believe  have  failed. 

.  .  .  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  Raihvay  Station!  II  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 !!!.... 

*  c  Classification  of  the  Mammalia,'  1859. 


iS6o.]  'gardeners'  chronicle.'  267 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  14th  [January,  i860]. 

I  heard  from  Lyell  this  morning,  and  he  tells 

me  a  piece  of  news.  You  are  a  good-for-nothing  man  ;  here 
you  are  slaving  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  and  it.  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.  ;  .  .  .  Lyell  is  going  at  man  with  an  audacity  that 
frightens  me.  It  is  a  good  joke  ;  he  used  always  to  caution 
me  to  slip  over  man. 

[In  the  Gardeners*  Chronicle >  Jan.  21,  i860,  appeared  a 
short  letter  from  my  father,  which  was  called  forth  by 
Mr.  Westwood's  communication  to  the  previous  number  of 
the  journal,  in  which  certain  phenomena  of  cross-breeding  are 
discussed  in  relation  to  the  '  Origin  of  Species.'  Mr.  West- 
wood  wrote  in  reply  (Feb.  n),  and  adduced  further  evidence 
against  the  doctrine  of  descent,  such  as  the  identity  of  the 
figures  of  ostriches  on  the  ancient  "  Egyptian  records,"  with 
the  bird  as  we  now  know  it.  The  correspondence  is  hardly 
worth  mentioning,  except  as  one  of  the  very  few  cases  in 
which  my  father  was  enticed  into  anything  resembling  a 
controversy.] 

*  Gardeners'    Chronicle,     i860,      plete    impartiality,    so    as   not    to 
Referred  to  above,  at  p.  260.     Sir      commit  Lindley. 
J.  D.  Hooker  took  the  line  of  com- 


268  THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

Asa  Gray  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Cambridge,  Mass., 

January  5th,  i860. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Your  last  letter,  which  reached  me 
just  before  Christmas,  has  got  mislaid  during  the  upturnings 
in  my  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  poor  1 1  (entre  nous).  The  fact  [is] 
he  is  very  much  annoyed  by  it,  ...  .  and  I  do  not  wonder 
at  it.  To  bring  all  ideal  system  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  the 
phenomena. 

Tell  Darwin  all  this.  I  will  write  to  him  when  I  get  a 
chance.  As  I  have  promised,  he  and  you  shall  have  fair-play 
here.  ...  I  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)  No.,  and  I  am  now 
setting  about  it  (when  I  ought  to  be  every  moment  working 
the  Exploring]  Expedition  Composite,  which  I  know  far  more 
about).     And  really  it  is  no  easy  job  as  you  may  well  imagine. 


i860.]  dr.  gray's  approval.  269 

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.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  January  28th  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — Hooker  has  forwarded  to  me  your  letter 
to  him  ;  and  I  cannot  express  how  deeply  it  has  gratified 
me.  To  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  thinking  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  have  the  present  book  as  it  is 
(excepting  correcting  errors,  or  here  and  there  inserting  short 

*  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Murray,  1 S60,  but  yet  in  such  terms  that  it  is  in  fact 

my  father  wrote  : — "  I  am  amused  a  fine  advertisement ! "    This  seems 

by  Asa  Gray's  account  of  the  excite-  to  refer  to  a  lecture  given  before 

ment  my  book  has  made  amongst  the    Mercantile    Library   Associa- 

naturalists  in  the  U.  States.  Agassiz  tion. 
has  denounced  it  in  a  newspaper, 


270  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  I  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  reviezu  prefixed.  Whatever  be  the 
nature  of  your  review,  I  assure  you  I  should  feel  it  a  great 
honour  to  have  my  book  thus  preceded 

Asa  Gray  to  C.  Darwin. 

Cambridge,  January  23rd,  i860. 

MY  DEAR  DARWIN, — You  have  my  hurried  letter  telling 
you  of  the  arrival  of  the  remainder  of  the  sheets  of  the  reprint, 
and  of  the  stir  I  had  made  for  a  reprint  in  Boston.  Well,  all 
looked  pretty  well,  when,  lo,  we  found  that  a  second  New 
York  publishing  house  had  announced  a  reprint  also!  I  wrote 
then  to  both  New  York  publishers,  asking  them  to  give  way 
to  the  author  and  his  reprint  of  a  revised  edition.  I  got 
an  answer  from  the  Harpers  that  they  withdraw — from  the 
Appletons  that  they  had  got  the  book  out  (and  the  next  day 
I  saw  a  copy)  ;  but  that,  "  if  the  work  should  have  any  con- 
siderable sale,  we  certainly  shall  be  disposed  to  pay  the 
author  reasonably  and  liberally." 

The  Appletons  being  thus  out  with  their  reprint,  the  Boston 
house  declined  to  go  on.     So  I  wrote  to  the  Appletons  takin 


or 


iS6o.]  dr.  gray's  criticisms.  271 

them  at  their  word,  offering  to  aid  their  reprint,  to  give  them 
the  use  of  the  alterations  in  the  London  reprint,  as  soon  as  I 
find  out  what  they  are,  &c.  &c.  And  I  sent  them  the  first 
leaf,  and  asked  them  to  insert  in  their  future  issue  the  addi- 
tional matter  from  Butler,*  which  tells  just  right.  So  there 
the  matter  stands.  If  you  furnish  any  matter  in  advance  of 
the  London  third  edition,  I  will  make  them  pay  for  it. 

I  may  get  something  for  you.  All  got  is  clear  gain  ;  but  it 
will  not  be  very  much,  I  suppose. 

Such  little  notices  in  the  papers  here  as  have  yet  appeared 
are  quite  handsome  and  considerate. 

I  hope  next  week  to  get  printed  sheets  of  my  review  from 
New  Haven,  and  send  [them]  to  you,  and  will  ask  you  to  pass 
them  on  to  Dr.  Hooker. 

To  fulfil  your  request,  I  ought  to  tell  you  what  I  think 
the  weakest,  and  what  the  best,  part  of  your  book.  But 
this  is  not  easy,  nor  to  be  done  in  a  word  or  two.  The  best 
party  I  think,  is  the  whole,  i.e.  its  plan  and  treatment,  the  vast 
amount  of  facts  and  acute  inferences  handled  as  if  you  had  a 
perfect  mastery  of  them.  I  do  not  think  twenty  years  too 
much  time  to  produce  such  a  book  in. 

Style  clear  and  good,  but  now  and  then  wants  revision  for 
little  matters  (p.  97,  self-fertilises  itself,  &c). 

Then  your  candour  is  worth  everything  to  your  cause.  It 
is  refreshing  to  find  a  person  with  a  new  theory  who  frankly 
confesses  that  he  finds  difficulties,  insurmountable,  at  least 
for  the  present.  I  know  some  people  who  never  have  any 
difficulties  to  speak  of. 

The  moment  I  understood  your  premisses,  I  felt  sure  you 
had  a  real  foundation  to  hold  on.  Well,  if  one  admits  your 
premisses,  I  do  not  see  how  he  is  to  stop  short  of  your  conclu- 
sions, as  a  probable  hypothesis  at  least. 

*  A  quotation  from  Butler's  tion  is  placed  with  the  passages 
'  Analogy,'  on  the  use  of  the  word  from  Whewell  and  Bacon  on  p.  ii, 
natural,  which  in  the  second  edi-      opposite  the  title-page. 


272  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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-committed  as 
to  its  full  conclusions,  than  I  should  if  I  announced  myself  a 
convert ;  nor  could  I  say  the  latter,  with  truth. 

Well,  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. 

The  chapter  on  Hybridism  is  not  a  weaky  but  a  strong 
chapter.  You  have  done  wonders  there.  But  still  you  have 
not  accounted,  as  you  may  be  held  to  account,  for  divergence 
up  to  a  certain  extent  producing  increased  fertility  of  the 
crosses,  but  carried  one  short  almost  imperceptible  step  more, 
giving  rise  to  sterility,  or  reversing  the  tendency.  Very  likely 
you  are  on  the  right  track  ;  but  you  have  something  to  do  yet 
in  that  department. 

Enough  for  the  present. 

I  am  not  insensible  to  your  compliments,  the  very 

high  compliment  which  you  pay  me  in  valuing  my  opinion. 
You  evidently  think  more  of  it  than  I  do,  though  from  the 
way  I  write  [to]  you,  and  especially  [to]  Hooker,  this  might 
not  be  inferred  from  the  reading  of  my  letters. 

I  am  free  to  say  that  I  never  learnt  so  much  from  one  book 

as  I  have  from  yours.     There  remain  a  thousand  things  I  long 

to  say  about  it. 

Ever  yours, 

Asa  Gray. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

[February?  i860.] 

Now  I  will  just  run  through  some  points  in  your 

letter.     What  you  say  about  my  book  gratifies  me  most  deeply, 


i860.]  historical  sketch.  273 

and  I  wish  I  could  feel  all  was  deserved  by  me.  I  quite  think 
a  review  from  a  man,  who  is  not  an  entire  convert,  if  fair  and 
moderately  favourable,  is  in  all  respects  the  best  kind  of 
review.  About  the  weak  points  I  agree.  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. 

Pray  kindly  remember  and  tell  Prof.  Wyman  how  very 
grateful  I  should  be  for  any  hints,  information,  or  criticisms. 
I  have  the  highest  respect  for  his  opinion.  I  am  so  sorry 
about  Dana's  health.  I  have  already  asked  him  to  pay  me  a 
visit. 

Farewell,  you  have  laid  me  under  a  load  of  obligation — not 
that  I  feel  it  a  load.  It  is  the  highest  possible  gratification  to 
me  to  think  that  you  have  found  my  book  worth  reading  and 
reflection  ;  for  you  and  three  others  I  put  down  in  my  own 
mind  as  the  judges  whose  opinions  I  should  value  most  of  all. 

My  dear  Gray,  yours  most  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  feel  pretty  sure,  from  my  own  experience,  that  if 
you  are  led  by  your  studies  to  keep  the  subject  of  the  origin 
of  species  before  your  mind,  you  will  go  further  and  further 
in  your  belief.  It  took  me  long  years,  and  I  assure  you  I  am 
astonished  at  the  impression  my  book  has  made  on  many 
minds.  I  fear  twenty  years  ago  I  should  not  have  been  half 
as  candid  and  open  to  conviction. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [January  31st,  i860]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  have  resolved  to  publish  a  little 
sketch  of  the  progress  of  opinion  on  the  change  of  species. 
Will  you  or  Mrs.  Hooker  do  me  the  favour  to  copy  one 
sentence  out  of  Naudin's  paper  in  the  '  Revue  Horticole,' 
1852,  p.  103,  namely,  that  on  his  principle  of  Finalite.     Can 

VOL.  II.  T 


274 


THE  'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


you  let  me  have  it  soon,  with  those  confounded  dashes  over 

the  vowels  put  in  carefully  ?     Asa  Gray,  I  believe,  is  going  to 

get  a  second  edition  of  my  book,  and  I  want  to  send  this  little 

preface  over  to  him  soon.     I  did  not  think  of  the  necessity  of 

having  Naudin's  sentence  on  finality,  otherwise  I  would  have 

copied  it. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  shall  end  by  just  alluding  to  your  Australian 
Flora  Introduction.  What  was  the  date  of  publication  : 
December  1859,  or  January  i860?     Please  answer  this. 

My  preface  will  also  do  for  the  French  edition,  which,  I 
believe,  is  agreed  on. 


C.  Darwin  to  J,  D,  Hooker. 

February  [i860]. 

....  As  the  '  Origin '  now  stands,  Harvey's  *  is  a  good 
hit  against  my  talking  so  much  of  the  insensibly  fine  grada- 
tions ;  and  certainly  it  has  astonished  me  that  I  should  be 
pelted  with  the  fact,  that  I  had  not  allowed  abrupt  and  great 
enough  variations  under  nature.  It  would  take  a  good  deal 
more  evidence  to  make  me  admit  that  forms  have  often 
changed  by  saltum. 


*  William  Henry  Harvey  was 
descended  from  a  Quaker  family  of 
Youghal,  and  was  born  in  Feb- 
ruary, 181 1,  at  Summerville,  a 
country  house  on  the  banks  of  the 
Shannon.  He  died  at  Torquay  in 
1866.  In  1835,  Harvey  went  to 
Africa  (Table  Bay)  to  pursue  his 
botanical  studies,  the  results  of 
which  were  given  in  his  '  Genera  of 
South  African  Plants.'  In  1838, 
ill-health  compelled  him  to  obtain 
leave  of  absence,  and  return  to 
England  for  a  time  ;  in  1840  he 
returned  to  Cape  Town,  to  be  again 


compelled  by  illness  to  leave.  In 
1843  he  obtained  the  appointment 
of  Botanical  Professor  at  Trinity 
College,  Dublin.  In  1854,  1855, 
and  1856  he  visited  Australia,  New 
Zealand,  the  Friendly  and  Fiji 
Islands.  In  1857  Dr.  Harvey 
reached  home,  and  was  appointed 
the  successor  of  Professor  Allman 
to  the  Chair  of  Botany  in  Dublin 
University.  He  was  author  of 
several  botanical  works,  princi- 
pally on  Algae. — (From  a  Memoir 
published  in  1869.) 


i860.]  DR.    HARVEY.  275 

Have  you  seen  Wollaston's  attack  in  the  '  Annals'?  *  The 
stones  are  beginning  to  fly.  But  Theology  has  more  to  do 
with  these  two  attacks  than  Science.  .  .  . 

[In  the  above  letter  a  paper  by  Harvey  in  the  Gardeners' 
Chronicle,  Feb.  18,  i860,  is  alluded  to.  He  describes  a  case 
of  monstrosity  in  Begonia  frigida,  in  which  the  "  sport " 
differed  so  much  from  a  normal  Begonia  that  it  might  have 
served  as  the  type  of  a  distinct  natural  order.  Harvey  goes 
on  to  argue  that  such  a  case  is  hostile  to  the  theory  of  natural 
selection,  according  to  which  changes  are  not  supposed  to 
take  place  per  saltum,  and  adds  that  "  a  few  such  cases  would 
overthrow  it  [Mr.  Darwin's  hypothesis]  altogether."  In  the 
following  number  of  the  Gardeners  Chronicle  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker 
showed  that  Dr.  Harvey  had  misconceived  the  bearing  of  the 
Begonia  case,  which  he  further  showed  to  be  by  no  means 
calculated  to  shake  the  validity  of  the  doctrine  of  modification 
by  means  of  natural  selection.  My  father  mentions  the 
Begonia  case  in  a  letter  to  Lyell  (Feb.  18,  i860) : — 

"  I  send  by  this  post  an  attack  in  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle, 
by  Harvey  (a  first-rate  Botanist,  as  you  probably  know).  It 
seems  to  me  rather  strange ;  he  assumes  the  permanence 
of  monsters,  whereas,  monsters  are  generally  sterile,  and  not 
often  inheritable.  But  grant  his  case,  it  comes  that  I  have 
been  too  cautious  in  not  admitting  great  and  sudden  varia- 
tions. Here  again  comes  in  the  mischief  of  my  abstract.  In 
the  fuller  MS.  I  have  discussed  a  parallel  case  of  a  normal 
fish  like  a  monstrous  gold-fish." 

With  reference  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker's  reply,  my  father 
wrote  :] 

Down  [February  26th,  i860]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Your  answer  to  Harvey  seems  to  me 
admirably  good.     You  would  have  made  a  gigantic  fortune  as 

*  'Annals  and  Magazine  of  Natural  History,'  i860. 

T   2 


276  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

a  barrister.  What  an  omission  of  Harvey's  about  the 
graduated  state  of  the  flowers  !  But  what  strikes  me  most  is 
that  surely  I  ought  to  know  my  own  book  best,  yet,  by  Jove, 
you  have  brought  forward  ever  so  many  arguments  which 
I  did  not  think  of!  Your  reference  to  classification  (viz.  I 
presume  to  such  cases  as  Aspicarpa)  is  excellent,  for  the 
monstrous  Begonia  no  doubt  in  all  details  would  be  a  Be- 
gonia. I  did  not  think  of  this,  nor  of  the  retrograde  step  from 
separated  sexes  to  an  hermaphrodite  state  ;  nor  of  the 
lessened  fertility  of  the  monster.     Proh  pudor  to  me. 

The  world  would  say  what  a  lawyer  has  been  lost  in  a  mere 
botanist ! 

Farewell,  my  dear  master  in  my  own  subject, 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

I  am  so  heartily  pleased  to  see  that  you  approve  of  the 
chapter  on  Classification. 

I  wonder  what  Harvey  will  say.  But  no  one  hardly,  I  think, 
is  able  at  first  to  see  when  he  is  beaten  in  an  argument. 

[The  following  letters  refer  to  the  first  translation  (i860)  of 
the  '  Origin  of  Species  '  into  German,  which  was  superintended 
by  H.  G.  Bronn,  a  good  zoologist  and  palaeontologist,  who 
was  at  the  time  at  Freiburg,  but  afterwards  Professor  at 
Heidelberg.  I  have  been  told  that  the  translation  was  not  a 
success,  it  remained  an  obvious  translation,  and  was  cor- 
respondingly unpleasant  to  read.  Bronn  added  to  the  trans- 
lation an  appendix  on  the  difficulties  that  occurred  to  him. 
For  instance,  how  can  natural  selection  account  for  differences 
between  species,  when  these  differences  appear  to  be  of  no 
service  to  their  possessors  ;  e.g.,  the  length  of  the  ears  and 
tail,  or  the  folds  in  the  enamel  of  the  teeth  of  various  species 
of  rodents?  Krause,  in  his  book,  '  Charles  Darwin,'  p.  91, 
criticises  Bronn's  conduct  in  this  matter,  but  it  will  be  seen 
that   my  father  actually  suggested  the  addition  of  Bronn's 


i860.]  GERMAN   TRANSLATION.  277 

remarks.  A  more  serious  charge  against  Bronn  made  by 
Krause  (pp.  cit.  p.  8y)  is  that  he  left  out  passages  of  which  he 
did  not  approve,  as,  for  instance,  the  passage  ('  Origin,'  first 
edition,  p.  488)  "  Light  will  be  thrown  on  the  origin  of  man 
and  his  history."  I  have  no  evidence  as  to  whether  my 
father  did  or  did  not  know  of  these  alterations.] 


C.  Darwin  to  H.  G.  Bronn. 

Down,  Feb.  4  [i860]. 

Dear  and  much  honoured  Sir, — I  thank  you  sincerely 
for  your  most  kind  letter ;  I  feared  that  you  would  much  dis- 
approve of  the  *  Origin,'  and  I  sent  it  to  you  merely  as  a  mark 
of  my  sincere  respect.  I  shall  read  with  much  interest  your 
work  on  the  productions  of  Islands  whenever  I  receive  it.  I 
thank  you  cordially  for  the  notice  in  the  '  Neues  Jahrbuch 
fiir  Mineralogie,'  and  still  more  for  speaking  to  Schweitzerbart 
about  a  translation  ;  for  I  am  most  anxious  that  the  great  and 
intellectual  German  people  should  know  something  about  my 
book. 

I  have  told  my  publisher  to  send  immediately  a  copy  of 
the  new  *  edition  to  Schweitzerbart,  and  I  have  written  to 
Schweitzerbart  that  I  give  up  all  right  to  profit  for  myself,  so 
that  I  hope  a  translation  will  appear.  I  fear  that  the  book 
will  be  difficult  to  translate,  and  if  you  could  advise  Schweit- 
zerbart about  a  good  translator,  it  would  be  of  very  great 
service.  Still  more,  if  you  would  run  your  eye  over  the  more 
difficult  parts  of  the  translation  ;  but  this  is  too  great  a  favour 
to  expect.  I  feel  sure  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  translate, 
from  being  so  much  condensed. 

Again  I  thank  you  for  your  noble  and  generous  sympathy, 
and  I  remain,  with  entire  respect, 

Yours,  truly  obliged, 

C.  Darwin. 

*  Second  edition. 


2/8  THE   '  ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

P.S. — The  new  edition  has  some  few  corrections,  and  I  will 
send  in  MS.  some  additional  corrections,  and  a  short  historical 
preface,  to  Schweitzerbart. 

How  interesting  you  could  make  the  work  by  editing  (I  do 
not  mean  translating)  the  work,  and  appending  notes  of 
refutation  or  confirmation.  The  book  has  sold  so  very  largely 
in  England,  that  an  editor  would,  I  think,  make  profit  by  the 
translation. 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  G.  Bronn. 

Down,  Feb.  14  [i860]. 

My  dear  and  much  honoured  Sir,  —  I  thank  you 
cordially  for  your  extreme  kindness  in  superintending  the 
translation,  I  have  mentioned  this  to  some  eminent  scientific 
men,  and  they  all  agree  that  you  have  done  a  noble  and 
generous  service.  If  I  am  proved  quite  wrong,  yet  I  comfort 
myself  in  thinking  that  my  book  may  do  some  good,  as  truth 
can  onl}-r  be  known  by  rising  victorious  from  every  attack.  I 
thank  you  also  much  for  the  review,  and  for  the  kind  manner 
in  which  you  speak  of  me.  I  send  with  this  letter  some  cor- 
rections and  additions  to  M.  Schweitzerbart,  and  a  short 
historical  preface.  I  am  not  much  acquainted  with  German 
authors,  as  I  read  German  very  slowly ;  therefore  I  do  not 
know  whether  any  Germans  have  advocated  similar  views 
with  mine  ;  if  they  have,  would  you  do  me  the  favour  to  insert 
a  foot-note  to  the  preface  ?  M.  Schweitzerbart  has  now  the 
reprint  ready  for  a  translator  to  begin.  Several  scientific  men 
have  thought  the  term  "  Natural  Selection  "  good,  because  its 
meaning  is  not  obvious,  and  each  man  could  not  put  on  it  his 
own  interpretation,  and  because  it  at  once  connects  variation 
under  domestication  and  nature.  Is  there  any  analogous 
term  used  by  German  breeders  of  animals  ?  "  Adelung," 
ennobling,  would,  perhaps,  be  too  metaphorical.  It  is  folly  in 
me,  but  I  cannot  help  doubting  whether  "  Wahl  der  Lebens- 
weise  "  expresses  my  notion.     It  leaves  the  impression  on  my 


i860.]  GERMAN   TRANSLATION.  279 

mind  of  the  Lamarckian  doctrine  (which  I  reject)  of  habits  of 
life  being  all-important.  Man  has  altered,  and  thus  improved 
the  English  race-horse  by  selecting  successive  fleeter  indi- 
viduals ;  and  I  believe,  owing  to  the  struggle  for  existence, 
that  similar  slight  variations  in  a  wild  horse,  if  advantageous 
to  it,  would  be  selected  or  preserved  by  nature  ;  hence  Natural 
Selection.  But  I  apologise  for  troubling  you  with  these 
remarks  on  the  importance  of  choosing  good  German  terms 
for  "  Natural  Selection."  With  my  heartfelt  thanks,  and  with 
sincere  respect, 

I  remain,  dear  Sir,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  G.  Broun. 

Down  July  14  [i860]. 

Dear  AND  HONOURED  Sir, — On  my  return  home,  after  an 
absence  of  some  time,  I  found  the  translation  of  the  third 
part  *  of  the  '  Origin,'  and  I  have  been  delighted  to  see  a  final 
chapter  of  criticisms  by  yourself.  I  have  read  the  first  few 
paragraphs  and  final  paragraph,  and  am  perfectly  contented, 
indeed  more  than  contented,  with  the  generous  and  candid 
spirit  with  which  you  have  considered  my  views.  You  speak 
with  too  much  praise  of  my  work.  I  shall,  of  course,  care- 
fully read  the  whole  chapter ;  but  though  I  can  read  descrip- 
tive books  like  Gaertner's  pretty  easily,  when  any  reasoning 
comes  in,  I  find  German  excessively  difficult  to  understand. 
At  some  future  time  I  should  very  much  like  to  hear  how  my 
book  has  been  received  in  Germany,  and  I  most  sincerely 
hope  M.  Schweitzerbart  will  not  lose  money  by  the  publica- 
tion. Most  of  the  reviews  have  been  bitterly  opposed  to  me 
in  England,  yet  I  have  made  some  converts,  and  several 
naturalists  who  would  not  believe  in  a  word  of  it,  are  now 

*  The    German   translation  was     published    in    three    pamphlet-like 
numbers. 


28o  THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES/  [i860. 

coming  slightly  round,  and  admit  that  natural  selection  may 
have  done  something.  This  gives  me  hope  that  more  will 
ultimately  come  round  to  a  certain  extent  to  my  views. 

I  shall  ever  consider  myself  deeply  indebted  to  you  for  the 
immense  service  and  honour  which  you  have  conferred  on  me 
in  making  the  excellent  translation  of  my  book.  Pray  believe 
me,  with  most  sincere  respect, 

Dear  Sir,  yours  gratefully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

Down  [February  12th,  i860]. 

...  I  think  it  was  a  great  pity  that  Huxley  wasted  so 
much  time  in  the  lecture  on  the  preliminary  remarks  ;  .  .  . 
but  his  lecture  seemed  to  me  very  fine  and  very  bold.  I  have 
remonstrated  (and  he  agrees)  against  the  impression  that  he 
would  leave,  that  sterility  was  a  universal  and  infallible  cri- 
terion of  species. 

You  will,  I  am  sure,  make  a  grand  discussion  on  man.  I 
am  so  glad  to  hear  that  you  and  Lady  Lyell  will  come  here. 
Pray  fix  your  own  time  ;  and  if  it  did  not  suit  us  we  would 
say  so.     We  could  then  discuss  man  well.  .  .  . 

How  much  I  owe  to  you  and  Hooker !  I  do  not  suppose 
I  should  hardly  ever  have  published  had  it  not  been  for  you. 

[The  lecture  referred  to  in  the  last  letter  was  given  at  the 
Royal  Institution,  February  10,  i860.  The  following  letter 
was  written  in  reply  to  Mr.  Huxley's  request  for  information 
about  breeding,  hybridisation,  &c.  It  is  of  interest  as  giving 
a  vivid  retrospect  of  the  writer's  experience  on  the  subject.] 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Ilkley,  Yorks,  Nov.  27  [1859]. 
My  DEAR  HUXLEY, — Gartner  grand,  Kolreuter  grand,  but 
papers  scattered  through  many  volumes  and  very  lengthy.     I 


i860.]  pigeon  fanciers.  281 

had  to  make  an  abstract  of  the  whole.  Herbert's  volume  on 
Amaryllidacese  very  good,  and  two  excellent  papers  in  the 
'  Horticultural  Journal.'  For  animals,  no  resume  to  be  trusted 
at  all ;  facts  are  to  be  collected  from  all  original  sources.* 
I  fear  my  MS.  for  the  bigger  book  (twice  or  thrice  as  long 
as  in  present  book),  with  all  references,  would  be  illegible, 
but  it  would  save  you  infinite  labour ;  of  course  I  would 
gladly  lend  it,  but  I  have  no  copy,  so  care  would  have  to  be 
taken  of  it.  But  my  accursed  handwriting  would  be  fatal, 
I  fear. 

About  breeding,  I  know  of  no  one  book.  I  did  not  think 
well  of  Lowe,  but  I  can  name  none  better.  Youatt  I  look  at 
as  a  far  better  and  more  practical  authority  ;  but  then  his  views 
and  facts  are  scattered  through  three  or  four  thick  volumes. 
I  have  picked  up  most  by  reading  really  numberless  special 
treatises  and  all  agricultural  and  horticultural  journals  ;  but 
it  is  a  work  of  long  years.  The  difficulty  is  to  know  what  to 
trust.  No  one  or  two  statements  are  worth  a  farthing ;  the 
facts  are  so  complicated.  I  hope  and  think  I  have  been 
really  cautious  in  what  I  state  on  this  subject,  although  all 
that  I  have  given,  as  yet,  is  far  too  briefly.  I  have  found  it 
very  important  associating  with  fanciers  and  breeders.  For 
instance,  I  sat  one  evening  in  a  gin  palace  in  the  Borough 
amongst  a  set  of  pigeon  fanciers,  when  it  was  hinted  that 
Mr.  Bull  had  crossed  his  Pouters  with  Runts  to  gain  size  ;  and 

*  This  caution  is  exemplified  in  proved   subsequently   to    be   quite 

the  following  extract  from  an  earlier  sterile  ;    well,    compiler    the    first, 

letter  to  Professor  Huxley  : — "The  Chevreul,  says  that  the  hybrids  were 

inaccuracy  of  the  blessed  gang  (of  propagated   for   seven    generations 

which  I  am  one)  of  compilers  passes  inter  se.    Compiler  second  (Morton) 

all    bounds.     Monsters    have    fre-  mistakes    the    French   name,    and 

quently  been  described  as  hybrids  gives   Latin   names   for   two   more 

without  a  tittle  of  evidence.    I  must  distinct  geese,  and  says  Chevreul 

give  one  other    case  to  show  how  himself  propagated  them  inter  se 

we  jolly  fellows  work.     A  Belgian  for  seven  generations ;  and  the  latter 

Baron  (I   forget  his  name  at  this  statement  is  copied   from  book  to 

moment)  crossed  two  distinct  geese  book." 
and  got   seven  hybrids,  which  he 


282  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

if  you  had  seen  the  solemn,  the  mysterious,  and  awful  shakes 
of  the  head  which  all  the  fanciers  gave  at  this  scandalous 
proceeding,  you  would  have  recognised  how  little  crossing 
has  had  to  do  with  improving  breeds,  and  how  dangerous  for 
endless  generations  the  process  was.  All  this  was  brought 
home  far  more  vividly  than  by  pages  of  mere  statements,  &c. 
But  I  am  scribbling  foolishly.  I  really  do  not  know  how  to 
advise  about  getting  up  facts  on  breeding  and  improving 
breeds.  Go  to  Shows  is  one  way.  Read  all  treatises  on  any 
one  domestic  animal,  and  believe  nothing  without  largely 
confirmed.  For  your  lectures  I  can  give  you  a  few  amusing 
anecdotes  and  sentences,  if  you  want  to  make  the  audience 
laugh. 

I  thank  you  particularly  for  telling  me  what  naturalists 
think.  If  we  can  once  make  a  compact  set  of  believers  we 
shall  in  time  conquer.  I  am  eminently  glad  Ramsay  is  on 
our  side,  for  he  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  first-rate  geologist.  I  sent 
him  a  copy.  I  hope  he  got  it.  I  shall  be  very  curious  to 
hear  whether  any  effect  has  been  produced  on  Prestwich  ;  I 
sent  him  a  copy,  not  as  a  friend,  but  owing  to  a  sentence 
or  two  in  some  paper,  which  made  me  suspect  he  was 
doubting. 

Rev.  C.  Kingsley  has  a  mind  to  come  round.  Quatrefages 
writes  that  he  goes  some  long  way  with  me  ;  says  he  exhibited 
diagrams  like  mine.     With  most  hearty  thanks, 

Yours  very  tired, 

C.  Darwin. 

[I  give  the  conclusion  of  Professor  Huxley's  lecture,  as 
being  one  of  the  earliest,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  eloquent, 
of  his  utterances  in  support  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species ' : 

"  I  have  said  that  the  man  of  science  is  the  sworn  inter- 
preter of  nature  in  the  high  court  of  reason.  But  of  what 
avail  is  his  honest  speech,  if  ignorance  is  the  assessor  of  the 
judge,  and  prejudice  the  foreman  of  the  jury  ?     I  hardly  know 


i860.]  MR.   HUXLEY'S   LECTURE.  283 

of  a  great  physical  truth,  whose  universal  reception  has  not 
been  preceded  by  an  epoch  in  which  most  estimable  per- 
sons have  maintained  that  the  phenomena  investigated  were 
directly  dependent  on  the  Divine  Will,  and  that  the  attempt 
to  investigate  them  was  not  only  futile,  but  blasphemous. 
And  there  is  a  wonderful  tenacity  of  life  about  this  sort  of 
opposition  to  physical  science.  Crushed  and  maimed  in  every 
battle,  it  yet  seems  never  to  be  slain  ;  and  after  a  hundred 
defeats  it  is  at  this  day  as  rampant,  though  happily  not  so 
mischievous,  as  in  the  time  of  Galileo. 

"  But  to  those  whose  life  is  spent,  to  use  Newton's  noble 
words,  in  picking  up  here  a  pebble  and  there  a  pebble  on  the 
shores  of  the  great  ocean  of  truth — who  watch,  day  by  day, 
the  slow  but  sure  advance  of  that  mighty  tide,  bearing  on  its 
bosom  the  thousand  treasures  wherewith  man  ennobles  and 
beautifies  his  life — it  would  be  laughable,  if  it  were  not  so  sad, 
to  see  the  little  Canutes  of  the  hour  enthroned  in  solemn 
state,  bidding  that  great  wave  to  stay,  and  threatening  to 
check  its  beneficent  progress.  The  wave  rises  and  they  fly ; 
but,  unlike  the  brave  old  Dane,  they  learn  no  lesson  of 
humility :  the  throne  is  pitched  at  what  seems  a  safe  distance, 
and  the  folly  is  repeated. 

"  Surely  it  is  the  duty  of  the  public  to  discourage  anything 
of  this  kind,  to  discredit  these  foolish  meddlers  who  think 
they  do  the  Almighty  a  service  by  preventing  a  thorough 
study  of  His  works. 

"  The  Origin  of  Species  is  not  the  first,  and  it  will  not  be 
the  last,  of  the  great  questions  born  of  science,  which  will 
demand  settlement  from  this  generation.  The  general  mind 
is  seething  strangely,  and  to  those  who  watch  the  signs  of  the 
times,  it  seems  plain  that  this  nineteenth  century  will  see 
revolutions  of  thought  and  practice  as  great  as  those  which 
the  sixteenth  witnessed.  Through  what  trials  and  sore  con- 
tests the  civilised  world  will  have  to  pass  in  the  course  of  this 
new  reformation,  who  can  tell  ? 


284 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


"  But  I  verily  believe  that  come  what  will,  the  part  which 
England  may  play  in  the  battle  is  a  grand  and  a  noble  one. 
She  may  prove  to  the  world  that,  for  one  people,  at  any  rate, 
despotism  and  demagogy  are  not  the  necessary  alternatives 
of  government ;  that  freedom  and  order  are  not  incompatible  ; 
that  reverence  is  the  handmaid  of  knowledge  ;  that  free 
discussion  is  the  life  of  truth,  and  of  true  unity  in  a  nation. 

"  Will  England  play  this  part  ?  That  depends  upon  how 
you,  the  public,  deal  with  science.  Cherish  her,  venerate  her, 
follow  her  methods  faithfully  and  implicitly  in  their  applica- 
tion to  all  branches  of  human  thought,  and  the  future  of  this 
people  will  be  greater  than  the  past. 

"  Listen  to  those  who  would  silence  and  crush  her,  and  I 
fear  our  children  will  see  the  glory  of  England  vanishing  like 
Arthur  in  the  mist ;  they  will  cry  too  late  the  woful  cry  of 
Guinever : — 

;  It  was  my  duty  to  have  loved  the  highest  ; 
It  surely  was  my  profit  had  I  known  ; 
It  would  have  been  my  pleasure  had  I  seen.'  "] 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down  [February  15th,  i860]. 

...  I  am  perfectly  convinced  (having  read  this  morning) 
that  the  review  in  the  '  Annals '  *  is  by  Wollaston  ;  no  one 
else  in  the  world  would  have  used  so  many  parentheses.     I 


*  Annals  and  Mag.  of  Nat.  Hist, 
third  series,  vol.  5,  p.  132.  My 
father  has  obviously  taken  the  ex- 
pression "  pestilent "  from  the  fol- 
lowing passage  (p.  13S)  :  "  But  who 
is  this  Nature,  we  have  a  right  to 
ask,  who  has  such  tremendous 
power,  and  to  whose  efficiency  such 
marvellous  performances  are  as- 
cribed ?  What  are  her  image  and 
attributes,  when  dragged  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  so  frequent  as 
to  give  a  characteristic  appearance 
to  Mr.  Wollaston's  pages. 


i860.]  wollaston's  review.  285 

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  has  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  confirmation.  .  .  . 

Henslow  is  staying  here  ;  I  have  had  some  talk  with  him  ; 
he  is  in  much  the  same  state  as  BunburyJ  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 
(and  perhaps  is  an  argument  in  our  favour)  how  differently 
different  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  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  selec- 
tion, 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 

*  Another  version  of  the  words  f  "  On  the  Zoological  Geography- 
is  given  by  Lyell,  to  whom  they  of  the  Malay  Archipelago."— Linn, 
were    spoken,   viz.    "the   most   il-  Soc.  Journ.  i860, 
logical  book  ever  written." — '  Life/          X  The  late  Sir  Charles  Bunbury, 
vol.  ii.  p.  358.  well  known  as  a  Palaso-botanist. 


286  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  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, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  February  18th  [i860]. 
My  dear  Gray, — I  received  about  a  week  ago  two  sheets 
of  your  Review  ;f  read  them,  and  sent  them  to  Hooker  ;  they 
are  now  returned  and  re-read  with  care,  and  to-morrow  I 
send  them  to  Lyell.  Your  Review  seems  to  me  admirable ; 
by  far  the  best  which  I  have  read.  I  thank  you  from  my 
heart  both  for  myself,  but  far  more  for  the  subject's  sake. 
Your  contrast  between  the  views  of  Agassiz  and  such  as  mine 
is  very  curious  and  instructive.^  By  the  way,  if  Agassiz 
writes  anything  on  the  subject,  I  hope  you  will  tell  me.  I  am 
charmed  with  your  metaphor  of  the  streamlet  never  running 
against  the  force  of  gravitation.  Your  distinction  between 
an  hypothesis  and  theory  seems  to  me  very  ingenious  ;  but  I 
do  not  think  it  is  ever  followed.  Every  one  now  speaks  of  the 
undulatory  theory  of  light ;  yet  the  ether  is  itself  hypothetical, 
and  the  undulations  are  inferred  only  from  explaining  the 
phenomena  of  light.  Even  in  the  theory  of  gravitation  is  the 
attractive  power  in  any  way  known,  except  by  explaining 
the  fall  of  the  apple,  and  the  movements  of  the  Planets  ?  It 
seems  to  me  that  an  hypothesis  is  developed  into  a  theory 
solely  by  explaining  an  ample  lot  of  facts.    Again  and  again  I 

*  By  Professor  Henslow.  regards  the  origin  of  species  and 
t  The     '  American     Journal     of  their   present   general   distribution 
Science    and    Arts,'    March    i860.  over  the  world  as  equally  primor- 
Reprinted  in  '  Darwiniana,'  1876.  dial,  equally  supernatural ;  that  of 
%  The  contrast  is  briefly  summed  Darwin  as  equally  derivative,  equal- 
up  thus  :  "The  theory  of  Agassiz  ly  natural."  —  '  Darwiniana,'  p.  14. 


i860.]  clerical  opinions.  287 

thank  you  for  your  generous  aid  in  discussing  a  view,  about 
which  you  very  properly  hold  yourself  unbiassed. 

My  dear  Gray,  yours  most  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — Several  clergymen  go  far  with  me.  Rev.  L.  Jenyns,  a 
very  good  naturalist.  Henslow  will  go  a  very  little  way  with 
me,  and  is  not  shocked  at  me.     He  has  just  been  visiting  me. 

[With  regard  to  the  attitude  of  the  more  liberal  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Church,  the  following  letter  (already  referred 
to)  from  Charles  Kingsley  is  of  interest  :] 

C.  Kingsley  to  C.  Darwin. 

Eversley  Rectory,  Winchfield, 

November  18th,  1S59. 

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  have  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.  All  I  have  seen  of  it  azves  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,  eireo-Oat, 
tco  \6yq> — follow  up  the  villainous  shifty  fox  of  an  argument, 
into  whatsoever  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. 


288  THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

(2.)  I  have  gradually  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  and  pro  loco,  as  to  believe  that  He  required  a  fresh 
act  of  intervention  to  supply  the  lacunas  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, 

C.  KlNGSLEY. 

[My  father's  old  friend,  the  Rev.  J.  Brodie  Innes,  of  Milton 
Brodie,  who  was  for  many  years  Vicar  of  Down,  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 

"  His  views  on  this  subject  were  very  much  to  the  same  effect 
from  his  side.  Of  course  any  conversations  we  may  have  had 
on  purely  religious  subjects  are  as  sacredly  private  now  as  in 
his  life  ;  but  the  quaint  conclusion  of  one  may  be  given.  We 
had  been  speaking  of  the  apparent  contradiction  of  some  sup- 
posed discoveries  with  the  Book  of  Genesis  ;  he  said,  '  you 
are  (it  would  have  been  more  correct  to  say  you  ought  to  be) 
a  theologian,  I  am  a  naturalist,  the  lines  are  separate.  I  en- 
deavour to  discover  facts  without  considering  what  is  said  in 
the  Book  of  Genesis.  I  do  not  attack  Moses,  and  I  think 
Moses  can  take  care  of  himself.'  To  the  same  effect  he  wrote 
more  recently,  '  I  cannot  remember  that  I  ever  published  a 


i860.]  clerical  opinions.  289 

word  directly  against  religion  or  the  clergy  ;  but  if  you  were 
to  read  a  little  pamphlet  which  I  received  a  couple  of  days 
ago  by  a  clergyman,  you  would  laugh,  and  admit  that  I  had 
some  excuse  for  bitterness.  After  abusing  me  for  two  or  three 
pages,  in  language  sufficiently  plain  and  emphatic  to  have 
satisfied  any  reasonable  man,  he  sums  up  by  saying  that  he 
has  vainly  searched  the  English  language  to  find  terms  to 
express  his  contempt  for  me  and  all  Darwinians.'  In  another 
letter,  after  I  had  left  Down,  he  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,  'Brodie  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.'  "] 

C.  Danvin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  February  23rd  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — That  is  a  splendid  answer  of  the  father 
of  Judge  Crampton.  How  curious  that  the  Judge  should  have 
hit  on  exactly  the  same  points  as  yourself.  It  shows  me  what 
a  capital  lawyer  you  would  have  made,  how  many  unjust  acts 
you  would  have  made  appear  just !  But  how  much  grander  a 
field  has  science  been  than  the  law,  though  the  latter  might 
have  made  you  Lord  Kinnordy.  I  will,  if  there  be  another 
edition,  enlarge  on  gradation  in  the  eye,  and  on  all  forms 
coming  from  one  prototype,  so  as  to  try  and  make  both  less 
glaringly  improbable.  .  .  . 

With  respect  to  Bronn's  objection  that  it  cannot  be  shown 
how  life  arises,  and  likewise  to  a  certain  extent  Asa  Gray's 
remark  that  natural  selection  is  not  a  vera  causa,  I  was  much 

VOL.  II.  U 


29O  THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'  [i860.. 

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  knowing  that  anyone  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  fur- 
ther 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. 

.  .  .  You  ask  (I  see)  why  wre  do  not  have  monstrosities  in 
higher  animals  ;  but  when  they  live  they  are  almost  always 
sterile  (even  giants  and  dwarfs  are  generally  sterile),  and  we  do 
not  know  that  Harvey's  monster  would  have  bred.  There  is 
I  believe  only  one  case  on  record  of  a  peloric  flower  being 
fertile,  and  I  cannot  remember  whether  this  reproduced  itself.. 

To  recur  to  the  eye.  I  really  think  it  would  have  been  dis- 
honest, not  to  have  faced  the  difficulty;  and  worse  (as  Talley- 
rand would  have  said),  it  would  have  been  impolitic  I  think, 
for  it  would  have  been  thrown  in  my  teeth,  as  H.  Holland 
threw  the  bones  of  the  ear,  till  Huxley  shut  him  up  by  showing 
what  a  fine  gradation  occurred  amongst  living  creatures. 

I  thank  you  much  for  your  most  pleasant  letter. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

p.S# — I  send  a  letter  by  Herbert  Spencer,  which  you  can; 
read  or  not  as  you  think  fit.  He  puts,  to  my  mind,  the 
philosophy  of  the  argument  better  than  almost  any  one,, 
at  the  close  of  the  letter.  I  could  make  nothing  of  Dana's 
idealistic  notions  about  species  ;  but  then,  as  Wollaston  says,. 
I  have  not  a  metaphysical  head. 

By  the  way,  I  have  thrown  at  Wollaston's  head,  a  paper  by 
Alexander  Jordan,  who  demonstrates  metaphysically  that  all 
our  cultivated  races  are  God-created  species. 


i860.]  progress  of  opinion.  291 

Wollaston  misrepresents  accidentally,  to  a  wonderful  extent, 
some  passages  in  my  book.  He  reviewed,  without  relooking 
at  certain  passages. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  February  25th  [i860]. 

I  cannot   help  wondering  at  your  zeal  about  my 

book.  I  declare  to  heaven  you  seem  to  care  as  much  about 
my  book  as  I  do  myself.  You  have  no  right  to  be  so 
eminently  unselfish  !  I  have  taken  off  my  spit  [i.e.  file]  a 
letter  of  Ramsay's,  as  every  geologist  convert  I  think  very 
important.  By  the  way,  I  saw  some  time  ago  a  letter  from 
H.  D.  Rogers*  to  Huxley,  in  which  he  goes  very  far  with 
us 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Saturday  March  3rd,  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — What  a  day's  work  you  had  on  that 
Thursday !  I  was  not  able  to  go  to  London  till  Monday,  and 
then  I  was  a  fool  for  going,  for,  on  Tuesday  night,  I  had  an 
attack  of  fever  (with  a  touch  of  pleurisy),  which  came  on 
like  a  lion,  but  went  off  as  a  lamb,  but  has  shattered  me  a 
good  bit. 

I  was  much  interested  by  your  last  note.  ...  I  think  you 
expect  too  much  in  regard  to  change  of  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Species.  One  large  class  of  men,  more  especially  I 
suspect  of  naturalists,  never  will  care  about  any  general  ques- 
tion, 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 

*  Professor  of  Geology  in  the  University  of  Glasgow.     Born  in  the 
United  States  1809,  died  1866. 

U   2 


292 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


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. 
The  outsiders,  as  you  say,  are  strong. 

You  say  that  you  think  that  Bentham  is  touched,  "but, 
like  a  wise  man,  holds  his  tongue."  Perhaps  you  only  mean 
that  he  cannot  decide,  otherwise  I  should  think  such  silence 
the  reverse  of  magnanimity ;  for  if  others  behaved  the  same 
way,  how  would  opinion  ever  progress  ?  It  is  a  dereliction  of 
actual  duty.f 

I  am  so  glad  to  hear  about  Thwaites.J  ...  I  have  had  an 
astounding  letter  from  Dr.  Boott ;  §  it  might  be  turned  into 
ridicule  against  him  and  me,  so  I  will  not  send  it  to  any  one. 
He  writes  in  a  noble  spirit  of  love  of  truth. 

I  wonder  what  Lindley  thinks  ;  probably  too  busy  to  read 
or  think  on  the  question. 

I  am  vexed  about  Bentham's  reticence,  for  it  would  have 
been  of  real  value  to  know  what  parts  appeared  weakest  to  a 
man  of  his  powers  of  observation. 

Farewell,  my  dear  Hooker,  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — Is  not  Harvey  in  the  class  of  men  who  do  not  at  all 
care  for  generalities  ?      I   remember  your  saying  you   could 


*  See  table  of  names,  p.  293. 

t  In  a  subsequent  letter  to  Sir 
J.  D.  Hooker  (March  12th,  i860), 
my  father  wrote,  "  I  now  quite  un- 
derstand Bentham's  silence." 

X  Dr.  G.  J.  K.  Thwaites,  who 
was  born  in  181 1,  established  a 
reputation  in  this  country  as  an 
expert  microscopist  and  an  acute 
observer,  working  especially  at 
cryptogamic  botany.  On  his  ap- 
pointment as  Director  of  the 
Botanic  Gardens  at  Peradenyia, 
Ceylon,  Dr.  Thwaites  devoted  him- 
self to  the  flora  of  Ceylon.     As  a 


result  of  this  he  has  left  numerous 
and  valuable  collections,  a  descrip- 
tion of  which  he  embodied  in  his 
'  Enumeratio  Plantarum  Zeylaniae  ' 
(1864).  Dr.  Thwaites  was  a  Fellow 
of  the  Linnean  Society,  but  beyond 
the  above  facts,  little  seems  to  have 
been  recorded  of  his  life.  His  death 
occurred  in  Ceylon  on  September 
nth,  1882,  in  his  seventy-second 
year.  Athentzum,  October  14th, 
1882,  p.  500. 

§  The  letter  is  enthusiastically 
laudatory,  and  obviously  full  of 
genuine  feeling. 


i860.] 


LIST   OF   EVOLUTIONISTS. 


293 


not  cret  him   to  write   on    Distribution.      I    have  found   his 
works  very  unfruitful  in  every  respect. 

[Here  follows  the  memorandum  referred  to :] 


Geologists. 

Zoologists  and 
Palaeontologists. 

Physiologists. 

Botanists. 

Lyell. 

Huxley. 

Carpenter. 

Hooker. 

Ramsay.* 
Jukes.f 
H.  D.  Rogers. 

J.  Lubbock. 

L. Jenyns 
(to  large  extent). 

Sir  H.  Holland 
(to  large  extent). 

H.  C.  Watson. 

Asa  Gray 
(to  some  extent). 

Searles  Wood.J 

Dr.  Boott 
(to  large  extent). 

Thwaites. 

[The  following  letter  is  of  interest  in  connection  with  the 
mention  of  Mr.  Bentham  in  the  last  letter :] 


G.  Bentham  to  Francis  Darwin, 

25  Wilton  Place,  S.W., 

May  30th,  1882. 

My  DEAR  Sir. — In  compliance  with  your  note  which  I 
received  last  night,  I  send  herewith  the  letters  I  have  from 
your  father.  I  should  have  done  so  on  seeing  the  general 
request  published  in  the  papers,  but  that  I  did  not  think 
there  were  any  among  them  which  could  be  of  any  use  to 
you.  Highly  flattered  as  I  was  by  the  kind  and  friendly 
notice  with  which  Mr.  Darwin  occasionally  honoured  me,  I 


*  Andrew  Ramsay,  late  Director- 
General  of  the  Geological  Survey. 

f  Joseph  Beete  Jukes,  M.A., 
F.R.S.,  born  181 1,  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  after- 


wards appointed  Director  of  the 
Geological  Survey  of  Ireland.  He 
was  the  author  of  many  papers, 
and  of  more  than  one  good  hand- 
book of  geology. 

%  Searles  Valentine  Wood,  born 
Feb.  14,  1798,  died  1880.  Chiefly 
known  for  his  work  on  the  Mollusca 
of  the  '  Crag.' 


294  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

was  never  admitted  into  his  intimacy,  and  he  therefore  never 
made  any  communications  to  me  in  relation  to  his  views  and 
labours.  I  have  been  throughout  one  of  his  most  sincere 
admirers,  and  fully  adopted  his  theories  and  conclusions, 
notwithstanding  the  severe  pain  and  disappointment  they  at 
first  occasioned  me.  On  the  day  that  his  celebrated  paper 
was  read  at  the  Linnean  Society,  July  1st,  1858,  a  long  paper 
of  mine  had  been  set  down  for  reading,  in  which,  in  com- 
menting on  the  British  Flora,  I  had  collected  a  number  of 
observations  and  facts  illustrating  what  I  then  believed  to  be 
a  fixity  in  species,  however  difficult  it  might  be  to  assign  their 
limits,  and  showing  a  tendency  of  abnormal  forms  produced 
by  cultivation  or  otherwise,  to  withdraw  within  those  original 
limits  when  left  to  themselves.  Most  fortunately  my  paper 
had  to  give  way  to  Mr.  Darwin's,  and  when  once  that  was 
read,  I  felt  bound  to  defer  mine  for  reconsideration  ;  I  began 
to  entertain  doubts  on  the  subject,  and  on  the  appearance  of 
the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  I  was  forced,  however  reluctantly,  to 

B 

give  up  my  long-cherished  convictions,  the  results  of  much 
labour  and  study,  and  I  cancelled  all  that  part  of  my  paper 
which  urged  original  fixity,  and  published  only  portions  of 
the  remainder  in  another  form,  chiefly  in  the  *  Natural  History 
Review.'  I  have  since  acknowledged  on  various  occasions 
my  full  adoption  of  Mr.  Darwin's  views,  and  chiefly  in  my 
Presidential  Address  of  1863,  and  in  my  thirteenth  and  last 
address,  issued  in  the  form  of  a  report  to  the  British  Associa- 
tion at  its  meeting  at  Belfast  in  1874. 

I  prize  so  highly  the  letters  that  I  have  of  Mr.  Darwin's, 
that  I  should  feel  obliged  by  your  returning  them  to  me  when 
you  have  done  with  them.  Unfortunately  I  have  not  kept 
the  envelopes,  and  Mr.  Darwin  usually  only  dated  them  by 
the  month  not  by  the  year,  so  that  they  are  not  in  any 
chronological  order. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

George  Bentham. 


i860.]  evolution  and  history.  295 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down  [March]  12th  [i860]. 

MY  DEAR  Lyell, — Thinking-  over  what  we  talked  about, 
the  high  state  of  intellectual  development  of  the  old  Grecians 
with  the  little  or  no  subsequent  improvement,  being  an  appa- 
rent difficulty,  it  has  just  occurred  to  me  that  in  fact  the  case 
harmonises  perfectly  with  our  views.     The  case  would  be  a 
decided   difficulty  on  the  Lamarckian  or  Vestigian  doctrine 
of  necessary   progression,  but  on  the  view  which  I  hold  of 
progression  depending  on  the  conditions,  it  is  no  objection  at 
all,   and  harmonises  with  the   other  facts   of  progression  in 
the  corporeal  structure  of  other  animals.     For  in  a  state  of 
anarchy,  or  despotism,  or  bad  government,  or  after  irruption 
of  barbarians,   force,  strength,  or  ferocity,  and  not  intellect, 
would  be  apt  to  gain  the  day. 

We  have  so  enjoyed  your  and  Lady  Lyell's  visit. 

Good-night. 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — By  an  odd  chance  (for  I  had  not  alluded  even  to  the 
subject)  the  ladies  attacked  me  this  evening,  and  threw  the 
high  state  of  old  Grecians  into  my  teeth,  as  an  unanswerable 
difficulty,  but  by  good  chance  I  had  my  answer  all  pat,  and 
silenced  them.     Hence  I  have  thought  it  worth  scribbling  to 


you. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  Prestzvick* 


Down,  March  12th  [i860]. 

...  At  some  future  time,  when  you  have  a  little  leisure, 
and  when  you  have  read  my  '  Origin  of  Species,'  I  should 
esteem  it  a  singular  favour  if  you  wrould  send  me  any  general 
.criticisms.     I  do  not  mean  of  unreasonable  length,  but  such 

*  Now  Professor  of  Geology  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 


296  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

as  you  could  include  in  a  letter.  I  have  always  admired  your 
various  memoirs  so  much  that  I  should  be  eminently  glad  to 
receive  your  opinion,  which  might  be  of  real  service  to  me. 

Pray  do  not  suppose  that  I  expect  to  convert  or  pervert 
you ;  if  I  could  stagger  you  in  ever  so  slight  a  degree  I 
should  be  satisfied  ;  nor  fear  to  annoy  me  by  severe  criticisms, 
for  I  have  had  some  hearty  kicks  from  some  of  my  best 
friends.  If  it  would  not  be  disagreeable  to  you  to  send  me 
your  opinion,  I  certainly  should  be  truly  obliged.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  April  3  [i860 J. 

....  I  remember  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  peacock'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  savagely  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.  It  is  hard  to  please  every  one  ;  you  may 
remember  that  in  my  last  letter  I  asked  you  to  leave  out 
about  the  Weald  denudation  :  I  told  Jukes  this  (who  is  head 
man  of  the  Irish  geological  survey),  and  he  blamed  me  much, 
for  he  believed  every  word  of  it,  and  thought  it  not  at  all 
exaggerated  !  In  fact,  geologists  have  no  means  of  gauging 
the  infinitude  of  past  time.     There  has  been  one  prodigy  of  a 

*  See  the  quotations  which  follow  the  present  letter. 


1 860.] 


TICTET. — SEDGWICK 


297 


review,  namely,  an  opposed  one  (by  Pictet,*  the  palaeontologist, 
in  the  Bib.  Universelle  of  Geneva)  which  is  perfectly  fair  and 
just,  and  I  agree  to  every  word  he  says;  our  only  difference 
being  that  he  attaches  less  weight  to  arguments  in  favour, 
and  more  to  arguments  opposed,  than  I  do.  Of  all  the  op- 
posed 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  your- 
self!  It  has  done  me  muck  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, 

C.  Darwin. 

[In  a  letter  to  Sir  Charles  Lyell  reference  is  made  to 
Sedgwick's  review  in  the  Spectator,  March  24 : 

"  I  now  feel  certain  that  Sedgwick  is  the  author  of  the 
article  in  the  Spectator.  No  one  else  could  use  such  abusive 
terms.  And  what  a  misrepresentation  of  my  notions  !  Any 
ignoramus   would    suppose    that    I    had  first  broached   the 


*  Frangois  Jules  Pictet,  in  the 
'  Archives  des  Sciences  de  la  Bib- 
liotheque  Universelle,'  Mars  i860. 
The  article  is  written  in  a  courteous 
and  considerate  tone,  and  con- 
cludes by  saying  that  the  '  Origin  ' 
will  be  of  real  value  to  naturalists, 
especially  if  they  are  not  led  away 
by  its  seductive  arguments  to  be- 
lieve in  the  dangerous  doctrine  of 
modification.  A  passage  which 
seems  to  have  struck  my  father  as 
being  valuable,  and  opposite  which 
he  has  made  double  pencil  marks 


and  written  the  word  "  good,"  is 
worth  quoting  :  "  La  theorie  de 
M.  Darwin  s'accorde  mal  avec 
l'histoire  des  types  a  formes  bien 
tranchees  et  definies  qui  paraissent 
n'avoir  vecu  que  pendant  un  temps 
limite.  On  en  pourrait  citer  des 
centaines  d'exemples,  tel  que  les 
reptiles  volants,  les  ichthyosaures, 
les  belemnites,  les  ammonites,  &c." 
Pictet  was  born  in  1809,  died  1872  ; 
he  was  Professor  of  Anatomy  and 
Zoology  at  Geneva. 


29$  THE    'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

doctrine,  that  the  breaks  between  successive  formations 
marked  long  intervals  of  time.  It  is  very  unfair.  But  poor 
dear  old  Sedgwick  seems  rabid  on  the  question.  "  Demo- 
ralised understanding  ! "  If  ever  I  talk  with  him  I  will  tell 
liim  that  I  never  could  believe  that  an  inquisitor  could  be  a 
good  man  ;  but  now  I  know  that  a  man  may  roast  another, 
and  yet  have  as  kind  and  noble  a  heart  as  Sedgwick's." 

The  following  passages  are  taken  from  the  review  : 

"  I  need  hardly  go  on  any  further  with  these  objections. 
But  I  cannot  conclude  without  expressing  my  detestation  of 
the  theory,  because  of  its  unflinching  materialism  ; — because 
it  has  deserted  the  inductive  track,  the  only  track  that  leads 
to  physical  truth  ; — because  it  utterly  repudiates  final  causes, 
and  thereby  indicates  a  demoralised  understanding  on  the 
part  of  its  advocates." 

"  Not  that  I  believe  that  Darwin  is  an  atheist ;  though  I 
cannot  but  regard  his  materialism  as  atheistical.  I  think  it 
untrue,  because  opposed  to  the  obvious  course  of  nature,  and 
the  very  opposite  of  inductive  truth.  And  I  think  it  intensely 
mischievous." 

"Each  series  of  facts  is  laced  together  by  a  series  of 
assumptions,  and  repetitions  of  the  one  false  principle. 
You  cannot  make  a  good  rope  out  of  a  string  of  air 
bubbles." 

"  But  any  startling  and  (supposed)  novel  paradox,  main- 
tained very  boldly  and  with  something  of  imposing  plausi- 
bility, produces  in  some  minds  a  kind  of  pleasing  excitement 
which  predisposes  them  in  its  favour  ;  and  if  they  are  unused 
to  careful  reflection,  and  averse  to  the  labour  of  accurate 
investigation,  they  will  be  likely  to  conclude  that  what  is 
(apparently)  original,  must  be  a  production  of  original  genius, 
and  that  anything  very  much  opposed  to  prevailing  notions 
must  be  a  grand  discovery, —  in  short,  that  whatever  comes 
from  the  '  bottom  of  a  well '  must  be  the  '  truth '  supposed  to 
be  hidden  there." 


i860.]  dr.  carpenter.  299 

In  a  review  in  the  December  number  of  '  Macmillan's 
Magazine,'  i860,  Fawcett  vigorously  defended  my  father 
from  the  charge  of  employing  a  false  method  of  reasoning  ;  a 
charge  which  occurs  in  Sedgwick's  review,  and  was  made  at 
the  time  ad  nauseam,  in  such  phrases  as  :  "  This  is  not  the 
true  Baconian  method."  Fawcett  repeated  his  defence  at  the 
meeting  of  the  British  Association  in  1861.*] 


C.  Darwin  to  W.  B.  Carpenter. 

Down,  April  6th  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  CARPENTER, — I  have  this  minute  finished  your 
review  in  the  '  Med.  Chirurg.  Review.'  f  You  must  let  me 
■express  my  admiration  at  this  most  able  essay,  and  I  hope  to 
God  it  will  be  largely  read,  for  it  must  produce  a  great  effect: 
I  ought  not,  however,  to  express  such  warm  admiration,  for 
you  give  my  book,  I  fear,  far  too  much  praise.  But  you  have 
gratified  me  extremely  ;  and  though  I  hope  I  do  not  care 
very  much  for  the  approbation  of  the  non-scientific  readers,  I 
cannot  say  that  this  is  at  all  so  with  respect  to  such  few  men 
as  yourself.  I  have  not  a  criticism  to  make,  for  I  object  to 
not  a  word  ;  and  I  admire  all,  so  that  I  cannot  pick  out  one 
part  as  better  than  the  rest.  It  is  all  so  well  balanced.  But 
it  is  impossible  not  to  be  struck  with  your  extent  of  knowledge 
in  geology,  botany,  and  zoology.  The  extracts  which  you 
give  from  Hooker  seem  to  me  excellently  chosen,  and  most 
forcible.  I  am  so  much  pleased  in  what  you  say  also  about 
Lyell.  In  fact  I  am  in  a  fit  of  enthusiasm,  and  had  better 
write  no  more.     With  cordial  thanks, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 


*  See  an  interesting  letter  from      Henry  Fawcett/  1886,  p.  101. 
any  father  in  Mr.  Stephen's  'Life  of  \  April  i860. 


300  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  April  10th  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — Thank  you  much  for  your  note  of  the 
4th  ;  I  am  very  glad  to  hear  that  you  are  at  Torquay.  I  should 
have  amused  myself  earlier  by  writing  to  you,  but  I  have  had 
Hooker  and  Huxley  staying  here,  and  they  have  fully  occupied 
my  time,  as  a  little  of  anything  is  a  full  dose  for  me.  .  .  . 
There  has  been  a  plethora  of  reviews,  and  I  am  really  quite 
sick  of  myself.  There  is  a  very  long  review  by  Carpenter  in 
the  'Medical  and  Chirurg.  Review,'  very  good  and  well  balanced,, 
but  not  brilliant.  He  discusses  Hooker's  books  at  as  great 
length  as  mine,  and  makes  excellent  extracts  ;  but  I  could  not 
get  Hooker  to  feel  the  least  interest  in  being  praised. 

Carpenter  speaks  of  you  in  thoroughly  proper  terms.  There 
is  a  brilliant  review  by  Huxley,  *  with  capital  hits,  but  I  do 
not  know  that  he  much  advances  the  subject.  I  think  I  have 
convinced  him  that  he  has  hardly  allowed  weight  enough  to 
the  case  of  varieties  of  plants  being  in  some  degrees  sterile. 

To  diverge  from  reviews  :  Asa  Gray  sends  me  from  Wyman 
(who  will  write),  a  good  case  of  all  the  pigs  being  black  in  the 
Everglades  of  Virginia.  On  asking  about  the  cause,  it  seems 
(I  have  got  capital  analogous  cases)  that  when  the  black  pigs 
eat  a  certain  nut  their  bones  become  red,  and  they  suffer  to  a 
certain  extent,  but  that  the  white  pigs  lose  their  hoofs  and 
perish,  "  and  we  aid  by  selection,  for  we  kill  most  of  the  young 
white  pigs."  This  was  said  by  men  who  could  hardly  read. 
By  the  way,  it  is  a  great  blow  to  me  that  you  cannot  admit 
the  potency  of  natural  selection.  The  more  I  think  of  it,  the 
less  I  doubt  its  power  for  great  and  small  changes.     I  have 

just  read  the  '  Edinburgh/ f  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, 

*  'Westminster  Review,'  April  i860, 
t  '  Edinburgh  Review,'  April  i86d. 


i860.]  THE   'EDINBURGH   REVIEW.'  301 

and  very  bitter  against  Hooker.  So  we  three  enjoyed  it 
together.  Not  that  I  really  enjoyed  it,  for  it  made  me 
uncomfortable  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  Gardeners  Chronicle*  a  Mr.  Patrick 
Matthew  publishes  a  long  extract  from  his  work  on  '  Naval 
Timber  and  Arboriculture,'  published  in  1831,  in  which  he 
briefly  but  completely  anticipates  the  theory  of  Natural  Selec- 
tion. I  have  ordered  the  book,  as  some  few  passages  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. 

I  heartily  hope  that  your  Torquay  work  may  be  successful. 
Give  my  kindest  remembrances  to  Falconer,  and  I  hope  he  is 
pretty  well.  Hooker  and  Huxley  (with  Mrs.  Huxley)  were 
extremely  pleasant.  But  poor  dear  Hooker  is  tired  to  death 
of  my  book,  and  it  is  a  marvel  and  a  prodigy  if  you  are  not 
worse  tired — if  that  be  possible.     Farewell,  my  dear  Lyell, 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [April  13th,  i860]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — Questions  of  priority  so  often  lead  to 
odious  quarrels,  that  I  should  esteem  it  a  great  favour  if  you 

*  April  7th,  i860. 


302 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


[i860.. 


would  read  the  enclosed.*  If  you  think  it  proper  that  I 
should  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. 

Many  thanks  for  Huxley's  lecture.     The  latter  part  seemed; 
to  be  grandly  eloquent. 

...  I  have  gone  over  [the  '  Edinburgh ']  review  again,  and 
compared  passages,  and  I  am  astonished  at  the  misrepre- 
sentations. But  I  am  glad  I  resolved  not  to  answer.  Perhaps 
it  is  selfish,  but  to  answer  and  think  more  on  the  subject  is- 
too  unpleasant.  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. 


*  My  father  wrote  (Gardeners' 
Chronicle,  i860,  p.  362,  April  21st)  : 
"  I  have  been  much  interested  by 
Mr.  Patrick  Matthew's  communi- 
cation in  the  number  of  your  paper 
dated  April  7th.  I  freely  acknow- 
ledge that  Mr.  Matthew  has  anti- 
cipated by  many  years  the  ex- 
planation 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  appeared  in  the  appendix  to 
a    work    on    Naval    Timber    and 


Arboriculture.  I  can  do  no  more 
than  offer  my  apologies  to  Mr. 
Matthew  for  my  entire  ignorance 
of  his  publication.  If  another  edi- 
tion 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  remained 
unsatisfied,  and  complained  that 
an  article  in  the  '  Saturday  Analyst 
and  Leader '  was  "  scarcely  fair  in 
alluding  to  Mr.  Darwin  as  the 
parent  of  the  origin  of  species, 
seeing  that  I  published  the  whole 
that  Mr.  Darwin  attempts  to  prove, 
more  than  twenty-nine  years  ago." 
— Saturday  Analyst  and  Leader y 
Nov.  24,  i860. 


i860.]  DESIGNED   VARIATION.  30J 

Lyell  in  his  letter  remarked  that  you  seemed  to  him  as  if 
you  were  overworked.  Do,  pray,  be  cautious,  and  remembcr 
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. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  April  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  was  very  glad  to  get  your  nice  long- 
letter  from  Torquay.     A  press  of  letters  prevented  me  writing 
to  Wells.     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' 
(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  omni- 
potent and  omniscient  Deity  must  order  and  know  everything,, 
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 


3C4  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

have  been  naturally  selected  for  the  creature's  own  benefit. 

Imagine  a  Pouter  in  a  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.  &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  vours, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — 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." 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [April  18th,  i860]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — I  return 's  letter.  .  .  .  Some  of 

my  relations  say  it  cannot  possibly  be 's  article,*  because 

the  reviewer  speaks  so  very  highly  of .    Poor  dear  simple 

folk !  My  clever  neighbour,  Mr.  Norman,  says  the  article  is 
so  badly  written,  with  no  definite  object,  that  no  one  will 
read  it.  .  .  .  Asa  Gray  has  sent  me  an  article  f  from  the 
United  States,  clever,  and  dead  against  me.  But  one  argu- 
ment is  funny.  The  reviewer  says,  that  if  the  doctrine  were 
true,  geological  strata  would  be  full  of  monsters  which  have 
failed.  A  very  clear  view  this  writer  had  of  the  struggle  for 
existence  ! 

*  The  '  Edinburgh  Review.'  where  the  author  says  that  we  ought 
t  'North     American     Review,'  to  find  "  an  infinite  number  of  other 
April  i860.  "  By  Professor  Bowen,"  varieties — gross,  rude,  and  purpose- 
is  written  on  my  father's  copy.   The  less—  the   unmeaning   creations   of 
passage  referred  to  occurs  at  p.  488,  an  unconscious  cause." 


i860.]  'NORTH   AMERICAN   REVIEW.'  305 

....  I  am  glad  you  like  Adam  Bede  so  much.  I  was 
charmed  with  it.  .  .  . 

We  think  you  must  by  mistake  have  taken  with  your  own 
numbers  of  the  '  National  Review '  my  precious  number.* 
I  wish  you  would  look. 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  April  25th  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — I  have  no  doubt  I  have  to  thank  you 
for  the  copy  of  a  review  on  the  '  Origin '  in  the  '  North 
American  Review/  It  seems  to  me  clever,  and  I  do  not 
doubt  will  damage  my  book.  I  had  meant  to  have  made 
some  remarks  on  it ;  but  Lyell  wished  much  to  keep  it,  and 
my  head  is  quite  confused  between  the  many  reviews  which 
I  have  lately  read.  I  am  sure  the  reviewer  is  wrong  about 
bees'  cells,  i.e.  about  the  distance  ;  any  lesser  distance  would 
do,  or  even  greater  distance,  but  then  some  of  the  places 
would  lie  outside  the  generative  spheres  ;  but  this  would 
not  add  much  difficulty  to  the  work.  The  reviewer  takes  a 
strange  view  of  instinct  :  he  seems  to  regard  intelligence  as 
a  developed  instinct ;  which  I  believe  to  be  wholly  false.  I 
suspect  he  has  never  much  attended  to  instinct  and  the 
minds  of  animals,  except  perhaps  by  reading. 

My  chief  object  is  to  ask  you  if  you  could  procure  for  me 
a  copy  of  the  New  York  Times  for  Wednesday,  March  28th. 
It  contains  a  very  striking  review  of  my  book,  which  I  should 
much  like  to  keep.  How  curious  that  the  two  most  striking 
reviews  (i.e.  yours  and  this)  should  have  appeared  in  America. 
This  review  is  not  really  useful,  but  somehow  is  impressive. 
There  was  a  good  review  in  the  '  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes/ 
April  1st,  by  M.  Laugel,  said  to  be  a  very  clever  man. 

*  This   no    doubt  refers    to    the    January  number,    containing    Dr. 
Carpenter's  review  of  the  '  Origin.' 

VOL.  II.  X 


306  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

Hooker,  about  a  fortnight  ago,  stayed  here  a  few  days,  and 
was  very  pleasant ;  but  I  think  he  overworks  himself.  What 
a  gigantic  undertaking,  I  imagine,  his  and  Bentham's  '  Genera 
Plantarum'  will  be!  I  hope  he  will  not  get  too  much  im- 
mersed in  it,  so  as  not  to  spare  some  time  for  Geographical 
Distribution  and  other  such  questions. 

I  have  begun  to  work  steadily,  but  very  slowly  as  usual,  at 
details  on  variation  under  domestication. 
My  dear  Gray, 

Yours  always  truly  and  gratefully, 

C  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down  [May  8th,  i860]. 

I   have  sent  for  the  '  Canadian  Naturalist.'     If  I 

cannot  procure  a  copy  I  will  borrow  yours.  I  had  a  letter 
from  Henslow  this  morning,  who  says  that  Sedgwick  was,  on 
last  Monday  night,  to  open  a  battery  on  me  at  the  Cambridge 
Philosophical  Society.  Anyhow,  I  am  much  honoured  by 
being  attacked  there,  and  at  the  Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh. 

I  do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  contradict  single  cases,  nor 
is  it  worth  while  arguing  against  those  who  do  not  attend  to 
what  I  state.  A  moment's  reflection  will  show  you  that  there 
must  be  (on  our  doctrine)  large  genera  not  varying  (see  p.  56 
on  the  subject,  in  the  second  edition  of  the  '  Origin').  Though 
I  do  not  there  discuss  the  case  in  detail. 

It  may  be  sheer  bigotry  for  my  own  notions,  but  I  prefer  to 
the  Atlantis,  my  notion  of  plants  and  animals  having  migra- 
ted from  the  Old  to  the  New  World,  or  conversely,  when 
the  climate  was  much  hotter,  by  approximately  the  line  of 
Behring's  Straits.  It  is  most  important,  as  you  say,  to  see 
living  forms  of  plants  going  back  so  far  in  time.  I  wonder 
whether  we  shall  ever  discover  the  flora  of  the  dry  land  of 
the  coal  period,  and  find  it  not  so  anomalous  as  the  swamp 
or  coal-making  flora.     I  am  working  away  over  the  blessed 


i860.]  CAMBRIDGE   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  307 

Pigeon  Manuscript ;  but,  from  one  cause  or  another,  I  get  on 
very  slowly.  .  .  . 

This  morning  I  got  a  letter  from  the  Academy  of  Natural 
Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  announcing  that  I  am  elected  a  cor- 
respondent ...  It  shows  that  some  Naturalists  there  do  not 
think  me  such  a  scientific  profligate  as  many  think  me  here. 

My  dear  Lyell,  yours  gratefully, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — What  a  grand  fact  about  the  extinct  stag's  horn 
worked  by  man ! 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [May  13th,  i860]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  return  Henslow,  which  I  was  very 
;glad  to  see.     How  good  of  him  to  defend  me.*     I  will  write 
and  thank  him. 

As  you  said  you  wrere  curious  to  hear  Thomson's  f  opinion, 
I  send  his  kind  letter.     He  is  evidently  a  strong  opposer  to  us. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [May  15th,  i860]. 

How  paltry  it  is  in  such  men  as  X.,  Y.  and  Co. 

not  reading  your  essay.  It  is  incredibly  paltry.  %  They 
may  all  attack  me  to  their  hearts'  content.  I  am  got  case- 
hardened.  As  for  the  old  fogies  in  Cambridge,  it  really  signi- 
fies nothing.  I  look  at  their  attacks  as  a  proof  that  our  work 
is  worth  the  doing.     It  makes  me  resolve  to  buckle  on  my 

*  Against      Sedgwick's      attack  son's  '  Flora  Indica,'  1855. 
before  the  Cambridge  Philosophical  %  These  remarks  do  not  apply  to 

Society.  Dr.  Harvey,  who  was,  however,  in 

t  Dr.    Thomas     Thomson,    the  a  somewhat  similar  position.     See 

Indian   botanist.      He  was   a  col-  p.  313. 
laborateur  in  Hooker  and  Thom- 

X    2 


308  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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.  Does  Bentham  progress 
at  all  ?  I  do  not  know  what  to  say  about  Oxford.  * 
I  should  like  it  much  with  you,  but  it  must  depend  on 
health.  .  .  . 

Yours  most  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  May  18th  [i860]. 

My  dear  LYELL, — I  send  a  letter  from  Asa  Gray  to  show- 
how  hotly  the  battle  rages  there.  Also  one  from  Wallace,, 
very  just  in  his  remarks,  though  too  laudatory  and  too  modest, 
and  how  admirably  free  from  envy  or  jealousy.  He  must  be 
a  good  fellow.  Perhaps  I  will  enclose  a  letter  from  Thomson 
of  Calcutta  ;  not  that  it  is  much,  but  Hooker  thinks  so  highly 
of  him.  .  .  . 

Henslow  informs  me  that  Sedgwick  f  and  then  Professor 
Clarke  [sic]  J  made  a  regular  and  savage  onslaught  on  my 
book  lately  at  the  Cambridge  Philosophical  Society,  but 
Henslow  seems  to  have  defended  me  well,  and  maintained 
that  the  subject  was  a  legitimate  one  for  investigation.     Since 

*  His  health  prevented  him  from  %  The  late  William  Clark,  Pro- 
going  to  Oxford  for  the  meeting  of  fessor  of  Anatomy.  My  father 
the  British  Association.  seems  to  have   misunderstood  his 

t  Sedgwick's   address    is    given  informant.     I  am  assured  by  Mr. 

somewhat      abbreviated     in     The  J.  W.  Clark  that  his  father  (Prof. 

Cambridge   Chronicle,    May    19th,  Clark)  did  not  support  Sedgwick  in 

i860.  the  attack. 


i860.]  REVIEWS.  309 

then  Phillips  *  has  given  lectures  at  Cambridge  on  the  same 
subject,  but  treated  it  very  fairly.  How  splendidly  Asa  Gray 
is  fighting  the  battle.  The  effect  on  me  of  these  multiplied 
attacks  is  simply  to  show  me  that  the  subject  is  worth  fight- 
ing for,  and  assuredly  I  will  do  my  best.  ...  I  hope  all  the 
attacks  make  you  keep  up  your  courage,  and  courage  you 
assuredly  will  require.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  May  18th,  i860. 

My  DEAR  Mr.  WALLACE, — I  received  this  morning  your 
letter  from  Amboyna,  dated  February  16th,  containing  some 
remarks  and  your  too  high  approval  of  my  book.  Your  letter 
has  pleased  me  very  much,  and  I  most  completely  agree  with 
you  on  the  parts  which  are  strongest  and  which  are  weakest. 
The  imperfection  of  the  Geological  Record  is,  as  you  say,  the 
weakest  of  all  ;  but  yet  I  am  pleased  to  find  that  there  are 
almost  more  geological  converts  than  of  pursuers  of  other 
branches  of  natural  science.  ...  I  think  geologists  are 
more  easily  converted  than  simple  naturalists,  because  more 
accustomed  to  reasoning.  Before  telling  you  about  the 
progress  of  opinion  on  the  subject,  you  must  let  me  say  how 
I  admire  the  generous  manner  in  which  you  speak  of  my  book. 
Most  persons  would  in  your  position  have  felt  some  envy  or 
jealousy.  How  nobly  free  you  seem  to  be  of  this  common 
failing  of  mankind.  But  you  speak  far  too  modestly  of  your- 
self. You  would,  if  you  had  my  leisure,  have  done  the  work 
just  as  well,  perhaps  better,  than  I  have  done  it 

*  John    Phillips,    M.A.,    F.R.S.,  Succession  of  Life   on  the   earth.' 

born    1800,    died     1874,   from   the  The    Rede    Lecturer   is    appointed 

effects  of  a  fall.     Professor  of  Geo-  annually   by  the   Vice-Chancellor, 

logy   at    King's    College,    London,  and  is  paid  by  an  endowment  left 

and    afterwards    at    Oxford.      He  in  1524  by  Sir  Robert  Rede,  Lord 

gave  the  '  Rede '  lecture  at  Cam-  Chief    Justice,    in     the    reign     of 

bridge  on  May  15th,  i860,  on  'The  Henry  VIII. 


n 


IO  THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 


.  .  .  Agassiz  sends  me  a  personal  civil  message,  but  inces- 
santly attacks  me  ;  but  Asa  Gray  fights  like  a  hero  in  defence. 
Lyell  keeps  as  firm  as  a  tower,  and  this  autumn  will  publish 
on  the  '  Geological  History  of  Man,'  and  will  then  declare 
his  conversion,  which  now  is  universally  known.  I  hope  that 
you  have  received  Hooker's  splendid  essay.  .  .  .  Yesterday 
I  heard  from  Lyell  that  a  German,  Dr.  Schaaffhausen,*  has 
sent  him  a  pamphlet  published  some  years  ago,  in  which  the 
same  view  is  nearly  anticipated  ;  but  I  have  not  yet  seen  this 
pamphlet.  My  brother,  who  is  a  very  sagacious  man,  always 
said,  "  you  will  find  that  some  one  will  have  been  before  you." 
I  am  at  work  at  my  larger  work,  which  I  shall  publish  in  a 
separate  volume.  But  from  ill-health  and  swarms  of  letters, 
I  get  on  very  very  slowly.  I  hope  that  I  shall  not  have 
wearied  you  with  these  details.  With  sincere  thanks  for  your 
letter,  and  with  most  deeply  felt  wishes  for  your  success  in 
science,  and  in  every  way,  believe  me, 

Your  sincere  well-wisher, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  May  22nd  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  GRAY, — Again  I  have  to  thank  you  for  one  of 
your  very  pleasant  letters  of  May  7th,  enclosing  a  very  plea- 
sant 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- 
ledgement I  send  one.  If  you  have  any  further  communi- 
cation to  the  Appletons,  pray  express  my  acknowledgement 
for  [their]  generosity  ;  for  it  is  generosity  in  my  opinion.  I 
am  not  at  all  surprised  at  the  sale  diminishing ;  my  extreme 


*  Hermann  Schaaffhausen 'Ueber      Vereins,  Bonn,  1853.    See  '  Origin 
Bestandigkeit    und    Umwandlung      Historical  Sketch, 
der  Arten.5   Verhandl.  d.  Naturhist. 


i860.] 


THE   'EDINBURGH   REVIEW.' 


311 


surprise  is  at  the  greatness  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.     I  am  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,*  a  Free  Kirk 
minister,  and  dabbler  in  Natural  History.     I  should  be  very 
glad  to  see  any  good  American  reviews,  as  they  are  all  more 
or  less  useful.    You  say  that  you  shall  touch  on  other  reviews, 
Huxley  told  me  some  time  ago  that  after  a  time  he  would 
write  a  review  on  all  the  reviews,  whether  he  will  I  know  not. 
If  you  allude  to  the  '  Edinburgh,'  pray  notice  some  of  the 
points   which    I    will    point  out  on  a  separate  slip.     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 '  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- 


*  This  statement  as  to  author- 
ship was  made  on  the  authority  of 
Robert  Chambers. 

f  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Huxley  my 
father  wrote  :  "  Have  you  seen  the 
last  Saturday  Review?  I  am 
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  capit- 
ally, and  understands  well  his  sub- 
ject. I  wish  he  had  slapped  [the 
'  Edinburgh '  reviewer]  a  little  bit 
harder." 


312  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  Ichneumonidae  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  won- 
derful universe,  and  especially  the  nature  of  man,  and  to 
conclude  that  everything  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  exces- 
sively 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, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[Here    follow  my  father's    criticisms    on    the   '  Edinburgh 
Review ' : 


i860.]  THE    'EDINBURGH   REVIEW.' 


Sl5 


"What  a  quibble  to  pretend  he  did  not  understand  what  I 
meant  by  inhabitants  of  South  America  ;  and  any  one  would 
suppose  that  I  had  not  throughout  my  volume  touched  on 
Geographical  Distribution.  He  ignores  also  everything  which 
I  have  said  on  Classification,  Geological  Succession,  Homo- 
logies, Embryology,  and  Rudimentary  Organs — p.  496. 

He  falsely  applies  what  I  said  (too  rudely)  about  "  blind- 
ness of  preconceived  opinions  "  to  those  who  believe  in 
creation,  whereas  I  exclusively  apply  the  remark  to  those  who 
give  up  multitudes  of  species  as  true  species,  but  believe  in 
the  remainder — p.  500. 

He  slightly  alters  what  I  say, — I  ask  whether  creationists 
really  believe  that  elemental  atoms  have  flashed  into  life.  He 
says  that  I  describe  them  as  so  believing,  and  this,  surely,  is  a 
difference — p.  501. 

He  speaks  of  my  "  clamouring  against "  all  who  believe  in 
creation,  and  this  seems  to  me  an  unjust  accusation — p.  501. 

He  makes  me  say  that  the  dorsal  vertebrae  vary ;  this  is  simply 
false  :  I  nowhere  say  a  word  about  dorsal  vertebrae — p.  522. 

What  an  illiberal  sentence  that  is  about  my  pretension 
to  candour,  and  about  my  rushing  through  barriers  which 
stopped  Cuvier :  such  an  argument  would  stop  any  progress 
in  science — p.  525. 

How  disingenuous  to  quote  from  my  remark  to  you  about 
my  brief  letter  [published  in  the  'Linn.  Soc.  Journal'],  as  if  it 
applied  to  the  whole  subject — p.  530. 

How  disingenuous  to  say  that  we  are  called  on  to  accept 
the  theory,  from  the  imperfection  of  the  geological  record, 
when  I  over  and  over  again  [say]  how  grave  a  difficulty  the 
imperfection  offers — p.  530."] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  May  30th  [i860]. 
My  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  return  Harvey's  letter,  I  have  been 
very  glad  to  see  the  reason  why  he  has  not  read  your  Essay. 


3H 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


I  feared  it  was  bigotry,  and  I  am  glad  to  see  that  he  goes  a 
little  way  {very  much  further  than  I  supposed)  with  us.  .  .  . 

I  was  not  sorry  for  a  natural  opportunity  of  writing  to 
Harvey,  just  to  show  that  I  was  not  piqued  at  his  turning 
me  and  my  book  into  ridicule,*  not  that  I  think  it  was  a  pro- 
ceeding which  I  deserved,  or  worthy  of  him.  It  delights  me 
that  you  are  interested  in  watching  the  progress  of  opinion 
on  the  change  of  Species  ;  I  feared  that  you  were  weary  of 
the  subject ;  and  therefore  did  not  send  A.  Gray's  letters. 
The  battle  rages  furiously  in  the  United  States.  Gray 
says  he  was  preparing  a  speech,  which  would  take  1  \  hours  to 
deliver,  and  which  he  "  fondly  hoped  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.  As  for  the 
progress  of  opinion,  I  clearly  see  that  it  will  be  excessively 
slow,  almost  as  slow  as  the  change  of  species.  ...  I  am 
getting  wearied  at  the  storm  of  hostile  reviews  and  hardly  any 
useful.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  Friday  night  [June  1st,  i860]. 

.  .  .  Have  you  seen  Hopkins  f  in  the  new  'Fraser'?  the 
public  will,  I  should  think,  find  it  heavy.     He  will  be  dead 


*  A  "  serio-comic  squib,"  read 
before  the  '  Dublin  University 
Zoological  and  Botanical  Associa- 
tion,' Feb.  17,  i860,  and  privately 
printed.  My  father's  presentation 
copy  is  inscribed, "  With  the  writer's 
repentance,  Oct.  i860." 

t  William  Hopkins  died  in  1866, 
"  in  his  seventy-third  year."  He 
began  life  with  a  farm  in  Suffolk, 
but  ultimately  entered,  compara- 
tively late  in  life,  at  Peterhouse, 
Cambridge  ;  he  took  his  degree  in 


1827,  and  afterwards  became  an 
Esquire  Bedell  of  the  University. 
He  was  chiefly  known  as  a  mathe- 
matical "  coach,"  and  was  eminently 
successful  in  the  manufacture  of 
Senior  Wranglers.  Nevertheless 
Mr.  Stephen  says  ('  Life  of  Fawcett,' 
p.  26)  that  he  "  was  conspicuous 
for  inculcating  "  a  "  liberal  view  of 
the  studies  of  the  place.  He  en- 
deavoured to  stimulate  a  philoso- 
phical interest  in  the  mathematical, 
sciences,  instead  of  simply  rousing 


i860.] 


ATTACKS. 


1Tf 

3l> 


against  me  as  you  prophesied  ;  but  he  is  generously  civil  to 
me  personally.  *  On  his  standard  of  proof,  natural  science 
would  never  progress,  for  without  the  making  of  theories 
I  am  convinced  there  would  be  no  observation. 

....  I  have  begun  reading  the  '  North  British,'  \  which 
so  far  strikes  me  as  clever. 

Phillips's  Lecture  at  Cambridge  is  to  be  published. 

All  these  reiterated  attacks  will  tell  heavily  ;  there  will  be 
no  more  converts,  and  probably  some  will  go  back.  I  hope 
you  do  not  grow  disheartened,  I  am  determined  to  fight  to  the 
last.  I  hear,  however,  that  the  great  Buckle  highly  approves 
of  my  book. 

I  have  had  a  note  from  poor  Blyth,  %  of  Calcutta,  who  is 


an  ardour  for  competition."  He 
contributed  many  papers  on  geolo- 
gical and  mathematical  subjects  to 
the  scientific  journals.  He  had  a 
strong  influence  for  good  over  the 
younger  men  with  whom  he  came  in 
contact.  The  letter  which  he  wrote 
to  Henry  Fawcett  on  the  occasion 
of  his  blindness  illustrates  this.  Mr. 
Stephen  says  ('  Life  of  Fawcett,' 
p.  48)  that  by  "  this  timely  word  of 
good  cheer,"  Fawcett  was  roused 
from  "  his  temporary  prostration," 
and  enabled  to  take  a  "  more  cheer- 
ful and  resolute  tone." 

*  '  Fraser's  Magazine,'  June  i860. 
My  father,  no  doubt,  refers  to  the 
following  passage,  p.  752,  where 
the  Reviewer  expresses  his  "  full 
participation  in  the  high  respect  in 
which  the  author  is  universally  held, 
both  as  a  man  and  a  naturalist ; 
and  the  more  so,  because  in  the 
remarks  which  will  follow  in  the 
second  part  of  this  Essay  we  shall 
be  found  to  differ  widely  from  him 
as  regards  many  of  his  conclusions 
and   the   reasonings   on  which  he 


has  founded  them,  and  shall  claim 
the  full  right  to  express  such  differ- 
ences of  opinion  with  all  that  free- 
dom which  the  interests  of  scientific 
truth  demands,  and  which  we  are 
sure  Mr.  Darwin  would  be  one  of 
the  last  to  refuse  to  any  one  pre- 
pared to  exercise  it  with  candour 
and  courtesy."  Speaking  of  this 
review,  my  father  wrote  to  Dr.  Asa 
Gray  :  "  I  have  remonstrated  with 
him  [Hopkins]  for  so  coolly  saying 
that  I  base  my  views  on  what  I 
reckon  as  great  difficulties.  Any 
one,  by  taking  these  difficulties 
alone,  can  make  a  most  strong  case 
against  me.  I  could  myself  write 
a  more  damning  review  than  has 
as  yet  appeared  !  "  A  second  notice 
by  Hopkins  appeared  in  the  July 
number  of  '  Fraser's  Magazine.' 

t  May  i860. 

%  Edward  Blyth,  born  1810,  died 
1873.  His  indomitable  love  of 
natural  history  made  him  neglect 
the  druggist's  business  with  which 
he  started  in  life,  and  he  soon  got 
into  serious  difficulties.     After  sup- 


316 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


much  disappointed  at  hearing  that  Lord  Canning  will  not 
grant  any  money  ;  so  I  much  fear  that  all  your  great  pains 
will  be  thrown  away.  Blyth  says  (and  he  is  in  many 
respects  a  very  good  judge)  that  his  ideas  on  Species  are 
quite  revolutionized  .... 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hookei'. 

Down,  June  5th  [i860]. 

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

Have  you  seen 's  abusive  article  on  me  ?  ...  It  outdoes 

even  the  '  North  British  '  and  '  Edinburgh '  in  misapprehension 
and  misrepresentation.  I  never  knew  anything  so  unfair  as 
in  discussing  cells  of  bees,  his  ignoring  the  case  of  Melipona, 
which  builds  combs  almost  exactly  intermediate  between  hive 

and  humble  bees.      What  has  done  that   he   feels    so 

immeasurably  superior  to  all  us  wretched  naturalists,  and 
to  all  political  economists,  including  that  great  philosopher 
Malthus?  This  review,  however,  and  Harvey's  letter  have 
convinced  me  that  I  must  be  a  very  bad  explainer.     Neither 


porting  himself  for  a  few  years  as  a 
writer  on  Field  Natural  History, 
he  ultimately  went  out  to  India  as 
Curator  of  the  Museum  of  the  R. 
Asiatic  Soc.  of  Bengal,  where  the 
greater  part  of  his  working  life  was 
spent.  His  chief  publications  were 
the  monthly  reports  made  as  part 
of  his  duty  to  the  Society.  He  had 
stored  in  his  remarkable  memory  a 
wonderful  wealth  of  knowledge, 
especially  with  regard  to  the  mam- 
malia and  birds   of  India — know- 


ledge of  which  he  freely  gave  to 
those  who  asked.  His  letters  to  my 
father  give  evidence  of  having  been 
carefully  studied,  and  the  long  list 
of  entries  after  his  name  in  the 
index  to  '  Animals  and  Plants/ 
show  how  much  help  was  received 
from  him.  His  life  was  an  unpros- 
perous  and  unhappy  one,  full  of 
money  difficulties  and  darkened  by 
the  death  of  his  wife  after  a  few 
years  of  marriage. 


1 86a]  ATTACKS.  317 

really  understand  what  I  mean  by  Natural  Selection.  I  am 
inclined  to  give  up  the  attempt  as  hopeless.  Those  who  do 
not  understand,  it  seems,  cannot  be  made  to  understand. 

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

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

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  June  6th  [i860]. 

...  It  consoles  me  that  sneers  at  Malthus,   for  that 

clearly  shows,  mathematician  though  he  may  be,  he  cannot 
understand  common  reasoning.  By  the  way  what  a  dis- 
couraging example  Malthus  is,  to  show  during  what  long 
years  the  plainest  case  may  be  misrepresented  and  mis- 
understood. I  have  read  the  '  Future ' ;  how  curious  it  is 
that  several  of  my  reviewers  should  advance  such  wild 
arguments,  as  that  varieties  of  dogs  and  cats  do  not 
mingle  ;  and  should  bring  up  the  old  exploded  doctrine  of 
definite  analogies  ...  I  am  beginning  to  despair  of  ever 
making  the  majority  understand  my  notions.     Even  Hopkins 


3i3 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


does  not  thoroughly.  By  the  way,  I  have  been  so  much 
pleased  by  the  way  he  personally  alludes  to  me.  I  must 
be  a  very  bad  explainer.  I  hope  to  Heaven  that  you  will 
succeed  better.  Several  reviews  and  several  letters  have 
shown  me  too  clearly  how  little  I  am  understood.  I  suppose 
"  natural  selection  "  was  a  bad  term  ;  but  to  change  it  now, 
I  think,  would  make  confusion  worse  confounded,  nor  can  I 
think  of  a  better  ;  "  Natural  Preservation  "  would  not  imply 
a  preservation  of  particular  varieties,  and  would  seem  a 
truism,  and  would  not  bring  man's  and  nature's  selection 
under  one  point  of  view.  I  can  only  hope  by  reiterated 
explanations  finally  to  make  the  matter  clearer.  If  my  MS. 
spreads  out,  I  think  I  shall  publish  one  volume  exclusively 
on  variation  of  animals  and  plants  under  domestication. 
I  want  to  show  that  I  have  not  been  quite  so  rash  as  many 
suppose. 

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


*  The  late  J.  A.  Lowell  in  the 
1  Christian      Examiner '      (Boston, 


U.  S.),  May,  i860. 

t  See  footnote,  ante,  p.  261. 


i860.]  schaaffhausen.  319 

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

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

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down  [June  14th,  i860]. 

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

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

I  have  expressly  stated  that  I  believe  physical  conditions 
have  a  more  direct  effect  on  plants  than  on  animals.     But  the 

V 

*  J.  A.  Lowell  in  the  'Christian  Examiner,'  May  iS6o. 


320  THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860.. 

more  I  study,  the  more  I  am  led  to  think  that  natural  selec- 
tion regulates,  in  a  state  of  nature,  most  trifling  differences. 
As  squared  stone,  or  bricks,  or  timber,  are  the  indispensable 
materials  for  a  building,  and  influence  its  character,  so  is 
variability  not  only  indispensable  but  influential.  Yet  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  architect  is  the  all  important  person, 
in  a  building,  so  is  selection  with  organic  bodies 

[The  meeting  of  the  British  Association  at  Oxford  in  i860 
is  famous  for  two  pitched  battles  over  the  '  Origin  of  Species/ 
Both  of  them  originated  in  unimportant  papers.     On  Thurs- 
day, June  28,  Dr.  Daubeny  of  Oxford  made  a  communication, 
to  Section  D  :  "  On  the  final  causes  of  the  sexuality  of  plants, 
with  particular  reference  to  Mr.  Darwin's  work  on  the  '  Origin 
of  Species.'  "    Mr.  Huxley  was  called  on  by  the  President,  but 
tried  (according  to  the  Athenseum  report)  to  avoid  a  discus- 
sion, on  the  ground  "that  a  general  audience,  in  which  senti- 
ment would  unduly  interfere  with  intellect,  was  not  the  public 
before  which  such  a  discussion  should  be  carried  on."     How- 
ever, the   subject  was   not   allowed   to   drop.      Sir  R.  Owen 
(I  quote  from  the  Athenseiun,  July  7,  i860),  who  "wished  to 
approach  this  subject  in  the  spirit   of  the  philosopher,"  ex- 
pressed his  "  conviction  that  there  were    facts  by  which  the 
public  could  come  to  some  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  pro- 
babilities 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  com- 
pared with  the  brains  of  the   very  lowest  and  most  proble- 
matical   of   the    Quadrumana."      Mr.    Huxley   replied,    and 
gave  these  assertions  a   "direct  and    unqualified  contradic- 
tion,"  pledging  himself  to  "justify  that   unusual   procedure 
elsewhere,"  *  a  pledge  which  he  amply  fulfilled.f     On  Friday 
there  was  peace,  but  on  Saturday  30th,  the  battle  arose  with 

*  '  Man's  Place  in   Nature,'  by  f  See  the  '  Nat.  Hist.  Review/ 

T.  H.  Huxley,  1863,  p.  114.  1861. 


i860.]  BRITISH   ASSOCIATION.  321 

redoubled  fury  over  a  paper  by  Dr.  Draper  of  New  York, 
on  the  '  Intellectual  development  of  Europe  considered  with 
reference  to  the  views  of  Mr.  Darwin.' 

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

"  The  excitement  was  tremendous.  The  Lecture-room,  in 
which  it  had  been  arranged  that  the  discussion  should  be  held, 
proved  far  too  small  for  the  audience,  and  the  meeting  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 
wrould  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  an- 
nounced in  limine  that  none  who  had  not  valid  arguments  to 
bring  forward  on  one  side  or  the  other,  would  be  allowed  to 
address  the  meeting :  a  caution  that  proved  necessary,  for  no 
fewer  than  four  combatants  had  their  utterances  burked  by 
him,  because  of  their  indulgence  in  vague  declamation. 

"The  Bishop  was  up  to  time,  and  spoke  for  full  half-an- 
hour  with  inimitable  spirit,  emptiness  and  unfairness.  It  was 
evident  from  his  handling  of  the  subject  that  he  had  been 
*  crammed '  up  to  the  throat,  and  that  he  knew  nothing  at  first 
hand  ;  in  fact,  he  used  no  argument  not  to  be  found  in  his 
'  Quarterly '  article.  He  ridiculed  Darwin  badly,  and  Huxley 
savagely,  but  all  in  such  dulcet  tones,  so  persuasive  a  manner, 
and  in  such  well-turned  periods,  that  I  who  had  been  inclined 
to  blame  the  President  for  allowing  a  discussion  that  could 
serve  no  scientific  purpose,  now  forgave  him  from  the  bottom 
of  my  heart.  Unfortunately  the  Bishop,  hurried  along  on  the 
current  of  his  own  eloquence,  so  far  forgot  himself  as  to  push 
his  attempted  advantage  to  the  verge  of  personality  in  a  tell- 
ing passage  in  which  he  turned  round  and  addressed  Huxley  : 
I  forget  the  precise  words,  and  quote  from  Lyell.  '  The 
Bishop   asked  whether   Huxley  was  related  by  his   grand- 

VOL.  II.  Y 


322  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

father's  or  grandmother's  side  to  an  ape.'*  Huxley  replied  to 
the  scientific  argument  of  his  opponent  with  force  and  elo- 
quence, and  to  the  personal  allusion  with  a  self-restraint,  that 
gave  dignity  to  his  crushing  rejoinder." 

Many  versions  of  Mr.  Huxley's  speech  were  current :  the 
following  report  of  his  conclusion  is  from  a  letter  addressed 
by  the  late  John  Richard  Green,  then  an  undergraduate,  to 
a  fellow-student,  now  Professor  Boyd  Dawkins.  "  I  asserted, 
and  I  repeat,  that  a  man  has  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of 
having  an  ape  for  his  grandfather.  If  there  were  an  ancestor 
whom  I  should  feel  shame  in  recalling,  it  would  be  a  man,  a 
man  of  restless  and  versatile  intellect,  who,  not  content  with 
an  equivocal  f  success  in  his  own  sphere  of  activity,  plunges 
into  scientific  questions  with  which  he  has  no  real  acquaint- 
ance, only  to  obscure  them  by  an  aimless  rhetoric,  and  dis- 
tract the  attention  of  his  hearers  from  the  real  point  at  issue 
by  eloquent  digressions,  and  skilled  appeals  to  religious 
prejudice."  % 

The  letter  above  quoted  continues  : 

"  The  excitement  was  now  at  its  height ;  a  lady  fainted  and 
had  to  be  carried  out,  and  it  was  some  time  before  the  dis- 
cussion was  resumed.  Some  voices  called  for  Hooker,  and 
his  name  having  been  handed  up,  the  President  invited  him  to 
give  his  view  of  the  theory  from  the  Botanical  side.  This  he 
did,  demonstrating  that  the  Bishop,  by  his  own  showing,  had 
never  grasped  the  principles  of  the  '  Origin,'  and  that  he  was 
absolutely  ignorant  of  the  elements  of  botanical  science.  The 
Bishop  made  no  reply,  and  the  meeting  broke  up. 

"  There  was  a  crowded  conversazione  in  the  evening  at  the 

*  Lyell's  '  Letters,'  vol.  ii.  p.  335.  %  Mr.     Favvcett    wrote    ('  Mac- 

f  Professor   Victor    Cams,    who  millan's  Magazine,'  i860)  : 

has  a  distinct  recollection   of  the  "The  retort  was  so  justly  deserved 

scene,  does  not  remember  the  word  and    so    inimitable   in  its  manner  , 

equivocal.      He  believes,  too,  that  that  no  one  who  was  present  can 

Lyeli's  version  of  the  ape  sentence  ever  forget  the  impression    that  it 

is  slightly  incorrect.  made." 


1 86a]  BRITISH   ASSOCIATION.  323 

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  unpre- 
judiced 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."] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Sudbrook  Park,  Monday  night 

[July  2nd,  i860]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — I  have  just  received  your  letter.  I 
have  been  very  poorly,  with  almost  continuous  bad  headache 
for  forty-eight  hours,  and  I  was  low  enough,  and  thinking 
what  a  useless  burthen  I  was  to  myself  and  all  others,  when 
your  letter  came,  and  it  has  so  cheered  me  ;  your  kindness 
and  affection  brought  tears  into  my  eyes.  Talk  of  fame, 
honour,  pleasure,  wealth,  all  are  dirt  compared  with  affection  ; 
and  this  is  a  doctrine  with  which,  I  know,  from  your  letter, 
that  you  will  agree  with  from  the  bottom  of  your  heart. 
.  .  .  How  I  should  have  liked  to  have  wandered  about 
Oxford  with  you,  if  I  had  been  well  enough ;  and  how  still 
more  I  should  have  liked  to  have  heard  you  triumphing 
over  the  Bishop.  I  am  astonished  at  your  success  and 
audacity.  It  is  something  unintelligible  to  me  how  any  one 
can  argue  in  public  like  orators  do.  I  had  no  idea  you  had 
this  power.  I  have  read  lately  so  many  hostile  views,  that  I 
was   beginning  to  think  that  perhaps    I  was  wholly  in   the 

wrong,  and  that was  right  when  he  said  the  whole  subject 

would  be  forgotten  in  ten  years ;  but  now  that  I  hear  that  you 
and  Huxley  will  fight  publicly  (which  I  am  sure  I  never 
could  do),  I  fully  believe  that  our  cause  will,  in  the  long- 
run,  prevail.  I  am  glad  I  was  not  in  Oxford,  for  I  should 
have  been  overwhelmed,  with  my  [health]  in  its  present  state. 

Y  2 


324  THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H  Huxley. 

Sudbrook  Park,  Richmond, 

July  3rd  (i860). 

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

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

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


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

[July  i860.] 

I  have  just  read  the  '  Quarterly.'  *     It  is  uncom- 
monly clever ;  it  picks  out  with  skill  all  the  most  conjectural 


•     •      • 


*  'Quarterly  Review,'  July  i860.  terly  Review,'  1874."     The  passage 

The    article    in   question   was    by  from  the  'Anti-Jacobin'  gives  the 

Wilberforce,  Bishop  of  Oxford,  and  history  of  the  evolution   of  space 

was    afterwards   published   in    his  from     the    "  primaeval     point     or 

"  Essays  Contributed  to  the  '  Ouar-  punctum  saliens  of  the  universe," 


1 86a] 


'QUARTERLY   REVIEW.' 


325 


parts,  and  brings  forward  well  all  the  difficulties.  It  quizzes 
me  quite  splendidly  by  quoting  the  'Anti-Jacobin'  versus 
my  Grandfather.     You  are  not  alluded  to,  nor,  strange  to  say, 

Huxley ;  and  I  can  plainly  see,  here  and  there, 's  hand. 

The  concluding  pages  will  make  Lyell  shake  in  his  shoes. 
By  Jove,  if  he  sticks  to  us,  he  will  be  a  real  hero.  Good- 
night. Your  well-quizzed,  but  not  sorrowful,  and  affectionate 
friend.  C.  D. 

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


which  is  conceived  to  have  moved 
"  forward  in  a  right  line,  ad  infini- 
tum,  till  it  grew  tired  ;  after  which 
the  right  line,  which  it  had  gene- 
rated, would  begin  to  put  itself  in 
motion  in  a  lateral  direction,  de- 
scribing an  area  of  infinite  extent. 
This  area,  as  soon  as  it  became 
conscious  of  its  own  existence, 
would  begin  to  ascend  or  descend 
according  as  its  specific  gravity 
would  determine  it,  forming  an 
immense  solid  space  filled  with 
vacuum,  and  capable  of  containing 
the  present  universe." 

The  following  (p.  263)  may  serve 
as  an  example  of  the  passages  in 
which  the  reviewer  refers  to  Sir 
Charles  Lyell  : — "That  Mr.  Darwin 
should  have  wandered  from  this 
broad  highway  of  nature's  works 
into  the  jungle  of  fanciful  assump- 
tion is  no  small  evil.  We  trust 
that  he  is  mistaken  in  believing 
that  he  may  count  Sir  C.  Lyell  as 
one  of  his  converts.  We  know, 
indeed,  the  strength  of  the  tempta- 
tions which  he  can  bring  to  bear 
upon  his  geological  brother.  .  .  . 
Yet  no  man  has  been  more  distinct 
and  more  logical  in  the  denial  of  the 


transmutation  of  species  than  Sir 
C.  Lyell,  and  that  not  in  the  infancy 
of  his  scientific  life,  but  in  its  full 
vigour  and  maturity."  The  Bishop 
goes  on  to  appeal  to  Lyell,  in  order 
that  with  his  help  "  this  flimsy 
speculation  may  be  as  completely 
put  down  as  was  what  in  spite  of  all 
denials  we  must  venture  to  call  its 
twin  though  less  instructed  brother, 
the  '  Vestiges  of  Creation.' " 

With  reference  to  this  article, 
Mr.  Brodie  Innes,  my  father's  old 
friend  and  neighbour,  writes : — 
"  Most  men  would  have  been  an- 
noyed by  an  article  written  with 
the  Bishop's  accustomed  vigour,  a 
mixture  of  argument  and  ridicule. 
Mr.  Darwin  was  writing  on  some 
parish  matter,  and  put  a  postscript 
— '  If  you  have  not  seen  the  last 
1  Quarterly,'  do  get  it  ;  the  Bishop 
of  Oxford  has  made  such  capital 
fun  of  me  and  my  grandfather. 
By  a  curious  coincidence,  when  I 
received  the  letter,  I  was  staying 
in  the  same  house  with  the  Bishop, 
and  showed  it  to  him.  He  said,  '  I 
am  very  glad  he  takes  it  in  that 
way,  he  is  such  a  capital  fellow.' " 


326  THE   'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.  [i860. 

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

"Considering  his  age,  his  former  views  and  position  in  so- 
ciety, I  think  his  conduct  has  been  heroic  on  this  subject."] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

[Hartfield,  Sussex]  July  22nd  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — Owing  to  absence  from  home  at  water- 
cure  and  then  having  to  move  my  sick  girl  to  whence  I  am 
now  writing,  I  have  only  lately  read  the  discussion  in  Proc. 
American  Acad.,*  and  now  I  cannot  resist  expressing  my 
sincere  admiration  of  your  most  clear  powers  of  reasoning. 
As  Hooker  lately  said  in  a  note  to  me,  you  are  more  than 
any  one  else  the  thorough  master  of  the  subject.  I  declare 
that  you  know  my  book  as  well  as  I  do  myself;  and  bring 
to  the  question  new  lines  of  illustration  and  argument  in  a 
manner  which  excites  my  astonishment  and  almost  my  envy  ! 
I  admire  these  discussions,  I  think,  almost  more  than  your 
article  in  Silliman's  Journal.  Every  single  word  seems 
weighed  carefully,  and  tells  like  a  32-pound  shot.  It  makes 
me  much  wish  (but  I  know  that  you  have  not  time)  that 
you  could  write  more  in  detail,  and  give,  for  instance,  the 
facts  on  the  variability  of  the  American  wild  fruits.  The 
Athenaeum  has  the  largest  circulation,  and  I  have  sent  my 
copy  to  the  editor  with  a  request  that  he  would  republish 
the  first  discussion  ;  I  much  fear  he  will  not,  as  he  reviewed 
the  subject  in  so  hostile  a  spirit  ...  I  shall  be  curious  (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. 

*  April     10,     i860.      Dr.    Gray  Bowen  and  Prof.  Agassiz."     It  was 

criticised  in  detail  "  several  of  the  reprinted  in  the  Athenceum,  Aug.  4, 

positions   taken   at   the    preceding  i860, 
meeting  by  Mr.  [J.  A.]  Lowell,  Prof. 


i860.] 


■  ->5 


HOPKINS  S   REVIEW. 


327 


....  Henslow*  and  Daubeny  are  shaken.  I  hear  from 
Hooker  that  he  hears  from  Hochstetter  that  my  views  are 
making  very  considerable  progress  in  Germany,  and  the  good 
workers  are  discussing  the  question.  Bronn  at  the  end  of  his 
translation  has  a  chapter  of  criticism,  but  it  is  such  difficult 
German  that  I  have  not  yet  read  it.  Hopkins's  review  in 
*  Fraser '  is  thought  the  best  which  has  appeared  against  us. 
I  believe  that  Hopkins  is  so  much  opposed  because  his  course 
of  study  has  never  led  him  to  reflect  much  on  such  subjects 
as  geographical  distribution,  classification,  homologies,  &c, 
so  that  he  does  not  feel  it  a  relief  to  have  some  kind  of 
explanation. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Hartfield  [Sussex],  July  30th  [i860]. 

I  had  lots  of  pleasant  letters  about  the  Brit. 

Assoc,  and  our  side  seems  to  have  got  on  very  well.  There 
has  been  as  much  discussion  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic 
as  on  this.  No  one  I  think  understands  the  whole  case  better 
than  Asa  Gray,  and  he  has  been  fighting  nobly.  He  is  a 
capital  reasoner.  I  have  sent  one  of  his  printed  discussions 
to  our  Athenseum,  and  the  editor  says  he  will  print  it.  The 
'  Quarterly '  has  been  out  some  time.  It  contains  no  malice, 
which  is  wonderful.  ...  It  makes  me  say  many  things  which 


*  Professor  Henslow  was  men- 
tioned in  the  December  number  of 
1  Macmillan's  Magazine'  as  being 
an  adherent  of  Evolution.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  he  published,  in 
the  February  number  of  the  follow- 
ing year,  a  letter  defining  his  posi- 
tion. This  he  did  by  means  of  an 
extract  from  a  letter  addressed  to 
him  by  the  Rev.  L.  Jenyns  (Blome- 
field)  which  "  very  nearly,"  as  he 
says,  expressed  his  views.  Mr. 
Blomefield  wrote,  "  I  was  not 
aware    that     you    had    become    a 


convert  to    his    (Darwin's)    theory, 

and  can  hardly  suppose  you  have 

accepted  it  as  a  whole,  though,  like 

myself,  you  may  go  to  the  length  of 

imagining  that  many  of  the  smaller 

groups,  both  of  animals  and  plants, 

may  at  some  remote   period  have 

had  a  common  parentage.     I  do  not 

with  some  say  that  the  whole  of  his 

theory  cannot  be  true— but  that  it 

is   very   far   from   proved ;    and    I 

doubt   its   ever  being   possible   to 

prove  it." 


328  THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

I  do  not  say.    At  the  end  it  quotes  all  your  conclusions  against 
Lamarck,  and  makes  a  solemn  appeal  to  you  to  keep  firm  in 

the  true  faith.     I  fancy  it  will  make  you  quake  a  little.     

has  ingeniously  primed  the  Bishop  (with  Murchison)  against 
you  as  head  of  the  uniformitarians.  The  only  other  review 
worth  mentioning,  which  I  can  think  of,  is  in  the  third  No.  of 
the  '  London  Review,'  by  some  geologist,  and  favourable  for  a 
wonder.  It  is  very  ably  done,  and  I  should  like  much  to 
know  who  is  the  author.  I  shall  be  very  curious  to  hear  on 
your  return  whether  Bronn's  German  translation  of  the 
1  Origin '  has  drawn  any  attention  to  the  subject.  Huxley 
is  eager  about  a  '  Natural  History  Review,'  which  he  and 
others  are  going  to  edit,  and  he  has  got  so  many  first-rate 
assistants,  that  I  really  believe  he  will  make  it  a  first-rate 
production.  I  have  been  doing  nothing,  except  a  little 
botanical  work  as  amusement.  I  shall  hereafter  be  very 
anxious  to  hear  how  your  tour  has  answered.  I  expect  your 
book  on  the  geological  history  of  Man  will,  with  a  vengeance, 
be  a  bomb-shell.  I  hope  it  will  not  be  very  long  delayed. 
Our  kindest  remembrances  to  Lady  Lyell.  This  is  not 
worth  sending,  but  I  have  nothing  better  to  say. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  Watkins.  * 

Down,  July  30th,  [i860}. 

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

My  book  has  been  well  abused,  praised,  and  splendidly 
quizzed  by  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  ;  but  from  what  I  see  of  its 

*  See  Vol.  I.  p.  168. 


1 86a]  von  baer.  329 

influence  on  really  good  workers  in  science,  I  feel  confident 
that,  in  the  main,  I  am  on  the  right  road.  With  respect  to 
your  question,  I  think  the  arguments  are  valid,  showing  that 
all  animals  have  descended  from  four  or  five  primordial 
forms  ;  and  that  analogy  and  weak  reasons  go  to  show  that 
all  have  descended  from  some  single  prototype. 

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

Believe  me,  yours  most  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 


T.  H.  Huxley  to  C.  Darwin. 

August  6th,  i860. 

My  DEAR  Darwin, — I  have  to  announce  a  new  and  great 
ally  for  you 

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

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

The  treatise  to  which  Von  Bar  refers  he  gave  me  when  over 

*  See  footnote,  Vol.  II.  p.  186. 


33o 


THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES. 


[i860. 


here,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  lay  hands  on  it  since  this 
letter  reached  me  two  days  ago.  When  I  find  it  I  will  let  you 
know  what  there  is  in  it. 

Ever  yours  faithfully, 

T.  H.  Huxley. 


C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  August  8  [i860]. 

My  dear  Huxley — Your  note  contained  magnificent 
news,  and  thank  you  heartily  for  sending  it  me.  Von 
Baer  weighs  down  with  a  vengeance  all  the  virulence  of  [the 
*  Edinburgh'  reviewer]  and  weak  arguments  of  Agassiz.  If 
you  write  to  Von  Baer,  for  heaven's  sake  tell  him  that  we 
should  think  one  nod  of  approbation  on  our  side,  of  the 
greatest  value  ;  and  if  he  does  write  anything,  beg  him  to 
send  us  a  copy,  for  I  would  try  and  get  it  translated  and 
published  in   the  Atheuseum  and   in   '  Silliman '  to  touch  up 

Agassiz Have  you  seen  Agassiz's  weak  metaphysical 

and  theological  attack  on  the  '  Origin  '  in  the  last  '  Silliman  '  ?* 
I  would  send  it  you,  but  apprehend  it  would  be  less  trouble 
for  you  to  look  at  it  in  London  than  return  it  to  me.  R. 
Wagner  has  sent  me  a  German  pamphlet,  f  giving  an  abstract 
of  Agassiz's  '  Essay  on  Classification,'  "  mit  Riicksicht  auf 
Darwins  Ansichten,"  &c.  &c.  He  won't  go  very  "  dangerous 
lengths,"  but  thinks  the  truth  lies  half-way  between  Agassiz 
and    the    '  Origin.'      As    he    goes    thus    far   he   will,    nolens 


*  The  '  American  Journal  of 
Science  and  Arts'  (commonly  called 
i  Silliman's  Journal'),  July  i860. 
Printed  from  advanced  sheets  of 
vol.  iii.  of  '  Contributions  to  the 
Nat.  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.'  My  father's 
copy  has  a  pencilled  "  Truly  ': 
opposite  the  following  passage : — 
"  Unless  Darwin  and  his  followers 
succeed  in  showing  that  the  struggle 


for  life  tends  to  something  beyond 
favouring  the  existence  of  certain 
individuals  over  that  of  other  indi- 
viduals, they  will  soon  find  that 
they  are  following  a  shadow." 

f  '  Louis  Agassiz's  Prinzipien  der 
Classification,  &c,  mit  Riicksicht 
auf  Darwins  Ansichten.  Separat- 
Abdruck  aus  den  Gottingischen 
gelehrten  Anzeigen,'  1860. 


i860.]  AGASSIZ,   WAGNER.  33 1 

volens,  have  to  go  further.  He  says  he  is  going  to  review 
me  in  [his]  yearly  Report.  My  good  and  kind  agent  for  the 
propagation  of  the  Gospel — i.  e.  the  devil's  gospel. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  August  nth  [i860]. 

...  I  have  laughed  at  Woodward  thinking  that  you  were 
a  man  who  could  be  influenced  in  your  judgment  by  the  voice 
of  the  public  ;  and  yet  after  mortally  sneering  at  him,  I  was 
obliged  to  confess  to  myself,  that  I  had  had  fears,  what  the 
effect  might  be  of  so  many  heavy  guns  fired  by  great  men. 
As  I  have  (sent  by  Murray)  a  spare  '  Quarterly  Review,'  I 
send  it  by  this  post,  as  it  may  amuse  you.  The  Anti-Jacobin 
part  amused  me.  It  is  full  of  errors,  and  Hooker  is  thinking 
of  answering  it.  There  has  been  a  cancelled  page  ;  I  should 
like  to  know  what  gigantic  blunder  it   contained.     Hooker 

says   that  has  played  on  the   Bishop,    and   made  him 

strike  whatever  note  he  liked  ;  he  has  wished  to  make  the 
article  as  disagreeable  to  you  as  possible.  I  will  send  the 
AtJienseum  in  a  day  or  two. 

As  you  wish  to  hear  what  reviews  have  appeared,  I  may 
mention  that  Agassiz  has  fired  off  a  shot  in  the  last  '  Silliman/ 
not  good  at  all,  denies  variations  and  rests  on  the  perfection 
of  Geological  evidence.  Asa  Gray  tells  me  that  a  very  clever 
friend  has  been  almost  converted  to  our  side  by  this  review 
of  Agassiz's  .  .  .  Professor  Parsons  *  has  published  in 
the  same  '  Silliman '  a  speculative  paper  correcting  my 
notions,  worth  nothing.  In  the  '  Highland  Agricultural 
Journal '  there  is  a  review  by  some  Entomologist,  not  worth 
much.  This  is  all  that  I  can  remember.  .  .  .  As  Huxley 
says,    the    platoon    firing    must    soon    cease.      Hooker    and 

*  Theophilus  Parsons,  Professor  of  Law  in  Harvard  University. 


332  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

Huxley,  and  Asa  Gray,  I  see,  are  determined  to  stick  to  the 
battle  and  not  give  in  ;  I  am  fully  convinced  that  whenever 
you  publish,  it  will  produce  a  great  effect  on  all  trimmers,  and 
on  many  others.  By  the  way  I  forgot  to  mention  Daubeny's 
pamphlet,*  very  liberal  and  candid,  but  scientifically  weak. 
I  believe  Hooker  is  going  nowhere  this  summer  ;  he  is  ex- 
cessively busy  .  .  .  He  has  written  me  many,  most  nice 
letters.  I  shall  be  very  curious  to  hear  on  your  return  some 
account  of  your  Geological  doings.  Talking  of  Geology,  you 
used  to  be  interested  about  the  "  pipes  "  in  the  chalk.  About 
three  years  ago  a  perfectly  circular  hole  suddenly  appeared 
in  a  flat  grass  field  to  everyone's  astonishment,  and  was  filled 
up  with  many  waggon  loads  of  earth  ;  and  now  two  or  three 
days  ago,  again  it  has  circularly  subsided  about  two  feet 
more.  How  clearly  this  shows  what  is  still  slowly  going  on. 
This  morning  I  recommenced  work,  and  am  at  dogs  ;  when 
I  have  written  my  short  discussion  on  them,  I  will  have  it 
copied,  and  if  you  like,  you  can  then  see  how  the  argument 
stands,  about  their  multiple  origin.  As  you  seemed  to  think 
this  important,  it  might  be  worth  your  reading ;  though  I  do 
not  feel  sure  that  you  will  come  to  the  same  probable  con- 
elusion  that  I  have  done.  By  the  way,  the  Bishop  makes  a 
very  telling  case  against  me,  by  accumulating  several  instances 
where  I  speak  very  doubtfully ;  but  this  is  very  unfair,  as  in 
such  cases  as  this  of  the  dog,  the  evidence  is  and  must  be 
very  doubtful.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  August  u  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — On  my  return  home  from  Sussex  about 
a  week  ago,  I  found  several  articles  sent  by  you.     The   first 

*  '  Remarks  on  the  final  causes      work  on  the  "  Origin  of  Species."  ' 
of  the  sexuality  of  plants  with  par-      — Brit.  Assoc.  Report,  i860, 
ticular   reference  to   Mr.  Darwin's 


i860.]  agassiz.  333 

article,  from  the  'Atlantic  Monthly,'  I  am  very  glad  to 
possess.  By  the  way,  the  editor  of  the  AtJienseum*  has 
inserted  your  answer  to  Agassiz,  Bowen,  and  Co.,  and  when 
I  therein  read  them,  I  admired  them  even  more  than  at  first. 
They  really  seemed  to  me  admirable  in  their  condensation, 
force,  clearness  and  novelty. 

I  am  surprised  that  Agassiz  did  not  succeed  in  writing 
something  better.  How  absurd  that  logical  quibble — "  if 
species  do  not  exist,  how  can  they  vary  ? "  As  if  any  one 
doubted  their  temporary  existence.  How  coolly  he  assumes 
that  there  is  some  clearly  defined  distinction  between  indi- 
vidual differences  and  varieties.  It  is  no  wonder  that  a  man 
who  calls  identical  forms,  when  found  in  two  countries,  dis- 
tinct species,  cannot  find  variation  in  nature.  Again,  how 
unreasonable  to  suppose  that  domestic  varieties  selected  by 
man  for  his  own  fancy  (p.  147)  should  resemble  natural 
varieties  or  species.  The  whole  article  seems  to  me  poor  ;  it 
seems  to  me  hardly  worth  a  detailed  answer  (even  if  I  could 
do  it,  and  I  much  doubt  whether  I  possess  your  skill  in 
picking  out  salient  points  and  driving  a  nail  into  them),  and 
indeed  you  have  already  answered  several  points.  Agassiz's 
name,  no  doubt,  is  a  heavy  weight  against  us.  .  .  . 

If  you  see  Professor  Parsons,  will  you  thank  him  for  the 
extremely  liberal  and  fair  spirit  in  which  his  Essay  f  is  written. 
Please  tell  him  that  I  reflected  much  on  the  chance  of  favour- 
able monstrosities  (i.e.  great  and  sudden  variation)  arising.  I 
have,  of  course,  no  objection  to  this,  indeed  it  would  be  a  great 
aid,  but  I  did  not  allude  to  the  subject,  for,  after  much  labour, 
I  could  find  nothing  which  satisfied  me  of  the  probability  of 
such  occurrences.  There  seems  to  me  in  almost  every  case 
too  much,  too  complex,  and  too  beautiful  adaptation,  in  every 
structure  to  believe  in  its  sudden  production.  I  have  alluded 
under  the  head  of  beautifully  hooked  seeds  to  such  possi- 
bility.     Monsters  are  apt  to  be   sterile,  or  not  to  transmit 

*  Aug.  4,  i860.  f  '  Silliman's  Journal/  July  i860. 


334  THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

monstrous  peculiarities.  Look  at  the  fineness  of  gradation  in 
the  shells  of  successive  sub-stages  of  the  same  great  forma- 
tion ;  I  could  give  many  other  considerations  which  made  me 
doubt  such  view.  It  holds,  to  a  certain  extent,  with  domestic 
productions  no  doubt,  where  man  preserves  some  abrupt 
change  in  structure.  It  amused  me  to  see  Sir  R.  Murchison 
quoted  as  a  judge  of  affinities  of  animals,  and  it  gave  me  a 
cold  shudder  to  hear  of  any  one  speculating  about  a  true 
crustacean  giving  birth  to  a  true  fish !  * 

Yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  September  1st  [i860]. 

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

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

*  Parsons,  loc.  cit.  p.  5,  speaking  nearly  a  fish  that  some  of  its  ova 

of    Pterichthys    and    Cephalaspis,  may  have  become  fish  ;  or,  if  itself 

sayS: — "  Now  is  it  too  much  to  infer  a  fish,  was  so  nearly  a  crustacean 

from  these  facts  that  either  of  these  that  it  may  have  been  born  from 

animals,   if  a   crustacean,   was   so  the  ovum  of  a  crustacean  ?  " 


i860.]  lyell's  criticisms.  335 

continuously  united  with   the  mainland  ;    it  was   mere  base 
subservience,  and  terror  of  Hooker  and  Co. 

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

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

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

I  have  often  speculated  on  antiquity  of  islands,  but  not 
with  your  precision,  or  at  all  under  the  point  of  view  of 
Natural  Selection  not  having  done  what  might  have  been 
anticipated.  The  argument  of  littoral  Miocene  shells  at  the 
Canary  Islands  is  new  to  me.     I  was  deeply  impressed  (from 


336  THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.*  [i860. 

the  amount  of  the  denudation)  [with  the]  antiquity  of  St. 
Helena,  and  its  age  agrees  with  the  peculiarity  of  the  flora. 
With  respect  to  bats  at  New  Zealand  (N.B.  There  are  two  or 
three  European  bats  in  Madeira,  and  I  think  in  the  Canary 
Islands)  not  having  given  rise  to  a  group  of  non-volant  bats, 
it  is,  now  you  put  the  case,  surprising  ;  more  especially  as 
the  genus  of  bats  in  New  Zealand  is  very  peculiar,  and  there- 
fore has  probably  been  long  introduced,  and  they  now  speak 
of  Cretacean  fossils  there.  But  the  first  necessary  step  has  to 
be  shown,  namely,  of  a  bat  taking  to  feed  on  the  ground,  or 
anyhow,  and  anywhere,  except  in  the  air.  I  am  bound  to 
confess  I  do  know  one  single  such  fact,  viz.  of  an  Indian  species 
killing  frogs.  Observe,  that  in  my  wretched  Polar  Bear  case, 
I  do  show  the  first  step  by  which  conversion  into  a  whale 
•"would  be  easy,"  "would  offer  no  difficulty"!!  So  with  seals, 
I  know  of  no  fact  showing  any  the  least  incipient  variation  of 
seals  feeding  on  the  shore.  Moreover,  seals  wander  much  ; 
I  searched  in  vain,  and  could  not  find  one  case  of  any  species 
of  seal  confined  to  any  islands.  And  hence  wanderers  would 
be  apt  to  cross  with  individuals  undergoing  any  change  on  an 
island,  as  in  the  case  of  land  birds  of  Madeira  and  Bermuda. 
The  same  remark  applies  even  to  bats,  as  they  frequently 
come  to  Bermuda  from  the  mainland,  though  about  600  miles 
•distant.  With  respect  to  the  Amblyrhynchus  of  the  Gala- 
pagos, one  may  infer  as  probable,  from  marine  habits  being 
so  rare  with  Saurians,  and  from  the  terrestrial  species  being 
confined  to  a  few  central  islets,  that  its  progenitor  first  arrived 
at  the  Galapagos  ;  from  what  country  it  is  impossible  to  say, 
as  its  affinity  I  believe  is  not  very  clear  to  any  known  species. 
The  offspring  of  the  terrestrial  species  was  probably  rendered 
marine.  Now  in  this  case  I  do  not  pretend  I  can  show 
variation  in  habits  ;  but  we  have  in  the  terrestrial  species  a 
vegetable  feeder  (in  itself  a  rather  unusual  circumstance), 
largely  on  .lichens,  and  it  would  not  be  a  great  change  for 
its  offspring  to  feed  first  on  littoral  algae  and  then  on  sub- 


i860.]  lyell's  criticisms.  337 

marine  algae.  I  have  said  what  I  can  in  defence,  but  yours 
is  a  good  line  of  attack.  We  should,  however,  always  re- 
member that  no  change  will  ever  be  effected  till  a  variation 
in  the  habits  or  structure  or  of  both  chance  to  occur  in  the 
right  direction,  so  as  to  give  the  organism  in  question  an 
advantage  over  other  already  established  occupants  of  land 
or  water,  and  this  may  be  in  any  particular  case  indefinitely 
long.  I  am  very  glad  you  will  read  my  dogs  MS.,  for  it  will 
be  important  to  me  to  see  what  you  think  of  the  balance  of 
evidence.  After  long  pondering  on  a  subject  it  is  often 
hard  to  judge.  With  hearty  thanks  for  your  most  interesting 
letter.     Farewell. 

My  dear  old  master, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  September  2nd  [1S60]. 

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

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

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

VOL.  II.  Z 


33S  THE  'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

earnest.     Very  striking  letter  altogether  and  it  rejoices  the 
cockles  of  my  heart. 

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

Yours  ever  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  Sept.  10  [i860]. 

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

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

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

[Dr.  Gray  wrote  three  articles  in  the  'Atlantic  Monthly '  for 
*  Dr.  Gray  in  the  '  Atlantic  Monthly  '  for  July,  i860. 


i860.]  lyell's  criticisms.  339 

July,  August,  and  October,  which  were  reprinted  as  a  pam- 
phlet in  1861,  and  now  form  chapter  iii.  in  '  Darwiniana '  (1876), 
with  the  heading  'Natural  Selection  not  inconsistent  with 
Natural  Theology.'] 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  September  12th  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  never  thought  of  showing  your  letter 
to  any  one.     I   mentioned  in  a  letter  to  Hooker  that  I  had 
been  much  interested  by  a  letter  of  yours  with  original  objec 
tions,  founded  chiefly  on  Natural  Selection  not  having  done 

so  much  as  might  have  been  expected In  your  letter 

just  received,  you  have  improved  your  case  versus  Natural 
Selection ;  and  it  would  tell  with  the  public  (do  not  be 
tempted  by  its  novelty  to  make  it  too  strong)  ;  yet  it  seems 
to  me,  not  really  very  killing,  though  I  cannot  answer  your 
case,  especially,  why  Rodents  have  not  become  highly  de- 
veloped in  Australia.  You  must  assume  that  they  have 
inhabited  Australia  for  a  very  long  period,  and  this  may  or 
may  not  be  the  case.  But  I  feel  that  our  ignorance  is  so 
profound,  why  one  form  is  preserved  with  nearly  the  same 
structure,  or  advances  in  organisation  or  even  retrogrades,  or 
becomes  extinct,  that  I  cannot  put  very  great  weight  on  the 
difficulty.  Then,  as  you  say  often  in  your  letter,  we  know 
not  how  many  geological  ages  it  may  have  taken  to  make  any 
great  advance  in  organisation.  Remember  monkeys  in  the 
Eocene  formations :  but  I  admit  that  you  have  made  out  an 
excellent  objection  and  difficulty,  and  I  can  give  only  un- 
satisfactory and  quite  vague  answers,  such  as  you  have 
yourself  put ;  however,  you  hardly  put  weight  enough  on 
the  absolute  necessity  of  variations  first  arising  in  the  right 
direction,  videlicet,  of  seals  beginning  to  feed  on  the  shore. 

I  entirely  agree  with  what  you  say  about  only  one  species 
of  many  becoming  modified.     I   remember   this    struck  me 

z  2 


340  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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

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

I  see  that  you  do  allude  in  the  last  page,  as  a  difficulty,  to 
Marsupials  not  having  become  Placentals  in  Australia ;  but 
this  I  think  you  have  no  right  at  all  to  expect  ;  for  we  ought 
to  look  at  Marsupials  and  Placentals  as  having  descended 
from  some  intermediate  and  lower  form.  The  argument  of 
Rodents  not  having  become  highly  developed  in  Australia 
(supposing  that  they  have  long  existed  there)  is  much  stronger. 
I  grieve  to  see  you  hint  at  the  creation  "  of  distinct  successive 
types,  as  well  as  of  a  certain  number  of  distinct  aboriginal 
types."  Remember,  if  you  admit  this,  you  give  up  the  em- 
bryological   argument  (the  weightiest  of  all  to  me),  and  the 


i860.]  pedigree  of  mammalia.  341 

morphological  or  homological  argument.  You  cut  my  throat, 
and  your  own  throat ;  and  I  believe  will  live  to  be  sorry  for  it. 
So  much  for  species. 

The  striking  extract  which  E.  copied  was  your  own  writing  !  ! 
in  a  note  to  me,  many  long  years  ago — which  she  copied  and 
sent  to  Mme.   Sismondi  ;  and  lately  my  aunt,  in  sorting  her 

letters,  found   E.'s   and  returned  them  to  her I  have 

been  of  late  shamefully  idle,  i.e.  observing  *  instead  of  writing, 
and  how  much  better  fun  observing  is  than  writing. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

15  Marine  Parade,  Eastbourne, 

Sunday  [September  23rd,  i860]. 

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

I  have  a  very  decided  opinion  that  all  mammals  must  have 
descended  from  a  single  parent.  Reflect  on  the  multitude  of 
details,  very  many  of  thern  of  extremely  little  importance  to 
their  habits  (as  the  number  of  bones  of  the  head,  &c,  covering 
of  hair,  Identical  embryological  development,  &c.  &c).  Now 
this  large  amount  of  similarity  I  must  look  at  as  certainly 
due  to  inheritance  from  a  common  stock.  I  am  aware  that 
some  cases  occur  in  which  a  similar  or  nearly  similar  organ 
has  been  acquired  by  independent  acts  of  natural  selection. 
But  in  most  of  such  cases  of  these  apparently  so  closely 
similar  organs,  some  important  homological  difference  may  be 
detected.    Please  read  p.  193,  beginning,  "  The  electric  organs," 

*  Drosera. 


342  THE   'ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

and  trust  me  that  the  sentence,  "  In  all  these  cases  of  two  very- 
distinct  species/'  &c.  &c.,  was  not  put  in  rashly,  for  I  went 
carefully  into  every  case.  Apply  this  argument  to  the  whole 
frame,  internal  and  external,  of  mammifers,  and  you  will  see 
why  I  think  so  strongly  that  all  have  descended  from  one 
progenitor.  I  have  just  re-read  your  letter,  and  I  am  not 
perfectly  sure  that  I  understand  your  point. 

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

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

I  do  not  think  that  the  multiple  origin  of  dogs  goes  against 

the  single  origin  of  man All  the  races  of  man  are  so 

infinitely  closer  together  than  to  any  ape,  that  (as  in  the  case 
of  descent  of  all  mammals  from  one  progenitor),  I  should  look 
at  all  races  of  men  as  having  certainly  descended  from  one 
parent.  I  should  look  at  it  as  probable  that  the  races  of  men 
were  less  numerous  and  less  divergent  formerly  than  now, 
unless,  indeed,  some  lower  and  more  aberrant  race  even  than 
the  Hottentot  has  become  extinct.  Supposing,  as  I  do  for 
one  believe,  that  our  dogs  have  descended  from  two  or  three 


i860.] 


PEDIGREE   OF   MAMMALIA. 


•  A  i 


wolves,  jackals,  &c.  ;  yet  these  have,  on  our  vieiv,  descended 
from  a  single  remote  unknown  progenitor.  With  domestic 
dogs  the  question  is  simply  whether  the  whole  amount  of 
difference  has  been  produced  since  man  domesticated  a  single 
species  ;  or  whether  part  of  the  difference  arises  in  the  state 

DIAGRAM  I. 
A 

MAMMALS, 
NOT   TRUE   MARSUPIALS    NOR  TRUE    PLACENTALS. 


TRUE 

TRUE 

PLACENTAL. 

MARSUPIAL. 

* 
/ 

/ 

\ 

A  \ 

*       \ 

V       i 

/I  \ 

/  1 

I     \ 

it  \ 

■     » 

\ 

'  1       1 

i     * 

ft 

'  1         * 

t     * 

i\ 

'   I       1 

\     ? 

1 

;  \ 

/  /    h 

i          o 

1 
1 

*             1 

/ 

•  \ 

u        <* 

• 
1 

f 

1              1    ' 
1                  1 

'.        2       *, 

1 

•  ',             ». 

/ 

Q           U 

1 

1 
• 

1 

«    I              \ 

DIDELPHYS 

/ 

1           ^ 

o        u 

$ 

KANGAROO 
FAM. 

fam: 

a 
or 
c 

Cr 


& 

Q 


<J 


or 
ui 
O 
>- 

o 


c 


z 

o 


DIAGRAM  II. 


PLACENTALS 


3 
O 

a 
n 

z 
-( 
e/1 


A 

TRUE  MAiRSUPIALS 

LOWLY  developed: 

TRUE  MARSUPIALS 
HIGHLY  DEVELOPED: 

A 


PRESENT. 
MARSUPIALS 


KANGAROO 
FAM: 


('  1 

1    1 
1     1 
1     1 
•      1 

\ 
\ 

\ 
1 
1 

1 

DIDb'LPHYS 

fam; 

of  nature.  Agassiz  and  Co.  think  the  negro  and  Caucasian 
are  now  distinct  species,  and  it  is  a  mere  vain  discussion 
whether,  when  they  were  rather  less  distinct,  they  would,  on 
this  standard  of  specific  value,  deserve  to  be  called  species. 


344  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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

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

Most  truly  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  Sept.  26  [i860]. 

....  I  have  had  a  letter  of  fourteen  folio  pages  from 
Harvey  against  my  book,  with  some  ingenious  and  new 
remarks  ;  but  it  is  an  extraordinary  fact  that  he  does  not 
understand  at  all  what  I  mean  by  Natural  Selection.  I  have 
begged  him  to  read  the  Dialogue  in  next  '  Silliman,'  as  you 
never  touch  the  subject  without  making  it  clearer.  I  look  at 
it  as  even  more  extraordinary  that  you  never  say  a  word  or 
use  an  epithet  which  does  not  express  fully  my  meaning. 
Now  Lyell,  Hooker,  and  others,  who  perfectly  understand  my 


i860.]  cirripedes.  345 

book,  yet  sometimes  use  expressions  to  which  I  demur.  Well, 
your  extraordinary  labour  is  over ;  if  there  is  any  fair  amount 
of  truth  in  my  view,  I  am  well  assured  that  your  great  labour 
has  not  been  thrown  away.  .  .  . 

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


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

15  Marine  Parade,  Eastbourne, 

Friday  evening  [September  28th,  i860]. 

....  I  am  very  glad  to  hear  about  the  Germans  reading 
my  book.  No  one  will  be  converted  who  has  not  independ- 
ently begun  to  doubt  about  species.  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  Heaven,  I 
spoke  rather  doubtfully.  Such  difficult  dissection  that  even 
Huxley  failed.  It  is  chiefly  the  interpretation  which  I  put  on 
parts  that  is  so  wrong,  and  not  the  parts  which  I  describe. 
But  they  were  gigantic  blunders,  and  why  I  say  all  this  is  be- 
cause Krohn,  instead  of  crowing  at  all,  pointed  out  my  errors 
with  the  utmost  gentleness  and  pleasantness.     I  have  always 

*  There  are  two  papers  by  Aug.  xxv.  and  xxvi.     My  father  has  re- 

Krohn,  one  on  the  Cement  Glands,  marked  that  he  "  blundered  dread- 

and  the  other  on  the  development  fully   about    the    cement    glands," 

of  Cirripedes,  '  Wiegmann's  Archiv,'  '  Autobiography,'  p.  81. 


346  THE  'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

meant   to   write  to   him    and    thank   him.       I   suppose    Dr. 
Krohn,  Bonn,  would  reach  him. 

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

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

Talking  of  "  natural  selection  ;"  if  I  had  to  commence  de 

novo,  I  would  have  used  "  natural  preservation."     For  I  find 

men  like  Harvey  of  Dublin  cannot  understand  me,  though  he 

has  read  the  book  twice.     Dr.  Gray  of  the  British  Museum 

remarked  to  me  that,  "selection  was  obviously  impossible  with 

plants  !     No  one  could  tell  him  how  it  could  be  possible ! " 

And  he  may  now  add  that  the  author  did  not  attempt  it  to 

him  ! 

Yours  ever  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darzvin  to  C.  Lyell. 

15  Marine  Parade,  Eastbourne, 

October  8th  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  Lyell, — I  send  the  [English]  translation  of 
Bronn,*  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  with  generalities  and  praise 
is  not  translated.  There  are  some  good  hits.  He  makes  an 
apparently,  and  in  part  truly,  telling  case  against  me,  says 

*  A  MS.  translation  of  Bronn's  his  German  translation  of  the 
chapter  of  objections  at  the  end  of       '  Origin  of  Species.' 


i860.]  bronn's  objections.  347 

that  I  cannot  explain  why  one  rat  has  a  longer  tail  and 
another  longer  ears,  &c.  But  he  seems  to  muddle  in  assuming 
that  these  parts  did  not  all  vary  together,  or  one  part  so 
insensibly  before  the  other,  as  to  be  in  fact  contemporaneous. 
I  might  ask  the  creationist  whether  he  thinks  these  differences 
in  the  two  rats  of  any  use,  or  as  standing  in  some  relation  from 
laws  of  growth  ;  and  if  he  admits  this,  selection  might  come 
into  play.  He  who  thinks  that  God  created  animals  unlike 
for  mere  sport  or  variety,  as  man  fashions  his  clothes,  will 
not  admit  any  force  in  my  argumentum  ad  hominem. 

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

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

I  have  ordered  Dr.  Bree,*  and  will  lend  it  to  you,  if  you  like, 
and  if  it  turns  out  good. 

I  am  very  glad  that  I  misunderstood   you  about 

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

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


*  e 


Species  not  Transmutable,'  by  C.  R.  Bree,  1S60. 


34§  THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  M.  RodwelL 


* 


15  Marine  Parade,  Eastbourne. 

November  5th  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — I  am  extremely  much  obliged  for  your 
letter,  which  I  can  compare  only  to  a  plum-pudding,  so  full 
it  is  of  good  things.  I  have  been  rash  about  the  cats  :  f  yet 
I  spoke  on  what  seemed  to  me,  good  authority.  The  Rev. 
W.  D.  Fox  gave  me  a  list  of  cases  of  various  foreign  breeds  in 
which  he  had  observed  the  correlation,  and  for  years  he  had 
vainly  sought  an  exception.  A  French  paper  also  gives 
numerous  cases,  and  one  very  curious  case  of  a  kitten  which 
gradually  lost  the  blue  colour  in  its  eyes  and  as  gradually 
acquired  its  power  of  hearing.  I  had  not  heard  of  your  uncle, 
Mr.  Kirby's  case  %  (whom  I,  for  as  long  as  I  can  remember, 
have  venerated)  of  care  in  breeding  cats.  I  do  not  know 
whether  Mr.  Kirby  was  your  uncle  by  marriage,  but  your 
letters  show  me  that  you  ought  to  have  Kirby  blood  in  your 
veins,  and  that  if  you  had  not  taken  to  languages  you  would 
have  been  a  first-rate  naturalist. 

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

*  Rev.  J.  M.  Rodwell,  who  was  corner  of  which  she  is  scratching." 

at  Cambridge  with  my  father,  re-  f  "  Cats  with  blue   eyes  are  in- 

members  him  saying  : — "  It  strikes  variably  deaf,"  '  Origin  of  Species,' 

me  that  all  our  knowledge  about  ed.  i.  p.  12. 

the  structure  of  our  earth  is  very  %  William    Kirby,   joint    author 

much  like  what  an  old  hen  would  with  Spence,  of  the  well-known  '  In- 

know  of  a  hundred  acre  field,  in  a  troduction  to  Entomology,'  181S. 


1 860.]  REVIEWS.  349 

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

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

Yours  sincerely  obliged, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

November  20th  [1S60]. 
....  I  have  not  had  heart  to  read  Phillips  *  yet,  or  a 
tremendous  long  hostile  review  by  Professor  Bowen  in  the 
4to  Mem.  of  the  American  Academy  of  Sciences.f  (By  the 
way,  I  hear  Agassiz  is  going  to  thunder  against  me  in  the 
next  part  of  the  '  Contributions.')  Thank  you  for  telling  me  of 
the  sale  of  the  'Origin,'  of  which  I  had  not  heard.  There  will 
be  some  time,  I  presume,  a  new  edition,  and  I  especially  want 
your  advice  on  one  point,  and  you  know  I  think  you  the 
wisest  of  men,  and  I  shall  be  absolutely  guided  by  your  advice. 
It  has  occurred  to  me,  that  it  would  perhaps  be  a  good  plan 
to  put  a  set  of  notes  (some  twenty  to  forty  or  fifty)  to  the 
1  Origin,'  which  now  has  none,  exclusively  devoted  to  errors 
of  my  reviewers.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that  where  a  reviewer 
has  erred,  a  common  reader  might  err.  Secondly,  it  will 
show  the  reader  that  he  must  not  trust  implicitly  to  reviewers. 
Thirdly,  when  any  special  fact  has  been  attacked,  I  should  like 

*  (  Life  on  the  Earth.'  Religion  and  Moral  Philosophy,  at 

f  "Remarks  on  the  latest  form  Harvard     University.     'American 

of  the  Development  Theory."     By  Academy    of  Arts    and  Sciences,' 

Francis  Bowen,  Professor  of  Natural  vol.  viii. 


35o 


THE   '  ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


to  defend  it.  I  would  show  no  sort  of  anger.  I  enclose  a 
mere  rough  specimen,  done  without  any  care  or  accuracy — 
done  from  memory  alone — to  be  torn  up,  just  to  show  the 
sort  of  thing  that  has  occurred  to  me.  Will  yon  do  me  the 
great  kindness  to  consider  this  well  ? 

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

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

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


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

*  The  '  Edinburgh '  Reviewer 
(vol.  ,  p.  )  quotes  my  work  as 
saying  that  the  "dorsal  vertebrae 
of  pigeons  vary  in  number,  and 
disputes  the  fact."  I  nowhere  even 
allude  to  the  dorsal  vertebrae,  only 
to  the  sacral  and  caudal  vertebras. 

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

*  The  confounded  Wealden  Cal- 
culation to  be  struck  out,  and  a 
note  to  be  inserted  to  the  effect 
that  I  am  convinced  of  its  inac- 
curacy   from     a     review     in     the 


Saturday  Review,  and  from 
Phillips,  as  I  see  in  his  Table  of 
Contents  that  he  alludes  to  it. 

*  Mr.  Hopkins  ('  Fraser,'  vol.  , 
p.  )  states — I  am  quoting  only 
from  vague  memory — that,  "I  argue 
in  favour  of  my  views  from  the 
extreme  imperfection  of  the  Geo- 
logical Record,"  and  says  this  is 
the  first  time  in  the  History  of 
Science  he  has  ever  heard  of  igno- 
rance being  adduced  as  an  argu- 
ment. But  I  repeatedly  admit,  in 
the  most  emphatic  language  which 
I  can  use,  that  the  imperfect  evi- 
dence which  Geology  offers  in  re- 
gard to  transitorial  forms  is  most 
strongly  opposed  to  my  views. 
Surely  there  is  a  wide  difference  in 
fully  admitting  an  objection,  and 
then  in  endeavouring  to  show  that 
it  is  not  so  strong  as  it  at  first  ap- 
pears, and  in  Mr.  Hopkins's  asser- 
tion that  I  found  my  argument  on 
the  Objection. 

*  I    would   also   put   a   note   to 


i860.] 


REVIEWS. 


351 


.. 


Natural  Selection,"  and  show  how 
variously  it  has  been  misunder- 
stood. 

*  A  writer  in  the  '  Edinburgh 
Philosophical  Journal '  denies  my 
statement  that  the  Woodpecker  of 
La  Plata  never  frequents  trees.  I 
observed  its  habits  during  two 
years,  but,  what  is  more  to  the 
purpose,  Azara,  whose  accuracy  all 
admit,  is  more  emphatic  than  I  am 
in  regard  to  its  never  frequenting 
trees.  Mr.  A.  Murray  denies  that 
it  ought  to  be  called  a  woodpecker  ; 
it  has  two  toes  in  front  and  two 
behind,  pointed  tail  feathers,  a  long 


pointed  tongue,  and  the  same 
general  form  of  body,  the  same 
manner  of  flight,  colouring  and 
voice.  It  was  classed,  until  re- 
cently, in  the  same  genus — Picus — 
with  all  other  woodpeckers,  but 
now  has  been  ranked  as  a  distinct 
genus  amongst  the  Picidse.  It 
differs  from  the  typical  Picus  only 
in  the  beak,  not  being  quite  so 
strong,  and  in  the  upper  mandible 
being  slightly  arched.  I  think 
these  facts  fully  justify  my  state- 
ment that  it  is  "  in  all  essential 
parts  of  its  organisation  "  a  Wood- 
pecker.] 


C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  Nov.  22  [i860]. 

My  dear  Huxley, — For  heaven's  sake  don't  write  an 
anti-Darwinian  article  ;  you  would  do  it  so  confoundedly 
well.  I  have  sometimes  amused  myself  with  thinking  how 
I  could  best  pitch  into  myself,  and  I  believe  I  could  give  two 

or  three  good  digs  ;  but  I  will  see  you first,  before  I  will 

try.     I  shall  be  very   impatient   to  see  the  Review.*     If  it 
succeeds  it  may  really  do  much,  very  much  good 

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


*  The  first  number  of  the  new      appeared  in  1861. 
series  of  the  'Nat.  Hist.  Review'  \  The  3rd  edition. 


352 


THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.' 


[i860. 


C.  Danviu  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  November  24th  [i860]. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  thank  you  much  for  your  letter.  I 
had  got  to  take  pleasure  in  thinking  how  I  could  best  snub 
my  reviewers ;  but  I  was  determined,  in  any  case,  to  follow 
your  advice,  and,  before  I  had  got  to  the  end  of  your  letter,  I 
was  convinced  of  the  wisdom  of  your  advice.*  What  an 
advantage  it  is  to  me  to  have  such  friends  as  you.  I  shall 
follow  every  hint  in  your  letter  exactly. 

I  have  just  heard  from  Murray  ;  he  says  he  sold  700  copies 
at  his  sale,  and  that  he  has  not  half  the  number  to  supply  ;  so 
that  I  must  begin  at  once,  j  .  .  .  . 

P.S. — I  must  tell  you  one  little  fact  which  has  pleased  me. 
You  may  remember  that  I  adduce  electrical  organs  of  fish  as 
one  of  the  greatest  difficulties  which  have  occurred  to  me,  and 

notices  the  passage  in  a  singularly  disingenuous  spirit. 

Well,  McDonnell,  of  Dublin  (a  first-rate  man),  writes  to  me 
that  he  felt  the  difficulty  of  the  whole  case  as  overwhelming 
against  me.  Not  only  are  the  fishes  which  have  electric 
organs  very  remote  in  scale,  but  the  organ  is  near  the  head  in 
some,  and  near  the  tail  in  others,  and  supplied  by  wholly 
different  nerves.  It  seems  impossible  that  there  could  be  any 
transition.  Some  friend,  who  is  much  opposed  to  me,  seems 
to  have  crowed  over  McDonnell,  who  reports  that  he  said  to 
himself,  that  if  Darwin  is  right,  there  must  be  homologous 
organs  both  near  the  head  and  tail  in  other  non-electric  fish. 


*  "I  get  on  slowly  with  my  new 
edition.  I  find  that  your  advice 
was  excellent.  I  can  answer  all 
reviews,  without  any  direct  notice 
of  them,  by  a  little  enlargement 
here  and  there,  with  here  and  there 
a  new  paragraph.  Broun  alone  I 
shall    treat    with    the    respect    of 


giving 


his  objections  with  his 
name.  I  think  I  shall  improve  my 
book  a  good  deal,  and  add  only 
some  twenty  pages." —  From  a 
letter  to  Lyell,  December  4th,  i860, 
t  On  the  third  edition  of  the 
'  Origin  of  Species,'  published  in 
April  1 86 1. 


i860.]  design.  353 

He  set  to  work,  and,  by  Jove,  he  has  found  them  !  *  so  that 
some  of  the  difficulty  is  removed  ;  and  is  it  not  satisfactory 
that  my  hypothetical  notions  should  have  led  to  pretty  dis- 
coveries ?  McDonnell  seems  very  cautious  ;  he  says,  years 
must  pass  before  he  will  venture  to  call  himself  a  believer  in 
my  doctrine,  but  that  on  the  subjects  which  he  knows  well, 
viz.  Morphology  and  Embryology,  my  views  accord  well,  and 
throw  light  on  the  whole  subject. 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  November  26th,  i860. 

My  DEAR  GRAY, — I  have  to  thank  you  for  two  letters.  The 
latter  with  corrections,  written  before  you  received  my  letter 
asking  for  an  American  reprint,  and  saying  that  it  was 
hopeless  to  print  your  reviews  as  a  pamphlet,  owing  to  the 
impossibility  of  getting  pamphlets  known.  I  am  very  glad 
to  say  that  the  August  or  second  '  Atlantic '  article  has  been 
reprinted  in  the  '  Annals  and  Magazine  of  Natural  History  ' ; 
but  I  have  not  yet  seen  it  there.  Yesterday  I  read  over  with 
care  the  third  article ;  and  it  seems  to  me,  as  before,  admi- 
rable. But  I  grieve  to  say  that  I  cannot  honestly  go  as  far 
as  you  do  about  Design.  I  am  conscious  that  I  am  in  an 
utterly  hopeless  muddle.  I  cannot  think  that  the  world,  as 
we  see  it,  is  the  result  of  chance  ;  and  yet  I  cannot  look  at 
each  separate  thing  as  the  result  of  Design.  To  take  a 
crucial  example,  you  lead  me  to  infer  (p.  414)  that  you  believe 
"  that  variation  has  been  led  along  certain  beneficial  lines."  I 
cannot  believe  this  ;  and  I  think  you  would  have  to  believe, 
that  the  tail  of  the  Fantail  was  led  to  vary  in  the  number 
and  direction  of  its  feathers  in  order  to  gratify  the  caprice  of 
a  few  men.     Yet  if  the  Fantail  had  been  a  wild  bird,  and  had 

*  '  On   an   organ  in   the   Skate,      pedo,'   by    R.    McDonnell,    '  Nat. 
which  appears  to  be  the  homologue      Hist  Review,'  1861,  p.  57. 
of  the  electrical  organ  of  the  Tor- 

VOL.  II.  2   A 


354  THE   'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

used  its  abnormal  tail  for  some  special  end,  as  to  sail  before 
the  wind,  unlike  other  birds,  every  one  would  have  said, 
"  What  a  beautiful  and  designed  adaptation."  Again,  I  say 
I  am,  and  shall  ever  remain,  in  a  hopeless  muddle. 

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

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

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  Dec.  2nd  [i860]. 

....  I  have  got  fairly  sick  of  hostile  reviews.  Neverthe- 
less, they  have  been  of  use  in  showing  me  when  to  expatiate 
a  little  and  to  introduce  a  few  new  discussions.  Of  coitrse 
I  will  send  you  a  copy  of  the  new  edition 

I  entirely  agree  with  you,  that  the  difficulties  on  my 
notions  are  terrific,  yet  having  seen  what  all  the  Reviews  have 
said  against  me,  I  have  far  more  confidence  in  the  general 
truth  of  the  doctrine  than  I  formerly  had.     Another  thing 


*  ( 


Memoirs  of  the  American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,'  vol.  viii. 


i860.]  dr.  gray's  pamphlet.  355 

gives  me  confidence,  viz.   that  some  who  went  half  an  inch 

with  me  now  go  further,  and  some  who  were  bitterly  opposed 

are  now  less  bitterly  opposed.     And  this  makes  me  feel  a 

little  disappointed   that  you   are  not  inclined   to  think    the 

general  view  in  some  slight  degree  more  probable  than  you 

did  at  first.     This  I  consider  rather  ominous.     Otherwise  I 

should  be  more  contented  with  your  degree  of  belief.     I  can 

pretty  plainly  see  that,  if  my  view  is  ever  to  be  generally 

adopted,  it  will  be  by  young  men  growing  up  and  replacing 

the  old  workers,  and  then  young  ones  finding  that  they  can 

group  facts  and  search  out  new  lines  of  investigation  better 

on  the   notion    of  descent,  than  on   that   of  creation.      But 

forgive  me  for  running  on  so  egotistically.     Living  so  solitary 

as  I  do,  one  gets  to  think  in  a  silly  manner  of  one's  own 

work. 

Ever  yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker 

Down,  December  nth  [i36o]. 

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

David   Forbes   has   been  carefully  working   the 

Geology  of  Chile,  and  as  I  value  praise  for  accurate  observa- 
tion far  higher  than  for  any  other  quality,  forgive  (if  you  can) 
the  insufferable  vanity  of  my  copying  the  last  sentence  in  his 
note  :  "  I  regard  your  Monograph  on  Chile  as,  without  ex- 
ception, one  of  the  finest  specimens  of  Geological  enquiry." 
I  feel  inclined  to  strut  like  a  Turkey-cock  ! 


2    A   2 


35$  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE     SPREAD     OF    EVOLUTION. 

I86I-I862. 

[The  beginning  of  the  year  1861  saw  my  father  with  the 
third  chapter  of  'The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants'  still 
on  his  hands.  It  had  been  begun  in  the  previous  August, 
and  was  not  finished  until  March  1 861.  He  was,  however,  for 
part  of  this  time  (I  believe  during  December  i860  and 
January  1861)  engaged  in  a  new  edition  (3000  copies)  of  the 
1  Origin/  which  was  largely  corrected  and  added  to,  and  was 
published  in  April  1861. 

With  regard  to  this,  the  third  edition,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Murray 
in  December  i860  : — 

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

An  interesting  feature  in  the  new  edition  was  the  "  His- 
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 

*  The  Historical  Sketch  had  al-  man  edition  (footnote,  p.  1)  that  it 

ready  appeared  in  the  first  German  was  his  critique  in  the  '  N.  Jahrbuch 

edition    (i860)    and   the  American  fur  Mineralogie  '  that  suggested  the 

edition.     Bronn  states  in  the  Ger-  idea  of  such  a  sketch  to  my  father. 


l86l.]  TRANSLATIONS.  357 

impress  of  the  author's  personal  character  in  the  obvious  wish 
to  do  full  justice  to  all  his  predecessors, — though  even  in 
this  respect  it  has  not  escaped  some  adverse  criticism. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  present  year  (1861),  the  final 
arrangements  for  the  first  French  edition  of  the  '  Origin  '  were 
completed,  and  in  September  a  copy  of  the  third  English 
edition  was  despatched  to  Mdlle.  Clemence  Royer,  who  under- 
took the  work  of  translation.  The  book  was  now  spreading 
on  the  Continent,  a  Dutch  edition  had  appeared,  and,  as  we 
have  seen,  a  German  translation  had  been  published  in  i860. 
In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Murray  (September  10,  1861),  he  wrote, 
"  My  book  seems  exciting  much  attention  in  Germany, 
judging  from  the  number  of  discussions  sent  me."  The 
silence  had  been  broken,  and  in  a  few  years  the  voice  of 
German  science  was  to  become  one  of  the  strongest  of  the 
advocates  of  evolution. 

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

On  July  1,  he  started,  with  his  family,  for  Torquay,  where 
he  remained  until  August  27 — a  holiday  which  he  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,  as  told  in 
his  letters,  seems  to  become  clearer  when  the  whole  of  his 
botanical  work  is   placed   together   and   treated   separately. 


35% 


SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION. 


[1861.. 


The  present  series  of  chapters  will,  therefore,  include  only 
the  progress  of  his  works  in  the  direction  of  a  general 
amplification  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species ' — e.g.,  the  publication, 
of  'Animals  and  Plants,'  '  Descent  of  Man,'  &c] 


C,  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Jan.  15  [1861]. 

My  DEAR  HOOKER, — The  sight  of  your  handwriting  always 
rejoices  the  very  cockles  of  my  heart 

I  most  fully  agree  to  what  you  say  about  Huxley's  Article,* 

and  the  power  of  writing The  whole  review  seems  to 

me  excellent.  How  capitally  Oliver  has  done  the  resume 
of  botanical  books.  Good  Heavens,  how  he  must  have 
read !  .  .  .  . 

I  quite  agree  that  Phillips  |  is  unreadably  dull.  You  need 
not  attempt  Bree.  J  .  .  .  . 


*  '  Natural  History  Review,'  1861, 
p.  67,  "  On  the  Zoological  Relations 
of  Man  with  the  Lower  Animals." 
This  memoir  had  its  origin  in  a 
discussion  at  the  previous  meeting 
of  the  British  Association,  when 
Professor  Huxley  felt  himself  "  com- 
pelled to  give  a  diametrical  contra- 
diction to  certain  assertions  respect- 
ing the  differences  which  obtain 
between  the  brains  of  the  higher 
apes  and  of  man,  which  fell  from 
Professor  Owen."  But  in  order 
that  his  criticisms  might  refer  to 
deliberately  recorded  words,  he 
bases  them  on  Professor  Owen's 
paper,  "  On  the  Characters,  &c,  of 
the  Class  Mammalia,"  read  before 
the  Linnean  Society  in  February 
and  April,  1857,  in  which  he  pro- 
posed to  place  man  not  only  in  a 
distinct  order,  but  in  "  a  distinct 
sub-class  of  the  Mammalia" — the 
Archencephala. 

t  '  Life  on  the  Earth  '  (i860),  by 


Prof.  Phillips,  containing  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Rede  Lecture  (May 
i860). 

t  The  following  sentence  (p.  16) 
from  l  Species  not  Transmutable,' 
by  Dr.  Bree,  illustrates  the  degree  in 
which  he  understood  the  '  Origin  of 
Species':  "The  only  real  difference 
between  Mr.  Darwin  and  his  two 
predecessors"  [Lamarck  and  the 
'Vestiges']  "is  this: — that  while 
the  latter  have  each  given  a  mode 
by  which  they  conceive  the  great 
changes  they  believe  in  have  been 
brought  about,  Mr.  Darwin  does  no 
such  thing."  After  this  we  need 
not  be  surprised  at  a  passage  in 
the  preface  :  "No  one  has  derived 
greater  pleasure  than  I  have  in  past 
days  from  the  study  of  Mr.  Darwin's 
other  works,  and  no  one  has  felt  a. 
greater  degree  of  regret  that  he 
should  have  imperilled  his  fame  by 
the  publication  of  his  treatise  upon, 
the  '  Origin  of  Species.' " 


iS6i.]  criticism.  359 

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


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

February  2,  1861. 

My  DEAR  LYELL, — I  have  thought  you  would  like  to  read 
the  enclosed  passage  in  a  letter  from  A.  Gray  (who  is  printing 
his  reviews  as  a  pamphlet,*  and  will  send  copies  to  England), 
as  I  think  his  account  is  really  favourable  in  a  high  degree 
to  us  : — 

"  I  wish  I  had  time  to  write  you  an  account  of  the  lengths 
to  which  Bowen  and  Agassiz,  each  in  their  own  way,  are 
going.  The  first  denying  all  heredity  (all  transmission  except 
specific)  whatever.  The  second  coming  near  to  deny  that  we 
are  genetically  descended  from  our  great-great-grandfathers  ; 
and  insisting  that  evidently  affiliated  languages,  e.g.  Latin, 
Greek,  Sanscrit,  owe  none  of  their  similarities  to  a  com- 
munity of  origin,  are  all  autochthonal ;  Agassiz  admits  that 

*  "  Natural  Selection  not  incon-      August,  and  October,  i860;   pub- 
sistent  with  Natural  Theology,"  from      lished  by  Triibner. 
the   'Atlantic   Monthly'   for   July, 


360  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

the  derivation  of  languages,  and  that  of  species  or  forms, 
stand  on  the  same  foundation,  and  that  he  must  allow  the 
latter  if  he  allows  the  former,  which  I  tell  him  is  perfectly- 
logical." 

Is  not  this  marvellous  ? 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Feb.  4  [1861]. 

My  DEAR  Hooker, — I  was  delighted  to  get  your  long 
chatty  letter,  and  to  hear  that  you  are  thawing  towards 
science.  I  almost  wish  you  had  remained  frozen  rather 
longer ;  but  do  not  thaw  too  quickly  and  strongly.  No  one 
can  work  long  as  you  used  to  do.  Be  idle  ;  but  I  am  a 
pretty  man  to  preach,  for  I  cannot  be  idle,  much  as  I  wish  it, 
and  am  never  comfortable  except  when  at  work.  The  word 
holiday  is  written  in  a  dead  language  for  me,  and  much  I 
grieve  at  it.     We  thank  you  sincerely  for  your  kind  sympathy 

about  poor  H.  [his  daughter] She  has  now  come  up  to 

her  old  point,  and  can  sometimes  get  up  for  an  hour  or  two 
twice  a  day  ....  Never  to  look  to  the  future  or  as  little  as 
possible  is  becoming  our  rule  of  life.  What  a  different  thing 
life  was  in  youth  with  no  dread  in  the  future  ;  all  golden,  if 
baseless,  hopes. 

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

I  have  been  doing  little,  except  finishing  the  new  edition 


l86l.]  MR.    BATES.  36l 

of  the    '  Origin/  and    crawling    on    most    slowly   with    my 
volume  of  'Variation  under  Domestication.'  .... 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  Mr.  Bates's  paper,  "  Contri- 
butions to  an  Insect  Fauna  of  the  Amazon  Valley,"  in  the 
4  Transactions]  of  the  Entomological  Society.'  vol.  5,  N.S.* 
Mr.  Bates  points  out  that  with  the  return,  after  the  glacial 
period,  of  a  warmer  climate  in  the  equatorial  regions,  the 
4t  species  then  living  near  the  equator  would  retreat  north 
and  south  to  their  former  homes,  leaving  some  of  their  con- 
geners, slowly  modified  subsequently  ...  to  re-people  the  zone 
they  had  forsaken."  In  this  case  the  species  now  living  at 
the  equator  ought  to  show  clear  relationship  to  the  species 
inhabiting  the  regions  about  the  25th  parallel,  whose  distant 
relatives  they  would  of  course  be.  But  this  is  not  the  case, 
and  this  is  the  difficulty  my  father  refers  to.  Mr.  Belt  has 
offered  an  explanation  in  his  '  Naturalist  in  Nicaragua ' 
(1874),  p.  266.  "I  believe  the  answer  is  that  there  was  much 
extermination  during  the  glacial  period,  that  many  species 
(and  some  genera,  &c,  as,  for  instance,  the  American  horse), 
did  not  survive  it  ...  .  but  that  a  refuge  was  found  for 
many  species  on  lands  now  below  the  ocean,  that  were 
uncovered  by  the  lowering  of  the  sea,  caused  by  the  immense 
quantity  of  water  that  was  locked  up  in  frozen  masses  on  the 
land."] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  27th  [March  1861]. 

MY  DEAR  HOOKER, — I  had  intended  to  have  sent  you 
Bates's  article  this  very  day.  I  am  so  glad  you  like  it.  I  have 
been  extremely  much  struck  with  it.  How  well  he  argues, 
and  with  what  crushing  force  against  the  glacial  doctrine. 
I  cannot  wriggle  out  of  it :  I  am  dumbfounded  ;  yet  I  do 
believe  that  some  explanation  some  day  will  appear,  and  I 

*  The  paper  was  read  Nov.  24,  i860. 


362  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 

cannot  give  up  equatorial  cooling.  It  explains  so  much  and 
harmonises  with  so  much.  When  you  write  (and  much  in- 
terested I  shall  be  in  your  letter)  please  say  how  far  floras 
are  generally  uniform  in  generic  character  from  o°  to 
250  N.  and  S. 

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

Here  is  a  good  joke  :  H.  C.  Watson  (who,  I  fancy  and  hope, 
is  going  to  review  the  new  edition  *  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. 

/  am,  my  dear  Hooker,  ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

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

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  [April]  23?  [1861.] 

....  I  quite  agree  with  what  you  say  on  Lieutenant 
Hutton's  Review  f  (who  he  is  I  know  not) ;  it  struck  me  as 
very  original.  He  is  one  of  the  very  few  who  see  that  the 
change  of  species  cannot  be  directly  proved,  and  that  the 
doctrine  must  sink  or  swim  according  as  it  groups  and 
explains  phenomena.  It  is  really  curious  how  few  judge  it  in 
this  way,  which  is  clearly  the  right  way.     I  have  been  much 

*  Third  edition  of  2000  copies,  Hutton,  of  the  Staff  College.     The 

published  in  April  1861.  '  Geologist'  was  afterwards  merged 

t  In  the  '  Geologist,'  1861,  p.  132,  in  the  '  Geological  Magazine.' 
by  Lieutenant  Frederick  Wollaston 


iS6i.] 


ROLLESTON,   HENSLOW. 


63. 


interested  by  Bentham's  paper*  in  the  N.  H.  R.,  but  it 
would  not,  of  course,  from  familiarity,  strike  you  as  it  did  me. 
I  liked  the  whole  ;  all  the  facts  on  the  nature  of  close  and 
varying  species.  Good  Heavens !  to  think  of  the  British 
botanists  turning  up  their  noses,  and  saying  that  he  knows 
nothing  of  British  plants !  I  was  also  pleased  at  his  remarks 
on  classification,  because  it  showed  me  that  I  wrote  truly  on 
this  subject  in  the  '  Origin.'  I  saw  Bentham  at  the  Linnean 
Society,  and  had  some  talk  with  him  and  Lubbock,  and 
Edgeworth,  Wallich,  and  several  others.  I  asked  Bentham 
to  give  us  his  ideas  of  species  ;  whether  partially  with  us  or 
dead  against  us,  he  would  write  excellent  matter.  He  made 
no  answer,  but  his  manner  made  me  think  he  might  do  so  if 
urged  ;  so  do  you  attack  him.  Every  one  was  speaking  with 
affection  and  anxiety  of  Henslow.j      I  dined  with  Bell  at  the 

Linnean  Club,  and  liked  my  dinner Dining  out  is 

such  a  novelty  to  me  that  I  enjoyed  it.  Bell  has  a  real  good 
heart.  I  liked  Rolleston's  paper,  but  I  never  read  anything 
so  obscure  and  not  self-evident  as  his  '  Canons.'  {  .  .  .  .  I 
called  on  R.  Chambers,  at  his  very  nice  house  in  St.  John's 
Wood,  and  had  a  very  pleasant  half-hour's  talk  ;  he  is  really 
a  capital  fellow.  He  made  one  good  remark  and  chuckled 
over  it,  that  the  laymen  universally  had  treated  the  contro- 
versy on  the  '  Essays  and  Reviews '  as  a  merely  professional 
subject,  and  had  not  joined  in  it,  but  had  left  it  to  the  clergy. 
I  shall  be  anxious  for  your  next  letter  about  Henslow.§  Fare- 
well, with  sincere  sympathy,  my  old  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 


*    a 


On  the  Species  and  Genera 
of  Plants,  &c,"  'Natural  History 
Review,'  1861,  p.  133. 

f  Prof.  Henslow  was  in  his  last 
illness. 

t  George  Rolleston,M.D.,  F.R.S., 
b.  1829,  d.  1 88 1.  Linacre  Professor 
of  Anatomy  and  Physiology  at  Ox- 


ford. A  man  of  much  learning, 
who  left  but  few  published  works, 
among  which  may  be  mentioned 
his  handbook,  '  Forms  of  Animal 
Life.'  For  the  '  Canons,'  see  '  Nat. 
Hist.  Review,'  1861,  p.  206. 

§  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  was  Prof. 
Henslow's  son-in-law. 


364  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 

P.S. — We  are  very  much  obliged  for  the  '  London  Review.' 
We  like  reading  much  of  it,  and  the  science  is  incomparably 
better  than  in  the  Athencenm.  You  shall  not  go  on  very 
long  sending  it,  as  you  will  be  ruined  by  pennies  and  trouble, 
but  I  am  under  a  horrid  spell  to  the  Athenaeum  and  the 
Gardeners"  Chronicle,  but  I  have  taken  them  in  for  so  many 
years,  that  I  cannot  give  them  up. 

[The  next  letter  refers  to  Lyell's  visit  to  the  Bidden- 
ham  gravel-pits  near  Bedford  in  April  1861.  The  visit 
was  made  at  the  invitation  of  Mr.  James  Wyatt,  who  had 
recently  discovered  two  stone  implements  "  at  the  depth  of 
thirteen  feet  from  the  surface  of  the  soil,"  resting  "  imme- 
diately on  solid  beds  of  oolitic-limestone."  *  Here,  says  Sir 
C  Lyell,  "  I  ....  for  the  first  time,  saw  evidence  which 
satisfied  me  of  the  chronological  relations  of  those  three  phe- 
nomena— the  antique  tools,  the  extinct  mammalia,  and  the 
glacial  formation."] 


C.  Darwin  to  C  Lyell. 

Down,  April  12  [1861]. 

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

It  is  an  especial  relief  to  hear  that  you  think  the  French 
superficial  deposits  are  deltoid  and  semi-marine  ;  but  two  days 
ago  I  was  saying  to  a  friend,  that  the  unknown  manner  of  the 
accumulation  of  these  deposits,  seemed  the  great  blot  in  all 
the  work  done.  I  could  not  stomach  debacles  or  lacustrine 
beds.     It  is  grand.      I  remember  Falconer  told  me  that  he 


*  i 


Antiquity  of  Man,'  fourth  edition,  p.  214. 


l86l.]  LYELL'S   WORK.  365 

thought  some  of  the  remains  in  the  Devonshire  caverns  were 
pre-glacial,  and  this,  I  presume,  is  now  your  conclusion  for  the 
older  celts  with  hyena  and  hippopotamus.  It  is  grand. 
What  a  fine  long  pedigree  you  have  given  the  human 
race ! 

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

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

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

*  I.e.  to  read  them  before  the  Linnean  Society. 


366 


SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION. 


[l86l. 


C.  Darwin  to  Thomas  Davidson* 

Down,  April  26,  1861. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — I  hope  that  you  will  excuse  me  for  ven- 
turing to  make  a  suggestion  to  you  which  I  am  perfectly  well 
aware  it  is  a  very  remote  chance  that  you  would  adopt  I  do 
not  know  whether  you  have  read  my  '  Origin  of  Species ' ;  in 
that  book  I  have  made  the  remark,  which  I  apprehend  will 
be  universally  admitted,  that"  as  a  whole,  the  fauna  of  any 
formation  is  intermediate  in  character  between  that  of  the 
formations  above  and  below.  But  several  really  good  judges 
have  remarked  to  me  how  desirable  it  would  be  that  this 
should  be  exemplified  and  worked  out  in  some  detail 
and  with  some  single  group  of  beings.  Now  every  one  will 
admit  that  no  one  in  the  world  could  do  this  better  than  you 
with  Brachiopods.  The  result  might  turn  out  very  unfavour- 
able to  the  views  which  I  hold  ;  if  so,  so  much  the  better  for 
those  who  are  opposed  to  me.f  But  I  am  inclined  to  suspect 
that  on  the  whole  it  would  be  favourable  to  the  notion  of 
descent  with  modification  ;  for  about  a  year  ago,  Mr.  Salter  % 
in   the  museum  in  Jermyn   Street,  glued  on   a  board  some 


*  Thomas  Davidson,  F.R.S., 
born  in  Edinburgh,  May  17,  18 17  ; 
died  1885.  His  researches  were 
chiefly  connected  with  the  sciences 
of  geology  and  palaeontology,  and 
were  directed  especially  to  the 
elucidation  of  the  characters,  classi- 
fication, history,  geological  and 
geographical  distribution  of  recent 
and  fossil  Brachiopoda.  On  this 
subject  he  brought  out  an  important 
work,  '  British  Fossil  Brachiopoda,' 
5  vols.  4to.  (Cooper,  '  Men  of  the 
Time,'  1884.) 

f  "  Mr.  Davidson  is  not  at  all  a 
full  believer  in  great  changes  of 
species,  which  will  make  his  work 
all  the   more   valuable." — C.  Dar- 


win   to    R.    Chambers    (April   30, 
1861). 

%  John  William  Salter;  b.  1820, 
d.  1869.  He  entered  the  service  of 
the  Geological  Survey  in  1846,  and 
ultimately  became  its  Palaeonto- 
logist, on  the  retirement  of  Edward 
Forbes,  and  gave  up  the  office 
in  1863.  He  was  associated  with 
several  well-known  naturalists  in 
their  work — with  Sedgwick,  Mur- 
chison,  Lyell,  Ramsay,  and  Huxley. 
There  are  sixty  entries  under  his 
name  in  the  Royal  Society  Cata- 
logue. The  above  facts  are  taken 
from  an  obituary  notice  of  Mr. 
Salter  in  the  '  Geological  Maga- 
zine,' 1S69. 


lS6l.]  DAVIDSON   ON   BRACHIOPODA.  367 

Spirifers,  &c,  from  three  palaeozoic  stages,  and  arranged  them 
in  single  and  branching  lines,  with  horizontal  lines  marking 
the  formations  (like  the  diagram  in  my  book,  if  you  know 
it),  and  the  result  seemed  to  me  very  striking,  though  I  was 
too  ignorant  fully  to  appreciate  the  lines  of  affinities.  I 
longed  to  have  had  these  shells  engraved,  as  arranged  by 
Mr.  Salter,  and  connected  by  dotted  lines,  and  would  have 
gladly  paid  the  expense  :  but  I  could  not  persuade  Mr.  Salter 
to  publish  a  little  paper  on  the  subject.  I  can  hardly  doubt 
that  many  curious  points  would  occur  to  any  one  thoroughly 
instructed  in  the  subject,  who  would  consider  a  group  of 
beings  under  this  point  of  view  of  descent  with  modification. 
All  those  forms  which  have  come  down  from  an  ancient 
period  very  slightly  modified  ought,  I  think,  to  be  omitted, 
and  those  forms  alone  considered  which  have  undergone 
considerable  change  at  each  successive  epoch.  My  fear  is 
whether  brachiopods  have  changed  enough.  The  absolute 
amount  of  difference  of  the  forms  in  such  groups  at  the 
opposite  extremes  of  time  ought  to  be  considered,  and  how 
far  the  early  forms  are  intermediate  in  character  between 
those  which  appeared  much  later  in  time.  The  antiquity  of 
a  group  is  not  really  diminished,  as  some  seem  vaguely  to 
think,  because  it  has  transmitted  to  the  present  day  closely 
allied  forms.  Another  point  is  how  far  the  succession  of  each 
genus  is  unbroken,  from  the  first  time  it  appeared  to  its 
extinction,  with  due  allowance  made  for  formations  poor  in 
fossils.  I  cannot  but  think  that  an  important  essay  (far  more 
important  than  a  hundred  literary  reviews)  might  be  written 
by  one  like  yourself,  and  without  very  great  labour.  I  know 
it  is  highly  probable  that  you  may  not  have  leisure,  or  not 
care  for,  or  dislike  the  subject,  but  I  trust  to  your  kindness 
to  forgive  me  for  making  this  suggestion.  If  by  any  extra- 
ordinary good  fortune  you  were  inclined  to  take  up  this 
notion,  I  would  ask  you  to  read  my  Chapter  X.  on  Geo- 
logical Succession.      And   I  should  like  in  this    case    to    be 


368  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 

permitted  to  send  you  a  copy  of  the  new  edition,  just  pub- 
lished, in  which  I  have  added  and  corrected  somewhat  in 
Chapters  IX.  and  X. 

Pray  excuse  this  long  letter,  and  believe  me, 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  very  faithfully, 

C.  Darwin. 

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

C.  Darwin  to  Thomas  Davidson. 

Down,  April  30,  1861. 

My  DEAR  Sir, — I  thank  you  warmly  for  your  letter  ;  I  did 
not  in  the  least  know  that  you  had  attended  to  my  work.  I 
assure  you  that  the  attention  which  you  have  paid  to  it,  con- 
sidering your  knowledge  and  the  philosophical  tone  of  your 
mind  (for  I  well  remember  one  remarkable  letter  you  wrote 
to  me,  and  have  looked  through  your  various  publications), 
I  consider  one  of  the  highest,  perhaps  the  very  highest,  com- 
pliments which  I  have  received.  I  live  so  solitary  a  life  that 
I  do  not  often  hear  what  goes  on,  and  I  should  much  like  to 
know  in  what  work  you  have  published  some  remarks  on  my 
book.  I  take  a  deep  interest  in  the  subject,  and  I  hope  not 
simply  an  egotistical  interest  ;  therefore  you  may  believe  how 
much  your  letter  has  gratified  me ;  I  am  perfectly  contented 
if  any  one  will  fairly  consider  the  subject,  whether  or  not  he 
fully  or  only  very  slightly  agrees  with  me.  Pray  do  not 
think  that  I  feel  the  least  surprise  at  your  demurring  to  a 
ready  acceptance  ;  in  fact,  I  should  not  much  respect  anyone's 
judgment  who  did  so  :  that  is,  if  I  may  judge  others  from 
the  long  time  which  it  has  taken  me  to  go  round.  Each 
stage  of  belief  cost  me  years.  The  difficulties  are,  as  you  say, 
many  and  very  great ;  but  the  more  I  reflect,  the  more  they 
seem  to  me  to  be  due  to  our  underestimating  our  ignorance. 
I   belong  so  much   to  old  times  that  I   find   that  I  weigh 


l86l.]  CONDITIONS   OF   LIFE.  369 

the  difficulties  from  the  imperfection  of  the  geological 
record,  heavier  than  some  of  the  younger  men.  I  find,  to 
my  astonishment  and  joy,  that  such  good  men  as  Ramsay, 
Jukes,  Geikie,  and  one  old  worker,  Lyell,  do  not  think  that 
I  have  in  the  least  exaggerated  the  imperfection  of  the 
record.*  If  my  views  ever  are  proved  true,  our  current  geo- 
logical views  will  have  to  be  considerably  modified.  My 
greatest  trouble  is,  not  being  able  to  weigh  the  direct  effects 
of  the  long-continued  action  of  changed  conditions  of  life 
without  any  selection,  with  the  action  of  selection  on  mere 
accidental  (so  to  speak)  variability.  I  oscillate  much  on  this 
head,  but  generally  return  to  my  belief  that  the  direct  action 
of  the  conditions  of  life  have  not  been  great.  At  least 
this  direct  action  can  have  played  an  extremely  small  part 
in  producing  all  the  numberless  and  beautiful  adaptations  in 
every  living  creature.  With  respect  to  a  person's  belief,  what 
does  rather  surprise  me  is  that  any  one  (like  Carpenter) 
should  be  willing  to  go  so  very  far  as  to  believe  that  all  birds 
may  have  descended  from  one  parent,  and  not  go  a  little 
farther  and  include  all  the  members  of  the  same  great  division  ; 
for  on  such  a  scale  of  belief,  all  the  facts  in  Morphology  and 
in  Embryology  (the  most  important  in  my  opinion  of  all  sub- 
jects) become  mere  Divine  mockeries I  cannot  express 

how  profoundly  glad  I  am  that  some  day  you  will  publish 
your  theoretical  view  on  the  modification   and  endurance  of 

*  Professor  Sedgwick  treated  this  I  will  interpolate  long  periods  to 
part  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species '  account  for  all  the  changes.  I  say, 
very  differently,  as  might  have  in  reply,  if  you  deny  my  conclusion, 
been  expected  from  his  vehement  grounded  on  positive  evidence,  I 
objection  to  Evolution  in  general.  toss  back  your  conclusion,  derived 
In  the  article  in  the  Spectator  of  from  negative  evidence, — the  in- 
March  24,  i860,  already  noticed,  flated  cushion  on  which  you  try  to 
Sedgwick  wrote  :  "We  know  the  bolster  up  the  defects  of  your  hypo- 
complicated  organic  phenomena  of  thesis."  [The  punctuation  of  the 
the  Mesozoic  (or  Oolitic)  period.  imaginary  dialogue  is  slightly  al- 
It  defies  the  transmutationist  at  tered  from  the  original,  which  is 
every  step.  Oh  !  but  the  docu-  obscure  in  one  place.] 
ment,  says  Darwin,  is  a  fragment ; 

VOL.  II.  2   B 


370  SPREAD    OF   EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

Brachiopodous  species  ;  I  am  sure  it  will  be  a  most  valuable 
contribution  to  knowledge. 

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

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

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[In  Mr.  Davidson's  Monograph  on  British  Brachiopoda 
published  shortly  afterwards  by  the  Palaeontographical  Society, 
results  such  as  my  father  anticipated  were  to  some  extent 
obtained.  "  No  less  than  fifteen  commonly  received  species 
are  demonstrated  by  Mr.  Davidson  by  the  aid  of  a  long  series 
of  transitional  forms  to  appertain  to  .  .  .  one  type.' 


In  the  autumn  of  i860,  and  the  early  part  of  1861,  my 
father  had  a  good  deal  of  correspondence  with  Professor 
Asa  Gray  on  a  subject  to  which  reference  has  already  been 
made — the  publication,  in  the  form  of  a  pamphlet,  of  Pro- 
fessor Gray's  three  articles  in  the  July,  August,  and  October 
numbers  of  the  'Atlantic  Monthly,'  i860.  The  pamphlet  was 
published  by  Messrs.  Triibner,  with  reference  to  whom  my 
father  wrote,  "  Messrs.  Triibner  have  been  most  liberal  and 
kind,  and  say  they  shall  make  no  charge  for  all  their  trouble. 
I  have  settled  about  a  few  advertisements,  and  they  will 
gratuitously  insert  one  in  their  own  periodicals." 

The  reader  will  find  these  articles  republished  in  Dr.  Gray's 
'  Darwiniana,'  p.  87,  under  the  title  "Natural  Selection  not 
inconsistent  with  Natural  Theology."  The  pamphlet  found 
many  admirers  among  those  most  capable  of  judging  of  its 
merits,  and  my  father  believed  that  it  was  of  much  value  in 
lessening  opposition,  and  making  converts  to  Evolution.    His 

*  Lyell,  '  Antiquity  of  Man,'  first  edition,  p.  428. 


i36l]      dr.  gray's  pamphlet — descent  theory.       371 

high  opinion  of  it  is  shown  not  only  in  his  letters,  but  by  the 
fact  that  he  inserted  a  special  notice  of  it  in  a  most  prominent 
place  in  the  third  edition  of  the  '  Origin.'  Lyell,  among 
others,  recognised  its  value  as  an  antidote  to  the  kind  of 
criticism  from  which  the  cause  of  Evolution  suffered.  Thus 
my  father  wrote  to  Dr.  Gray  : — "  Just  to  exemplify  the  use 
of  your  pamphlet,  the  Bishop  of  London  was  asking  Lyell 
what  he  thought  of  the  review  in  the  '  Quarterly,'  and  Lyell 
answered,  '  Read  Asa  Gray  in  the  '  Atlantic'  "  It  comes  out 
very  clearly  that  in  the  case  of  such  publications  as  Dr.  Gray's, 
my  father  did  not  rejoice  over  the  success  of  his  special  view 
of  Evolution,  viz.  that  modification  is  mainly  due  to  Natural 
Selection  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  felt  strongly  that  the  really 
important  point  was  that  the  doctrine  of  Descent  should  be 
accepted.  Thus  he  wrote  to  Professor  Gray  (May  1 1,  1863), 
with  reference  to  Lyell's  'Antiquity  of  Man ' : — 

"  You  speak  of  Lyell  as  a  judge ;  now  what  I  complain  of 
is  that  he  declines  to  be  a  judge  ....  I  have  sometimes 
almost  wished  that  Lyell  had  pronounced  against  me.  When 
I  say  '  me,'  I  only  mean  change  of  species  by  descent.  That 
seems  to  me  the  turning-point.  Personally,  of  course,  I  care 
much  about  Natural  Selection  ;  but  that  seems  to  me  utterly 
unimportant,  compared  to  the  question  of  Creation  or  Modifi- 
cation."] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  April  11  [1861]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — I  was  very  glad  to  get  your  photograph  : 
I  am  expecting  mine,  which  I  will  send  off  as  soon  as  it 
comes.     It  is  an  ugly  affair,  and  I  fear  the  fault  does  not  lie 

with  the  photographer Since  writing  last,  I  have  had 

several  letters  full  of  the  highest  commendation  of  your  Essay; 
all  agree  that  it  is  by  far  the  best  thing  written,  and  I  do  not 
doubt  it  has  done  the  '  Origin '  much  good.  I  have  not  yet 
heard  how  it  has  sold.     You  will  have  seen  a  review  in  the 

2  B  2 


372  SPREAD    OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 

Gardeners  Chronicle.  Poor  dear  Henslow,  to  whom  I  owe 
much,  is  dying,  and  Hooker  is  with  him.  Many  thanks  for 
two  sets  of  sheets  of  your  Proceedings.  I  cannot  understand 
what  Agassiz  is  driving  at.  You  once  spoke,  I  think,  of 
Professor  Bowen  as  a  very  clever  man.  I  should  have  thought 
him  a  singularly  unobservant  man  from  his  writings.  He 
never  can  have  seen  much  of  animals,  or  he  would  have  seen 
the  difference  of  old  and  wise  dogs  and  young  ones.  His 
paper  about  hereditariness  beats  everything.  Tell  a  breeder 
that  he  might  pick  out  his  worst  i?idividual  animals  and 
breed  from  them,  and  hope  to  win  a  prize,  and  he  would  think 
you  .  .  .  insane. 

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

o 

whose  soul  was  nearer  heaven." 

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

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

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


l86l.]  HENSLOW'S   DEATH — DESIGN.  373 

give  my  thoughts  as  they  arose,  for  you  or  Jenyns  to  use  as 
you  think  fit. 

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


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  June  5  [1861]. 

My  DEAR  GRAY, — I  have  been  rather  extra  busy,  so  have 
been  slack  in  answering  your  note  of  May  6th.  I  hope  you 
have  received  long  ago  the  third  edition  of  the  *  Origin.'  .... 
I  have  heard  nothing  from  Triibner  of  the  sale  of  your  Essay, 
hence  fear  it  has  not  been  great ;  I  wrote  to  say  you  could 
supply  more.  I  sent  a  copy  to  Sir  J.  Herschel,  and  in  his 
new  edition  of  his  *  Physical  Geography '  he  has  a  note  on 
the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  and  agrees,  to  a  certain  limited  extent, 

but  puts   in  a  caution   on   design — much  like  yours 

I  have  been  led  to  think  more  on  this  subject  of  late,  and 
grieve  to  say  that  I  come  to  differ  more  from  you.  It  is  not 
that  designed  variation  makes,  as  it  seems  to  me,  my  deity 
"  Natural  Selection  "  superfluous,  but  rather  from  studying, 
lately,  domestic  variation,  and  seeing  what  an  enormous  field 
of  undesigned  variability  there  is  ready  for  natural  selection 
to  appropriate  for  any  purpose  useful  to  each  creature. 

I  thank  you  much  for  sending  me  your  review  of  Phillips.* 
I  remember  once  telling  you  a  lot  of  trades  which  you  ought 
to  have  followed,  but  now  I  am  convinced  that  you  are  a  born 
reviewer.  By  Jove,  how  well  and  often  you  hit  the  nail  on 
the  head  !  You  rank  Phillips's  book  higher  than  I  do,  or  than 
Lyell  does,  who  thinks  it  fearfully  retrograde.  I  amused 
myself  by  parodying  Phillips's  argument  as  applied  to  do- 
mestic variation  ;  and  you  might  thus  prove  that  the  duck  or 


*  i 


Life  on  the  Earth,'  i860. 


J 


74  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 


pigeon  has  not  varied  because  the  goose  has  not,  though  more 
anciently  domesticated,  and  no  good  reason  can  be  assigned 
why  it  has  not  produced  many  varieties 

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

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

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

Hugh  Falconer  to  C.  Darwin. 

31  Sackville  St.,  W.,  June  23,  1861. 

My  DEAR  DARWIN. — I  have  been  to  Adelsberg  cave  and 
brought  back  with  me  a  live  Proteus  anguinusi  designed  for 
you  from  the  moment  I  got  it  ;  i.e.  if  you  have  got  an 
aquarium  and  would  care  to  have  it.  I  only  returned  last 
night  from  the  Continent,  and  hearing  from  your  brother  that 
you  are  about  to  go  to  Torquay,  I  lose  no  time  in  making 
you  the  offer.  The  poor  dear  animal  is  still  alive — although 
it  has  had  no  appreciable  means  of  sustenance  for  a  month — 
and  I  am  most  anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  responsibility  of 
starving  it  longer.  In  your  hands  it  will  thrive  and  have  a 
fair  chance  of  being  developed  without  delay  into  some  type 
of  the  Columbidae — 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 


l86l.]  DR.   FALCONER — HARVEY.  375 

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  exposi- 
tion, 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, 

H.  Falconer. 

C.  Darwin  to  Hugh  Falconer. 

Down  [June  24,  1861]. 
My  DEAR  FALCONER. — I  have  just  received  your  note,  and 
by  good  luck  a  day  earlier  than  properly,  and  I  lose  not  a 
moment  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  Zoo- 
logical Society  be  the  best  place  ?  and  then  the  interest  which 
many  would  take  in  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  amongst  a  very 
few  precious  letters.     Your  kindness  has  quite  touched  me. 

Yours  affectionately  and  gratefully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  jf.  D.  Hooker. 

2  Hesketh  Crescent,  Torquay, 

July  13   [1861]. 

...  I   hope  Harvey  is  better  ;  I  got  his  review  *  of  me  a 

■day  or  two  ago,  from  which  I  infer  he  must  be  convalescent  ; 


*  The  '  Dublin  Hospital  Gazette,' 
May    15,    1 86 1.     The  passage   re- 


ferred to  is  at  p.  150. 


376  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 

it's  very  good  and  fair  ;  but  it  is  funny  to  see  a  man  argue  on 
the  succession  of  animals  from  Noah's  Deluge  ;  as  God  did 
not  then  wholly  destroy  man,  probably  he  did  not  wholly 
destroy  the  races  of  other  animals  at  each  geological  period  t 
I  never  expected  to  have  a  helping  hand  from  the  Old 
Testament.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

2,  Hesketh  Crescent,  Torquay, 

July  20  [1861]. 

My  DEAR  Lyell. — I  sent  you  two  or  three  days  ago  a 
duplicate  of  a  good  review  of  the  '  Origin '  by  a  Mr.  Maw,* 
evidently  a  thoughtful  man,  as  I  thought  you  might  like  to 
have  it,  as  you  have  so  many.  .  .  . 

This  is  a  quite  charming  place,  and  I  have  actually  walked, 
I  believe,  good  two  miles  out  and  back,  which  is  a  grand  feat. 

I  saw  Mr.  Pengelly  f  the  other  day,  and  was  pleased  at 
his  enthusiasm.  I  do  not  in  the  least  know  whether  you  are 
in  London.  Your  illness  must  have  lost  you  much  time,  but 
I  hope  you  have  nearly  got  your  great  job  of  the  new  edition 
finished.  You  must  be  very  busy,  if  in  London,  so  I  will  be 
generous,  and  on  honour  bright  do  not  expect  any  answer  to 
this  dull  little  note.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  September  17  [1861  ?] 

MY  DEAR  Gray.  —I  thank  you  sincerely  for  your  very  long 
and  interesting  letter,  political  and  scientific,  of  August  27th 

*  Mr.  George  Maw,  of  Benthall  pretentious  notices,  on  which  fre- 

Hall.     The   review  was  published  quently  occur  my  father's  brief  o/-, 

in  the  'Zoologist,'  July,  1861.     On  or  "  nothing  new." 

the    back    of    my    father's    copy  f  William    Pengelly,    the     geo- 

is   written,    "  Must    be    consulted  logist,  and  well-known  explorer  of 

before  new  edit,  of  Origin ' " — words  the  Devonshire  caves, 
which  are  wanting  on  many  more 


l86l.]  AMERICAN   WAR — DESIGN.  377 

and  29th,  and  Sept.  2nd  received  this  morning.  I  agree  with 
much  of  what  you  say,  and  I  hope  to  God  we  English  are 
utterly  wrong  in  doubting  (1)  whether  the  N.  can  conquer 
the  S.  ;  (2)  whether  the  N.  has  many  friends  in  the  South,  and 
(3)  whether  you  noble  men  of  Massachusetts  are  right  in 
transferring  your  own  good  feelings  to  the  men  of  Washing- 
ton. Again  I  say  I  hope  to  God  we  are  wrong  in  doubting 
on  these  points.  It  is  number  (3)  which  alone  causes  Eng- 
land not  to  be  enthusiastic  with  you.  What  it  may  be  in 
Lancashire  I  know  not,  but  in  S.  England  cotton  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  our  doubts.  If  abolition  does  follow 
with  your  victory,  the  whole  world  will  look  brighter  in  my 
eyes,  and  in  many  eyes.  It  would  be  a  great  gain  even  to 
stop  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  Territories  ;  if  that  be 
possible  without  abolition,  which  I  should  have  doubted. 
You  ought  not  to  wonder  so  much  at  England's  coldness, 
when  you  recollect  at  the  commencement  of  the  war  how 
many  propositions  were  made  to  get  things  back  to  the  old 
state  with  the  old  line  of  latitude.  But  enough  of  this,  all 
I  can  say  is  that  Massachusetts  and  the  adjoining  States 
have  the  full  sympathy  of  every  good  man  whom  I  see  ; 
and  this  sympathy  would  be  extended  to  the  whole  Federal 
States,  if  we  could  be  persuaded  that  your  feelings  were  at 
all  common  to  them.  But  enough  of  this.  It  is  out  of  my 
line,   though    I    read    every   word    of    news,    and    formerly 

well  studied  Olmsted 

Your  question  what  would  convince  me  of  Design  is  a 
poser.  If  I  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.  If  I  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  con- 
vinced.    But  this  is  childish  writing. 


.378  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 

I  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.  If  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  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. 

Farewell,  my  dear  Gray,  with  many  thanks  for  your 
interesting  letter. 

Your  unmerciful  correspondent, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darzvin  to  H.  W.  Bates. 

Down,  Dec.  3  [1861]. 

My  DEAR  Sir. — I  thank  you  for  your  extremely  interesting 
letter,  and  valuable  references,  though  God  knows  when  I 
shall  come  again  to  this  part  of  my  subject.  One  cannot  of 
course  judge  of  style  when  one  merely  hears  a  paper,*  but 
yours  seemed  to  me  very  clear  and  good.  Believe  me  that  I 
estimate  its  value  most  highly.  Under  a  general  point  of  view, 
I  am  quite  convinced  (Hooker  and  Huxley  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.  Under  a  special  point  of  view,  I  think  you 
have  solved  one  of  the  most  perplexing  problems  which 
could   be  given  to  solve.     I  am  glad  to  hear  from   Hooker 

*  On   Mimetic   Butterflies,  read      1861.     For  my  father's  opinion  of 
•before  the  Linnean  Soc,  Nov.  21,       it  when  published,  see  p.  391. 


1 86 1.]  MR.   BATES.  379 

that  the   Linnean   Society  will   give   plates   if  you  can   get 
drawings.  .  .  . 

Do  not  complain  of  want  of  advice  during  your  travels  ;  I 
dare  say  part  of  your  great  originality  of  views  may  be  due  to 
the  necessity  of  self-exertion  of  thought.  I  can  understand 
that  your  reception  at  the  British  Museum  would  damp 
you ;  they  are  a  very  good  set  of  men,  but  not  the  sort  to 
appreciate  your  work.  In  fact  I  have  long  thought  that 
too  much  systematic  work  [and]  description  somehow  blunts 
the  faculties.  The  general  public  appreciates  a  good  dose  of 
reasoning,  or  generalisation,  with  new  and  curious  remarks 
on  habits,  final  causes,  &c.  &c,  far  more  than  do  the  regular 
naturalists. 

I  am  extremely  glad  to  hear  that  you  have  begun  your 
travels  ...  I  am  very  busy,  but  I  shall  be  truly  glad  to 
render  any  aid  which  I  can  by  reading  your  first  chapter  or 
two.  I  do  not  think  I  shall  be  able  to  correct  style,  for  this 
reason,  that  after  repeated  trials  I  find  I  cannot  correct  my 
own  style  till  I  see  the  MS.  in  type.  Some  are  born  with  a 
power  of  good  writing,  like  Wallace  ;  others  like  myself  and 
Lyell  have  to  labour  very  hard  and  slowly  at  every  sentence. 
I  find  it  a  very  good  plan,  when  I  cannot  get  a  difficult 
discussion  to  please  me,  to  fancy  that  some  one  comes  into 
the  room  and  asks  me  what  I  am  doing  ;  and  then  try  at 
once  and  explain  to  the  imaginary  person  what  it  is  all 
about.  I  have  done  this  for  one  paragraph  to  myself  several 
times,  and  sometimes  to  Mrs.  Darwin,  till  I  see  how  the 
subject  ought  to  go.  It  is,  I  think,  good  to  read  one's  MS. 
aloud.  But  style  to  me  is  a  great  difficulty  ;  yet  some  good 
judges  think  I  have  succeeded,  and  I  say  this  to  encourage 
you. 

What  /  think  I  can  do  will  be  to  tell  you  whether  parts 
had  better  be  shortened.  It  is  good,  I  think,  to  dash  "in 
medias  res,"  and  work  in  later  any  descriptions  of  country,  or 
any  historical  details  which  may  be  necessary.     Murray  likes 


380  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 

lots  of  wood-cuts — give  some  by  all  means  of  ants.  The 
public  appreciate  monkeys — our  poor  cousins.  What  sexual 
differences  are  there  in  monkeys  ?  Have  you  kept  them 
tame?  if  so,  about  their  expression.  I  fear  that  you  will 
hardly  read  my  vile  hand-writing,  but  I  cannot  without  killing, 
trouble  write  better. 

You  shall  have  my  candid  opinion  on  your  MS.,  but 
remember  it  is  hard  to  judge  from  MS.,  one  reads  slowly,  and 
heavy  parts  seem  much  heavier.  A  first-rate  judge  thought 
my  Journal  very  poor ;  now  that  it  is  in  print,  I  happen  to 
know,  he  likes  it.  I  am  sure  you  will  understand  why  I  am 
so  egotistical. 

I  was  a  little  disappointed  in  Wallace's  book  *  on  the. 
Amazon  ;  hardly  facts  enough.  On  other  hand,  in  Gosse's 
book  f  there  is  not  reasoning  enough  to  my  taste.  Heaven 
knows  whether  you  will  care  to  read  all  this  scribbling.  .  .  . 

I  am  glad  you  had  a  pleasant  day  with  Hooker,J  he  is  an 
admirably  good  man  in  every  sense. 

[The  following  extract  from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bates  on  the 
same  subject  is  interesting  as  giving  an  idea  of  the  plan 
followed  by  my  father  in  writing  his  '  Naturalist's  Voyage  : ' 

"  As  an  old  hackneyed  author,  let  me  give  you  a  bit  of 
advice,  viz.  to  strike  out  every  word  which  is  not  quite 
necessary  to  the  current  subject,  and  which  could  not  interest 
a  stranger.  I  constantly  asked  myself,  Would  a  stranger 
care  for  this  ?  and  struck  out  or  left  in  accordingly.  I  think 
too  much  pains  cannot  be  taken  in  making  the  style  trans- 
parently clear  and  throwing  eloquence  to  the  dogs." 

Mr.  Bates's  book,  '  The  Naturalist  in  the  Amazons,'  was 
published  in  1863,  but  the  following  letter  may  be  given  here 
rather  than  in  its  due  chronological  position  :  ] 

*  'Travels   on  the  Amazon  and  (Dec.  1861),  my  father  wrote:  "I 

Rio  Negro,'  1853.  am  very  glad  to  hear  that  you  like 

f  Probably  the  '  Naturalist's  So-  Bates.     I  have  seldom  in  my  life 

journ  in  Jamaica/  185 1.  been    more    struck  with   a    man's 

%  In  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  power  of  mind." 


l86l.]  BATES'S   BOOK — AMERICAN    WAR.  38 1 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  W.  Bates. 

Down,  April  18,  1863. 

Dear  Bates, — 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  published  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.  The  cut  on  the  back  is 
most  tasteful.     I  heartily  congratulate  you  on  its  publication. 

The  Athencenm\  was  rather  cold,  as  it  always  is,  and  inso- 
lent in  the  highest  degree  about  your  leading  facts.  Have 
you  seen  the  Reader  ?  I  can  send  it  to  you  if  you  have  not 
seen  it.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  Dec.  11  [1861]. 
My  DEAR  Gray, — Many  and  cordial  thanks  for  your  two 
last  most  valuable  notes.  What  a  thing  it  is  that  when  you 
receive  this  we  may  be  at  war,  and  we  two  be  bound,  as  good 
patriots,  to  hate  each  other,  though  I  shall  find  this  hating 
you  very  hard  work.  How  curious  it  is  to  see  two  countries, 
just  like  two  angry  and  silly  men,  taking  so  opposite  a  view 
of  the  same  transaction !  I  fear  there  is  no  shadow  of 
doubt  we  shall  fight,  if  the  two  Southern  rogues  are  not  given 

*  In  a  letter  to  Lyell  my  father  Travels  ever  published  in  England. 

wrote  :    "  He    [i.e.    Mr.   Bates]    is  He   is    bold    about   Species,    &c, 

second   only  to   Humboldt   in   de-  and    the    Athenesum    coolly    says 

scribing  a  tropical  forest."  '  he  bends  his  facts  '  for  this  pur- 

t  "I  have  read  the  first  volume  pose.;' — (From  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D. 

of  Bates's  Book  ;  it  is  capital,  and  Hooker.) 
I  think  the  best  Natural  History 


382  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [l86l. 

up.*  And  what  a  wretched  thing  it  will  be  if  we  fight  on  the 
side  of  slavery.  No  doubt  it  will  be  said  that  we  fight  to  get 
cotton  ;  but  I  fully  believe  that  this  has  not  entered  into  the 
motive  in  the  least.  Well,  thank  Heaven,  we  private  indi- 
viduals have  nothing  to  do  with  so  awful  a  responsibility. 
Again,  how  curious  it  is  that  you  seem  to  think  that  you  can 
conquer  the  South  ;  and  I  never  meet  a  soul,  even  those  who 
would  most  wish  it,  who  thinks  it  possible — that  is,  to  conquer 
and  retain  it.  I  do  not  suppose  the  mass  of  people  in  your 
country  will  believe  it,  but  I  feel  sure  if  we  do  go  to  war  it 
will  be  with  the  utmost  reluctance  by  all  classes,  Ministers  of 
Government  and  all.  Time  will  show,  and  it  is  no  use  writing 
or  thinking  about  it.  I  called  the  other  day  on  Dr.  Boott, 
and  was  pleased  to  find  him  pretty  well  and  cheerful.  I  see, 
by  the  way,  he  takes  quite  an  English  opinion  of  American 
affairs,  though  an  American  in  heart.f  Buckle  might  write 
a  chapter  on  opinion  being  entirely  dependent  on  longitude ! 

.  .  .  With  respect  to  Design,  I  feel  more  inclined  to  show 
a  white  flag  than  to  fire  my  usual  long-range  shot.  I  like  to 
try  and  ask  you  a  puzzling  question,  but  when  you  return  the 
compliment  I  have  great  doubts  whether  it  is  a  fair  way  of" 
arguing.  If  anything  is  designed,  certainly  man  must  be : 
one's  "  inner  consciousness "  (though  a  false  guide)  tells  one 
so  ;  yet  I  cannot  admit  that  man's  rudimentary  mammae  .  .  . 
were  designed.  If  I  was  to  say  I  believed  this,  I  should 
believe  it  in  the  same  incredible  manner  as  the  orthodox 
believe  the  Trinity  in  Unity.  You  say  that  you  are  in  a 
haze  ;  I  am  in  thick  mud  ;  the  orthodox  would  say  in  fetid, 
abominable  mud  ;  yet  I  cannot  keep  out  of  the  question. 
My  dear  Gray,  I  have  written  a  deal  of  nonsense. 

Yours  most  cordially, 

C.  Darwin. 

*  The      Confederate      Commis-  Nov.  8,  1861.     The  news  that  the 

sioners    Slidell    and    Mason   were  U.S.  agreed  to  release  them  reached 

forcibly  removed  from  the   Trent,  England  on  Jan.  8,  1862. 

a  West    India    mail    steamer,    on  f  Dr.  Boott  was  born  in  the  U.S.. 


1 862.]  BOURNEMOUTH.  383; 

1862. 

[Owing  to  the  illness  from  scarlet  fever  of  one  of  his  boys, 
he  took  a  house  at  Bournemouth  in  the  autumn.  He  wrote 
to  Dr.  Gray  from  Southampton  (Aug.  21,  1862)  : — 

"We  are  a  wretched  family,  and  ought  to  be  exterminated. 
We  slept  here  to  rest  our  poor  boy  on  his  journey  to  Bourne- 
mouth, and  my  poor  dear  wife  sickened  with  scarlet  fever, 
and  has  had  it  pretty  sharply,  but  is  recovering  well.  There, 
is  no  end  of  trouble  in  this  weary  world.  I  shall  not  feel  safe 
till  we  are  all  at  home  together,  and  when  that  will  be  I  know 
not.     But  it  is  foolish  complaining." 

Dr.  Gray  used  to  send  postage  stamps  to  the  scarlet  fever 
patient ;  with  regard  to  this  good-natured  deed  my  father 
wrote — 

"  I  must  just  recur  to  stamps  ;  my  little  man  has  calculated 
that  he  will  now  have  6  stamps  which  no  other  boy  in  the 
school  has.  Here  is  a  triumph.  Your  last  letter  was. 
plaistered  with  many  coloured  stamps,  and  he  long  surveyed- 
the  envelope  in  bed  with  much  quiet  satisfaction." 

The  greater  number  of  the  letters  of  1862  deal  with  the 
Orchid  work,  but  the  wave  of  conversion  to  Evolution  was. 
still  spreading,  and  reviews  and  letters  bearing  on  the  subject 
still  came  in  numbers.  As  an  example  of  the  odd  letters 
he  received  may  be  mentioned  one  which  arrived  in  January 
of  this  year  "  from  a  German  homoeopathic  doctor,  an  ardent 
admirer  of  the  'Origin.'  Had  himself  published  nearly 
the  same  sort  of  book,  but  goes  much  deeper.  Explains 
the  origin  of  plants  and  animals  on  the  principles  of  ho- 
moeopathy or  by  the  law  of  spirality.  Book  fell  dead  in 
Germany.  Therefore  would  I  translate  it  and  publish  it  in 
England."] 


3§4  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1862 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  [Jan.  ?]  14  [1862]. 

My  DEAR  HUXLEY, — I  am  heartily  glad  of  your  success  in 
the  North,*  and  thank  you  for  your  note  and  slip.  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.  I  am  heartily  glad 
that  all  went  off  so  well.  I  hope  Mrs.  Huxley  is  pretty  well. 
.  .  .  .  I  must  say  one  word  on  the  Hybrid  question.  No 
doubt  you  are  right  that  here  is  a  great  hiatus  in  the  argu- 
ment ;  yet  I  think  you  overrate  it — you  never  allude  to  the 
excellent  evidence  of  varieties  of  Verbascum  and  Nicotiana 
being  partially  sterile  together.  It  is  curious  to  me  to  read 
(as  I  have  to-day)  the  greatest  crossing  Gardener  utterly 
pooh-poohing  the  distinction  which  Botanists  make  on  this 
head,  and  insisting  how  frequently  crossed  varieties  produce 
sterile  offspring.  Do  oblige  me  by  reading  the  latter  half  of 
my  Primula  paper  in  the  '  Linn.  Journal,'  for  it  leads  me  to 
suspect  that  sterility  will  hereafter  have  to  be  largely  viewed 
as  an  acquired  or  selected  character — a  view  which  I  wish  I 
had  had  facts  to  maintain  in  the  '  Origin.'  f .  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Jan.  25  [1862]. 

MY  DEAR  HOOKER, — Many  thanks  for  your  last  Sunday's 
letter,  which  was  one  of  the  pleasantest  I  ever  received  in  my 
life.  We  are  all  pretty  well  redivivus,  and  I  am  at  work 
again.     I   thought   it   best   to  make  a  clean   breast   to  Asa 

*  This     refers    to    two    of    Mr.  Nature.' 
Huxley's  lectures,  given  before  the  \  The  view  here  given  will   be 

Philosophical  Institution  of  Edin-  discussed  in  the  chapter  on  hetero- 

burgh  in  1862.     The  substance  of  styled  plants, 
them  is  given  in  '  Man's  Place  in 


1 862.] 


EVOLUTION    AND   TORYISM. 


35 


Gray  ;   and   told  him  that  the  Boston   dinner,   &c.  &c,  had 
quite  turned  my  stomach,  that  I  almost  thought  it  would  be 
good  for  the  peace  of  the  world   if  the  United   States  were 
split  up  ;  on  the  other  hand,  I  said  that  I  groaned  to  think  of 
the  slave-holders  being  triumphant,  and  that  the  difficulties 
of  making  a  line  of  separation  were  fearful.     I  wonder  what 
he  will  say Your  notion  of  the  Aristocrat  being  ken- 
speckle,  and  the  best   men  of  a  good  lot  being  thus  easily 
selected  is  new  to  me,  and  striking.    The  '  Origin  '  having  made 
you  in  fact  a  jolly  old  Tory,  made  us  all  laugh  heartily.     I 
have  sometimes  speculated  on  this  subject ;  primogeniture*  is 
dreadfully  opposed  to  selection  ;  suppose  the  first-born  bull 
was  necessarily  made  by  each   farmer   the    begetter  of  his 
stock !     On  the  other  hand,  as  you  say,  ablest  men  are  con- 
tinually raised  to  the  peerage,  and  get  crossed  with  the  older 
Lord-breeds,    and    the    Lords    continually   select   the    most 
beautiful  and  charming  women  out  of  the  lower  ranks  ;  so 
that  a  good  deal  of  indirect  selection  improves  the  Lords. 
Certainly  I  agree  with  you  the  present  American  row  has  a 
very  Torifying  influence  on  us  all.     I  am  very  glad  to  hear 
you  are  beginning  to  print  the  '  Genera  ;'  it  is  a  wonderful 
satisfaction  to  be  thus  brought  to  bed,  indeed  it  is  one's  chief 
satisfaction,  I  think,  though  one  knows  that  another  bantling 
will  soon  be  developing.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  Maxwell  Masters.] 

Down,  Feb.  26  [1862]. 
My  DEAR  Sir, — I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  sending  me 


*  My  father  had  a  strong  feeling 
as  to  the  injustice  of  primogeniture, 
and  in  a  similar  spirit  was  often 
indignant  over  the  unfair  wills  that 
appear  from  time  to  time.  He 
would  declare  energetically  that  if 
he  were  law-giver  no  will  should  be 
valid  that  was  not  published  in  the 

VOL.  II. 


testator's  lifetime  ;  and  this  he 
maintained  would  prevent  much  of 
the  monstrous  injustice  and  mean- 
ness apparent  in  so  many  wills. 

f  Dr.  Masters  is  a  well-known 
vegetable  teratologist,  and  has  been 
for  many  years  the  editor  of  the 
Gardeners'  Chronicle. 

2   C 


"> 


86  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1862 


your  article,*  which  I  have  just  read  with  much  interest.  The 
History,  and  a  good  deal  besides,  was  quite  new  to  me.  It 
seems  to  me  capitally  done,  and  so  clearly  written.  You 
really  ought  to  write  your  larger  work.  You  speak  too 
generously  of  my  book  ;  but  I  must  confess  that  you  have 
pleased  me  not  a  little  ;  for  no  one,  as  far  as  I  know,  has  ever 
remarked  on  what  I  say  on  classification, — a  part,  which 
when  I  wrote  it,  pleased  me,  With  many  thanks  to  you  for 
sending  me  your  article,  pray  believe  me, 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

[In  the  spring  of  this  year  (1862)  my  father  read  the 
second  volume  of  Buckle's  'History  of  Civilization.'  The 
following  strongly  expressed  opinion  about  it  may  be  worth 
quoting : — 

"  Have  you  read  Buckle's  second  volume  ?  it  has  interested 
me  greatly  ;  I  do  not  care  whether  his  views  are  right  or 
wrong,  but  I  should  think  they  contained  much  truth.  There 
is  a  noble  love  of  advancement  and  truth  throughout ;  and  to 
my  taste  he  is  the  very  best  writer  of  the  English  language 
that  ever  lived,  let  the  other  be  who  he  may."] 

C.  Dar iv in  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  March  15  [1862]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — Thanks  for  the  newspapers  (though  they 
did  contain  digs  at  England),  and  for  your  note  of  Feb.  1 8th. 
It  is  really  almost  a  pleasure  to  receive  stabs  from  so  smooth, 
polished  and  sharp  a  dagger  as  your  pen.  I  heartily  wish  I 
could  sympathise  more  fully  with  you,  instead  of  merely 
hating  the  South.  We  cannot  enter  into  your  feelings  ;  if 
Scotland  were  to  rebel,  I  presume  we  should  be  very  wrath, 
but  I  do  not  think  we  should  care  a  penny  what  other  nations 

*  A  paper  on  "Vegetable  Mor-      'British  and  Foreign  Medico-Chi- 
phology,"  by  Dr.  Masters,  in  the      rurgical  Review '  for  1862. 


1 362.] 


SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION. 


337 


thought.  The  millennium  must  come  before  nations  love  each 
other  ;  but  try  and  do  not  hate  me.  Think  of  me,  if  you  will 
as  a  poor  blinded  fool.     I  fear  the  dreadful  state  of  affairs 

must  dull  your  interest  in  Science 

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  arc  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.  One  of  the  best  men, 
though  at  present  unknown,  who  has  taken  up  these  views, 
is  Mr.  Bates  ;  pray  read  his  '  Travels  in  Amazonia,'  when  they 
appear  ;  they  will  be  very  good,  judging  from  MS.  of  the  first 
two  chapters. 

Again  I  say,  do  not  hate  me. 

Ever  yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 


t     •     • 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

1  Carlton  Terrace,  Southampton,! 
Aug.  22  [1862]. 

....  I  heartily  hope  that  you  ±  will  be  out  in  October. 
.  .  .  .  You  say  that  the  Bishop  and  Owen  will  be  down  on 
you  ;  the  latter  hardly  can,  for  I  was  assured  that  Owen 
in   his    Lectures    this    spring   advanced    as   a  new  idea   that 


*  In  June,  1862,  my  father  wrote 
to  Dr.  Gray  :  "  I  received,  2  or  3 
days  ago,  a  French  translation  of 
the  '  Origin,'  by  a  Madlle.  Royer, 
who  must  be  one  of  the  cleverest 
and  oddest  women  in  Europe  :  is 
an  ardent  Deist,  and  hates  Chris- 
tianity, and  declares  that  natural 
selection  and  the  struggle  for  life 
will  explain  all  morality,  nature  of 
man,  politics,  &c.  &c!     She  makes 


some  very  curious  and  good  hits, 
and  says  she  shall  publish  a  book 
on  these  subjects."  Madlle.  Royer 
added  foot-notes  to  her  translation, 
and  in  many  places  where  the  author 
expresses  great  doubt,  she  explains 
the  difficulty,  or  points  out  that  no 
real  difficulty  exists. 

f  The  house  of  his  son  William. 

%  I.e.  '  The  Antiquity  of  Man.' 


388  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1862. 

wingless  birds  had  lost  their  wings  by  disuse,  also  that 
magpies  stole  spoons,  &c.,  from  a  remnant  of  some  instinct 
like  that  of  the  Bower-Bird,  which  ornaments  its  playing- 
passage  with  pretty  feathers.  Indeed,  I  am  told  that  he 
hinted  plainly  that  all  birds  are  descended  from  one  .... 

Your  P.S.  touches  on,  as  it  seems  to  me,  very  difficult 
points.  I  am  glad  to  see  [that]  in  the  '  Origin,'  I  only  say 
that  the  naturalists  generally  consider  that  low  organisms 
vary  more  than  high ;  and  this  I  think  certainly  is  the 
general  opinion.  I  put  the  statement  this  way  to  show  that 
I  considered  it  only  an  opinion  probably  true.  I  must  own 
that  I  do  not  at  all  trust  even  Hooker's  contrary  opinion,  as 
I  feel  pretty  sure  that  he  has  not  tabulated  any  result.  I 
have  some  materials  at  home,  I  think  I  attempted  to  make 
this  point  out,  but  cannot  remember  the  result. 

Mere  variability,  though  the  necessary  foundation  of  all 
modifications,  I  believe  to  be  almost  always  present,  enough 
to  allow  of  any  amount  of  selected  change  ;  so  that  it  does 
not  seem  to  me  at  all  incompatible  that  a  group  which  at  any 
one  period  (or  during  all  successive  periods)  varies  less,  should 
in  the  long  course  of  time  have  undergone  more  modification 
than  a  group  which  is  generally  more  variable. 

Placental  animals,  e.g.  might  be  at  each  period  less  variable 
than  Marsupials,  and  nevertheless  have  undergone  more 
differentiation  and  development  than  marsupials,  owing  to 
some  advantage,  probably  brain  development. 

I  am  surprised,  but  do  not  pretend  to  form  an  opinion  at 
Hooker's  statement  that  higher  species,  genera,  &c,  are  best 
limited.     It  seems  to  me  a  bold  statement. 

Looking  to  the  '  Origin,'  I  see  that  I  state  that  the  pro- 
ductions of  the  land  seem  to  change  quicker  than  those  of 
the  sea  (Chapter  X.,  p.  339,  3rd  edition),  and  I  add  there  is 
some  reason  to  believe  that  organisms  considered  high  in  the 
scale  change  quicker  than  those  that  are  low.  I  remember 
writing    these    sentences    after    much    deliberation I 


1 862.]  FALCONER   ON   SPECIES.  389 

remember  well  feeling  much  hesitation  about  putting  in  even 

the  guarded  sentences  which  I  did.    My  doubts,  I  remember, 

related  to  the  rate  of  change  of  the  Radiata  in  the  Secondary 

formation,  and   of  the   Foraminifera   in   the   oldest  Tertiary 

beds 

Good  night, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  Oct.  1  [1862]. 

....  I  found  here  *  a  short  and  very  kind  note  of  Fal- 
coner, with  some  pages  of  his  '  Elephant  Memoir,'  which  will 
be  published,  in  which  he  treats  admirably  on  long  persistence 
of  type.  I  thought  he  was  going  to  make  a  good  and  crush- 
ing attack  on  me,  but,  to  my  great  satisfaction,  he  ends  by 
pointing  out  a  loophole,  and  adds,t  "with  him  I  have  no  faith 
that  the  mammoth  and  other  extinct  elephants  made  their 

appearance  suddenly The  most  rational  view  seems 

to  be  that  they  are  the  modified  descendants  of  earlier  pro- 
genitors, &c."  This  is  capital.  There  will  not  be  soon  one 
good  palaeontologist  who  believes  in  immutability.  Falconer 
does  not  allow  for  the  Proboscidean  group  being  a  failing  one, 
and  therefore  not  likely  to  be  giving  off  new  races. 

He  adds  that  he  does  not  think  Natural  Selection  suffices. 
I  do  not  quite  see  the  force  of  his  argument,  and  he  appa- 
rently overlooks  that  I  say  over  and  over  again  that  Natural 
Selection  can  do  nothing  without  variability,  and  that  varia- 
bility is  subject  to  the  most  complex  fixed  laws 

[In  his  letters  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  about  the  end  of  this 

*  On  his    return   from   Bourne-  clearer.     The    passage    begins    as 

mouth.  follows  :  "  The  inferences  which  I 

f  Falconer,  "  On  the  American  draw  from  these  facts   are  not  op- 
Fossil  Elephant,"  in  the  '  Nat.  Hist.  posed  to  one  of  the  leading   pro- 
Review,'   1863,  p.  81.     The  words  positions  of  Darwin's  theory.   With 
preceding  those  cited  by  my  father  him,"  &c.  (Sec. 
make  the  meaning  of  his  quotation 


390  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1862. 

year,  are  occasional  notes  on  the  progress  of  the  'Variation 
of  Animals  and  Plants.'  Thus  on  November  24th  he  wrote  : 
"  I  hardly  know  why  I  am  a  little  sorry,  but  my  present 
work  is  leading  me  to  believe  rather  more  direct  in  the  action 
of  physical  conditions.  I  presume  I  regret  it,  because  it 
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." 

Again,  on  December  22nd,  "  To-day  I  have  begun  to 
think  of  arranging  my  concluding  chapters  on  Inheritance, 
Reversion,  Selection,  and  such  things,  and  am  fairly  paralysed 
how  to  begin  and  how  to  end,  and  what  to  do,  with  my  huge 
piles  of  materials."] 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  Nov.  6  [1862]. 

My  DEAR  Gray, — When  your  note  of  October  4th  and  13th 
(chiefly  about  Max  Miiller)  arrived,  I  was  nearly  at  the  end 
of  the  same  book,*  and  had  intended  recommending  you  to 
read  it.  I  quite  agree  that  it  is  extremely  interesting,  but  the 
latter  part  about  the  first  origin  of  language  much  the  least 
satisfactory.  It  is  a  marvellous  problem.  ....  [There  are] 
covert  sneers  at  me,  which  he  seems  to  get  the  better  of 
towards  the  close  of  the  book.  I  cannot  quite  see  how  it 
will  forward  "  my  cause,"  as  you  call  it ;  but  I  can  see  how 
any  one  with  literary  talent  (I  do  not  feel  up  to  it)  could 
make  great  use  of  the  subject  in  illustration.!  What  pretty 
metaphors  you  would  make  from  it !     I  wish  some  one  would 

*  'Lectures   on   the   Science   of  Also    by   Prof.    Schleicher,   whose 

Language,'  1st  edit.  1861.  pamphlet  was  fully  noticed  in  the 

t  Language   was   treated  in  the  Reader,  Feb.  27,  1864  (as  I  learn 

manner  here  indicated  by   Sir    C.  from   one   of  Prof.   Huxley's  'Lay 

Lyell   in   the   '  Antiquity   of  Man.'  Sermons '). 


1 862.] 


BOOKS — MIMICRY. 


391 


keep  a  lot  of  the  most  noisy  monkeys,  half  free,  and  study 
their  means  of  communication  ! 

A  book  has  just  appeared  here  which  will,  I  suppose,  make 
a  noise,  by  Bishop  Colenso,*  who,  judging  from  extracts, 
smashes  most  of  the  Old  Testament.  Talking  of  books,  I  am 
in  the  middle  of  one  which  pleases  me,  though  it  is  very 
innocent  food,  viz.  Miss  Cooper'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. 
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 


C.  Darwin  to  H.  IV.  Bates. 

Down,  Nov.  20,  [1862]. 

Dear  BATES, — I  have  justf  finished,  after  several  reads,  your 
paper,  f     In  my  opinion  it  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  and 


*  '  The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of 
Joshua  critically  examined,'  six 
parts,  1862-71. 

t  This  refers  to  Mr.  Bates's 
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  showing  the  difficul- 
ties 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  natur- 
alists 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 
arguments  ;  but  it  is  made  at  the 
expense  of  putting  an  effectual  bar 
to  all  further  inquiry.  In  this  par- 
ticular case,  moreover,  the  crea- 
tionist will  meet  with  special  diffi- 
culties ;  for  many  of  the  mimicking 
forms  of  Leptalis  can  be  shown  by 
a  graduated   series   to   be    merely 


392 


SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION. 


[1862. 


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  con- 
sumed much  time.  I  am  rejoiced  that  I  passed  over  the 
whole  subject  in  the  '  Origin,'  for  I  should  have  made  a  pre- 
cious 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 


varieties  of  one  species  ;  other  mi- 
mickers  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  variation,  whilst 
others  he  must  look  at  as  separately 
created  under  their  present  guise  ; 
he  will  further  have  to  admit  that 
some  have  been  created  in  imita- 
tion of  forms  not  themselves  created 
as  we  now  see  them,  but  due  to  the 


laws  of  variation  !  Prof.  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  many  natur- 
alists will  be  content  thus  to  be- 
lieve that  varieties  and  individuals 
have  been  turned  out  all  ready 
made,  almost  as  a  manufacturer 
turns  out  toys  according  to  the 
temporary  demand  of  the  market." 


1 862.]  mimicry.  393 

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 
fully  appreciate  it.  How  gets  on  your  book  ?  Keep  your 
spirits  up.  A  book  is  no  light  labour,  I  have  been  better 
lately,  and  working  hard,  but  my  health  is  very  indifferent. 
How  is  your  health  ?     Believe  me,  dear  Bates, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 


END   OF  VOL.   II. 


2   D 


LONDON: 
PRINTED  BY  WILLIAM  CLOWES  AND  SONS,  Limited, 

STAMFORD  STREET  AND  CHARtNG  CROSS, 


■ 


■ 


hb  ■■'■/.' 


■ 


#/**> 


■ 

■  ■ 

.'    ■  ■  I  I  I  <r 

''■•'.  ■    ■  1 


I 


^M 


m 
1 1 1 1 1 


■ 


'.'ks.il 

■  I 


nr 


■  '  I 


^v*-"  vi- 


53 


m 


tmm 


^••;*--x*.x 


m 


■ 


■ 


■ 


■ 


■ 


■ 

I  ■     ■ 

■■  i  i  *i 

*  -.  ■  I  I 

■ 

SUB         H 

I  *  .St  H  "-X. 

I    . 


^H_ 


nUk-w  iMFYfM 


■ 

■       ■  RMS      *Ii 

■                        ■    ■  ftfi 

■■       -:  ■  '  -  I 


■■■■■     BB  San 

■■  aW>;-  ■■  I  Buy       Shi 

■   ■  ■         ■       SI 

5fc      ^H  :?■"',  I  I     •> 

fan    i^H        H    HHH  ■     H 
£  WBni     BR*  §19  'oft 

En 
!••»  ■■■■■  EK^ 

.HIM  .■  ■  ■   s* 


■ 


■■■■    ■■       ■■■«     K*¥?  ;•-     Bol 

■■1  ■■  1 1  I    I  :  I  I 

■HI      SSI  ^^BmmB  S8 


■*  ; 


I 


■