Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


fifi 


I 

!  li 


sh 


Seen 

royM 


* 


i*rt&'( 


♦  £:**$? 


-A" 


i  ■ 


SkMcgK 


Bit 


•      * 


HI 


.**   # 


His 


ns^w 


i 


"Ill 


CHARLES   DARWIN   IN    1 88 1. 

[From  a  photograph  by  Messrs.  Elliott  and  Fry 


v.v  * 


THI: 

AND  LE         RS  OF 

CHARLES  DARWIN 


ng  an  Autobiographical  Chapter 


EDIT 

WIN 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES 
VOL.  II 


NEW  YORK 
D.  APPLETON   AND  C 

18 


■ 


It 

'8  THE 

WW 

LIFE  AND  LETTERS  OF 

CHARLES  DARWIN 


Including  an  Autobiographical  Chapter 


EDITED  BY  HIS  SON 

FRANCIS  DARWIN 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES 
VOL.  II 


NEW  YORK 

D.  APPLETON  AND  COMPANY 

1896 


\ 


Authorized  Edition. 


i 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I. — The  Publication  of  the  'Origin  of  Species '—Oct.  3, 

1859,  to  Dec.  31,  1859 1 

II. — The  'Origin  of  Species'  {continued) — 1860  .  .  -5* 
III. — The  Spread  of  Evolution — 1861-1862  ....  149 
IV. — The  Spread  of  Evolution.     'Variation  of  Animals    • 

and  Plants'— 1863-1866 186 

V. — The   Publication  of  the  'Variation  of  Animais  and 
Plants  under  Domestication' — January  1867-JuNE 

1868 242 

VI. — Work  on  'Man'— 1864-18 70 271 

VII. — The   Publication  of  the   'Descent   of   Man.'    Work 

on  'Expression' — 1871-1873 311 

VIII. — Miscellanea,  including  Second  Editions  of  'Coral 
Reefs/  the  *  Descent  of  Man,'  and  the  'Varia- 
tions of  Animals  and  Plants' — 1874  and  1875  .  359 
IX. — Miscellanea  (continued).  A  Revival  of  Geological 
Work — The  Book  on  Earthworms — Life  of  Eras- 
mus Darwin — Miscellaneous  Letters — 1876-1882    .  388 

BOTANICAL   LETTERS. 

X.— Fertilisation  of  Flowers — 1839-1880      ....  429 
XL — The   'Effects   of   Cross-   and   Self-Fertilisation   in 

the  Vegetable  Kingdom  ' — 1866-1877         .        .        .  463 
XII. — 'Different  Forms  of  Flowers  on  Plants  of  the  same 

Species' — 1860-1878 469 


Jv  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XIII.— Climbing  and  Insectivorous  Plants — 1863-1875     .  .  484 

XIV. — The  *  Power  of  Movement  in  Plants' — 1878-1881  .  502 

XV.— Miscellaneous  Botanical  Letters— 1873-1882       .  .511 


XVI.— Conclusion 526 

APPENDICES. 

I.— The  Funeral  in  Westminster  Abbey         .        .        .        .531 
II.— List  of  Works  by  C.  Darwin      .        .        .        .        .        .533 

III. — Portraits 542 

IV. — Honours,  Degrees,  Societies,  &c 544 


LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Charles  Darwin  in   1881.    From  a  photograph  by  Messrs. 

Elliott  and  Fry Frontispiece, 

Facsimile  of  a  page  from  a  note-book  of  1337.  Photo-litho- 
graphed by  the  Cambridge  Scientific  Instrument  Com- 
pany         Face  p.  1 


THE  LIBRARY 

BRIGHAM  YOUNG  UNIVERSITY 
PROVO,  UTAH 


*** 


.4 


1 


&<*  *    1 2    Iff 


i 


j 


*0  > 


s  ^ 


*4 


facsimile    of  a  page  from 

a  nole  book  of   1837. 
('See   transcript  opposite) 


FROM  A  NOTE-BOOK  OF  1837. 


led  to  comprehend   true  affinities.      My  theor 
zest  to  recent  &  Fossil  Comparativ 
to  study  of  mstin 


id  to  1 

:ld  thL  1  of  study,  to  gu 

peculations. 


:.. 


iS 


M* 


*±,  i » 


j 


i 

1 


%,. 


\ 


. 


3 


I 


9* 

*4 


X 


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  &  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. 


LIFE   AND    LETTERS 


OF 


CHARLES    DARWIN 


CHAPTER   I. 

The  Publication  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species.5 
October  3,  1859,  t0  December  31,  1859. 


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  Novem- 
ber 24th,  and  all  copies  sold  first  day." 

On  October  2d  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.] 


2  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'     [1859. 

C.  Lye  11  to  C.  Darwin* 

October  3d,  1859. 

My  dear  Darwin,— I  have  just  finished  your  volume 
and  right  glad  I  am  that  I  did  my  best  with  Hooker  to  per- 
suade 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  effect- 
ive 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  unknown 
and  imaginary  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 — Rudimentary 
Organs — Embryology — the  genealogical  key  to  the  Natural 

*  Part  of  this  letter  is  given  in  the  \  Life  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell/  vol.  iL 
P-  325. 


1859.]  LYELL'S   CONGRATULATIONS.  3 

System,  Geographical  Distribution,  and  if  I  went  on  I  should 
be  copying  the  heads  of  all  your  chapters.  But  I  will  say  a 
word  of  the  Recapitulation,  in  case  some  slight  alteration, 
or,  at  least,  omission  of  a  word  or  two  be  still  possible  in  that. 

In  the  first  place,  at  p.  480,  it  cannot  surely  be  said  that 
the  most  eminent  naturalists  have  rejected  the  view  of  the 
mutability  of  species?  You  do  not  mean  to  ignore  G.  St. 
Hilaire  and  Lamarck.  As  to  the  latter,  you  may  say,  that  in 
regard  to  animals  you  substitute  natural  selection  for  volition 
to  a  certain  considerable  extent,  but  in  his  theory  of  the 
changes  of  plants  he  could  not  introduce  volition  ;  he  may, 
no  doubt,  have  laid  an  undue  comparative  stress  on  changes 
in  physical  conditions,  and  too  little  on  those  of  contending 
organisms.  He  at  least  was  for  the  universal  mutability  of 
species  and  for  a  genealogical  link  between  the  first  and  the 
present.  The  men  of  his  school  also  appealed  to  domesti- 
cated 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  be- 
fore 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 

*  In  the  published  copies  of  the  first  edition,  p.  480,  the  words  are 
"  eminent  living  naturalists." 


4  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'     [1859. 

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  no 
longer  wanted  for  the  sound,  to  rudimentary  organs  is  excel- 
lent, as  both  are  truly  genealogical. 

The  want  of  peculiar  birds  in  Madeira  is  a  greater  diffi- 
culty than  seemed  to  me  allowed  for.  I  could  cite  passages 
where  you  show  that  variations  are  superinduced  from  the 
new  circumstances  of  new  colonists,  which  would  require 
some  Madeira  birds,  like  those  of  the  Galapagos,  to  be  pe- 
culiar. 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 
3d,  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 


1859.]  LYELL'S   CRITICISMS.  5 

tell  the  barrister  on  one  side  how  best  to  win  the  cause  ! 
The  omission  of  "  living "  before  eminent  naturalists  was  a 
dreadful  blunder. 

Madeira  and  Bermuda  Birds  not  peculiar. — You  are  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  mainland.  In  Bermuda  this 
can  be  proved,  in  Madeira  highly  probable,  as  shown  me  by 
letters  from  E.  V.  Harcburt.  Moreover,  there  are  ample 
grounds  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  CandohVs  results  (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 


6  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

all,  I  am  sure,  you  will  understand  that  I  thus  write  dogmati- 
cally for  brevity  sake. 

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  con- 
ditions, whilst  the  offspring  of  this  very  monad  might  become 
fitted  for  more  complex  conditions.  The  one  primordial 
prototype  of  all  living  and  extinct  creatures  may,  it  is  possi- 
ble, 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  creatures  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  crea- 
tion 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 


1859.]  LYELL'S   CRITICISMS.  7 

so  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  father  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  differ- 
ence must  be,  that  you  think  it  impossible  that  the  intellec- 
tual powers  of  a  species  should  be  much  improved  by  the 
continued  natural  selection  of  the  most  intellectual  individ- 
uals. To  show  how  minds  graduate,  just  reflect  how  impos- 
sible 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, 
Homology,  Classification,  &c,  &c,  show  us  that  all  verte- 
brata 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  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 


8  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  «  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859, 

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. 

Hie  forms  which  are  beaten  inheriting  some  inferiority  in 
common. — I  dare  say  I  have  not  been  guarded  enough,  but 
might  not  the  term  inferiority  include  less  perfect  adapta- 
tion 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  impor- 
tance of  climate — its  important  influence  being  so  conspicu- 
ous, 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  noth- 
ing so  instructive)  on  the  case  of  thousands  of  plants  in  the 
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, 


1859.]  LYELL'S   CRITICISMS.  g 

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  labor  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 
rudimentary  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  Selection  acts  exclusively  by  preserving 
successive  slight,  //^////modifications.  Hence  Natural  Selec- 
tion 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  purposes,  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  nascent  organs  will  rarely  have 
been  handed  down  by  certain  members  of  a  class  from  a  re- 
mote period  to  the  present  day,  for  beings  with  any  im- 
portant organ  but  little  developed,  will  generally  have 
been  supplanted  by  their  descendants  with  the  organ  well 
developed.  The  mammary  glands  in  Ornithorhynchus  may, 
perhaps,  be  considered  as  nascent  compared  with  the  udders 


IO       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  *  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

of  a  cow — Ovigerous  frena,  in  certain  cirripedes,  are  nascent 
branchiae — in  [illegible]  the  swim  bladder  is  almost  rudi- 
mentary 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  re- 
sembles other  birds,  that  we  may  infer  that  its  wings  have  prob- 
ably been  modified,  and  reduced  by  natural  selection,  in  ac- 
cordance with  its  sub-aquatic  habits.  Analogy  thus  often 
serves  as  a  guide  in  distinguishing  whether  an  organ  is  rudi- 
mentary or  nascent.  I  believe  the  Os  coccyx  gives  attachment 
to  certain  muscles,  but  I  can  not  doubt  that  it  is  a  rudiment- 
ary 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  diffi- 
culties and  solving  them — as  far  more  important  than  reading 
my  book.  If  you  think  enough,  I  expect  you  will  be  per- 
verted, 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  can- 
not 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  so  slight  a  degree,  shaken  any  of  your  objec- 
tions. Farewell  With  my  cordial  thanks  for  your  long  let- 
ters 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. 


1859.J  AGASSIZ— DE    CANDOLLE.  II 

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  errone- 
ous 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. 

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  inade- 
quate manner,  by  which  I   can  testify  to   you  the  extreme 

*  Jean  Louis  Rodolphe  Agassiz,  born  at  Mortier,  on  the  lake  of  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  Superior.'  I  had  heard  of  it,  and  had  much 
wished  to  read  it,  but  I  confess  that  it  was  the  very  great  honour  of  having 
in  my  possession  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  in- 
crease as  I  go  on." 

33 


I2       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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.  Darwin  to  Hugh  Falconer. 

Down,  November  nth  [1859]. 
My  dear  Falconer, — I  have  told  Murray  to  send  you  a 
copy  of  my  book  on  the  i  Origin  of  Species,'  which  as  yet 
is  only  an  abstract. 

If  you  read  it,  you  must  read  it  straight  through,  other- 
wise from  its  extremely  condensed  state  it  will  be  unin- 
telligible. 

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  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 
immutability  of  species.  With  this  audacious  and  presump- 
tuous conviction, 

I  remain,  my  dear  Falconer, 
Yours  most  truly, 

Charles  Darwin. 

*  Jessie  Allen,  sister  of  Mrs  Josiah  Wedgwood  of  Maer. 


1859-]  GRAY— HENSLOW.  1 3 

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  i  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  extremely  grate- 
ful. As  you  are  not  a  geologist,  you  will  excuse  my  conceit 
in  telling  you  that  Lyell  highly  approves  of  the  two  Geologi- 
cal chapters,  and  thinks  that  on  the  Imperfection  of  the  Geo- 
logical 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  J.  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 
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 


I4       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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  Lubbock* 

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 
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  Lubbock. 

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 

*  The  present  Sir  John  Lubbock. 


I859-]  LUBBOCK— JENYNS.  1 5 

to  Brighton.  I  meant  merely  to  thank  you  sincerely  for  wish- 
ing 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  Z.  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 
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 
difficulties  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 

*  Now  Rev.  L.  Blomefield. 


iC        PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'     [1859. 

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  remembrance  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 
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.  Slater  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  hews  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 


I859-]  FOX.— CARPENTER.  1 7 

that  you  will  be  thinking  of  returning  *  soon  with  your  mag- 
nificent 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  com- 
plete 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  swollen  whole  leg  and  face,  much  rash,  and  a  frightful 
succession  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  con- 
vert, and  he  thinks  Lyell  is  likewise  ;  certainly,  judging  from 
LyelFs  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 

*  Mr.  Wallace  was  in  the  Malay  Archipelago. 


!8       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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  in  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  un- 
popularity 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  admi- 
ration which  I  have  long  felt  and  expressed  for  your  i  Com- 
parative 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.  Hol- 
land. I  do  not  think  (privately  I  say  it)  that  the  great  man 
has  knowledge  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  Lyeli  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 


1859.I  OPINIONS   AND    REVIEWS.  ig 

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,  anji  have  persuaded  them- 
selves of  the  truth  of  the  foolishest  doctrines,  I  feel  sometimes 
a  little  frightened,  whether  I  may  not  be  one  of  these  mono- 
maniacs. 

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  J.  £>.  Hooker. 

Ilkley,  Yorkshire, 

Sunday  [November,  1859]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — I  have  just  read  a  review  on  my 
book  in  the  Athenceutn*  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  Gardener's 

*  Nov.  19,  1859. 

\  The  Reviewer  speaks  of  the  author's  "  evident  self-satisfaction,"  and 
of  his  disposing  of  all  difficulties  M  more  or  less  confidently." 


20       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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  hope  you  got  the  three  copies  for  Foreign  Botanists  in 
time  for  your  parcel,  and  your  own  copy.  I  have  heafd  from 
Carpenter,  who,  I  think,  is  likely  to  be  a  convert.  Also  from 
Quatrefages,  who  is  inclined  to  go  a  long  way  with  us.  He 
says  that  he  exhibited  in  his  lecture  a  diagram  closely  like 
mine  ! 

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  Hux- 
ley 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,  December  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- 

*  Introduction  to  the  '  Flora  of  Australia/ 


I859-]  H-    c-    WATSON.  21 

trary,  so  sincerely  value  all  that  you  have  written.  It  is  an 
old  and  firm  conviction  of  mine,  that  the  Naturalists  who 
accumulate  facts  and  make  many  partial  generalisations  are 
the  real  benefactors  of  science.  Those  who  merely  accumu- 
late 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 
Monday,  and  was  detained  in  adjudicating  some  troublesome 
cases  i  J  hours  longer  than  usual,  and  came  home  utterly 
knocked  up,  and  cannot  rally.  I  am  not  worth  an  old  but- 
ton  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.  u  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  cen- 
turies. 

2nd.  You  will  perhaps  need,  in  some  degree,  to  limit  or 


22       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  *  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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 
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  dis- 
cover, 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 

*  "  Almost-man." 


1859.]  THE   'ATHEN.EUM.'  23 

still  widening  hiatus.     But  how  greatly  this,  with  your  chro- 
nology of  animal  life,  will  shock  the  ideas  of  many  men  ! 

Very  sincerely, 

Hewett  C.  Watson. 


/.  D.  Hooker  to  C.  Darwin. 

Athenaeum,  Monday  [Nov.  21st,  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  success- 
ful. 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  compli- 
ment 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 


24       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

little  chagrined  by  the  review.*     I  hope  it  was  not .     As 

advocate,  he  might  think  himself  justified  in  giving  the  argu- 
ment 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.  Lyell. 

Ilkley  Wells,  Yorkshire, 

November  23  [1859]. 

My  dear  Lyell, — You  seemed  to  have  worked  admira- 
bly on  the  species  question;  there  could  not  have  been  a 
better  plan  than  reading  up  on  the  opposite  side.  I  rejoice 
profoundly  that  you  intend  admitting  the  doctrine  of  modifi- 
cation in  your  new  edition ;  f  nothing,  I  am  convinced,  could 
be  more  important  for  its  success.  I  honour  you  most  sin- 
cerely.    To  have  maintained  in  the  position  of  a  master,  one 

*  This  refers  to  the  review  in  the  Athenceum^  Nov.  19,  1859,  where 
the  reviewer,  after  touching  on  the  theological  aspects  of  the  book,  leaves 
the  author  to  "  the  mercies  of  the  Divinity  Hall,  the  College,  the  Lecture 
Room,  and  the  Museum." 

f  It  appears  from  Sir  Charles  Lyell's  published  letters  that  he  intended 
to  admit  the  doctrine  of  evolution  in  a  new  edition  of  the  \  Manual,'  but 


1859.]  c-    LYELL.  25 

side  of  a  question  for  thirty  years,  and  then  deliberately  give 
it  up,  is  a  fact  to  which  I  much  doubt  whether  the  records  of 
science  offer  a  parallel.  For  myself,  also,  I  rejoice  pro- 
foundly ;  for,  thinking  of  so  many  cases  of  men  pursuing  an 
illusion  for  years,  often  and  often  a  cold  shudder  has  run 
through  me,  and  I  have  asked  myself  whether  I  may  not  have 
devoted  my  life  to  a  phantasy.  Now  I  look  at  it  as  morally 
impossible  that  investigators  of  truth,  like  you  and  Hooker, 
can  be  wholly  wrong,  and  therefore  I  rest  in  peace.  Thank 
you  for  criticisms,  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  origi- 
nated since  man  domesticated  the  species.  In  the  case  of 
multiple  origins  part  of  the  difference  was  produced  under 
natural  conditions.  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,  that  man  should  have 
domesticated  one  single  species  alone,  of  the  widely  distrib- 
uted genus  Canis.  Besides  this,  the  close  resemblance  of 
at  least  three  kinds  of  American  domestic  dogs  to  wild  spe- 
cies still  inhabiting  the  countries  where  they  are  now  domes- 
ticated, seem  to  almost  compel  admission  that  more  than  one 
wild  Canis  has  been  domesticated  by  man. 

this  was  not  published  till  1865.  He  was,  however,  at  work  on  the  'An- 
tiquity of  Man '  in  i860,  and  had  already  determined  to  discuss  the  '  Ori- 
gin '  at  the  end  of  the  book. 


26       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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. 

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  support  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. 


*  Karl  Ernst  von  Baer,  b.  1792,  d.  at  Dorpat  1876 — one  of  the  most 
distinguished  biologists  of  the  century.  He  practically  founded  the  mod- 
ern science  of  embryology. 


I859-]  MR.   HUXLEY'S   ADHERENCE.  2J 

But  J  feel  that  I  have  not  yet  by  any  means  fully  realized 
the  bearings  of  those  most  remarkable  and  original  Chapters 
III.,  IV.  and  V.,  and  I  will  write  no  more  about  them  just 
now. 

The  only  objections  that  have  occurred  to  me  are,  ist  that 
you  have  loaded  yourself  with  an  unnecessary  difficulty  in 
adopting  Natura  non  facit 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  misrepre- 
sentation 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.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley, 

Ilkley,  Nov.  25th  [1859]. 
My  dear  Huxley, — Your  letter  has  been  forwarded  to 
me  from  Down.  Like  a  good  Catholic  who  has  received 
extreme  unction,  I  can  now  sing  "  nunc  dimittis."  I  should 
have  been  more  than  contented  with  one  quarter  of  what  you 
have  said.  Exactly  fifteen  months  ago,  when  I  put  pen  to 
39 


28       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  ■  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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- 
tionist !  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  similar- 
ity. On  classification  I  fear  we  shall  split.  Did  you  per- 
ceive the  argumentum  ad  hominem  Huxley  about  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.  f  has  said.  He  has  not  read 
much  above  half,  so  as  he  says  he  can  give  no  definite  con- 
clusion, and  it  is  my  private  belief  he  wishes  to  remain  in 
that  state.  .  .  .  He  is  evidently  in  a  dreadful  state  of  inde- 
cision, and  keeps  stating  that  he  is  not  tied  down  to  either 
view,  and  that  he  has  always  left  an  escape  by  the  way  he 
has  spoken  of  varieties.     I  happened  to  speak  of  the  eye  be- 

*  His  brother.  f  Dr.,  afterwards  Sir  Henry  Holland. 


1859.J  NEW  EDITION.  29 

fore  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  conceivabil- 
ity.  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 
knowledge  of  chemistry,  getting  into  a  new  world  or  rather 
behind  the  scenes.  To  me  the  geographical  distribution,  I 
mean  the  relation  of  islands  to  continents,  is  the  most  con- 
vincing 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  paleontolo- 
gists 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 
water-cure,  with  all  nervous   power  directed  to  the  skin,  I 

*  First  edition,  1250  copies. 


3o       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/      [1859. 

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 
coute. 

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. 
Quatrefages  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  scien- 
tific 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 
Quatrefages  :  "  The  gentleman  who  wished  to  translate  my 

*  The  passage  was  omitted  in  the  second  edition. 


I859-]  GERMAN    EDITION.  3 1 

'  Origin  of  Species  '  has  failed  in  getting  a  publisher. 
Balliere,  Masson,  and  Hachette  all  rejected  it  with  con- 
tempt. It  was  foolish  and  presumptuous  in  me,  hoping  to 
appear  in  a  French  dress ;  but  the  idea  would  not  have  en- 
tered 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  con- 
temporary Zoologists  :  "  How  I  should  like  to  know  whether 
Milne  Edwards  had  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  26th,  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  exceed  • 
ed  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.  70. 


32       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'     [1859. 

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  mod- 
ify the  passage  in  accordance  with  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  Sedgwick's  remark  that  my  book  would  be 
u  mischievous,"  I  asked  him  whether  truth  can  be  known  ex- 
cept 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,  u  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,  Ci  at  least  such  parts  as  he 
could  understand."  He  sent  me  some  notes  and  sugges- 
tions (quite  unimportant),  and  they  show  me  that  I  have  un- 
avoidably done  harm  to  the  subject,  by  publishing  an  ab- 
stract. He  is  a  real  Pallasian ;  nearly  all  our  domestic 
races  descended  from  a  multitude  of  wild  species  now  com- 

*  The  letter  is  given  at  p.  82. 

t  John  Crawford,  orientalist,  ethnologist,  &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  tendency  of  which 
is  to  show  that  all  organic  beings,  man  included,  are  in  a  perpetual  prog- 
ress of  amelioration,  and  that  is  expounded  in  the  reverential  language 
which  we  have  quoted.'* 


I859-]  PROGRESS   OF   OPINION.  33 

mingled.  I  expected  Murchison  to  be  outrageous.  How 
little  he  could  ever  have  grappled  with  the  subject  of  denu- 
dation !  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  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  is  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  break- 
fast. 

I  wish  there  was  any  chance  of  Prestwich  being  shaken ; 
but  I  fear  he  is  too  much  of  a  catastrophist. 

[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  deliv- 
ered at  the  Royal  Institution  before  that  book  was  published. 
Professor  Huxley  spoke  strongly  in  favor  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 


34     PUBLICATION    OF   THE   'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'     [1859. 

truth."     My  father  was  evidently  deeply  pleased  by  Mr.  Hux- 
ley's words,  and  wrote  : 

"  I  must  thank  you  for  your  extremely  kind  notice  of  my 
book  in  '  Macmillan.'  No  one  could  receive  a  more  de- 
lightful 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  E.  R.*  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  Orni- 
thorhyncus, 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, 

*  This  must  refer  to  Carpenter's  critique  which  would  now  have  been 
ready  to  appear  in  the  January  number  of  the  Edinburgh  Review,  i86o5 
and  in  which  the  odium  theologicum  is  referred  to. 


I859-]  SIR  J.    D.    HOOKER.  35 

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, 
and  yourself.  In  my  opinion  it  is  grand.  I  thank  you  cor- 
dially for  taking  the  trouble  of  writing  a  review  for  the 
1  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  physiolo- 
gist, for  great  I  think  he  certainly  is  in  that  line.  How  curi- 
ous 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. 

J.  D.  Hooker  to  C.  Darwin. 

Kew,  Monday. 
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  flour- 
ishing 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 

*  See  a  letter  to  Dr.  Carpenter,  p.  57. 


36       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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 
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 
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  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  suppo.se  that  I  agree  with  you  in  all  respects." 
I  said  I  thought  it  no  more  likely  that  I  should  be  right  in 
nearly  all  points,  than  that  I  should  toss  up  a  penny  and  get 
heads  twenty  times  running.  I  asked  him  what  he  thought 
the  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 


I859-]  NEW    EDITION.  37 

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  u  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  roticndus — 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  roundabout  channel,  that  Herschel  says 
my  book"  is  the  law  of  higgledy-piggledy."  What  this  ex- 
actly means  I  do  not  know,  but  it  is  evidently  very  con- 
temptuous.    If  true  this  is  a  great  blow  and  discouragement. 

C.  Darwin  to  John  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  muck  move  successful  than 
I  ever  dreamed  of  :  Murray  is  now  printing  3000  copies. 
Have  you  finished  it  ?  If  so,  pray  tell  me  whether  you  are 
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. 


38       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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  Musuem,  attacked 
me  in  fine  style  :  "  You  have  just  reproduced  Lamarck's  doc- 
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 

*  John  Edward  Gray  (born  1800,  died  1875)  was  the  son  of  S.  F.  Gray, 
author  of  the  Supplement  to  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  c  Illustrations  of  Indian  Zoology,'  '  The  Knowsley  Menage- 
rie,' &c,  and  of  innumerable  descriptive  Zoological  papers. 


1859.]  AMERICAN    EDITION.  39 

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  : 
to-day's  note  is  merely  personal.  I  should,  for  several  rea- 
sons, 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,  accus- 
tomed 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 


4o       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

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  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,J  and 
shall  not  be  able  till  I  hunt  the  libraries.     I  am  very  anxious 

*  See  ■  Origin,'  ed.  i.,  p.  184. 

f  Sir  C.  Lyell  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  Dec.  19,  1859  ('  Life,'  ii.  p. 
327) :  "  I  have  just  finished  the  reading  of  your  splendid  Essay  [the 
1  Flora  of  Australia  ']  on  the  origin  of  species,  as  illustrated  by  your  wide 
botanical  experience,  and  think  it  goes  very  far  to  raise  the  variety- making 
hypothesis  to  the  rank  of  a  theory,  as  accounting  for  the  manner  in  which 
new  species  enter  the  world." 

%  "  Revue  Horticole,'  1852  See  Historical  Sketch  in  the  later  edi- 
tions of  the  '  Origin  of  Species.' 


I859-]  NAUDIN.  41 

to  see  it.  Decaisne  seems  to  think  he  gives  my  whole  the- 
ory. I  do  not  know  when  I  shall  have  time  and  strength  to 
grapple  with  Hooker.  .  .  . 

P.  S. — I  have  heard  from  Sir  W.  Jardine  :  *  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  author- 
ity), 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  fc  Intro- 
duction,' for  which  very  many  thanks  ;  I  am  surprised  to  see 
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  curi- 
ous 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 

*  Jardine,  Sir  William,  Bart,  b.  1800,  d.  1874,  was  the  son  of  Sir  A. 
Jardine  of  Applegarth,  Dumfriesshire.  He  was  educated  at  Edinburgh, 
and  succeeded  to  the  title  on  his  father's  decease  in  182 1.  He  published, 
jointly  with  Mr.  Prideaux  J.  Selby,  Sir  Stamford  Raffles,  Dr.  Horsfield, 
and  other  ornithologists,  *  Illustrations  of  Ornithology,'  and  edited  the 
*  Naturalist's  Library,'  in  40  vols.,  which  included  the  four  branches  : 
Mammalia,  Ornithology,  Ichnology,  and  Entomology.  Of  these  40  vols. 
14  were  written  by  himself.  In  1836  he  became  editor  of  the  '  Magazine 
of  Zoology  and  Botany,'  which,  two  years  later,  was  transformed  into 
1  Annals  of  Natural  History,'  but  remained  under  his  direction.  For 
Bohn'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  Annan- 
dale,'  '  Memoirs  of  the  late  Hugh  Strickland,'  '  Contributions  to  Ornithol- 
ogy,' '  Ornithological  Synonyms,'  &c. — (Taken  from  Ward,  '  Men  of  the 
Reign,'  and  Cates,  '  Dictionary  of  General  Biography.') 


42       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

certainly  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  final- 
ity (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  through- 
out 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 
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— 1  st,  in  preparing  for  my  lecture;  2ndly,  in  attending 

*  Rev.  Adam  Sedgwick,  Woodwardian  Professor  of  Geology  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge.     Born  1785,  died  1873. 


I859-]  SEDGWICK.  43 

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  ad- 
journing 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  mischiev- 
ous. You  have  deserted — after  a  start  in  that  tram-road  of 
all  solid  physical  truth — the  true  method  of  induction,  and 
started  us  in  machinery  as  wild,  I  think,  as  Bishop  Wilkins's 
locomotive  that  was  to  sail  with  us  to  the  moon.  Many  of 
your  wide  conclusions  are  based  upon  assumptions  which  can 
neither  be  proved  nor  disproved,  why  then  express  them  in 
the  language  and  arrangement  of  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 
40 


44        PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

by  law,  and  under  what  is  called  final  causes,  comprehends,  I 
think,  your  whole  principle.  You  write  of  "  natural  selec- 
tion "  as  if  it  were  done  consciously  by  the  selecting  agent. 
'Tis  but  a  consequence  of  the  presupposed  development,  and 
the  subsequent  battle  for  life.  This  view  of  nature  you  have 
stated  admirably,  though  admitted  by  all  naturalists  and  de- 
nied by  no  one  of  common  sense.  We  all  admit  develop- 
ment as  a  fact  of  history  :  but  how  came  it  about  ?  Here,  in 
language,  and  still  more  in  logic,  we  are  point-blank  at  issue. 
There  is  a  moral  or  metaphysical  part  of  nature  as  well  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  pregnant  cases  to  break  it.  Were  it  pos- 
sible (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  develop- 
ment 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  gen- 
erations acted  and  gradually  improved.  Passages  in  your 
book,  like  that  to  which  I  have  alluded  (and  there  are  others 
almost  as  bad),  greatly  shocked  my  moral  taste.  I  think,  in 
speculating  on  organic  descent,  you  over-state  the  evidence 
of  geology  ;  and  that  you  under-state  it  while  you  are  talk- 
ing of  the  broken  links  of  your  natural  pedigree  :  but  my 
paper  is  nearly  done,  and  I  must  go  to  my  lecture-room. 
Lastly,  then,  I  greatly  dislike  the  concluding  chapter — not  as 
a  summary,  for  in  that  light  it  appears  good — but  I  dislike  it 
from  the  tone  of  triumphant  confidence  in  which  you  appeal 
to  the  rising  generation  (in  a  tone  I  condemned  in  the  au- 


I859-]  CREATION.  45 

thor  of  the  '  Vestiges  ')  and  prophesy  of  things  not  yet  in  the 
womb  of  time,  nor  (if  we  are  to  trust  the  accumulated  experi- 
ence 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  mon- 
key 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  productive 
powers,  that  my  bodily  frame  is  sinking  slowly  towards  the 
earth.  But  I  have  visions  of  the  future.  They  are  as  much 
a  part  of  myself  as  my  stomach  and  my  heart,  and  these  vis- 
ions are  to  have  their  antitype  in  solid  fruition  of  what  is 
best  and  greatest.  But  on  one  condition  only — that  I  hum- 
bly 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. 

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 
II.  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 


*  '  Origin/  edit.  i.  p.  484. — "  Therefore  I  should  infer  from  analogy  that 
probably  all  the  organic  beings  which  have  ever  lived  on  this  earth  have 
descended  from  some  one  primordial  form,  into  which  life  was  first 
breathed." 


46       PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/      [1859. 

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,  arid  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.  ;  f  it  is  not  so  much  the  value  I  set  on 
them,  but  the  remembranee  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 


*  "  My  General  Agent "  was  a  sobriquet  applied  at  this  time  by  my 
father  to  Mr.  Huxley. 

f  Manuscript  left  with  Mr.  Huxley  for  his  perusal. 

%  With  regard  to  Naudin's  paper  in  the  '  Revue  Horticole,'  1852. 


1859.]  THE    ■  TIMES'    REVIEW.  47 

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  2*  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,  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  T  H  Huxley. 

Down,  Dec.  28th  [1859]. 
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 

*  Dec.  26th. 


48       PUBLICATION   OF  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1359. 

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 
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  i  Origin  '  a  respect- 
ful hearing,  and  it  abstains  from  anything  like  dogmatism  m 
asserting  the  truth  of  the  doctrinces  therein  upheld.  A  few 
passages    may   be    quoted  : — "  That     this     most     ingenious 

*  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  alto- 
gether." And  he  does  so  "with  less  hesitation,  as  it  so  happens  that 
those  persons  who  are  practically  conversant  with  the  facts  of  the  case 
(plainly  a  considerable  advantage)  have  always  thought  tit  to  range  them- 
selves "  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." 


I859-]  THE   ' TIMES'    REVIEW.  49 

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 
1  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.  92).  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 
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  according- 
ly, 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 


50        PUBLICATION  OF  THE  *  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'      [1859. 

offered  of  giving  the  book  a  fair  chance  with  the  multitudi- 
nous 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  asser- 
tions 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  connec- 
tion with  the  review,  I  suppose  there  will  be  no  breach  of 
confidence  in  the  publication  of  this  little  history,  if  you  think 
it  worth  the  space  it  will  occupy."] 


CHAPTER    II. 
the  i  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         ..  ..  ..  ^180     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  i  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.] 

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- 


*  *  Australian  Flora.' 


52 


THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 


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  admira- 
bly 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  +  V  z2,  &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 
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. 


i860.]  AUSTRALIAN    FLORA.  53 

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  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  marvel- 
lous.    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  con- 
tinuously, 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 
power    of    trans-oceanic    migration.      You    do    not    know 
whether   or   not    the    absent   orders    have    seeds  which    are 
killed  by  sea-water,  like  almost  all    Leguminosae,  and   like 
another  order  which   I  forget.     Birds  do  not  migrate  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  inter- 
esting; 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  excessive- 
ly wish  to  know,  on  the  notion  of  Glacial  Migration,  how  much 
modification  has  taken  place  in  Australia.  I  had  better  ex- 
plain when  we  meet,  and  get  you  to  go  over  and  mark  the  list 


54 


THE    'ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 


....  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  have  re- 
marked on  the  number  of  plants  naturalised  in  Australia  and 
the  United  States  under  extremely  different  climates,  as  show- 
ing 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  ex- 
press my  admiration  of  your  essay. 

My  dear  old  friend,  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

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  all  the  more  staggered. 


*  Saturday  Review ',  Dec.  24,  1859.  The  hostile  arguments  of  the  re- 
viewer are  geological,  and  he  deals  especially  with  the  denudation  of  the 
Weald.  The  reviewer  remarks  that,  "  if  a  million  of  centuries,  more  or 
less,  is  needed  for  any  part  of  his  argument,  he  feels  no  scruple  in  taking 
them  to  suit  his  purpose." 


i860.]  AUSTRALIAN    FLORA.  55 

With  respect  to  tropical  plants  during  the  Glacial  period, 
I  throw  in  your  teeth  your  own  facts,  at  the  base  of  the  Hima- 
laya, 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  surprised  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  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. 


*  Dr.  Whewell  wrote  (Jan.  2,  i860)  :  "...  I  cannot,  yet  at  least,  be- 
come 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.  Whewell  dissented  in  a  prac- 
tical manner  for  some  years,  by  refusing  to  allow  a  copy  of  the  '  Origin  of 
Species '  to  be  placed  in  the  Library  of  Trinity  College. 


56  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lye  11. 

Down,  [January  4th?  i860]. 

I  have  had  a  brief  note  from  Keyserling,*  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  chemi- 
cal 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  pub- 
lished, f  It  includes  speculations  (which  he  perhaps  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- 

*  Joint  author  with  Murchison  of  the  '  Geology  of  Russia,'  1845. 

t  The  late  Andrew  Murray  wrote  two  papers  on  the  4  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.  Darwin),  is 
the  instinctive  inclination  which  induces  individuals  of  the  same  species 
by  preference  to  intercross  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  pos- 
sess them.  I  do  not  so  explain  it.  I  imagine  it  it  is  the  effort  of  nature 
to  preserve  the  typical  medium  of  the  race." 


i86o.l  REV.  L.  BLOMEFIELD.  57 

fore  that  Napoleon  is  right,  and  every  cheating  tradesman  is 
also  right. 

C.  Darwin  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  sincere- 
ly for  the  extremely  honourable  manner  in  which  you  mention 
me.  I  should  have  liked  to  have  seen  some  criticisms  or  re- 
marks on  embryology,  on  which  subject  you  are  so  well  in- 
structed. I  do  not  think  any  candid  person  can  read  your 
article  without  being  much  impressed  with  it.  The  old  doc- 
trine 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  col- 
oured 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  im- 
ported into  the  West  Indies  change  colour  ?  I  have  had  de- 
tailed information  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.  Darwin  to  Z.  Jenyns* 

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 


*  Rev.  L.  Blomefield. 


58  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  |"i86o. 

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  you  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  tacts  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  suffi- 
cient to  account  for  our  not  finding  intermediate  forms  be- 
tween the  classes  in  the  same  great  kingdoms.  It  was  cer- 
tainly 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 
open  to  every  one  to  believe  that  man  appeared  by  a  sepa- 
rate 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. 


i860.]  SECOND   EDITION.  59 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lye  11. 

Down,  January  10th  [i860]. 
....  It  is  perfectly  true  that  I  owe  nearly  all  the  correc- 
tions *  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 
inadvertance)  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. 
I  suspect  I  shall  have  to  return  the  caution  a  hundred  fold  ! 
Yours  will,  no  doubt,  be  a  grand  discussion  ;  but  it  will 
horrify  th^  world  at  first  more  than  my  whole  volume  ; 
although  by  the  sentence  (p.  489,  new  edition  J)  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- 


*  The  second  edition  of  3000  copies  of  the  '  Origin  '  was  published  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  discussion  closes  with  the  sentence  :  "  So  that  it  is  not  im- 
probable 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. 

%  First  edition,  p.  488. 
41 


60  THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/  [i860. 

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 
way,  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  Edinburg,  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  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 


i860.]  *  GARDENERS'   CHRONICLE.'  6l 

may  be  worth  ;  but  I  have  so  long  looked  at  you  as  the  type 
of  cautious  scientific  judgment  (to  my  mind  one  of  the  high- 
est 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  Railway  Station! ! !  at  Waterloo  Bridge  ;  and  the 
bookseller  said  that  he  had  none  till  the  new  edition  was  out. 
The  bookseller  said  he  had  not  read  it,  but  had  heard  it  was 
a  very  remarkable  book  !!!.... 

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  of  my  book  !  I  thought  it  f  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 

*  *  Classification  of  the  Mammalia,'  1859. 

f  Gardeners    Chronicle,  i860.     Referred  to  above,  at  p.  54.       Sir  J.  D. 
Hooker  took  the  line  of  complete  impartiality,  so  as  not  to  commit  Lindley, 


62  THE  -ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/  [i860. 

so  well  adapted  to  tell  on  the  readers  of  the  Gardeners' 
Chronicle ;  but  now  I  admired  it  in  another  spirit.  Farewell, 
with  hearty  thanks.  .  .  .  Lyell  is  going  at  man  with  an  au- 
dacity that  frightens  me.  It  is  a  good  joke  ;  he  used  always 
to  caution  me  to  slip  over  man. 

[In  the  Gardeners1  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  '  Orig'n  of  Species/  Mr.  West- 
wood  wrote  in  reply  (Feb.  11)  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  con- 
troversy.] 

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  inter- 
esting matter — thoroughly  digested — well  expressed — close, 
cogent,  and  taken  as  a  system  it  makes  out  a  better  case  than 
I  had  supposed  possible.  .  .  . 


i860.]  DR.  GRAY'S   APPROVAL.  63 

Agassiz,  when  I  saw  him  last,  had  read  but  a  part  of  it. 
He  says  it  is  poor — very  poor !  !  (entre  nous).  The  fact  [is] 
he  is  very  much  annoyed  by  it,  ...  .  and  I  do  not  wonder 
at  it.  To  bring  all  ideal  systems  within  the  domain  of  science, 
and  give  good  physical  or  natural  explanations  of  all  his 
capital  points,  is  as  bad  as  to  have  Forbes  take  the  glacier 
materials  .  .  .  and  give  scientific  explanation  of  all  the  phe- 
nomena. 

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  Compositae,  which  I  know  far 
more  about).  And  really  it  is  no  easy  job,  as  you  may  well 
imagine. 

I  doubt  if  I  shall  please  you  altogether.  I  know  I  shall 
not  please  Agassiz  at  all.  I  hear  another  reprint  is  in  the 
Press,  and  the  book  will  excite  much  attention  here,  and 
some  controversy.  ... 

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 


64  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

entirely  and  utterly  forgotten  your  offer  of  receiving  the 
sheets  as  printed  off.  But  I  must  not  blame  my  publisher, 
for  had  I  remembered  your  most  kind  offer  I  feel  pretty 
sure  I  should  not  have  taken  advantage  of  it  ;  for  I  never 
dreamed  of  my  book  being  so  successful  with  general  readers ; 
I  believe  I  should  have  laughed  at  the  idea  of  sending  the 
sheets  to  America.* 

After  much  consideration,  and  on  the  strong  advice  of 
Lyell  and  others,  I  have  resolved  to  leave  the  present  book  as 
it  is  (excepting  correcting  errors,  or  here  and  there  inserting 
short  sentences)  and  to  use  all  my  strength,  which  is  but  little, 
to  bring  out  the  first  part  (forming  a  separate  volume,  with 
index,  &c.)  of  the  three  volumes  which  will  make  my  bigger 
work  ;  so  that  I  am  very  unwilling  to  take  up  time  in  making 
corrections  for  an  American  edition.  I  enclose  a  list  of  a  few 
corrections  in  the  second  reprint,  which  you  will  have  re- 
ceived 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  review  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  re- 
print, and  of  the  stir  I  had  made  for-  a  reprint  in   Boston, 

*  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Murray,  i860,  my  father  wrote  : — "  I  am  amused 
by  Asa  Gray's  account  of  the  excitement -my  book  has  made  amongst 
naturalists  in  the  U.  States.     Agassiz  has  denounced  it  in  a  newspaper, 


i860.]  DR.  GRAY'S   CRITICISMS.  65 

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 
considerable  sale,  we  certainly  shall  be  disposed  to  pay  the 
author  reasonably  and  liberally." 

The  Appletons  being  thus  out  with  their  reprint,  the  Bos- 
ton house  declined  to  go  on.  So  I  wrote  to  the  Appletons 
taking  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  additional  matter  from  Butler,*  which  tells  just 
right.  So  there  the  matter  stands.  If  you  furnish  any  mat- 
ter 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  part, 
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 


but  yet  in  such  terms  that  it  is  in  fact  a  fine  advertisement  !  "     This  seems 
to  refer  to  a  lecture  given  before  the  Mercantile  Library  Association. 

*  A  quotation  from  Butler's  '  Analogy/  on  the  use  of  the  word  natural, 
which  in  the  second  edition  is  placed  with  the  passages  from  Whewell  and 
Bacon  on  p.  li,  opposite  the  title-page. 


66  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  con- 
clusions, as  a  probable  hypothesis  at  least. 

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  sup- 
pose 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  an- 
nounced 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  mak- 
ing of  eyes,  &c,  by  natural  selection.  Some  of  this  reads 
quite  Lamarckian. 

The  chapter  on  Hybridism  is  not  a  weak,  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  opin- 
ion.    You  evidently  think  more  of  it  than  I  do,  though  from 


i860.]  HISTORICAL   SKETCH.  §j 

the  way  I  write  [to]   you,  and  especially  [to]  Hooker,  this 
might  not  be  inferred  from  the  reading  of  my  letters. 

L  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,  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 


68  THE  ■  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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,  1860], 
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 
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,  / 
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- 

*  William  Henry  Harvey  was  descended  from  a  Quaker  family  of 
Youghal,  and  was  born  in  February,  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 


i860.]  DR.  HARVEY.  69 

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  sal  turn. 

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 "  dif- 
fered 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  Be- 
gonia 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 


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  Pro- 
fessor Allman  to  the  Chair  of  Botany  in  Dublin  University.  He  was 
author  of  several  botanical  works,  principally  on  Algae. — (From  a  Memoir 
published  in  1869.) 

*  'Annals  and  Magazine  of  Natural  History,'  i860. 


j0  THE  ■  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  the  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 
a  barrister.  What  an  omission  of  Harvey's  about  the  gradu- 
ated 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  pre- 
sume to  such  cases  as  Aspicarpa)  is  excellent,  for  the  mons- 
trous Begonia  no  doubt  in  all  details  would  be  Begonia.  I 
did  not  think  of  this,  nor  of  the  retrograde  step  from  separ- 
ated 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  superin- 
tended 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 


i860.]  GERMAN    TRANSLATION.  j\ 

success,  it  remained  an  obvious  translation,  and  was  cor- 
respondingly unpleasant  to  read.  Bronn  added  to  the  trans- 
lation an  appendix  of  the  difficulties  that  occurred  to  him. 
For  instance,  how  can  natural  selection  account  for  differ- 
ences 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  actuilly  suggested  the  addition  of  Bronn's  re- 
marks. A  more  serious  charge  against  Bronn  made  by  Krause 
{op.  cit.  p.  87)  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  l  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  i  Neues  Jahrbuch 
fur  Mineralogie,'  and  still  more  for  speaking  to  Schweitzer- 
bart  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  gave  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 

*  Second  edition. 


72  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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. 

P.  S. — The  new  edition  has  some  few  corrections,  and  I 
will  send  in  MS.  some  additional  corrections,  and  a  short  his- 
torical preface,  to  Schweitzerbart. 

How  interesting  you  could  make  the  work  by  editing  (I  do 
not  mean  translating)  the  work,  and  appending  notes  of  refu- 
tation 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  cor- 
dially for  your  extreme  kindness  in  superintending  the  trans- 
lation. 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 
only  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  his- 
torical 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  in- 
sert 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,  be- 


i860.]  GERMAN    TRANSLATION.  73 

cause  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  anal- 
ogous 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 
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  individ- 
uals ;  and  I  believe,  owing  to  the  struggle  for  existence,  that 
similar  slight  variations  in  a  wild  horse,  if  advantageous  to  ity 
would  be  selected  ox  preserved  by  nature  ;  hence  Natural  Selec- 
tion. But  I  apologise  for  troubling  you  with  these  remarks 
on  the  importance  of  choosing  good  German  terms  for  "  Nat- 
ural Selection/'  With  my  heartfelt  thanks,  and  with  sincere 
respect, 

I  remain,  dear  Sir,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin, 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  G.  Bronn. 

Down,  July  14  [1860J. 
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 


*  The    German    translation    was   published    in    three   pamphlet-like 
numbers. 


74  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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 
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.] 


i860.]  PIGEON    FANCIERS.  75 


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 
had  to  make  an  abstract  of  the  whole.  Herbert's  volume  on 
Amaryllidaceae  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 

*  This  caution  is  exemplified  in  the  following  extract  from  an  earlier 
letter  to  Professor  Huxley  : — "  The  inaccuracy  of  the  blessed  gang  (of 
which  I  am  one)  of  compilers  passes  all  bounds.  Monsters  have  frequently 
been  described  as  hybrids  without  a  tittle  of  evidence.  I  must  give  one 
other  case  to  show  how  we  jolly  fellows  work.  A  Belgian  Baron  (I  forget 
his  name  at  this  moment)  crossed  two  distinct  geese  and  got  seven  hybrids, 
which  he  proved  subsequently  to  be  quite  sterile  ;  well,  compiler  the  first, 
Chevreul,  says  that  the  hybrids  were  propagated  for  seven  generations 
inter  se.  Compiler  second  (Morton)  mistakes  the  French  name,  and  gives 
Latin  names  for  two  more  distinct  geese,  and  says  Chevreul  himself  propa- 
gated them  inter  se  for  seven  generations  ;  and  the  latter  statement  is 
copied  from  book  to  book." 
42 


76  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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 
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  Ramsey  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  us  one  of  the  most  eloquent 
of  his  utterances  in  support  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species' : 

14 1  have  said  that  the  man  of  science  is  the  sworn  inter- 
preter of  nature  in  the  high  court  of  reason.     But  of  what 


186a]  MR.  HUXLEY'S   LECTURE.  jj 

avail  is  his  honest  speech,  if  ignorance  is  the  assessor  of  the 
judge,  and  prejudice  the  foreman  of  the  jury  ?  I  hardly  know 
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  hu- 
mility :  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  revo- 
lutions of  thought  and  practice  as  great  as  those  which  the 
sixteenth  witnessed  Through  what  trials  and  sore  contests 
the  civilised  world  will  rnve  to  pass  in  the  course  of  this  new 
reformation,  who  can  tell  ? 


J>8  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  dis- 
cussion 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  ap- 
plication 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: — 

1  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 

have  written  to  him,  and  told  him  that  the  "  pestilent "  fellow 


*  Annals  and  Mag.  of  Nat.  Hist,  third  series,  vol.  5,  p.  132.  My  father 
has  obviously  taken  the  expression  "  pestilent  "  from  the  following  passage 
(p.  138) :  "  But  who  is  this  Nature,  we  have  a  right  to  ask,  who  has  such 
tremendous  power,  and  to  whose  efficiency  such  marvellous  performances 
are  ascribed  ?  What  are  her  image  and  attributes,  when  dragged  from  her 
wordy  lurking-place  ?  Is  she  aught  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. 


1860.J  WOLLASTON'S    REVIEW.  79 

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 s.ea  determining  distribution.  .  .  .  The  most  curious 
point  in  the  paper  seems  to  me  that  about  the  African  charac- 
ter 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  Bunbury,  J  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  differ- 
ently different  opposers  view  the  subject.  Henslow  used  to 
rest  his  opposition  on  the  imperfection  of  the  Geological  Rec- 
ord, 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  state- 
ment about  the  eye  !  !  A  stranger  writes  to  me  about  sexual 
selection,  and  regrets  that  I  boggle  about  such  a  trifle  as  the 
brush  of  hair  on  the  male  turkey,  and  so  on.  As  L.  Jenyns 
has  a  really  philosophical  mind,  and  as  you  say  you  like  to 
see  everything,  I  send  an  old  letter  of  his.  In  a  later  letter 
to  Henslow,  which  I  have  seen,  he  is  more  candid  than  any 
opposer  I  have  heard  of,  for  he  says,  though  he  cannot  go  so 
far  as  I  do,  yet  he  can  give  no  good  reason  why  he  should  not 


*  Another  version  of  the  words  is  given  by  Lyell,  to  whom  they  were 
spoken,  viz.  "  the  most  illogical  book  ever  written." — '  Life,'  vol.  ii.  p.  358. 

\  "  On  the  Zoological  Geography  of  the  Malay  Archipelago." — Linn. 
Soc.  Journ.  i860. 

%  The  late  Sir  Charles  Bunbury,  well  known  as  a  Palseo-botanist. 


g0  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/  [i860. 

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 y  but  on  no  account  to  believe  all. 

Ever  yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray, 

Down,  February  1 8th  [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.  J  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  hypotheti- 
cal, 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  thank 

*  By  Professor  Henslow. 

f  The  '  American  Journal  of  Science  and  Arts,'  March,  i860.  Re- 
printed in  '  Darwiniana,'  1876. 

%  The  contrast  is  briefly  summed  up  thus  :  "  The  theory  of  Agassiz  re- 
gards the  origin  of  species  and  their  present  general  distribution  over  the 
world  as  equally  primordial,  equally  supernatural  ;  that  of  Darwin  as 
equally  derivative,  equally  natural." — '  Darwiniana,'  p.  14. 


i860.]  CLERICAL   OPINIONS.  8 1 

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  with  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,  1859. 

Dear  Sir, — I  have  to  thank  you  for  the  unexpected 
honour  of  your  book.  That  the  Naturalist  whom,  of  all 
naturalists  living,  I  most  wish  to  know  and  to  learn  from, 
should  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  awes  me  ; 
both  with  the  heap  of  facts  and  the  prestige  of  your  name, 
and  also  with  the  clear  intuition,  that  if  you  be  right,  I  must 
give  up  much  that  I  have  believed  and  written. 

In  that  I  care  little.  Let  God  be  true,  and  every  man  a 
liar !  Let  us  know  what  is,  and,  as  old  Socrates  has  it, 
eweo-Oat  rw  Aoya>— follow  up  the  villainous  shifty  fox  of  an  ar- 
gument, 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  books  : — 

(1.)  I  have  long  since,  from  watching  the  crossing  of  do- 
mesticated animals  and  plants,  learnt  to  disbelieve  the  dogma 
of  the  permanence  of  species. 


g2  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 
te?npore  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.  Kingsley. 

[My  father's  old  friend,  the  Rev.  J.  Brodie  Innes,  of  Mil- 
ton Brodie,  who  was  for  many  years  Vicar  of  Down,  writes 
in  the  same  spirit : 

"  We  never  attacked  each  other.  Before  I  knew  Mr.  Dar- 
win 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  supposed  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  endeavour  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  word  directly  against  religion  or  the  clergy; 
but  if  you  were  to  read  a  little  pamphlet  which  I  received  a 


i860.]  CLERICAL   OPINIONS.  83 

couple  of  days  ago  by  a  clergyman,  you  would  laugh,  and  ad- 
mit that  I  had  some  excuse  for  bitterness.  After  abusing  me 
for  two  or  three  pages,  in  language  sufficiently  plain  and  em- 
phatic 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  Darwini- 
ans.' In  another  letter,  after  I  had  left  Down,  he  writes, 
4  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  din- 
ner-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.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

Down,  February  23rd  [i860]. 

My  dear  Lyell, — That  is  a  splendid  answer  of  the 
father  of  Judge  Crompton.  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 
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, 


84  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

little  knowing  that  any  one  had  really  thus  objected  to  the 
law  of  gravity  Newton  answers  by  saying  that  it  is  philoso- 
phy to  make  out  the  movements  of  a  clock,  though  you  do 
not  know  why  the  weight  descends  to  the  ground.  Leibnitz 
further  objected  that  the  law  of  gravity  was  opposed  to  Natu- 
ral 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  we  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  be- 
ing fertile,  and  I  cannot  remember  whether  this  reproduced 
itself. 

To  recur  to  the  eye.  I  really  think  it  would  have  been 
dishonest,  not  to  have  faced  the  difficulty  ;  and  worse  (as 
Talleyrand  would  have  said),  it  would  have  been  impolitic  I 
think,  for  it  would  have  been  thrown  in  my  teeth,  as  H.  Hol- 
land threw  the  bones  of  the  ear,  till  Huxley  shut  him  up  by 
showing  what  a  fine  gradation  occurred  amongst  living  crea- 
tures. 

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  phi- 
losophy 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. 

Wollaston  misrepresents  "accidentally,  to  a  wonderful  ex- 
tent, some  passages  in  my  book.  He  reviewed,  without  relook- 
ing  at  certain  passages. 


i860.]  PROGRESS   OF   OPINION.  85 


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  [/.  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 
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. 


*  Professor  of  Geology  in  the   University  of  Glasgow.     Born  in   the 
United  States  1809,  died  1866. 
f  See  table  of  names,  p.  87. 


86  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

You  say  that  you  think  that  Benthan  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.* 

I  am  so  glad  to  hear  about  Thwaites.f  ...  I  have  had  an 
astounding  letter  from  Dr.  Boott ;  J  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 
not  get  him  to  write  on  Distribution.  I  have  found  his  works 
very  unfruitful  in  every  respect. 

[Here  follows  the  memorandum  referred  to  :] 


*  In  a  subsequent  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (March  12th,  i860),  my 
father  wrote,  "  I  now  quite  understand  Bentham's  silence." 

f  Dr.  G.  J.  K.  Thwaites,  who  was  born  in  181 1,  established  a  reputa- 
tion in  this  country  as  an  expert  microscopist,  and  an  acute  observer,  work- 
ing especially  at  cryptogamic  botany.  On  his  appointment  as  Director  of 
the  Botanic  Gardens  at  Peradenyia,  Ceylon,  Dr.  Thwaites  devoted  himself 
to  the  flora  of  Ceylon.  As  a  result  of  this  he  has  left  numerous  and  valu- 
able collections,  a  description  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.     Athen<zurn,  October  14th,  1882,  p.  500. 

%  The  letter  is  enthusiastically  laudatory,  and  obviously  full  of  genuine 
feeling. 


i860.] 


LIST   OF   EVOLUTIONISTS. 


87 


Geologists. 

Lyell. 
Ramsay.* 
Jukes.f 
H.  D.  Rogers. 


Zoologists  and 
Palaeontologists. 


Huxley. 

J.  Lubbock. 

L.  Jenyns 
(to  large  extent). 

Searles  Wood 4 


Physiologists. 


Carpenter. 

Sir  H.  Holland 
(to  large  extent). 


Botanists. 


Hooker. 

H.  C,  Watson. 

Asa  Gray 
(to  some  extent). 

Dr.  Boott 
(to  large  extent), 

ThwaiteSo 


[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  re- 
ceived 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  was  never  admitted 
into  his  intimacy,  and  he  therefore  never  made  any  com- 
munications to  me  in  relation  to  his  views  and  labours.  I 
have  been  throughout  one  of  his  most  sincere  admirers,  and 


*  Andrew  Ramsay,  late  Director-General  of  the  Geological  Survey. 

f  Joseph  Beete  Jukes,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S.,  born  1811,  died  1869.  He  was 
educated  at  Cambridge,  and  from  1842  to  1846  he  acted  as  naturalist  to 
H.  M.  S.  Fly,  on  an  exploring  expedition  in  Australia  and  New  Guinea. 
He  was  afcerwards  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,  T798,  died  1880.  Chiefly 
known  for  his  work  on  the  Mollusca  of  the  '  Crag.' 


8  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 


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  commencing  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  show- 
ing 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  enter- 
tain doubts  on  the  subject,  and  on  the  appearance  of  the 
'  Origin  of  Species/  I  was  forced,  however  reluctantly,  to 
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. 

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 


i860.]  EVOLUTION   AND    HISTORY.  89 

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  LyeH'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.  Presiwich* 

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  would  send  me  any  general 
criticisms.  I  do  not  mean  of  unreasonable  length,  but  such 
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 

*  Now  Professor  of  Geology  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 


go  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  3rd  [1S60], 
....  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  re- 
member 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 
review,  namely,  an  opposed  one  (by  Pictet,f  the  palaeontologist, 
in  the  Bib.  Universelle  of  Geneva)  which  is  perfectly  fair  and 

*  See  the  quotations  which  follow  the  present  letter. 

f  Francois  Jules  Pictet,  in  the  '  Archives  des  Sciences  de  la  Biblio- 
theque  Universelle,'  Mars  i860.  The  article  is  written  in  a  courteous  and 
considerate  tone,  and  concludes  by  saying  that  the  '  Origin  '  will  be  of 
real  value  to  naturalists,  especially  if  they  are  not  led  away  by  its  seduc- 
tive arguments  to  believe  in  the  dangerous  doctrine  of  modification.  A 
passage  which  seems  to  have  struck  my  father  as  being  valuable,  and  op- 
posite which  he  has  made  double  pencil  marks  and  written  the  word 
"good,"  is  worth  quoting:  "  La  theorie  de  M.  Darwin  s'accorde  mal  avec 


i860.]  PICTET.— SEDGWICK.  gj. 

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  much  too  good  service  ever  to  appear 
in  that  rank  in  my  eyes.  But  I  fear  I  shall  weary  you  with 
so  much  about  my  book.  I  should  rather  think  there  was  a 
good  chance  of  my  becoming  the  most  egotistical  man  in  all 
Europe  !  What  a  proud  pre-eminence  !  Well,  you  have 
helped  to  make  me  so  and  therefore  you  must  forgive  me  if 
you  can. 

My  dear  Gray,  ever  yours  most  gratefully, 

C.  Darwin. 

[In  a  letter  to  Sir  Charles  Lyell  reference  is  made  to 
Sedgwick's  review  in  the  Spectator.  March  24  : 

" 1  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  doc- 
trine, 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.  "  Demoralised  under- 
standing !  "  If  ever  I  talk  with  him  I  will  tell  him  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 


l'liistoire  des  types  a  formes  bien  tranchees  et  definies  qui  paraissent 
n'avoir  vecu  que  pendant  un  temps  limite.  On  en  pourrait  citer  des  cen- 
taines  d'exemples,  tel  que  les  reptiles  volants,  les  ichthyosaures,  les  be- 
lemnites,  les  ammonites,  &c."  Pictet  was  born  in  1809,  died  1872  ;  he 
was  Professor  of  Anatomy  and  Zoology  at  Geneva. 

43 


Q2  THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

the  theory,  because  of  its  unflinching  materalism  ; — 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. " 

u  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  in- 
vestigation, 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." 

In  a  review  in  the  December  number  of  i  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.*] 

*  See  an  interesting  letter  from  my  father  in  Mr.  Stephen's  *  Life  of 
Henry  Fawcett,'  1886,  p.  101. 


i860.]  DR.  CARPENTER.  93 


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/*  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  knowl- 
edge 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. 

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  i  Medical  and  Chirurg.  Review/  very  good 

*  April  i860. 


g4  THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

and  well  balanced,  but  not  brilliant.  He  discusses  Hooker's 
books  at  as  great  length  as  mine,  and  makes  excellent  ex- 
tracts ;  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  Wy- 
man  (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  l  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,  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. 

*    Westminster  Review,'  April  i860, 
f .'  Edinburgh  Review,'  April  i860. 


i860.!  THE    'EDINBURGH    REVIEW/  95 

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  success- 
ful. 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  would  read  the  enclosed,  f     If  you  think  it  proper  that  I 

*  April  7th,  i860. 

f  My  father  wrote  [Gardeners'  Chronicle,  i860,  p.  362,  April  21st) :  "  I 
have  been  much  interested  by  Mr.  Patrick  Matthew's  communication  in 
the  number  of  your  paper  dated  April  7th.  I  freely  acknowledge  that  Mr. 
Matthew  has  anticipated  by  many  years  the  explanation  which  I  have 
offered  of  the  origin  of  species,  under  the  name  of  natural  selection.  I 
think  that  no  one  will  feel  surprised  that  neither  I,  nor  apparently  any 
other  naturalist,  had  heard  of  Mr.  Matthew's  views,  considering  how  brief- 
ly 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  apol- 
ogies to  Mr.  Matthew  for  my  entire  ignorance  of  this  publication.     If  an- 


96  THE  ■  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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.  Per- 
haps 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. 

Lyell  in  his  letter  remarked  that  you  seemed  to  him  as  if 
you  were  overworked.  Do,  pray,  be  cautious,  and  remember 
how  many  and  many  a  man  has  done  this — who  thought  it 
absurd  till  too  late.  I  have  often  thought  the  same.  You 
know  that  you  were  bad  enough  before  your  Indian  journey. 

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 

other  edition  of  my  work  is  called  for,  I  will  insert  to  the  foregoing 
effect."  In  spite  of  my  father's  recognition  of  his  claims,  Mr.  Matthew  re- 
mained unsatisfied,  and  complained  that  an  article  in  the  4  Saturday  Ana- 
lyst 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,  Nov.  24,  i860. 


i860.]  DESIGNED   VARIATION.  gy 

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  altera- 
tion 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  accumulated  to  please  his  caprice, 
have  been  due  to  "the  creative  and  sustaining  powers  of 
Brahma  ? "  In  the  sense  that  an  omnipotent  and  omniscient 
Deity  must  order  and  know  everything,  this  must  be  admit- 
ted ;  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  believ- 
ing in  such  interpositions  in  the  case  of  natural  beings,  in 
which  strange  and  admirable  peculiarities  have  been  naturally 
selected  for  the  creature's  own  benefit.  Imagine  a  Pouter 
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  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 


98  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  sim- 
ple folk  !  My  clever  neighbour,  Mr.  Norman,  says  the  arti- 
cle 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 ! 

....  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.  J 
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 

*  The  *  Edinburgh  Review.' 

f  '  North  American  Review,'  April,  i860.  "  By  Professor  Bowen,"  is 
written  on  my  father's  copy.  The  passage  referred  to  occurs  at  p.  488, 
where  the  author  says  that  we  ought  to  find  "  an  infinite  number  of  other 
varieties — gross,  rude,  and  purposeless — the  unmeaning  creations  of  an  un- 
conscious cause." 

%  This  no  doubt  refers  to  the  January  number,  containing  Dr.  Car- 
penter's review  of  the  '  Origin.' 


i860.]  '  NORTH   AMERICAN    REVIEW.'  99 

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  1  st,  by  M.  Laugel,  said  to  be  a  very  clever  man. 

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 


ICO  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [186a 

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  sing1 2  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  mi- 
grated 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 
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. 

*  Against  Sedgwick's  attack  before  the  Cambridge  Philosophical  Society. 


i860.]  CAMBRIDGE    PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  IOi 

As  you  said  you  were  curious  to  hear  Thomson's  *  opinion, 
I  send  his  kind  letter.  He  is  evidently  a  strong  opposer 
to  us 

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. f  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 
armour.  I  see  plainly  tnat  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. J  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 

*  Dr.  Thomas  Thomson  the  Indian  Botanist.  He  was  a  collabora- 
teur  in  Hooker  and  Thomson's  Flora  Indica.     1855. 

f  These  remarks  do  not  apply  to  Dr.  Harvey,  who  was,  however,  in  a 
somewhat  similar  position.     See  p.  107. 

%  His  health  prevented  him  from  going  to  Oxford  for  the  meeting  of 
the  British  Association. 


I02  THE  'ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES.'  [i860 

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*  and  then  Professor 
Clarke  [sic]  f  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 
then  Phillips  J  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 

*  Sedgwick's  address  is  given  somewhat  abbreviated  in  The  Cambridge 
Chronicle,  May  19th,  i860. 

f  The  late  William  Clark,  Professor  of  Anatomy.  My  father  seems 
to  have  misunderstood  his  informant.  I  am  assured  by  Mr.  J.  W.  Clark 
that  his  father  (Prof.  Clark)  did  not  support  Sedgwick  in  the  attack. 

%  John  Phillips,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S.,  born  1800,  died  1874,  from  the  effects 
of  a  fall.  Professor  of  Geology  at  King's  College,  London,  and  afterwards 
at  Oxford.  He  gave  the  '  Rede '  lecture  at  Cambridge  on  May  15th,  i860, 
on  '  The  Succession  of  Life  on  the  earth.'  The  Rede  Lecturer  is  appointed 
annually  by  the  Vice-Chancellor,  and  is  paid  by  an  endowment  left  in  1524 
by  Sir  Robert  Rede,  Lord  Chief  Justice,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 


i860.]  REVIEWS.  IO3 

branches  of  natural  science.  ...  I  think  geologists  are  more 
easily  converted  than  simple  naturalists,  because  more  accus- 
tomed 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  jeal- 
ousy. How  nobly  free  you  seem  to  be  of  this  common  failing 
of  mankind.  But  you  speak  far  too  modestly  of  yourself. 
You  would,  if  you  had  my  leisure,  have  done  the  work  just  as 

well,  perhaps  better,  than  I  have  done  it 

.  .  .  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. 

*  Hermann  Schaaff  hausen  '  Ueber  Bestandigkeit  und  Umwandlung  der 
Arten.'  Verhandl.  d.  Naturhist.  Vereins,  Bonn,  1853.  See  'Origin,'  His- 
torical Sketch. 


J04  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  I"i86o< 


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  Apple- 
ton's  account.  For  the  chance  of  your  wishing  for  a  formal 
acknowledgment  I  send  one.  If  you  have  any  further  com- 
munication to  the  Appietons,  pray  express  my  acknowledg- 
ment for  [their]  generosity ;  for  it  is  generosity  in  my  opinion. 
I  am  not  at  all  surprised  at  the  sale  diminishing;  my  extreme 
surprise  is  at  the  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.'  Judg- 
ing 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  or- 
ganisms 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  ']  re- 


*  This  statement  as  to  authorship  was  made  on  the  authority  of  Robert 
Chambers, 


i860.]  THE    'EDINBURGH    REVIEW/  105 

view,  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- 
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  con- 
clude that  everything  is  the  result  of  brute  force.  I  am  in- 
clined 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 

*  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Huxley  my  father  wrote  :  M  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 
capitally,  and  understands  well  his  subject.  I  wish  he  had  slapped  [the 
'Edinburgh'  reviewer]  a  little  bit  harder." 


106  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

omniscient  Creator,  who  foresaw  every  future  event  and  con- 
sequence. But  the  more  I  think  the  more  bewildered  I  be- 
come ;  as  indeed  I  probably  have  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 '  : 

"  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, 
Homologies,  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  crea- 
tion, 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. 


i860.]  THE   'EDINBURGH    REVIEW.'  IQy 

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. 
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  seems  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.  ... 


*  A  "  serio-comic  squib,"  read  before  the  '  Dublin  University  Zoologi- 
cal and  Botanical  Association,'  Feb.  17,  i860,  and  privately  printed.  My 
father's  presentation  copy  is  inscribed,  "  With  the  writer's  repentance^  Oct. 
i860." 


44 


I08  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [ib6o. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lye 11. 

Down,  Friday  night  [June  1st,  i860]. 
.  .  .  Have  you  seen  Hopkins  *  in  the  new  '  Fraser  '  ?  the 
public  will,  I  should  think,  find  it  heavy.  He  will  be  dead 
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. 


*  William  Hopkins  died  in  1866,  "in  his  seventy-third  year."  He  be- 
gan life  with  a  farm  in  Suffolk,  but  ultimately  entered,  comparatively  late 
in  life,  at  Peterhouse,  Cambridge  ;  he  took  his  degree  in  1827,  and  after- 
ward became  an  Esquire  Bedell  of  the  University.  He  was  chiefly  known 
as  a  mathematical  "  coach,"  and  was  eminently  successful  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  Senior  Wranglers.  Nevertheless  Mr.  Stephen  says  ('  Life  of  Faw- 
cett,' p.  26)  that  he  "was  conspicuous  for  inculcating"  a  "  liberal  view  of 
the  studies  of  the  place.  He  endeavored  to  stimulate  a  philosophical  in- 
terest in  the  mathematical  sciences,  instead  of  simply  rousing  an  ardour 
for  competition."  He  contributed  many  papers  on  geological  and  mathe- 
matical 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  illus- 
trates 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  cheerful  and  resolute  tone." 

f  '  Fraser's  Magazine,'  June  i860.  My  father,  no  doubt,  refers  to  the 
following  passage,  p.  752,  where  the  Reviewer  expresses  his  "  full  partici- 
pation 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 
differences  of  opinion  with  all  that  freedom  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  prepared  to  exercise  it  with  candour  and  courtesy." 
Speaking  of  this  review,  my  father  wrote  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray:  "  I  have  remon- 
strated 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 


i860.]  ATTACKS.  IO9 

....  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  ap- 
proves of  my  book. 

I  have  had  a  note  from  poor  Blyth,  f  of  Calcutta,  who 
is  much  disappointed  at  hearing  that  Lord  Canning  will  not 
grant  any  money  ;  so  I  much  fear  that  all  your  great  pains 
will  be  thrown  away.  Blyth  says  (and  he  is  in  many  respects 
a  very  good  judge)  that  his  ideas  on  species  are  quite  revo- 
lutionized. .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

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 

more  damning  review  than  has  as  yet  appeared !  "  A  second  notice  by 
Hopkins  appeared  in  the  July  number  of '  Fraser's  Magazine.' 

*  May  i860. 

f  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  supporting 
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  Ben- 
gal, where  the  greater  part  of  his  working  life  was  spent.  His  chief  publi- 
cations 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  mammalia  and  birds  of  India — knowledge  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  unprosperous  and  unhappy  one,  full 
of  money  difficulties  and  darkened  by  the  death  of  his  wife  after  a  few 
years  of  marriage. 


IIO  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860, 

on.  But  I  seriously  beg  you  not  to  write  to  me  unless  so 
inclined  ;  for  busy  as  you  are,  and  seeing  many  people,  the 
case  is  very  different  between  us.  .  .  . 

Have  you  seen  's  abusive  article  on  me  ?  ...  It  out- 
does even  the  '  North  British  '  and  '  Edinburgh '  in  misap- 
prehension 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  natur- 
alists, and  to  all  political  economists,  including  that  great 
philosopher  Malthus  ?  This  review,  however,  and  Harvey's 
letter  have  convinced  me  that  I  must  be  a  very  bad  explainer. 
Neither  really  understand  what  I  mean  by  Natural  Selec- 
tion. 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  (/.  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  success- 
ful 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  .  .  . 


i860.]  ATTACKS.  1 1 1 


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  misunder- 
stood. 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  under- 
stand my  notions.  Even  Hopkins  does  not  thoroughly.  By 
the  way,  I  have  been  so  much  pleased  by  the  way  he  person- 
ally 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  un- 
derstood. 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  Preserva- 
tion "  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  domes- 
tication. 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 

*  The  late  J.  A.  Lowell  in  the  *  Christian  Examiner '  (Boston,  U.  S., 
May,  i860. 


H2  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  ["i860. 

structures.  I  have  stated  in  my  volume  that  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  know  which,  u  e.  whether  instinct  or  structure, 
change  first  by  insensible  steps.  Probably  sometimes  in- 
stinct, sometimes  structure.  When  a  British  insect  feeds  on 
an  exotic  plant,  instinct  has  changed  by  very  small  steps,  and 
their  structures  might  change  so  as  to  fully  profit  by  the  new 
food.  Or  structure  might  change  first,  as  the  direction  of 
tusks  in  one  variety  of  Indian  elephants,  which  leads  it  to 
attack  the  tiger  in  a  different  manner  from  other  kinds  of 
elephants.  Thanks  for  your  letter  of  the  2nd,  chiefly  about 
Murray.  (N.B.  Harvey  of  Dublin  gives  me,  in  a  letter,  the 
argument  of  tall  men  marrying  short  women,  as  one  of  great 
weight  !  *) 

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

...  I  see  in  Murray  and  many  others  one  incessant  fal- 
lacy, 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  f  is  pleasantly  written,  but  it  is  clear 
that  he  is  not  a  naturalist.     He  quite  overlooks  the  impor- 
tance of  the  accumulation  of  mere  individual  differences,  and 
which,  I   think   I  can  show,  is  the  great  agency  of  change 

*  See  footnote,  ante,  p.  56. 

f  J.  A.  Lowell  in  the  '  Christian  Examiner,'  May  i860. 


i860.]  SCHAAFi  HAUSEN.  1 1 3 

under  domestication.  I  have  not  finished  Schaaffhausen,  as 
1  read  German  so  badly.  I  have  ordered  a  copy  for  myself, 
and  should  like  to  keep  yours  till  my  own  arrives,  but  will  re- 
turn 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  wx>rds.  Your  last  note  was  very  inter- 
esting and  consolatory  to  me. 

I  have  expressly  stated  that  I  believe  physical  conditions 
have  a  more  direct  effect  on  plants  than  on  animals.  But  the 
more  I  study,  the  more  I  am  led  to  think  that  natural  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  varia- 
bility 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  Athenmirn  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  Athenceum^  July  7,  i860),  who  "wished  to  ap- 
proach this  subject  in  the  spirit  of  the  philosopher,"  expressed 
his  "  conviction  that  there  were  facts  by  which  the  public 
could  come  to  some  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  probabili- 
ties of  the  truth  of  Mr.  Darwin's  theory."     He  went  on  to 


1 14  THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  contradiction," 
pledging  himself  to  "justify  that  unusual  procedure  else- 
where/' *  a  pledge  which  he  amply  fulfilled. f  On  Friday 
there  was  peace,  but  on  Saturday  30th,  the  battle  arose  with 
redoubled  fury  over  a  paper  by  Dr.  Draper  of  New  York,  on 
the  *  Intellectual  development  of  Europe  considered  with  ref- 
erence to  the  views  of  Mr.  Darwin.' 

The  following  account  is  from  an  eye-witness  of  the  scene, 
"  The  excitement  was  tremendous.  The  Lecture-room,  in 
which  it  had  been  arranged  that  the  discussion  should  be  held, 
proved  far  too  small  for  the  audience,  and  the  meeting  ad- 
journed to  the  Library  of  the  Museum,  which  was  crammed 
to  suffocation  long  before  the  champions  entered  the  lists. 
The  numbers  were  estimated  at  from  700  to  1000.  Had  it 
been  term-time,  or  had  the  general  public  been  admitted,  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  have  accommodated  the  rush 
to  hear  the  oratory  of  the  bold  Bishop.  Professor  Henslow, 
the  President  of  Section  D,  occupied  the  chair  and  wisely  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, 

*  '  Man's  Place  in  Nature,'  by  T.  H.  Huxley,  1863,  p.  114. 
\  See  the  'Nat.  Hist.  Review,'  1861. 


i860.]  BRITISH   ASSOCIATION.  II5 

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- 
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  : 

14  The  excitement  was  now  at  its  height ;  a  lady  fainted 
and  had  to  be  carried  out,  and  it  was  some  time  before  the 
discussion  was  resumed.  Some  voices  called  for  Hooker,  and 
his  name  having  been  handed  up,  the  President  invited  him 


*  Lyell's  '  Letters/  vol.  ii.  p.  335. 

t  Prof.  V.  Carus,  who  has  a  distinct  recollection  of  the  scene,  does  not 
remember  the  word  equivocal.  He  believes  too  that  Lyell's  version  of  the 
"  ape  "  sentence  is  slightly  incorrect. 


Il6  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  sci- 
ence. The  Bishop  made  no  reply,  and  the  meeting  broke  up. 
"  There  was  a  crowded  conversazione  in  the  evening  at 
the  rooms  of  the  hospitable  and  genial  Professor  of  Botany, 
Dr.  Daubeny,  where  the  almost  sole  topic  was  the  battle  of 
the  'Origin,'  and  I  was  much  struck  with  the  fair  and  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 

*  With  regard  to  the  Bishop's  4  Quarterly  Review,'  my  father  wrote  : 
11  These  very  clever  men  think  they  can  write  a  review  with   a  very 
slight  knowledge  of  the  book  reviewed  or  subject  in  question." 


i860.]  BRITISH    ASSOCIATION.  hj 

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. 

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.     The  article  in  question  was  by  Wil- 
berforce,  Bishop  of  Oxford,  and  was  afterwards  published  in  his  "  Essays 


n8  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

parts,  and  brings  forward  well  all  the  difficulties.  It  quizzes 
me  quite  splendidly  by  quoting  the  '  Anti- Jacobin  '  versus 
my  Grandfather.     You  are  not  alluded  to,  nor,  strange  to  say, 

Huxley ;  and  I  can  plainly  see,  here  and  there, 's  hand. 

The  concluding  pages  will  make  Lyell  shake  in  his  shoes. 
By  Jove,  if  he  sticks  to  us,  he  will  be  a  real  hero.  Good- 
night. Your  well-quizzed,  but  not  sorrowful,  and  affectionate 
friend.  '        C.  D. 

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

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


Contributed  to  the  'Quarterly  Review,'  1874."  The  passage  from  the 
4  Anti-Jacobin '  gives  the  history  of  the  evolution  of  space  from  the  "  pri- 
maeval point  or  punctum  saliens  of  the  universe,"  which  is  conceived  to 
have  moved  "  forward  in  a  right  line,  ad  infinitum,  till  it  grew  tired  ; 
after  which  the  right  line,  which  it  had  generated,  would  begin  to  put  it- 
self in  motion  in  a  lateral  direction,  describing  an  area  of  infinite  extent. 
This  area,  as  soon  as  it  became  conscious  of  its  own  existence,  would  be- 
gin 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  assumption  is  no  small  evil.  We  trust  that  he  is  mis- 
taken in  believing  that  he  may  count  Sir  C.  Lyell  as  one  of  his  converts. 
We  know,  indeed,  that  the  strength  of  the  temptations  which  he  can  bring 
to  bear  upon  his  geological  brother.  .  .  .  Yet  no  man  has  been  more  dis- 
tinct and  more  logical  in  the  denial  of  the  transmutation  of  species  than 
Sir  C.  Lyell,  and  that  not  in  the  infancy  of  his  scientific  life,  but  in  its  full 
vigour  and'  maturity."  The  Bishop  goes  on  to  appeal  to  Lyell,  in  order 
that  with  his  help  "  this  flimsy  speculation  may  be  as  completely  put  down 
as  was  what  in  spite  of  all  denials  we  must  venture  to  call  its  twin  though 
less  instructed  brother,  the  '  Vestiges  of  Creation.'  " 

With  reference  to  this  article,  Mr.  Brodie  Innes,  my  father's  old  friend 
and  neighbour,  writes  : — "  Most  men  would  have  been  annoyed  by  an  ar- 
ticle written  with  the  Bishop's  accustomed  vigour,  a  mixture  of  argument 


i860.]  'QUARTERLY   REVIEW.'  II9 

"  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 
Athenczum  has  the  largest  circulation,  and  I  have  sent  my 
copy  to  the  editor  with  a  request  that  he  would  republish 
the  first  discussion  ;  I  much  fear  he  will  not,  as  he  reviewed 
the  subject  in  so  hostile  a  spirit.  ...  I  shall  be  curious  [to 
see]  and  will  order  the  August  number,  as  soon  as  I  know  that 
it  contains  your  review  of  Reviews.     My  conclusion  is  that 


and  ridicule.  Mr.  Darwin  was  writing  on  some  parish  matter,  and  put  a 
postscript — *  If  you  have  not  seen  the  last  'Quarterly,'  do  get  it;  the 
Bishop  of  Oxford  has  made  such  capital  fun  of  me  and  my  grandfather/ 
By  a  curious  coincidence,  when  I  received  the  letter,  I  was  staying  in  the 
same  house  with  the  Bishop,  and  showed  it  to  him.  He  said,  '  I  am  very 
glad  he  takes  it  in  that  way,  he  is  such  a  capital  fellow.' " 

*  April  10,  i860.  Dr.  Gray  criticised  in  detail  "  several  of  the  positions 
taken  at  the  preceding  meeting  by  Mr.  [J.  A.]  Lowell,  Prof.  Bowen  and 
Prof.  Agassiz."     It  was  reprinted  in  the  Athenceum,  Aug.  4,  i860. 


120  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

you  have  made  a  mistake  in  being  a  botanist,  you  ought 
to  have  been  a  lawyer. 

....  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.  Danvin  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  Athenceuni,  and  the  editor  says  he  will  print  it.  The 
'  Quarterly '  has  been  out  some  time.     It  contains  no  malice, 


*  Professor  Henslow  was  mentioned  in  the  December  number  of  '  Mac- 
millan's  Magazine  '  as  being  an  adherent  of  Evolution.  In  consequence 
of  this  he  published,  in  the  February  number  of  the  following  year,  a  let- 
ter denning  his  position.  This  he  did  by  means  of  an  extract  from  a  let- 
ter addressed  to  him  by  the  Rev.  L.  Jenyns  (Blomefield)  which  "  very 
nearly,"  as  he  says,  expressed  his  views.  Mr.  Blomefield  wrote,  "  I  was 
not  aware  that  you  had  become  a  convert  to  his  (Darwin's)  theory,  and  can 
hardly  suppose  you  have  accepted  it  as  a  whole,  though,  like  myself,  you 
may  go  to  the  length  of  imagining  that  many  of  the  smaller  groups,  both  of 
animals  and  plants,  may  at  some  remote  period  have  had  a  common  parent- 
age. 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." 


i860.]  «  NATURAL    HISTORY   REVIEW/  121 

which  is  wonderful.  ...  It  makes  me  say  many  things  which 
I  do  not  say.  At  the  end  it  quotes  all  your  conclusions  against 
Lamarck,  and  makes  a  solemn  appeal  to  you  to  keep  firm  in 

the  true  faith.     I  fancy  it  will  make  you  quake  a  little.     

has  ingeniously  primed  the  Bishop  (with  Murchison)  against 
you  as  head  of  the  uniformitarians.  The  only  other  review 
worth  mentioning,  which  I  can  think  of,  is  in  the  third  No.  of 
the  '  London  Review,'  by  some  geologist,  and  favorable  for  a 
wonder.  It  is  very  ably  done,  and  I  should  like  much  to 
know  who  is  the  author.  I  shall  be  very  curious  to  hear  on 
your  return  whether  Bronn's  German  translation  of  the 
*  Origin  '  has  drawn  any  attention  to  the  subject.  Huxley 
is  eager  about  a  4  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 
influence  on  really  good  workers  in  science,  I  feel  confident 


*  See  Vol.  I.  p.  144. 


122  THE  ' ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/  [i860. 

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  io  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  terri- 
ble 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  trouve- 
rez,  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  obje^^ 

The  treatise  to  which  Von  Bar  refers  he  gave  me  when  over 
here,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  lay  hands  on  it  since  this 

*  See  footnote,  Vol.  I.  p.  540. 


i860.]  VON   BAER.  12$ 

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  Athenczuni  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  ab- 
stract of  Agassiz's  i  Essay  on  Classification/  "  mit  Riicksicht 
auf  Darwins  Ansichten,,,  &c.  &c.  He  won't  go  very  "  dan- 
gerous lengths/'  but  thinks  the  truth  lies  half-way  between 
Agassiz  and  the  '  Origin/  As  he  goes  thus  far  he  will,  nolens 
volens,  have  to  go  further.     He  says  he  is  going  to  review 

*  The  *  American  Journal  of  Science  and  Arts*  (commonly  called  *Sil- 
liman's  Journal '),  July  i860.  Printed  from  advanced  sheets  of  vol.  iii.  of 
1  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  some- 
thing beyond  favouring  the  existence  of  certain  individuals  over  that  of 
other  individuals,  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   ge- 
lehrten  Anzeigen,'  i860. 
45 


I24  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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 
AthencEum  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 
Huxley,  and  Asa  Gray,  I  see,  are  determined  to  stick  to  the 
battle  and  not  give  in ;  I   am  fully  convinced  that  whenever 

*  Theophilus  Parsons,  Professsor  of  Law  in  Harvard  University, 


i860.]  AGASSIZ,  WAGNER.  I2c; 

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  conclu- 
sion 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  n  [i860]. 
My  dear  Gray, — On  my  return  home  from  Sussex  about 
a  week  ago,  I  found  several  articles  sent  by  you.  The  first 
article,  from  the  '  Atlantic  Monthly/  I  am  very  glad  to 
possess.  By  the  way,  the  editor  of  the  Athenceum\  has 
inserted  your  answer  to  Agassiz,  Bowen,  and  Co.,  and  when 

*  '  Remarks  on  the  final  causes  of  the  sexuality  of  plants  with  particu- 
lar reference  to  Mr.  Darwin's  work  on  the  "  Origin  of  Species."  ' — Brit. 
Assoc.  Report,  i860. 

f  Aug.  4,  i860. 


I26  THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/  [i860. 

I  therein  read  them,  I  admired  them  even  more  than  at  first. 
They  really  seemed  to  be  admirable  in  their  condensation, 
force,  clearness  and  novelty. 

I  am  surprised  that  Agassiz  did  not  succeed  in  writing 
something  better.  How  absurd  that  logical  quibble — "  if 
species  do  not  exist,  how  can  they  vary?"  As  if  any  one 
doubted  their  temporary  existence.  How  coolly  he  assumes 
that  there  is  some  clearly  defined  distinction  between  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  *  is  written. 
Please  tell  him  that  I  reflected  much  on  the  chance  of  favour- 
able monstrosities  (/.  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,  tobelieve  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 
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 


*  t 


Silliman's  Journal,'  July,  i860. 


i860.]  THE    GALAPAGOS.  12/ 

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 
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  sur- 
vive 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 

*  Parson's,/^,  cit.  p.  5,  speaking  of  Pterichthys  and  Cephalaspis,  says  : — 
"  Now  is  it  too  much  to  infer  from  these  facts  that  either  of  these  animals, 
if  a  crustacean,  was  so  nearly  a  fish  that  some  of  its  ova  may  have  become 
fish  ;  or,  if  itself  a  fish,  was  so  nearly  a  crustacean  that  it  may  have  been 
born  from  the  ovum  of  a  crustacean  ?  " 


128  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/  [i36a 

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  dur- 
ing their  existence  as  atolls. 

I  cannot  conceive  any  existing  reptile  being  converted 
into  a  mammal.  From  homologies  I  should  look  at  it  as  cer- 
tain 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  charac- 
ters (and  in  a  less  degree  bird  character)  with  mammalian. 
We  must  imagine  some  form  as  intermediate,  as  is  Lepidosi- 
ren  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  in- 
heritance 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  an- 
ticipated. The  argument  of  littoral  Miocene  shells  at  the 
Canary  Islands  is  new  to  me.  I  was  deeply  impressed  (from 
the  amount  of  the  denudation)  [with  the]  antiquity  of  St. 
Helena,  and  its  age  agrees  with  the  peculiarity  of  the  flora. 
With  respect  to  bats  at  New  Zealand  (N.  B.  There  are  two 
or  three  European  bats  in  Madeira,  and  I  think  in  the  Canary 
Islands)  not  having  given  rise  to  a  group  of  non-volant  bats, 
it  is,  now  you  put  the  case,  surprising  ;  more  especially  as 
the  genus  of  bats  in  New  Zealand  is  very  peculiar,  and  there- 


i860.]  LYELL'S   CRITICISMS.  1 29 

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  wan- 
der 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  Ma- 
deira 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  Ambly- 
rhynchus  of  the  Galapagos,  one  may  infer  as  probable,  from 
marine  habits  being  so  rare  with  Saurians,  and  from  the  ter- 
restrial species  being  confined  to  a  few  central  islets,  that  its 
progenitor  first  arrived  at  the  Galapagos  ;  from  what  country 
it  is  impossible  to  say,  as  its  affinity  I  believe  is  not  very 
clear  to  any  known  species.  The  offspring  of  the  terrestrial 
species  was  probably  rendered  marine.  Now  in  this  case  I 
do  not  pretend  I  can  show  variation  in  habits ;  but  we  have 
in  the  terrestrial  species  a  vegetable  feeder  (in  itself  a  rather 
unusual  circumstance),  largely  on  lichens,  and  it  would  not 
be  a  great  change  for  its  offspring  to  feed  first  on  littoral 
algae  and  then  on  submarine  algae.  I  have  said  what  I  can 
in  defence,  but  yours  is  a  good  line  of  attack.  We  should, 
however,  always  remember  that  no  change  will  ever  be 
effected  till  a  variation  in  the  habits  or  structure  or  of  both 
chance  to  occur  in  the  right  direction,  so  as  to  give  the  organ- 
ism in  question  an  advantage  over  other  already  established 
occupants  of  land  or  water,  and  this  may  be  in  any  particu- 
lar 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 


130  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

of  the  balance  of  evidence.  After  long  pondering  on  a  sub- 
ject 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  [i860]. 

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  ex- 
tremely 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  lit- 
tle this  has  been  attended  to. 

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

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

Yours  ever  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

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 

*  Dr.  Gray  in  the  '  Atlantic  Monthly  '  for  July,  i860. 


i860.]  LYELL'S  CRITICISMS.  131 

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  mon- 
ster 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  strong- 
est single  class  of  facts  in  favour  of  change  of  forms,  and  not 
one,  I  think,  of  my  reviewers  has  alluded  to  this.  Variation 
not  coming  on  at  a  very  early  age,  and  being  inherited  at  not 
a  very  early  corresponding  period,  explains,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  the  grandest  of  all  facts  in  natural  history,  or  rather  in 
zoology,  viz.  the  resemblance  of  embryos. 

[Dr.  Gray  wrote  three  articles  in  the  *  Atlantic  Monthly '  for 
July,  August,  and  October,  which  were  reprinted  as  a  pam- 
phlet in  1861,  and  now  form  chapter  iii.  in  *  Darwiniana  ' 
(1876),  with  the  heading  ■  Natural  Selection  not  inconsistent 
with  Natural  Theology. 'J 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

Down,  September  I2th  [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 


132  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  devel- 
oped in  Australia.  You  must  assume  that  they  have  inhab- 
ited Australia  for  a  very  long  period,  and  this  may  or  may 
not  be  the  case.  But  I  feel  that  our  ignorance  is  so  pro- 
found, why  one  form  is  preserved  with  nearly  the  same  struct- 
ure, or  advances  in  organisation  or  even  retrogrades,  or  be- 
comes 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  unsat- 
isfactory and  quite  vague  answers,  such  as  you  have  yourself 
put ;  however,  you  hardly  put  weight  enough  on  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  variations  first  arising  in  the  right  direction, 
videlicet,  of  seals  beginning  to  feed  on  the  shore. 

I  entirely  agree  with  what  you  say  about  only  one  species 
of  many  becoming  modified.  I  remember  this  struck  me 
much  when  tabulating  the  varieties  of  plants,  and  I  have  a 
discussion  somewhere  on  this  point.  It  is  absolutely  implied 
in  my  ideas  of  classification  and  divergence  that  only  one  or 
two  species,  of  even  large  genera,  give  birth  to  new  species  ; 
and  many  whole  genera  become  wholly  extinct.  ....  Please 
see  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  modi- 
fied ;  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  Austral- 
ian Trigonia,  or  the  Silurian  Lingula.  I  always  repeat  to 
myself  that  we  hardly  know  why  any  one  single  species  is 


i860]  LYELL'S   CRITICISMS.  1 33 

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  interme- 
diate 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  succes- 
sive types,  as  well  as  of  a  certain  number  of  distinct  aborigi- 
nal types."  Remember,  if  you  admit  this,  you  give  up  the 
embryological  argument  {the  7veightiest  of  all  to  me),  and  the 
morphological  or  homological  argument.  You  cut  my  throat, 
and  your  own  throat;  and  I  believe  will  live  to  be  sorry  for 
it.     So  much  for  species. 

The  striking  extract  which  E.  copied  was  your  own  writ- 
ing ! !  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  be- 
fore starting  here.     You  speak  of  saving  me  trouble  in  an- 

*  Drosera. 


134  THE  ■  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

swering.  Never  think  of  this,  for  I  look  at  every  letter  of 
yours  as  an  honor  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  spe- 
cies !  .  .  .  . 

I  have  a  very  decided  opinion  that  all  mammals  must 
have  descended  from  a  single  parent.  Reflect  on  the  multi- 
tude of  details,  very  many  of  them  of  extremely  little  impor- 
tance 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  nat- 
ural selection.  But  in  most  of  such  cases  of  these  apparent- 
ly so  closely  similar  organs,  some  important  homological  dif- 
ference may  be  detected.  Please  read  p.  193,  beginning, 
"  The  electric  organs,"  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  con- 
jecture 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  antiq- 
uity 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. 


i860.] 


PEDIGREE   OF   MAMMALIA. 


135 


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 

DIAGRAM    I. 

A 

MAMMALS, 
NOT  TRUE  MARSUPIALS  INOR  TRUE  PLACENTALS. 


TRUE/ 
PLACENTAL. 


\TRUE 
MARSUPIAL. 


./ 


/     \> 


\ 


KANGAROO 
FAM. 


DIDELP'HYS 
FAM. 


DIAGRAM   II. 


/ 


/ 


/ 


V  \ 


TRUE  MARSUPIALS, 
LOWLY  DEVELOPED. 

TRUE  MARSUPIALS, 
HIGHLY  DEVELOPED. 

,♦'  i 

PLACENTALS 

l 
■ 

PRESENT 

MARSUPIALS 

• 

4 

/ 

/     » 

/       \ 

4     \ 

•  »                          \ 

■    '                         \ 
.    *.                         * 

KANGAROO 
FAM. 

DIDELPHYS 
FAM. 

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 


136  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

the  single  origin  of  man All  the  races  of  man  are  so 

infinitely  closer  together  than  to  any  ape,  that  (as  in  the  case 
of  descent  of  all  mammals  from  one  progenitor),  I  should 
look  at  all  races  of  men  as  having  certainly  descended  from 
one  parent.  I  should  look  at  it  as  probable  that  the  races  of 
men  were  less  numerous  and  less  divergent  formerly  than 
now,  unless,  indeed,  some  lower  and  more  aberrant  race  even 
than  the  Hottentot  has  become  extinct.  Supposing,  as  I  do 
for  one  believe,  that  our  dogs  have  descended  from  two  or 
three  wolves,  jackals,  &c:  ;  yet  these  have,  on  our  view,  de- 
scended from  a  single  remote  unknown  progenitor.  With 
domestic  dogs  the  question  is  simply  whether  the  whole 
amount  of  difference  has  been  produced  since  man  domesti- 
cated a  single  species  ;  or  whether  part  of  the  difference 
arises  in  the  state  of  nature.  Agassiz  and  Co.  think  the 
negro  and  Caucasian  are  now  distinct  species,  and  it  is  a 
mere  vain  discussion  whether,  when  they  were  rather  less 
distinct,  they  would,  on  this  standard  of  specific  value,  de- 
serve to  be  called  species. 

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

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  now  well-established  reptiles,  millions  of  ages  might  elapse 
before  reptiles  could  become  highly  developed  on  a  scale 
equal  to  mammals  ;  and,    on    the   principle  of  inheritance, 


i860.]  LETTER   TO   ASA   GRAY.  1 37 

they  would  make  some  quite  new  class,  and  not  mammals  ; 
though  possibly  more  intellectual !  I  have  not  an  idea  that 
you  will  care  for  this  letter,  so  speculative. 

Most  truly  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

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 
book,  yet  sometimes  use  expressions  to  which  I  demur.  Well, 
your  extraordinary  labour  is  over;  if  there  is  any  fair  amount 
of  truth  in  my  view,  I  am  well  assured  that  your  great  labour 
has  not  been  thrown  away.  .  .  . 

I  yet  hope  and  almost  believe,  that  the  time  will-  come 
when  you  will  go  further,  in  believing  a  very  large  amount  of 
modification  of  species,  than  you  did  at  first  or  do  now.  Can 
you  tell  me  whether  you  believe  further  or  more  firmly  than 
you  did  at  first  ?  I  should  really  like  to  know  this.  I  can 
perceive  in  my  immense  correspondence  with  Lyell,  who 
objected  to  much  at  first,  that  he  has,  perhaps  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. 


I38  THE   'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 


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 
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.,  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 


*  There  are  two  papers  by  Aug.  Krohn,  one  on  the  Cement  Glands, 
and  the  other  on  the  development  of  Cirripedes,  '  Wiegmann's  Archiv,' 
xxv.  and  xxvi.  My  father  has  remarked  that  he  a  blundered  dreadfully 
about  the  cement  glands,"  '  Autobiography,'  p.  66- 


r86o.]  BRONN'S   OBJECTIONS.  T^g 

novo,  I  would  have  used  "  natural  preservation/'     For  I  find 

men  like  Harvey  of  Dublin  cannot  understand  me,  though  he 

has  road  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.  Darwin  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 
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  in- 
sensibly 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  peri- 
ods, 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. 


*  A  MS.  translation  of  Bronn's  chapter  of  objections  at  the  end  of  his 
German  translation  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species.' 
40 


I40  THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/  [i860. 

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  en- 
tirely. .  .  '.  . 

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

C.  Darwin  to  J.  M.  Ro dwell.  \ 

15  Marine  Parade,  Eastbourne. 

November  5th  [i860]. 

Mv  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  :  J  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  re- 

*  *  Species  not  Transmutable,'  by  C.  R.  Bree,  i860. 

f  Rev.  J.  M.  Rodwell,  who  was  at  Cambridge  with  my  father,  remem- 
bers him  saying  : — "  It  strikes  me  that  all  our  knowledge  about  the  struct- 
ure of  our  earth  is  very  much  like  what  an  old  hen  would  know  of  a  hun- 
dred acre  field,  in  a  corner  of  which  she  is  scratching." 

%  "  Cats  with  blue  eyes  are  invariably  deaf,"  '  Origin  of  Species,'  ed.  i. 
p.  12. 

#  William  Kirby,  joint  author  with  Spence,  of  the  well-known  *  Intro- 
duction to  Entomology/  18 18. 


i860.]  REVIEWS.  I4I 

member,  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.  Herschel  saying  to  me,  I  wish 
some  one  would  treat  language  as  Lyell  has  treated  geology. 
What  a  linguist  you  must  be  to  translate  the  Koran  !  Having 
a  vilely  bad  head  for  languages,  I  feel  an  awful  respect  for 
linguists. 

I  do  not  know  whether  my  brother-in-law,  Hensleigh 
Wedgwood's  'Etymological  Dictionary*  would  be  at  all  in 
your  line  ;  but  he  treats  briefly  on  the  genesis  of  words  ;  and, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  very  ingeniously.  You  kindly  say  that 
you  would  communicate  any  facts  which  might  occur  to  you, 
and  I  am  sure  that  I  should  be  most  grateful.  Of  the  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  let- 
ter written  in  haste,  pray  believe  me,  my  dear  Sir, 

Yours  sincerely  obliged, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C,  Lyell. 

November  20th  [i860]. 
....  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 

*  *  Life  on  the  Earth.' 

f  "  Remarks  on  the  latest  form  of  the  Development  Theory."  By 
Francis  Bowen,  Professor  of  Natural  Religion  and  Moral  Philosophy,  at 
Harvard  University.    *  American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,' vol.  viii. 


I42  THE  <  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

way,  I  hear  Agassiz  is  going  to  thunder  against  me  in  the 
next  part  of  the  '  Contributions/)  Thank  you  for  telling  me 
of  the  sale  of  the  '  Origin/  of  which  I  had  not  heard.  There 
will  be  some  time,  I  presume,  a  new  edition,  and  I  especially 
want  your  advice  on  one  point,  and  you  know  I  think  you 
the  wisest  of  men,  and  I  shall  be  absolutely  guided  by  your 
advice.  It  has  occurred  to  me,  that  it  would  perhaps  be  a 
good  plan  to  put  a  set  of  notes  (some  twenty  to  forty  or  fifty) 
to  the  '  Origin/  which  now  has  none,  exclusively  devoted  to 
errors  of  my  reviewers.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that  where  a 
reviewer  has  erred,  a  common  reader  might  err.  Secondly, 
it  will  show  the  reader  that  he  must  not  trust  implicitly  to 
reviewers.  Thirdly,  when  any  special  fact  has  been  attacked, 
I  should  like  to  defend  it.  I  would  show  no  sort  of  anger. 
I  enclose  a  mere  rough  specimen,  done  without  any  care  or 
accuracy — done  from  memory  alone — to  be  torn  up,  just  to 
show  the  sort  of  thing  that  has  occurred  to  me.  Will  you  do 
me  the  great  kindness  to  consider  this  well  ? 

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

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

[Here  follow  samples  of  foot-notes,  the  references  to  vol- 
ume 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  saying  that  the  "  dorsal  vertebrae  of 
I  explain  the  structure  of  the  cells  pigeons  vary  in  number,  and  dis- 
of  the  Hive  Bee  by  "  the  exploded  putes  the  fact."  I  nowhere  even 
doctrine  of  pressure."  But  I  do  not  allude  to  the  dorsal  vertebrae,  only 
say  one  word  which  directly  or  indi-  to  the  sacral  and  caudal  vertebrae, 
rectly  can  be  interpreted  into  any  *  The  '  Edinburgh '  Reviewer 
reference  to  pressure.  throws  a  doubt  on  these  organs  be- 

*  The     *  Edinburgh '    Reviewer  ing    the    Branchiae    of     Cirripedes. 
(vol.        ,  p.        )  quotes  my  work  as  But  Professor  Owen  in  1854  admits, 


i860.] 


REVIEWS. 


143 


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  inaccuracy  from  a 
review  in  the  Saturday  Review^  and 
from  Phillips,  as  I  see  in  his  Table 
of  Contents  that  he  alludes  to  it. 

*  Mr.    Hopkins    ('  Fraser,'    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  ignorance  be- 
ing adduced  as  an  argument.  But 
I  repeatedly  admit,  in  the  most  em- 
phatic language  which  I  can  use, 
that  the  imperfect  evidence  which 
Geology  offers  in  regard  to  transito- 
rial  forms  is  most  strongly  opposed 
to  my  views.  Surely  there  is  a  wide 
difference  in  fully  admitting  an  ob- 
jection, and  then  in  endeavoring  to 
show  that  it  is  not  so  strong  as  it  at 
first  appears,  and  in  Mr.  Hopkins's 
assertion  that  I  found  my  argument 
on  the  Objection. 


*  I  would  also  put  a  note  to 
"  Natural  Selection,"  and  show  how 
variously  it  has  been  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  pur- 
pose, Azara,  whose  accuracy  all  ad- 
mit, is  more  emphatic  than  I  am  in 
regard  to  its  never  frequenting  trees. 
Mr.  A.  Murray  denies  that  it  ought 
to  be  called  a  woodpecker ;  it  has 
two  toes  in  front  and  two  behind, 
pointed  tail  feathers,  a  long  pointed 
tongue,  and  the  same  general  form 
of  body,  the  same  manner  of  flight, 
colouring  and  voice.  It  was  classed, 
until  recently,  in  the  same  genus — 
Picus — with  all  other  woodpeckers, 
but  now  has  been  ranked  as  a  dis- 
tinct genus  amongst  the  Picidae.  It 
differs  from  the  typical  Picus  only 
in  the  beak,  not  being  quite  so 
strong,  and  in  the  upper  mandible 
being  slightly  arched.  I  think  these 
facts  fully  justify  my  statement  that 
it  is  "  in  all  essential  parts  of  its  or- 
ganisation "  a  Woodpecker.] 


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 


144  THE  'ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES/  [186a 

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  f  of  the  '  Origin/  [Murray]  says  the 
Reviews  have  not  improved  the  sale.  I  shall  always  think 
those  early  reviews,  almost  entirely  yours,  did  the  subject  an 
enormous  service.  If  you  have  any  important  suggestions  or 
criticisms  to  make  on  any  part  of  the  '  Origin,'  I  should,  of 
course,  be  very  grateful  for  [them].  For  I  mean  to  correct 
as  far  as  I  can,  but  not  enlarge.  How  you  must  be  wearied 
with  and  hate  the  subject,  and  it  is  God's  blessing  if  you  do 
not  get  to  hate  me.     Adios. 


C.  Darwin  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.J  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.#  .... 

*  The  first  number  of  the  new  series  of  the  4  Nat.  Hist.  Review '  ap- 
peared in  1861. 

f  The  3rd  edition. 

\  u  I  get  on  slowly  with  my  new  edition.  I  find  that  your  advice  was 
excellent.  I  can  answer  all  reviews,  without  any  direct  notice  of  them,  by 
a  little  enlargement  here  and  there,  with  here  and  there  a  new  paragraph. 
Bronn  alone  I  shall  treat  with  the  respect  of  giving  his  objections  with  his 
name.  I  think  I  shall  improve  my  book  a  good  deal,  and  add  only  some 
twenty  pages." — From  a  letter  to  Lyell,  December  4th,  i860. 

*  On  the  third  edition  of  the  4  Origin  of  Species,'  published  in  April 
1861. 


i860.]  DESIGN.  I45 

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  disingenu- 
ous spirit.  Well,  McDonnell,  of  Dublin  (a  first-rate  man), 
writes  to  me  that  he  felt  the  difficulty  of  the  whole  case  as 
overwhelming  against  me.  Not  only  are  the  fishes  which 
have  electric  organs  very  remote  in  scale,  but  the  organ  is 
near  the  head  in  some,  and  near  the  tail  in  others,  and 
supplied  by  wholly  different  nerves.  It  seems  impossible 
that  there  could  be  any  transition.  Some  friend,  who  is 
much  opposed  to  me,  seems  to  have  crowed  over  McDonnell, 
who  reports  that  he  said  to  himself,  that  if  Darwin  is  right, 
there  must  be  homologous  organs  both  near  the  head  and  tail 
in  other  non-electric  fish.  He  set  to  work,  and,  by  Jove, 
he  has  found  them !  *  so  that  some  of  the  difficulty  is  re- 
moved ;  and  is  it  not  satisfactory  that  my  hypothetical  no- 
tions should  have  led  to  pretty  discoveries  ?  McDonnell 
seems  very  cautious ;  he  says,  years  must  pass  before  he  will 
venture  to  call  himself  a  believer  in  my  doctrine,  but  that  on 
the  subjects  which  he  knows  well,  viz.,  Morphology  and  Em- 
bryology, 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  ' ; 

*  '  On  an  organ  in  the  Skate,  which  appears  to  be  the  homologue  of  the 
electrical  organ  of  the  Torpedo,'  by  R.  McDonnell,  *  Nat.  Hist.  Review/ 
1861,  p.  57. 


I46  THE  '  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  cru- 
cial 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 
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 ! 

*  '  Memoirs  of  the  American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences/  vol.  viii. 


i860.]  DR.  GRAY'S   PAMPHLET.  147 


C.  Darwin  to   T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  Dec.  2nd  [i860]. 

....  I  have  got  fairly  sick  of  hostile  reviews.  Never- 
theless, they  have  been  of  use  in  showing  me  when  to  expati- 
ate a  little  and  to  introduce  a  few  new  discussions.  Of  course 
I  will  send  you  a  copy  of  the  new  edition. 

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

Ever  yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Down,  December  nth  [i860]. 
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, 


I48  THE  ■  ORIGIN  OF   SPECIES.'  [i860. 

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  ! 


CHAPTER    III. 

Spread  of  Evolution. 

1861-1862. 

[The  beginning  of  the  year  1861  saw  my  father  with  the 
third  chapter  of  '  The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants '  still 
on  his  hands.  It  had  been  begun  in  the  previous  August, 
and  was  not  finished  until  March  1861.  He  was,  however,  for 
part  of  this  time  (I  believe  during  December  i860  and 
January  1861)  engaged  in  a  new  edition  (2000  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  already  appeared  in  the  first  German 
edition  (i860)  and  the  American  edition.  Bronn  states  in  the  German 
edition  (footnote,  p.  1)  that  it  was  his  critique  in  the  *  N.  Jahrbuch  fiir 
Mineralogie  '  that  suggested  the  idea  of  such  a  sketch  to  my  father. 


150  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

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  i  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 
chapter  of  '  Animals  and  Plants/  Thus  in  his  Diary  occur 
the  laconic  entries,  "May  16,  Finished  Fowls  (eight  weeks)  ; 
May  31,  Ducks." 

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

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


i86i.]  HUXLEY'S   ARTICLE.  151 

amplification  of  the  *  Origin  of  Species  ' — e.g.,  the  publication 
of  '  Animals  and  Plants/  c  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  Ariicle,* 

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  f  is  unreadably  dull.    You  need 
not  attempt  Bree.J  .... 


*  '  Natural  History  Review,'  1861,  p.  67,  M  On  the  Zoological  Rela- 
tions of  Man  with  the  Lower  Animals."  This  memoir  had  its  origin  in  a 
discussion  at  the  previous  meeting  of  the  British  Association,  when  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  felt  himself  "  compelled  to  give  a  diametrical  contradiction 
to  certain  assertions  respecting  the  differences  which  obtain  between  the 
brains  of  the  higher  apes  and  of  man,  which  fell  from  Professor  Owen/' 
But  in  order  that  his  criticisms  might  refer  to  deliberately  recorded  words, 
he  bases  them  on  Professor  Owen's  paper,  "  On  the  Characters,  &c,  of  the 
Class  Mammalia,"  read  before  the  Linnean  Society  in  February  and  April, 
1857,  in  which  he  proposed  to  place  man  not  only  in  a  distinct  order,  but 
in  "  a  distinct  sub-class  of  the  Mammalia  " — the  Archencephala. 

f  '  Life  on  the  Earth '  (i860),  by  Prof.  Phillips,  containing  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Rede  Lecture  (May  i860). 

%  The  following  sentence  (p.  16)  from  *  Species  not  Transmutable,'  by 
Dr.  Bree,  illustrates  the  degree  in  which  he  understood  the  '  Origin  of 
Species ' :  "The  only  real  difference  between  Mr.  Darwin  and  his  two 
predecessors"  [Lamarck  and  the  *  Vestiges ']  "is  this: — that  while  the 
latter  have  each  given  a  mode  by  which  they  conceive  the  great  changes 
they  believe  in  have  been  brought  about,  Mr.  Darwin  does  no  such  thing." 
After  this  we  need  not  be  surprised  at  a  passage  in  the  preface  :  "  No  one 
has  derived  greater  pleasure  than  I  have  in  past  days  from  the  study  of 
Mr.  Darwin's  other  works,  and  no  one  has  felt  a  greater  degree  of  regret 
that  he  should  have  imperilled  his  fame  by  the  publication  of  his  treatise 
upon  the  '  Origin  of  Species.'  " 


!j2  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

If  you  come  across  Dr.  Freke  on  '  Origin  of  Species  by 
means  of  Organic  Affinity,'  read  a  page  here  and  there.  .  .  . 
He  tells  the  reader  to  observe  [that  his  result]  has  been  ar- 
rived 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 
1  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,  1 86 1. 

My  dear  Lyell, — I  have  thought  you  would  like  to  read 
the  enclosed  passage  in  a  letter  from  A.  Gray  (who  is  print- 
ing his  reviews  as  a  pamphlet,*  and  will  send  copies  to  Eng- 
land), as  I  think  his  account  is  really  favourable  in  high 
degree  to  us  : — 

"  I  wish  I  had  time  to  write  you  an  account  of  the  lengths 
to  which  Bowen  and  Agassiz,  each  in  their  own  way,  are 
going.  The  first  denying  all  heredity  (all  transmission  ex- 
cept specific)  whatever.  The  second  coming  near  to  deny 
that  we  are  genetically  descended  from  our  great-great-grand- 
fathers ;  and  insisting  that  evidently  affiliated  languages,  e.  g. 
Latin,  Greek,  Sanscrit,  owe  none  of  their  similarities  to  a 
community  of  origin,  are  all  autochthonal ;  Agassiz  admits 
that  the  derivation  of  languages,  and  that  of  species  or  forms, 

*  "  Natural  Selection  not  inconsistent  with  Natural  Theology,"  from 
the  '  Atlantic  Monthly '  for  July,  August,  and  October,  i860  ;  published  by 
Trubner. 


i86i.]  MR.  BATES.  1 53 

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

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

[The  following  letter  refers  to  Mr.  Bates's  paper,  "Contri- 


!jj4  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

butions  to  an  Insect  Fauna  of  the  Amazon  Valley,"  in  the 
'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 
"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  un- 
covered 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.  Z>.  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  doc- 
trine. I  cannot  wriggle  out  of  it :  I  am  dumbfounded  ;  yet 
I  do  believe  that  some  explanation  some  day  will  appearand 
I  cannot  give  up  equatorial  cooling.  It  explains  so  much 
and  harmonises  with  so  much.  When  you  write  (and  much 
interested  I  shall  be  in  your  letter)  please  say  how  far  floras 
are  generally  uniform  in  generic  character  from  o°  to  25 °  N. 
and  S. 

*  The  paper  was  read  Nov.  24,  i860. 


i86i.]  MR.  BATES.  1 55 

Before  reading  Bates,  I  had  become  thoroughly  dissatis- 
fied with  what  I  wrote  to  you.  1  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  ex- 
plained phrenologically,  which  I  suppose  civilly  means,  that 
I  am  the  most  egotistically  self-sufficient  man  alive  ;  perhaps 
so.  I  wonder  whether  he  will  print  this  pleasing  fact ;  it 
beats  hollow  the  parentheses  in  Wollaston's  writing. 
/  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  ?  [186 1.] 
....  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  ex- 
plains phenomena.  It  is  really  curious  how  few  judge  it  in 
this  way,  which  is  clearly  the  right  way.  I  have  been  much 
interested  by  Bentham's  paper  \  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 


*  Third  edition  of  2000  copies,  published  in  April,  1 86 1. 

f  In  the  'Geologist,'  1861,  p.  132,  by  Lieutenant  Frederick  Wollaston 
Hutton,  now  Professor  of  Biology  and  Geology  at  Canterbury  College, 
New  Zealand. 

±  "On  the  Species  and  Genera  of  Plants,  &c,"  'Natural  History  Re- 
view,' 1861,  p.  133. 
47 


r  56  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [i36i. 

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,  AV allien,  and  several  others.  I  asked  Bentham 
to  give  us  his  ideas  of  species  ;  whether  partially  with  us  or 
dead  against  us,  he  would  write  excellent  matter.  He  made 
no  answer,  but  his  manner  made  me  think  he  might  do  so  if 
urged  ;  so  do  you  attack  him.  Every  one  was  speaking  with 
affection  and  anxiety  of  Henslow.*     I  dined  with  Bell  at  the 

Linnean  Club,  and  liked  my  dinner Dining  out  is 

such  a  novelty  to  me  that  I  enjoyed  it.  Bell  has  a  real  good 
heart.  I  liked  Rolleston's  paper,  but  I  never  read  anything 
so  obscure  and  not  self-evident  as  his  '  Canons. 'f  ....  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.J 
Farewell,  with  sincere  sympathy,  my  old  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — We  are  very  much  obliged  for  the  '  London  Re- 
view.' We  like  reading  much  of  it,  and  the  science  is  in- 
comparably better  than  in  the  Athenceum.  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  Athenceum  and 


*  Prof.  Henslow  was  in  his  last  illness. 

f  George  Rolleston,  M.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  b.  1829,  d.  1881.  Linacre  Pro- 
fessor of  Anatomy  and  Physiology  at  Oxford.  A  man  of  much  learning, 
who  left  but  few  published  works,  among  which  may  be  mentioned  his 
handbook,  '  Forms  of  Animal  Life.'  For  the'  Canons,'  see  '  Nat.  Hist.  Re- 
view,' 1861,  p.  206. 

%  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  was  Prof.  Henslow's  son-in-law. 


i86i.]  LYELL'S   WORK.  ^7 

the   Gardener  s  Chronicle,   but  I  have  taken  them  in  for  so 
many  years,  that  I  cannot  give  them  up. 

[The  next  letter  refers  to  Lyell's  visit  to  the  Biddenham 
gravel-pits  near  Bedford  in  April  1861.  The  visit  was  made 
at  the  invitation  of  Mr.  James  Wyatt,  who  had  recently  dis- 
covered two  stone  implements  "  at  the  depth  of  thirteen  feet 
from  the  surface  of  the  soi],,,  resting  " immediately  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  phenomena — the 
antique  tools,  the  extinct  mammalia,  and  the  glacial  forma- 
tion."] 

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  lacus- 
trine beds.  It  is  grand.  I  remember  Falconer  told  me  that 
he  thought  some  of  the  remains  in  the  Devonshire  caverns 
were  pre-glacial,  and  this,  I  presume,  is  now  your  conclusion 
for  the  older  celts  with  hyena  and  hippopotamus.  It  is  grand. 
What  a  fine  long  pedigree  you  have  given  the  human  race  ! 

I  am  sure  I  never  thought  of  parallel  roads  having  been 
accumulated  during  subsidence.  I  think  I  see  some  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 


*  '  Antiquity  of  Man/  fourth  edition,  p.  214, 


I  j8  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

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  intention- 
ally. I  have  left  the  responsibility  with  Busk  whether  or  no 
to  read  the  letters.* 


C.  Darwin  to  Thomas  Davidson.  \ 

Down,  April  26,  1 86 1. 
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,  wThich  I  apprehend  will 
be  universally  admitted,  that  as  a  whole,  the  fauna  of  any 
formation  is  intermediate  in  character  between  that  of  the 

*  /.  e.  to  read  them  before  the  Linnean  Society. 

f  Thomas  Davidson,  F.R.S.,  born  in  Edinburgh,  May  17,  1817  ;  died 
T885.  His  researches  were  chiefly  connected  with  the  sciences  of  geology 
and  palaeontology,  and  were  directed  especially  to  the  elucidation  of  the 
characters,  classification,  history,  geological  and  geographical  distribution 
of  recent  and  fossil  Brachiopoda.  On  this  subject  he  brought  out  an  im- 
portant work,  4  British  Fossil  Brachiopoda,'  5  vols.  4to.  (Cooper,  '  Men  of 
the  Time,'  1884.) 


i86i.]  DAVIDSON  ON   BRACHIOPODA.  tJq 

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  ad- 
mit 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.*  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  f 
in  the  Musuem  in  Jermyn  Street,  glued  on  a  board  some 
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 

*  "  Mr.  Davidson  is  not  at  all  a  full  believer  in  great  changes  of  species, 
which  will  make  his  work  all  the  more  valuable." — C.  Darwin  to  R.  Cham- 
bers (April  30,  1861). 

f  John  William  Salter  ;  b.  1820,  d.  1869.  He  entered  the  service  of 
the  Geological  Survey  in  1846,  and  ultimately  became  its  Palaeontologist, 
on  the  retirement  of  Edward  Forbes,  and  gave  up  the  office  in  1863.  He 
was  associated  with  several  well-known  naturalists  in  their  work — with 
Sedgwick,  Murchison,  Lyell,  Ramsay,  and  Huxley.  There  are  sixty  en- 
tries under  his  name  in  the  Royal  Society  Catalogue.  The  above  facts 
are  taken  from  an  obituary  notice  of  Mr.  Salter  in  the  *  Geological  Maga- 
zine/ 1869. 


!6o  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

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,  1  would  ask  you  to  read  my  Chapter  X.  on  Geologi- 
cal Succession.  And  I  should  like  in  this  case  to  be  per- 
mitted to  send  you  a  copy  of  the  new  edition,  just  published, 
in  which  I  have  added  and  corrected  somewhat  in  Chapters 
IX.  and  X. 

Pray  excuse  this  long  letter,  and  believe  me, 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  very  faithfully, 

C.  Darwin. 

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

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 


i86i.]  CONDITIONS   OF    LIFE.  l6l 

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 
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 

*  Professor  Sedgwick  treated  this  part  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species  '  very 
differently,  as  might  have  been  expected  from  his  vehement  objection  to 
Evolution  in  general.  In  the  article  in  the  Spectator  of  March  24,  i860, 
already  noticed,  Sedgwick  wrote  :  "  We  know  the  complicated  organic 
phenomena  of  the  Mesozoic  (or  Oolitic)  period.  It  defies  the  trasmuta- 
tionist  at  every  step.  Oh  !  but  the  document,  says  Darwin,  is  a  fragment  ; 
I  will  interpolate  long  periods  to  account  for  all  the  changes.  I  say,  in  re- 
ply, if  you  deny  my  conclusion,  grounded  on  positive  evidence,  I  toss  back 
your  conclusion,  derived  from  negative  evidence, — the  inflated  cushion  on 
which  you  try  to  bolster  up  the  defects  of  your  hypothesis."  [The  punc- 
tuation of  the  imaginary  dialogue  is  slightly  altered  from  the  original, 
which  is  obscure  in  one  place.] 


162  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

of  the  long-continued  action  of  changed  conditions  of  life 
without  any  selection,  with  the  action  of  selection  on  mere 
accidental  (so  to  speak)  variability.  I  oscillate  much  on  this 
head,  but  generally  return  to  my  belief  that  the  direct  action 
of  the  conditions  of  life  has  not  been  great.  At  least 
this  direct  action  can  have  played  an  extremely  small  part 
in  producing  all  the  numberless  and  beautiful  adaptations  in 
every  living  creature.  With  respect  to  a  person's  belief,  what 
does  rather  surprise  me  is  that  any  one  (like  Carpenter) 
should  be  willing  to  go  so  very  far  as  to  believe  that  all  birds 
may  have  descended  from  one  parent,  and  not  go  a  little 
farther  and  include  all  the  members  of  the  same  great  division  ; 
for  on  such  a  scale  of  belief,  all  the  facts  in  Morphology  and 
in  Embryology  (the  most  important  in  my  opinion  of  all  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 
Brachiopodous  species  ;  I  am  sure  it  will  be  a  most  vgj.uaoie 
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 

*  Lyell,  *  Antiquity  of  Man,'  first  edition,  p.  428. 


i86i.]     DR.  GRAY'S  PAMPHLET—DESCENT   THEORY.        163 

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  i  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 
1  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 
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,  i  Read  Asa  Gray  in  the  '  Atlantic.'  "  It  comes  out 
very  clearly  that  in  the  case  of  such  publications  as  Dr.  Gray's, 
my  father  did  not  rejoice  over  the  success  of  his  special  view 
of  Evolution,  viz.  that  modification  is  mainly  due  to  Natural 
Selection  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  felt  strongly  that  the  really 
important  point  was  that  the  doctrine  of  Descent  should  be 
accepted.  Thus  he  wrote  to  Professor  Gray  (May  11,  1863), 
with  reference  to  Lyell's  '  Antiquity  of  Man  ' : — 

"'  You  speak  of  Lyell  as  a  judge  ;  now  what  I  complain  of 
is  that  he  declines  to  be  a  judge.  ...  I  have  sometimes 
almost  wished  that  Lyell  had  pronounced  against  me.  When 
I  say  *  me,'  I  only  mean  change  of  species  by  descent.  That 
seems  to  me  the  turning-point.     Personally,  of  course,  I  care 


164  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

much  about  Natural  Selection  ;  but  that  seems  to  me  utterly- 
unimportant,  compared  to  the  question  of  Creation  or  Modifi- 
fication."] 

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 
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  Pro- 
fessor Bowen  as  a  very  clever  man.  I  should  have  thought 
him  a  singularly  unobservant  man  from  his  writings.  He 
never  can  have  seen  much  of  animals,  or  he  would  have 
seen  the  difference  of  old  and  wise  dogs  and  young  ones. 
His  paper  about  hereditariness  beats  everything.  Tell  a 
breeder  that  he  might  pick  out  his  worst  individual  animals 
and  breed  from  them,  and  hope  to  win  a  prize,  and  he  would 
think  you insane. 

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

My  father  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  on  hearing  of  Hens- 


i86i.]  .     HENSLOW'S   DEATH.  ^65 

low's  death,  "  I  fully  believe  a  better  man  never  walked  this 
earth." 

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

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

u  You  will  see  that  I  have  exceeded  your  request,  but,  as 
I  said  when  I  began,  I  took  pleasure  in  writing  my  impres- 
sion 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  Trubner  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 


l66  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

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  domes- 
tic variation  ;  and  you  might  thus  prove  that  the  duck  or 
pigeon  has  not  varied  because  the  goose  has  not,  though  more 
anciently  domesticated,  and  no  good  reason  can  be  assigned 
why  it  has  not  produced  many  varieties 

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

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

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

Hugh  Falconer  to  C.  Darivin. 

31  Sackville  St.,  W.,  Jwe  23,  1861. 
My  dear  Darwin. — I  have  been  to  Adelsberg  cave  and 
brought  back  with  me  a  live  Proteus  anguinus,  designed  for 
you  from  the  moment  I  got  it  ;  i.e.  if  you  have  got  an 
aquarium  and  would  care  to  have  it.  I  only  returned  last 
night  from  the  continent,  and  hearing  from  your  brother  that 


* « 


Life  on  the  Earth,'  i860. 


x86i.]  DR.  FALCONER.  167 

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  Columbidse — say  a  Pouter  or  a  Tumbler. 

My  dear  Darwin,  I  have  been  rambling  through  the  north 
of  Italy,  and  Germany  lately.  Everywhere  have  I  heard 
your  views  and  your  admirable  essay  canvassed — the  views  of 
course  often  dissented  from,  according  to  the  special  bias  of 
the  speaker — but  the  work,  its  honesty  of  purpose,  grandeur 
of  conception,  felicity  of  illustration,  and  courageous  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, 

Cil  Darwin. 


l68  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  ,i86i 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  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 ; 
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 ! 
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,f 
evidently  a  thoughtful  man,  as  I  thought  you  might  like  to 
have  it,  as  you  have  so  many.  .  .  . 

This  is  quite  a  charming  place,  and  I  have  actually  walked, 
I  believe,  good  two  miles  out  and  back,  which  is  a  grand 
feat. 

I  saw  Mr.  Pengelly  J  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 

*  The  '  Dublin  Hospital  Gazette,'  May  15,  1861.  The  passage  re- 
ferred to  is  at  p.  150. 

f  Mr.  George  Maw,  of  Benthall  Hall.  The  review  was  published  in 
the  '  Zoologist,'  July,  1861.  On  the  back  of  my  father's  copy  is  written, 
"  Must  be  consulted  before  new  edit,  of  '  Origin  '  " — words  which  are  want- 
ing on  many  more  pretentious  notices,  on  which  frequently  occur  my 
father's  brief  o/-,  or  "nothing  new." 

%  William  Pengelly,  the  geologist,  and  well-known  explorer  of  the 
Devonshire  caves. 


i86i.]  AMERICAN    WAR— DESIGN.  ifig 

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 
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 


^o  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

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. 

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.  Darwin  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 

*  On  Mimetic  Butterflies,  read  before  the  Linnean  Soc,  Nov.  21,  1861. 
For  my  father's  opinion  of  it  when  published,  see  p.  183. 


i86ij  MR.  BATES.  171 

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 
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  appre- 
ciate your  work.  In  fact  I  have  long  thought  that  too  much 
systematic  work  [and]  description  somehow  blunts  the  facul- 
ties. The  general  public  appreciates  a  good  dose  of  reason- 
ing, 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 

48 


iy2  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

any  historical  details  which  may  be  necessary.  Murray  likes 
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  kill- 
ing 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  on  the  Amazons,'  was 


*  '  Travels  on  the  Amazon  and  Rio  Negro,'  1853. 

f  Probably  the  '  Naturalist's  Sojourn  in  Jamaica,'  185 1. 

\  In  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (Dec.  1861),  my  father  wrote  :  "lam 
very  glad  to  hear  that  you  like  Bates.  I  have  seldom  in  my  life  been  more 
struck  with  a  man's  power  of  mind." 


i86i.]  BATES'S   BOOK— AMERICAN   WAR.  T73 

published  in  1865,  but  the  following  letter  may  be  given  here 
rather  than  in  its  due  chronological  position  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  H.  W.  JSates. 

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  wThether  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  Athenceum  f  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 

*  In  a  letter  to  Lyell  my  father  wrote  :  "  He  [i.  e.  Mr.  Bates]  is  second 
only  to  Humboldt  in  describing  a  tropical  forest." 

f  "  I  have  read  the  first  volume  of  Bates's  Book ;  it  is  capital,  and  I 
think  the  best  Natural  History  Travels  ever  published  in  England.  He 
is  bold  about  Species,  &c,  and  the  Athenceum  coolly  says  'he  bends  his 
facts  '  for  this  purpose."— (From  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker.) 


174  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1861. 

of  the  same  transaction  !  I  fear  there  is  no  shadow  of  doubt 
we  shall  fight  if  the  two  Southern  rogues  are  not  given  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  longi- 
tude ! 

.  .  .  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, 

*  The  Confederate  Commissioners  Slidell  and  Mason  were  forcibly  re- 
moved from  the  Trent,  a  West  India  mail  steamer  on  Nov.  8,  1861.  The 
news  that  the  U.  S.  agreed  to  release  them  reached  England  on  Jan.  8t 
1862. 

f  Dr.  Boott  was  born  in  the  U.  S. 


i862.]  BOURNEMOUTH.  1 75 

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. 

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  calcu- 
lated 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  spreadingrand  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  homoeopa- 
thy or  by  the  law  of  spirality.  Book  fell  dead  in  Germany. 
Therefore  would  I  translate  it  and  publish  it  in  England. "] 


Ij6  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1S62. 


C.  Darwin  to  T.  II.  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  medi- 
um 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  Gray; 

*  This  refers  to  two  of  Mr.  Huxley's  lectures,  given  before  the  Philo- 
sophical Institution  of  Edinburgh  in  1 862.  The  substance  of  them  is 
given  in  '  Man's  Place  in  Nature.' 

f  The  view  here  given  will  be  discussed  in  the  chapter  on  hetero-styled 
plants. 


1862.]  EVOLUTION    AND    TORYISM.  jyy 

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; 
en  the  other  hand,  I  said  that  I  groaned  to  think  of  the 
slave-htlders  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  n'ecessarily  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  beau- 
tiful and  charming  women  out  of  the  lower  ranks  ;  so  that  a 
good  deal  of  indirect  selection  improves  the  Lords.  Certain- 
ly 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  satis- 
faction 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.  ... 

*  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  ap- 
pear 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  testator's 
lifetime  ;  and  this  he  maintained  would  prevent  much  of  the  monstrous 
injustice  and  meanness  apparent  in  so  many  wills. 


!^8  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1862. 

C.  Darwin  to  Maxivell  Masters,  * 

Down,  Feb.  26  [1862]. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  sending 
me  your  article,f  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  gen- 
erously 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  sec- 
ond volume  of  Buckle's  '  History  of  Civilization.'  The  fol- 
lowing strongly  expressed  opinion  about  it  may  be  worth 
quoting  :— 

"  Have  you  read  Buckle's  second  volume?  it  has  inter- 
ested 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  lan- 
guage that  ever  lived,  let  the  other  be  who  he  may."] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  March  15  [1862]. 
Mv  dear   Gray, — Thanks   for  the  newspapers   (though 
they  did  contain  digs  at  England),  and  for  your  note  of  Feb. 


*  Dr.  Masters  is  a  well-known  vegetable  teratologist,  and  has  been  for 
many  years  the  editor  of  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle. 

f  Refers  to  a  paper  on  "  Vegetable  Morphology,"  by  Dr.  Masters,  in 
the  4  British  and  Foreign  Medico-Chirurgical  Review  '  for  1862. 


1862.]  GRAY'S    PAMPHLET.  iyg 

18th.  It  is  really  almost  a  pleasure  to  receive  stabs  from  so 
smooth,  polished,  and  sharp  a  dagger  as  your  pen.  I  hearti- 
ly wish  I  could  sympathise  more  fully  with  you,  instead  of 
merely  hating  the  South.  We  cannot  enter  into  your  feel- 
ings ;  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  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  are  in  large  part  true,  I  must  think  that  you 
have  done  natural  science  a  good  turn.  Natural  Selection 
seems  to  be  making  a  little  progress  in  England  and  on 
the  Continent ;  a  new  German  edition  is  called  for,  and  a 
French*  one  has  just  appeared.  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. 

*  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  Christianity,  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  transla- 
tion, and  in  many  places  where  the  author  expresses  great  doubt,  she  ex- 
plains the  difficulty,  or  points  out  that  no  real  difficulty  exists. 


l8o  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1862. 


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 
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  Hookers  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  mod- 
ification than  a  group  which  is  generally  more  variable. 

Placental  animals,  e.  g.  might  be  at  each  period  less  vari- 
able than  Marsupials,  and  nevertheless  have  undergone  more 
differentiation  and  development  than  marsupials,  owing  to 
some  advantage,  probably  brain  development. 


*  The  house  of  his  son  William. 
\  I.e.'  The  Antiquity  of  Man.' 


1862.]  FALCONER   ON    SPECIES.  l8i 

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,  3d  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 

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  i  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,  f  "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. 

*  On  his  return  from  Bournemouth. 

f  Falconer,  "  On  the  American  Fossil  Elephant,"  in  the  '  Nat.  Hist. 
Review,'  1863,  p.  81.  The  words  preceding  those  cited  by  my  father 
make  the  meaning  of  his  quotation  clearer.  The  passage  begins  as  follows  : 
"  The  inferences  which  I  draw  from  these  facts  are  not  opposed  to  one  of 
the  leading  propositions  of  Darwin's  theory.     With  him,"  &c.  &c. 


1 82  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1862. 

He  adds  that  he  does  not  think  Natural  Selection  suffices. 
I  do  not  quite  see  the  force  of  his  argument,  and  he  appar- 
ently 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 
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  in  the  direct  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  paralyzed 
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  Mliller)  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 

*  '  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Language,    1st  edit.  1861. 


1862.]  BOOKS— MIMICRY.  ^3 

make  great  use  of  the  subject  in  illustration.*  What  pretty 
metaphors  you  would  make  from  it !  I  wish  some  one  would 
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,f  who,  judging  from  ex- 
tracts, 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.   W.  Bates. 

Down,  Nov.  20  [1862]. 
Dear  Bates, — I  have  just  finished,  after  several  reads, 
your  paper. J     In  my  opinion  it  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 

*  Language  was  treated  in  the  manner  here  indicated  by  Sir  C.  Lyell 
in  the  '  Antiquity  of  Man.'  Also  by  Prof.  Schleicher,  whose  pamphlet  was 
fully  noticed  in  the  Reader,  Feb.  27,  1864  (as  I  learn  from  one  of  Prof. 
Huxley's  *  Lay  Sermon's '). 

f  '  The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  critically  examined,'  six  parts, 
1862-71. 

%  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 
in  this  review  almost  verbatim  in  the  later  editions  of  the  'Origin  of  Spe- 
cies.' A  striking  passage  occurs  showing  the  difficulties  of  the  case  from  a 
creationist's  point  of  view  : — 

11  By  what  means,  it  may  be  asked,  have  so  many  butterflies  of  the  Ama- 
zonian region  acquired  their  deceptive  dress  ?     Most  naturalists  will  answer 


1 84  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1862. 

and  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  hav- 
ing consumed  much  time.  I  am  rejoiced  that  I  passed  over 
the  whole  subject  in  the  *  Origin/  for  I  should  have  made 
a  precious  mess  of  it.  You  have  most  clearly  stated  and 
solved  a  wonderful  problem.  No  doubt  with  most  people 
this  will  be  the  cream  of  the  paper ;  but  I  am  not  sure  that 
all  your  facts  and  reasonings  on  variation,  and  on  the  segre- 
gation 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 

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  particular  case,  moreover,  the  creationist  will 
meet  with  special  difficulties  ;  for  many  of  the  mimicking  forms  of  Leptalis 
can  be  shown  by  a  graduated  series  to  be  merely  varieties  of  one  species  ; 
other  mimickers  are  undoubtedly  distinct  species,  or  even  distinct  genera. 
So  again,  some  of  the  mimicked  forms  can  be  shown  to  be  merely  varie- 
ties ;  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  imitation  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  naturalists  will  be  content  thus  to  believe  that  varieties 
and  individuals  have  been  turned  out  all  ready  made,  almost  as  a  manu- 
facturer turns  out  toys  according  to  the  temporary  demand  of  the  market." 


1862.]  MIMICRY.  185 

a  little  more  on  the  pairing  of  similar  varieties  ;  a  rather 
more  numerous  body  of  facts  seems  here  wanted.  Then, 
again,  what  a  host  of  curious  miscellaneous  observations  there 
are — as  on  related  sexual  and  individual  variability  :  these 
will  some  day,  if  I  live,  be  a  treasure  to  me. 

With  respect  to  mimetic  resemblance  being  so  common 
with  insects,  do  you  not  think  it  may  be  connected  with  their 
small  size ;  they  cannot  defend  themselves ;  they  cannot  es- 
cape 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  resem- 
blances. 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, 


CHAPTER    IV. 

The  Spread  of  Evolution. 


'  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants.5 

1863-1866. 

[His  book  on  animals  and  plants  under  domestication  was 
my  father's  chief  employment  in  the  year  1863.  His  diary 
records  the  length  of  time  spent  over  the  composition  of  its 
chapters,  and  shows  the  rate  at  which  he  arranged  and  wrote 
out  for  printing  the  observations  and  deductions  of  several 
years. 

The  three  chapters  in  vol.  ii.  on  inheritance,  which  oc- 
cupy 84  pages  of  print,  were  begun  in  January  and  finished 
on  April  1st;  the  five  on  crossing,  making  106  pages,  were 
written  in  eight  weeks,  while  the  two  charters  on  selection, 
covering  57  pages,  were  begun  on  June  16th  and  finished  on 
July  20th. 

The  work  was  more  than  once  interrupted  by  ill  health, 
and  in  September,  what  proved  to  be  the  beginning  of  a  six 
month's  illness,  forced  him  to  leave  home  for  the  water-cure 
at  Malvern.  He  returned  in  October  and  remained  ill  and 
depressed,  in  spite  of  the  hopeful  opinion  of  one  of  the  most 
cheery  and  skilful  physicians  of  the  day.  Thus  he  wrote  to 
Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  in  November  : — 

"Dr.  Brinton  has  been  here  (recommended  by  Busk)  ;  he 
does  not  believe  my  brain  or  heart  are  primarily  affected,  but 
I  have  been  so  steadily  going  down  hill,  I  cannot  help  doubt- 
ing whether  I  can  ever  crawl  a  little  uphill  again.  Unless  I 
can,  enough  to  work  a  little,  I  hope  my  life  may  be  very 


1863.]  CIRRIPEDES.  i%j 

short,  for  to  lie  on  a  sofa  all  day  and  do  nothing  but  give 
trouble  to  the  best  and  kindest  of  wives  and  good  dear  chil- 
dren is  dreadful." 

The  minor  works  in  this  year  were  a  short  paper  in  the 
'  Natural  History  Review  '  (N.S.  vol.  iii.  p.  115),  entitled  "On 
the  so-called  Auditory-Sac  of  Cirripedes,"  and  one  in  the 
*  Geological  Society's  Journal '  (vol.  xix),  on  the  "  Thickness 
of  the  Pampaean  Formation  near  Buenos  Ayres."  The  paper 
on  Cirripedes  was  called  forth  by  the  criticisms  of  a  German 
naturalist  Krohn,*  and  is  of  some  interest  in  illustration  of 
my  father's  readiness  to  admit  an  error. 

With  regard  to  the  spread  of  a  belief  in  Evolution,  it  could 
not  yet  be  said  that  the  battle  was  won,  but  the  growth  of 
belief  was  undoubtedly  rapid.  So  that,  for  instance,  Charles 
Kingsley  could  write  to  F.  D.  Maurice  f  : 

"  The  state  of  the  scientific  mind  is  most  curious ;  Dar- 
win is  conquering  everywhere,  and  rushing  in  like  a  flood,  by 
the  mere  force  of  truth  and  fact." 

Mr.  Huxley  was  as  usual  active  in  guiding  and  stimulat- 
ing the  growing  tendency  to  tolerate  or  accept  the  views  set 
forth  in  the  i  Origin  of  Species.'  He  gave  a  series  of  lectures 
to  working  men  at  the  School  of  Mines  in  November,  1862. 
These  were  printed  in  1863  from  the  shorthand  notes  of  Mr. 
May,  as  six  little  blue  books,  price  \d.  each,  under  the  title, 
'Our  Knowledge  of  the  Causes  of  Organic  Nature.'  When 
published  they  were  read  with  interest  by  my  father,  who 
thus  refers  to  them  in  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  : — 

"  I  am  very  glad  you  like  Huxley's  lectures.  I  have  been 
very  much  struck  with  them,  especially  with  the  '  Philosophy 
of  Induction.'  I  have  quarrelled  with  him  for  overdoing 
sterility  and  ignoring  cases  from  Gartner  and  Kolreuter  about 


*  Krohn  stated  that  the  structures  described  by  my  father  as  ovaries 
were  in  reality  salivary  glands,  also  that  the  oviduct  runs  down  to  the  ori- 
fice described  in  the  'Monograph  of  the  Cirripedia'  as  the  auditory 
meatus. 

f  Kingsley's  '  Life,'  ii,  p.  171. 
49 


1 88  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

sterile  varieties.  His  Geology  is  obscure  ;  and  I  rather  doubt 
about  man's  mind  and  language.  But  it  seems  to  me  ad- 
mirably done,  and,  as  you  say,  "  Oh  my,"  about  the  praise  of 
the  '  Origin/  I  can't  help  liking  it,  which  makes  me  rather 
ashamed  of  myself." 

My  father  admired  the  clearness  of  exposition  shown  in 
the  lectures,  and  in  the  following  letter  urges  their  author  to 
make  use  of  his  powers  for  the  advantage  of  students  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Nov.  5  [1864]. 

I  want  to  make  a  suggestion  to  you,  but  which  may  prob- 
ably have  occurred  to  you.     was  reading  your  Lectures 

and  ended  by  saying,  "I  wish  he  would  write  a  book."  I 
answered,  "  he  has  just  written  a  great  book  on  the  skull."  "  I 
don't  call  that  a  book,"  she  replied,  and  added,  "  I  want 
something  that  people  can  read  ;  he  does  write  so  well." 
Now,  with  your  ease  in  writing,  and  with  knowledge  at  your 
fingers'  ends,  do  you  not  think  you  could  write  a  popular 
Treatise  on  Zoology  ?  Of  course  it  would  be  some  waste  of 
time,  but  I  have  been  asked  more  than  a  dozen  times  to 
recommend  something  for  a  beginner  and  could  only  think  of 
Carpenter's  Zoology.  I  am  sure  that  a  striking  Treatise 
would  do  real  service  to  science  by  educating  naturalists.  If 
you  were  to  keep  a  portfolio  open  for  a  couple  of  years,  and 
throw  in  slips  of  paper  as  subjects  crossed  your  mind,  you 
would  soon  have  a  skeleton  (and  that  seems  to  me  the  diffi- 
culty) on  which  to  put  the  flesh  and  colours  in  your  inimitable 
manner.  I  believe  such  a  book  might  have  a  brilliant  success, 
but  I  did  not  intend  to  scribble  so  much  about  it. 

Give  my  kindest  remembrance  to  Mrs.  Huxley,  and  tell 
her  I  was  looking  at  '  Enoch  Arden,'  and  as  I  know  how  she 
admires  Tennyson,  I  must  call  her  attention  to  two  sweetly 
pretty  lines  (p.  105)  .  .  . 

.  .  .  and  he  meant,  he  said  he  meant, 
Perhaps  he  meant,  or  partly  meant,  you  well. 


1863.]  TEXT    BOOKS.  ^9 

Such  a  gem  as  this  is  enough  to  make  me  young  again,  and 
like  poetry  with  pristine  fervour. 

My  dear  Huxley, 

Yours  affectionately, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[In  another  letter  (Jan.  1865)  he  returns  to  the  above  sugges- 
tion, though  he  was  in  general  strongly  opposed  to  men  of 
science  giving  up  to  the  writing  of  text-books,  or  to  teaching, 
the  time  that  might  otherwise  have  been  given  to  original  re- 
search. 

"  I  knew  there  was  very  little  chance  of  your  having  time 
to  write  a  popular  Treatise  on  Zoology,  but  you  are  about  the 
one  man  who  could  do  it.  At  the  time  I  felt  it  would  be 
almost  a  sin  for  you  to  do  it,  as  it  would  of  course  destroy 
some  original  work.  On  the  other  hand  I  sometimes  think 
that  general  and  popular  treatises  are  almost  as  important  for 
the  progress  of  science  as  original  work.'* 

The  series  of  letters  will  continue  the  history  of  the  year 

1863.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Jan.  3  [1863]. 

My  dear  Hooker. — I  am  burning  with  indignation  and 
must  exhale.  ...  I  could  not  get  to  sleep  till  past  3  last 
night  for  indignation.*  .... 

Now  for  pleasanter  subjects  ;  we  were  all  amused  at  your 
defence  of  stamp  collecting  and  collecting  generally.  .  .  .  But, 
by  Jove,  I  can  hardly  stomach  a  grown  man  collecting  stamps. 
Who  would  ever  have  thought  of  your  collecting  Wedgwood- 
ware  !  but  that  is  wholly  different,  like  engravings  or  pictures. 
We  are  degenerate  descendants  of  old  Josiah  W.,  for  we  have 
not  a  bit  of  pretty  ware  in  the  house. 


*  It  would  serve  no  useful  purpose  if  I  were  to  go  into  the  matter  which 
so  strongly  roused  my  father's  anger.  It  was  a  question  of  literary  dishon- 
esty, in  which  a  friend  was  the  sufferer,  but  which  in  no  way  affected  him- 
self. 


I90  SPREAD    OF    EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

.  .  .  Notwithstanding  the  very  pleasant  reason  you  give  for 
our  not  enjoying  a  holiday,  namely,  that  we  have  no  vices,  it 
is  a  horrid  bore.  I  have  been  trying  for  health's  sake  to  be 
idle,  with  no  success.  What  I  shall  now  have  to  do,  will  be  to 
erect  a  tablet  in  Down  Church,  "  Sacred  to  the  Memory,  &c.," 
and  officially  die,  and  then  publish  books,  "  by  the  late  Charles 
Darwin,"  for  I  cannot  think  what  has  come  over  me  of  late  ;  I 
always  suffered  from  the  excitement  of  talking,  but  now  it  has 
become  ludicrous.  I  talked  lately  1^  hours  (broken  by  tea 
by  myself)  with  my  nephew,  and  I  was  [ill]  half  the  night. 
It  is  a  fearful  evil  for  self  and  family. 

Good-night.     Ever  yours. 

C.  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  to  Sir  Julius  von  Haast,*  is  an 
example  of  the  sympathy  which  he  felt  with  the  spread  and 
growth  of  science  in  the  colonies.  It  was  a  feeling  not  ex- 
pressed once  only,  but  was  frequently  present  in  his 
mind,  and  often  found  utterance.  When  we,  at  Cambridge, 
had  the  satisfaction  of  receiving  Sir  J.  von  Haast  into  our 
body  as  a  Doctor  of  Science  (July  1886),  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  hearing  from  him  of  the  vivid  pleasure  which  this, 
and  other  letters  from  my  father,  gave  him.  It  was  pleasant 
to  see  how  strong  had  been  the  impression  made  by  my 
father's  warm-hearted  sympathy — an  impression  which  seemed, 
after  more  than  twenty  years,  to  be  as  fresh  as  when  it  was 
first  received :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Julius  von  Haast. 

Down,  Jan.  22  [1863]. 
Dear  Sir, — I  thank  you  most  sincerely  for  sending  me 
your  Address  and  the  Geological  Report. f     I  have  seldom  in 

*  Sir  Julius  von  Haast  was  a  German  by  birth,  but  had  long  been  resi- 
dent in  New  Zealand.  He  was,  in  1862,  Government  Geologist  to  the 
Province  of  Canterbury. 

f  Address  to  the  '  Philosophical  Institute  of  Canterbury  (N.  Z.).'     The 


i863.]  SIR  J.  VON  HAAST.  igi 

my  life  read  anything  more  spirited  and  interesting  than  your 
address.  The  progress  of  your  colony  makes  one  proud,  and 
it  is  really  admirable  to  see  a  scientific  institution  founded  in 
so  young  a  nation.  I  thank  you  for  the  very  honorable 
notice  of  my  '  Origin  of  Species/  You  will  easily  believe 
how  much  I  have  been  interested  by  your  striking  facts  on 
the  old  glacial  period,  and  I  suppose  the  world  might  be 
searched  in  vain  for  so  grand  a  display  of  terraces.  You 
have,  indeed,  a  noble  field  for  scientific  research  and  dis- 
covery. I  have  been  extremely  much  interested  by  what  you 
say  about  the  tracks  of  supposed  [living]  mammalia.  Might 
I  ask,  if  you  succeed  in  discovering  what  the  creatures  are, 
you  would  have  the  great  kindness  to  inform  me  ?  Perhaps 
they  may  turn  out  something  like  the  Solenhofen  bird 
creature,  with  its  long  tail  and  fingers,  with  claws  to  its 
wings  !  I  may  mention  that  in  South  America,  in  com- 
pletely uninhabited  regions,  I  found  spring  rat-traps,  baited 
with  cheese,  were  very  successful  in  catching  the  smaller 
mammals.  I  would  venture  to  suggest  to  you  to  urge  on 
some  of  the  capable  members  of  your  institution  to  observe 
annually  the  rate  and  manner  of  spreading  of  European 
weeds  and  insects,  and  especially  to  observe  what  native 
plants  most  fail  j  this  latter  point  has  never  been  attended  to. 
Do  the  introduced  hive-bees  replace  any  othe^r  insect  ?  &c. 
All  such  points  are,  in  my  opinion,  great  desiderata  in 
science.  What  an  interesting  discovery  that  of  the  remains 
of  prehistoric  man  ! 

Believe  me,  dear  Sir, 

With  the  most  cordial  respect  and  thanks, 
Yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

"Report"  is  given  in  The  New  Zealand  Government  Gazette,  Province  of 
Canterbury \  Oct.  1862. 


I92  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

C.  Darwin  to  Camille  Dareste* 

Down,  Feb.  16  [1863]. 
Dear  and  respected  Sir. — I  thank  you  sincerely  for 
your  letter  and  your  pamphlet.  I  had  heard  (I  think  in  one 
of  M.  Quatrefage's  books)  of  your  work,  and  was  most 
anxious  to  read  it,  but  did  not  know  where  to  find  it.  You 
could  not  have  made  me  a  more  valuable  present.  I  have 
only  just  returned  home,  and  have  not  yet  read  your  work  ; 
when  I  do  if  I  wish  to  ask  any  questions  I  will  venture  to 
trouble  you.  Your  approbation  of  my  book  on  Species  has 
gratified  me  extremely.  Several  naturalists  in  England, 
North  America,  and  Germany,  have  declared  that  their 
opinions  on  the  subject  have  in. some  degree  been  modified, 
but  as  far  as  I  know,  my  book  has  produced  no  effect  what- 
ever in  France,  and  this  makes  me  the  more  gratified  by  your 
very  kind  expression  of  approbation.  Pray  believe  me,  dear 
Sir,  with  much  respect, 

Yours  faithfully  and  obliged, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Feb.  24  [1863]. 
My  dear  Hooker. — I  am  astonished  at  your  note,  I  have 
not  seen  the  Athenceum,\  but  I  have  sent  for  it,  and  may  get 
it  to-morrow  ;  and  will  then  say  what  I  thinks 

*  Professor  Dareste  is  a  well-known  worker  in  Animal  Teratology.  He 
was  in  1863  living  at  Lille,  but  has  since  then  been  called  to  Paris.  My 
father  took  a  special  interest  in  Dareste's  work  on  the  production  of  mon- 
sters, as  bearing  on  the  causes  of  variation. 

f  In  the  'Antiquity  of  Man,'  first  edition,  p.  480,  Lyell  criticised  some- 
what severely  Owen's  account  of  the  difference  between  the  Human  and 
Simian  brains.  The  number  of  the  Atkenceum  here  referred  to  (1863,  p. 
262)  contains  a  reply  by  Professor  Owen  to  Lyell's  strictures.  The  sur- 
prise expressed  by  my  father  was  at  the  revival  of  a  controversy  which 
every  one  believed  to  be  closed.     Prof.  Huxley  {Medical  Times,  Oct.  25, 


1863.]  'ANTIQUITY   OF    MAN.'  I93 

I  have  read  Lyell's  book.  ['  The  Antiquity  of  Man.'] 
The  whole  certainty  struck  me  as  a  compilation,  but  of  the 
highest  class,  for  when  possible  the  facts  have  been  verified 
on  the  spot,  making  it  almost  an  original  work.  The  Glacial 
chapters  seem  to  me  best,  and  in  parts  magnificent.  I  could 
hardly  judge  about  Man,  as  all  the  gloss  of  novelty  was  com- 
pletely worn  off.  But  certainly  the  aggregation  of  the  evi- 
dence produced  a  very  striking  effect  on  my  mind.  The 
chapter  comparing  language  and  changes  of  species,  seems 
most  ingenious  and  interesting.  He  has  shown  great  skill  in 
picking  out  salient  points  in  the  argument  for  change  of 
species  ;  but  I  am  deeply  disappointed  (I  do  not  mean  per- 
sonally) to  find  that  his  timidity  prevents  him  giving  any 
judgment.  .  .  .  From  all  my  communications  with  him  I 
must  ever  think  that  he  has  really  entirely  lost  faith  in  the 
immutability  of  species  ;  and  yet  one  of  his  strongest  sen- 
tences is  nearly  as  follows  :  "If  it  should  ever*  be  rendered 
highly  probable  that  species  change  by  variation  and  natural 
selection,"  &c,  &c.  I  had  hoped  he  would  have  guided  the 
public  as  far  as  his  own  belief  went.  .  .  .  One  thing  does 
please  me  on  this  subject,  that  he  seems  to  appreciate  your 
work.  No  doubt  the  public  or  a  part  may  be  induced  to 
think  that  as  he  gives  to  us  a  larger  space  than  to  Lamarck, 
he  must  think  there  is  something  in  our  viewsr  When  read- 
ing the  brain  chapter,  it  struck  me  forcibly  that  if  he  had 
said  openly  that  he  believed  in  change  of  species,  and  as  a 
consequence  that  man  was  derived  from  some  Quadruma- 
nous  animal,  it  would  have  been  very  proper  to  have  dis- 
cussed by  compilation  the  differences  in  the  most  important 
organ,  viz.  the  brain.  As  it  is,  the  chapter  seems  to  me  to 
come  in  rather  by  the  head  and  shoulders.  I  do  not  think 
(but  then  I  am  as  prejudiced  as  Falconer  and  Huxley,  or 


1862,  quoted  in  '  Man's  Place  in  Nature,'  p.  117)  spoke  of  the  "  two  years 
during  which  this  preposterous  controversy  has  dragged  its  weary  length." 
And  this  no  doubt  expressed  a  very  general  feeling. 
*  The  italics  are  not  Lyell's. 


I94  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

more  so)  that  it  is  too  severe  ;  it  struck  me  as  given  with 
judicial  force.  It  might  perhaps  be  said  with  truth  that  he 
had  no  business  to  judge  on  a  subject  on  which  he  knows 
nothing  ;  but  compilers  must  do  this  to  a  certain  extent. 
(You  know  I  value  and  rank  high  compilers,  being  one  my- 
self !)  I  have  taken  you  at  your  word,  and  scribbled  at  great 
length.  If  I  get  the  Athenceum  to-morrow,  I  will  add  my 
impression  of  Owen's  letter. 

....  The  Lyells  are  coming  here  on  Sunday  evening  to 
stay  till  Wednesday.  I  dread  it,  but  I  must  say  how  much 
disappointed  I  am  that  he  has  not  spoken  out  on  species,  still 
less  on  man.  And  the  best  of  the  joke  is  that  he  thinks  he 
has  acted  with  the  courage  of  a  martyr  of  old.  I  hope  I  may 
have  taken  an  exaggerated  view  of  his  timidity,  and  shall 
particularly  be  glad  of  your  opinion  on  this  head.*  When 
I  got  his  book  I  turned  over  the  pages,  and  saw  he  had  dis- 
cussed the  subject  of  species,  and  said  that  I  thought  he 
would  do  more  to  convert  the  public  than  all  of  us,  and  now 
(which  makes  the  case  worse  for  me)  I  must,  in  common 
honesty,  retract.  I  wish  to  Heaven  he  had  said  not  a  word 
on  the  subject. 

Wednesday  morning :  I  have  read  the  Athenceum.  I  do 
not  think  Lyell  will  be  nearly  so  much  annoyed  as  you  ex- 
pect. The  concluding  sentence  is  no  doubt  very  stinging. 
No  one  but  a  good  anatomist  could  unravel  Owen's  letter  ; 
at  least  it  is  quite  beyond  me. 

.  .  .  Lyell's  memory  plays  him  false  when  he  says  all 
anatomists  were  astonished  at  Owen's  paper  ;  f  it  was  often 
quoted  with  approbation.  I  well  remember  Lyell's  admira- 
tion at  this  new  classification!  (Do  not  repeat  this.)  I  re- 
member it,  because,  though  I  knew  nothing  whatever  about 

*  On  this  subject  my  father  wrote  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker :  <4  Cordial 
thanks  for  your  deeply  interesting  letters  about  Lyell,  Owen,  and  Co.  I 
cannot  say  how  glad  I  am  to  hear  that  I  have  not  been  unjust  about  the 
species-question  towards  Lyell.     I  feared  I  had  been  unreasonable." 

f  "  On  the  Characters,  &c,  of  the  Class  Mammalia."  ■  Linn.  Soc.  Jour- 
nal,' ii,  1858. 


1863.]  *  ANTIQUITY   OF    MAN.'  195 

the  brain,  I  felt  a  conviction  that  a  classification  thus  founded 
on  a  single  character  would  break  down,  and  it  seemed  to 
me  a  great  error  not  to  separate  more  completely  the  Mar- 
supialia.  .  .  . 

What  an  accursed  evil  it  is  that  there  should  be  all  this 
quarreling  within,  what  ought  to  be,  the  peaceful  realms  of 
science. 

I  will  go  to  my  own  present  subject  of  inheritance  and 
forget  it  all  for  a  time.     Farewell,  my  dear  old  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  Feb.  23  [1863]. 

...  If  you  have  time  to  read  you  will  be  interested  by 
parts  of  LyelFs  book  on  man  ;  but  I  fear  that  the  best  part, 
about  the  Glacial  period,  may  be  too  geological  for  any  one 
except  a  regular  geologist.  He  quotes  you  at  the  end  with 
gusto.  By  the  way,  he  told  me  the  other  day  how  pleased 
some  had  been  by  hearing  that  they  could  purchase  your 
pamphlet.  The  Parthenon  also  speaks  of  it  as  the  ablest 
contribution  to  the  literature  of  the  subject.  It  delights  me 
when  I  see  your  work  appreciated. 

The  Lyells  come  here  this  day  week,  and  I  fhall  grumble 
at  his  excessive  caution.  .  .  .  The  public  may  well  say,  if 
such  a  man  dare  not  or  will  not  speak  out  his  mind,  how  can 
we  who  are  ignorant  form  even  a  guess  on  the  subject  ?  Lyell 
was  pleased  when  I  told  him  lately  that  you  thought  that 
language  might  be  used  as  an  excellent  illustration  of  deriva- 
tion of  species  ;  you  will  see  that  he  has  an  admirable  chapter 
on  this.  .  .  . 

I  read  Cairns's  excellent  Lecture,*  which  shows  so  well 
how  your  quarrel  arose  from  Slavery.  It  made  me  for  a  time 
wish  honestly  for  the  North  ;  but  I  could  never  help,  though  I 
tried,  all  the  time  thinking   how  we  should  be  bullied  and 

*  Prof.  J.  E.  Cairns,  *  The  Slave  Power,  &c.  :  an  attempt  to  explain  the 
real  issues  involved  in  the  American  contest.'     1862, 


196  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

forced  into  a  war  by  you,  when  you  were  triumphant.  But  I 
do  most  truly  think  it  dreadful  that  the  South,  with  its 
accursed  slavery,  should  triumph,  and  spread  the  evil.  I  think 
if  I  had  power,  which  thank  God,  I  have  not,  I  would  let  you 
conquer  the  border  States,  and  all  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and 
then  force  you  to  acknowledge  the  cotton  States.  For  do 
you  not  now  begin  to  doubt  whether  you  can  conquer  and 
hold  them  ?     I  have  inflicted  a  long  tirade  on  you. 

The  Times  is  getting  more  detestable  (but  that  is  too  weak 
a  word)  than  ever.  My  good  wife  wishes  to  give  it  up,  but  I 
tell  her  that  is  a  pitch  of  heroism  to  which  only  a  woman  is 
equal.  To  give  up  the  " Bloody  Old  Times"  as  Cobbett 
used  to  call  it,  would  be  to  give  up  meat,  drink  and  air. 
Farewell,  my  dear  Gray, 

Yours  most  truly, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  March  6,  [1863]. 
...  I  have  been  of  course  deeply  interested  by  your  book.* 
I  have  hardly  any  remarks  worth  sending,  but  will  scribble  a 
little  on  what  most  interested  me.  But  I  will  first  get  out 
what  I  hate  saying,  viz.,  that  I  have  been  greatly  disappointed 
that  you  have  not  given  judgment  and  spoken  fairly  out  what 
you  think  about  the  derivation  of  species.  I  should  have 
been  contented  if  you  had  boldly  said  that  species  have  not 
been  separately  created,  and  had  thrown  as  much  doubt  as 
you  like  on  how  far  variation  and  natural  selection  suffices. 
I  hope  to  Heaven  I  am  wrong  (and  from  what  you  say  about 
Whewell  it  seems  so),  but  I  cannot  see  how  your  chapters  can 
do  more  good  than  an  extraordinary  able  review.  I  think 
the  Parthenon  is  right,  that  you  will  leave  the  public  in  a  fog. 
No  doubt  they  may  infer  that  as  you  give  more  space  to 
myself,  Wallace,  and  Hooker,  than  to  Lamarck,  you  think 
more  of  us.     But  I  had  always  thought  that  your  judgment 


*  '  Antiquity  of  Man.' 


1863.]  ' ANTIQUITY   OF    MAN.'  jgy 

would  have  been  an  epoch  in  the  subject.  All  that  is  over 
with  me,  and  I  will  only  think  on  the  admirable  skill  with 
which  you  have  selected  the  striking  points,  and  explained 
them.  No  praise  can  be  too  strong,  in  my  opinion,  for  the 
inimitable  chapter  on  language  in  comparison  with  species. 

*  p.  505 — A  sentence  at  the  top  of  the  page  makes  me 
groan.  .  .  . 

I  know  you  will  forgive  me  for  writing  with  perfect  freedom, 
for  you  must  know  how  deeply  I  respect  you  as  my  old 
honoured  guide  and  master.  I  heartily  hope  and  expect  that 
your  book  will  have  gigantic  circulation  and  may  do  in  many 
ways  as  much  good  as  it  ought  to  do.  I  am  tired,  so  no  more. 
I  have  written  so  briefly  that  you  will  have  to  guess  my 
meaning.  I  fear  my  remarks  are  hardly  worth  sending. 
Farewell,  with  kindest  remembrance  to  Lady  Lyell. 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

[Mr.  Huxley  has  quoted  (vol.  i.  p.  546)  some  passages  from 
Lyell's  letters  which  show  his  state  of  mind  at  this  time.  The 
following  passage,  from  a  letter  of  March  nth  to  my  father, 
is  also  of  much  interest  : — 

"My  feelings,  however,  more  than  any  thought  about 
policy  or  expediency,  prevent  me  from  dogmatising  as  to 
the  descent  of  man  from  the  brutes,  which,  though  I  am 
prepared  to  accept  it,  takes  away  much  of  the  charm  from 
my  speculations  on  the  past  relating  to  such  matters.  .  .  . 
But  you  ought  to  be  satisfied,  as  I  shall  bring  hundreds 
towards  you  who,  if  I  treated  the  matter  more  dogmatically, 
would  have  rebelled."] 

*  After  speculating  on  the  sudden  appearance  of  individuals  far  above 
the  average  of  the  human  race,  Lyell  asks  if  such  leaps  upwards  in  the 
scale  of  intellect  may  not  "  have  cleared  at  one  bound  the  space  which 
separated  the  higher  stage  of  the  unprogressive  intelligence  of  the  inferior 
animals  from  the  first  and  lowest  form  of  improvable  reason  manifested  by 


198  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863, 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

Down,  12  [March,  1863]. 
My  Dear  Lyell, — I  thank  you  for  your  very  interesting 
and  kind,  I  may  say,  charming  letter.  I  feared  you  might  be 
huffed  for  a  little  time  with  me.  I  know  some  men  would 
have  been  so.  I  have  hardly  any  more  criticisms,  anyhow, 
worth  writing.  But  I  may  mention  that  I  felt  a  little  surprise 
that  old  B.  de  Perthes  *  was  not  rather  more  honourably  men- 
tioned. I  would  suggest  whether  you  could  not  leave  out 
some  references  to  the  '  Principles ;  '  one  for  the  real  student 
is  as  good  as  a  hundred,  and  it  is  rather  irritating,  and  gives 
a  feeling  of  incompleteness  to  the  general  reader  to  be  often 
referred  to  other  books.  As  you  say  that  you  have  gone  as  far 
as  you  believe  on  the  species  question,  I  have  not  a  word  to 
say  ;  but  I  must  feel  convinced  that  at  times,  judging  from 
conversation,  expressions,  letters,  &c,  you  have  as  completely 
given  up  belief  in  immutability  of  specific  forms  as  I  have 
done.  I  must  still  think  a  clear  expression  from  you,  if  you 
could  have  given  it,  would  have  been  potent  with  the  public, 
and  all  the  more  so,  as  you  formerly  held  opposite  opinions. 
The  more  I  work  the  more  satisfied  I  become  with  variation 
and  natural  selection,  but  that  part  of  the  case  I  look  at  as 
less  important,  though  more  interesting  to  me  personally.  As 
you  ask  for  criticisms  on  this  head  (and  believe  me  that 
I  should  not  have  made  them  unasked),  I  may  specify 
(pp.  412,  413)  that  such  words  as  u  Mr.  D.  labours  to  show," 
"  is  believed  by  the  author  to  throw  light/'  would  lead  a 
common  reader  to  think  that  you  yourself  do  not  at  all  agree, 
but  merely  think  it  fair  to  give  my  opinion.  Lastly,  you 
refer  repeatedly  to  my  view  as  a  modification  of  Lamarck's 
doctrine  of  development  and  progression.  If  this  is  your 
deliberate  opinion  there  is  nothing  to  be  said,  but  it  does 
not  seem  so  to  me.     Plato,   Buffon,  my  grandfather  before 


*  Born  1788,  died  1868.     See  footnote,  p.  200. 


1863.]  'ANTIQUITY   OF    MAN.'  I99 

Lamarck,  and  others,  propounded  the  obvious  views  that  if 
species  were  not  created  separately  they  must  have  descended 
from  other  species,  and  I  can  see  nothing  else  in  common 
between  the  *  Origin '  and  Lamarck.  I  believe  this  way  of 
putting  the  case  is  very  injurious  to  its  acceptance,  as  it 
implies  necessary  progression,  and  closely  connects  Wallace's 
and  my  views  with  what  I  consider,  after  two  deliberate 
readings,  as  a  wretched  book,  and  one  from  which  (I  well 
remember  my  surprise)  I  gained  nothing.  But  I  know  you 
rank  it  higher,  which  is  curious,  as  it  did  not  in  the  least 
shake  your  belief.  But  enough,  and  more  than  enough. 
Please  remember  you  have  brought  it  all  down  on  yourself ! ! 

I  am  very  sorry  to  hear  about  Falconer's  "  reclamation. "  * 
I  hate  the  very  word,  and  have  a  sincere  affection  for  him. 

Did  you  ever  read  anything  so  wretched  as  the  Athenceum 
reviews  of  you,  and  of  Huxley  f  especially.  Your  object  to 
make  man  old,  and  Huxley's  object  to  degrade  him.  The 
wretched  writer  has  not  a  glimpse  what  the  discovery  of 
scientific  truth  means.  How  splendid  some  pages  are  in 
Huxley,  but  I  fear  the  book  will  not  be  popular.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

0- 

Down  [March  13,  1863]. 
I  should  have  thanked  you  sooner  for  the  Athenceum  and 
very  pleasant  previous  note,  but  I  have  been  busy,  and  not  a 
little  uncomfortable  from  frequent  uneasy  feeling  of  fullness, 
slight  pain  and  tickling  about  the  heart.  But  as  I  have  no 
other  symptoms  of  heart  complaint  I  do  not  suppose  it  is 
affected I  have  had  a  most  kind  and  delightfully  can- 
did letter  from  Lyell,  who  says  he  spoke  out  as  far  as  he  be- 


*  "  Falconer,  whom  I  referred  to  oftener  than  to  any  other  author,  says 
I  have  not  done  justice  to  the  part  he  took  in  resuscitating  the  cave  ques- 
tion, and  says  he  shall  come  out  with  a  separate  paper  to  prove  it.  I  of- 
fered to  alter  anything  in  the  new  edition,  but  this  he  declined."— C.  Lyell 
to  C.  Darwin,  March  n,  1863  ;  Ly ell's  '  Life,'  vol.  ii.  p.  364. 

f  '  Man's  Place  in  Nature,'  1863. 


200  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

lieves.  I  have  no  doubt  his  belief  failed  him  as  he  wrote,  for 
I  feel  sure  that  at  times  he  no  more  believed  in  Creation  than 
you  or  I.  I  have  grumbled  a  bit  in  my  answer  to  him  at  his 
always  classing  my  work  as  a  modification  of  Lamarck's, 
which  it  is  no  more  than  any  author  who  did  not  believe  in 
immutability  of  species,  and  did  believe  in  descent.  I  am 
very  sorry  to  hear  from  Lyell  that  Falconer  is  going  to  pub- 
lish a  formal  reclamation  of  his  own  claims.  .  .  . 

It  is  cruel  to  think  of  it,  but  we  must  go  to  Malvern  in 
the  middle  of  April ;  it  is  ruin  to  me.*  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  March  17  [1863]. 

My  dear  Lyell, — I  have  been  much  interested  by  your 
letters  and  enclosure,  and  thank  you  sincerely  for  giving  me 
so  much  time  when  you  must  be  so  busy.  What  a  curious 
letter  from  B.  de  P.  [Boucher  de  Perthes].  He  seems  per- 
fectly satisfied,  and  must  be  a  very  amiable  man.  I  know 
something  about  his  errors,  and  looked  at  his  book  many 
years  ago,  and  am  ashamed  to  think  that  I  concluded  the 
whole  was  rubbish !  Yet  he  has  done  for  man  something 
like  what  Agassiz  did  for  glaciers.f 

I  cannot  say  that  I  agree  with  Hooker  about  the  public 
not  liking  to  be  told  what  to  conclude,  if  coming  fro??i  one  in 
your  position.  But  I  am  heartily  sorry  that  I  was  led  to  make 
complaints,  or  something  very  like  complaints,  on  the  man- 
ner in  which  you  have  treated  the  subject,  and  still  more  so 
anything  about  myself.  I  steadily  endeavour  never  to  forget 
my  firm  belief  that  no  one  can  at  all  judge  about  his  own 

*  He  went  to  Hartfield  in  Sussex,  on  April  27,  and  to  Malvern  in  the 
autumn. 

f  In  his  *  Antiquites  Celtiques'  (1847),  Boucher  de  Perthes  described 
the  flint  tools  found  at  Abbeville  with  bones  of  rhinoceros,  hycena,  &c. 
"  But  the  scientific  world  had  no  faith  in  the  statement  that  works  of  art, 
however  rude,  had  been  met  with  in  undisturbed  beds  of  such  antiquity." 
('  Antiquity  of  Man/  first  edition,  p.  95). 


1863.]  'ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN.'  201 

work.  As  for  Lamarck,  as  you  have  such  a  man  as  Grove 
with  you,  you  are  triumphant ;  not  that  I  can  alter  my  opin- 
ion that  to  me  it  was  an  absolutely  useless  book.  Perhaps 
this  was  owing  to  my  always  searching  books  for  facts,  per- 
haps from  knowing  my  grandfather's  earlier  and  identically 
the  same  speculation.  I  will  only  further  say  that  if  I  can 
analyse  my  own  feelings  (a  very  doubtful  process),  it  is  near- 
ly as  much  for  your  sake  as  for  my  own,  that  I  so  much  wish 
that  your  state  of  belief  could  have  permitted  you  to  say 
boldly  and  distinctly  out  that  species  were  not  separately 
created.  I  have  generally  told  you  the  progress  of  opinion, 
as  I  have  heard  it,  on  the  species  question,  A  first-rate  Ger- 
man naturalist  *  (I  now  forget  the  name  !),  who  has  lately 
published  a  grand  folio,  has  spoken  out  to  the  utmost  extent 
on  the  '  Origin/  De  Candolle,  in  a  very  good  paper  on 
"Oaks/' goes,  in  Asa  Gray's  opinion,  as  far  as  he  himself 
does  ;  but  De  Candolle,  in  writing  to  me,  says  we,  "  we  think 
this  and  that ;  "  so  that  I  infer  he  really  goes  to  the  full  ex- 
tent with  me,  and  tells  me  of  a  French  good  botanical  palae- 
ontologist (name  forgotten), f  who  writes  to  De  Candolle  that 
he  is  sure  that  my  views  will  ultimately  prevail.  But  I  did 
not  intend  to  have  written  all  this.  It  satisfies  me  with  the 
final  results,  but  this  result,  I  begin  to  see,  wffl  take  two  or 
three  lifetimes.  The  entomologists  are  enough  to  keep  the 
subject  back  for  half  a  century.  I  really  pity  your  having  to 
balance  the  claims  of  so  many  eager  aspirants  for  notice  ;  it 
is  clearly  impossible  to  satisfy  all.  .  .  .  Certainly  I  was  struck 
with  the  full  and  due  honour  you  conferred  on  Falconer. 
I  have  just  had  a  note  from  Hooker.  ...  I  am  heartily  glad 
that  you  have  made  him  so  conspicuous ;  he  is  so  honest,  so 
candid,  and  so  modest.  .  .  . 

I  have  read .     I  could  find  nothing  to  lay  hold  of, 

*  No  doubt  Haeckel,  whose  monograph  on  the  Radiolaria  was  pub- 
lished in  1862.  In  the  same  year  Professor  W.  Preyer  of  Jena  published 
a  Dissertation  on  A  lea  impennis,  which  was  one  of  the  earliest  pieces  of 
special  work  on  the  basis  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species.' 

f  The  Marquis  de  Saporta. 


202  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

which  in  one  sense  I  am  very  glad  of,  as  I  should  hate  a  con- 
troversy ;  but  in  another  sense  I  am  very  sorry  for,  as  I  long 
to  be  in  the  same  boat  with  all  my  friends.  ...  I  am  hearti- 
ly glad  the  book  is  going  off  so  well. 

Ever  yours, 

C*  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [March  29,  1863]. 
.  .  .  Many  thanks  for  Athenceum,  received  this  morning, 
and  to  be  returned  to-morrow  morning.  Who  would  have 
ever  thought  of  the  old  stupid  Athenceum  taking  to  Oken-like 
transcendental  philosophy  written  in  Owenian  style  !  *  .  .  .  . 
It  will  be  some  time  before  we  see  u  slime,  protoplasm,  &c.," 
generating  a  new  animal.f     But  I  have  long  regretted  that  I 

*  This  refers  to  a  review  of  Dr.  Carpenter's  €  Introduction  to  the  study 
of  Foraminifera, '  that  appeared  in  the  Athence urn  of  March  28,  1863  (p. 
417).  The  reviewer  attacks  Dr.  Carpenter's  views  in  as  much  as  they  sup- 
port the  doctrine  of  Descent ;  and  he  upholds  spontaneous  generation 
(Heterogeny)  in  place  of  what  Dr.  Carpenter,  naturally  enough,  believed 
in,  viz.  the  genetic  connection  of  living  and  extinct  Foraminifera.  In  the 
next  number  is  a  letter  by  Dr.  Carpenter,  which  chiefly  consists  of  a  pro- 
test against  the  reviewer's  somewhat  contemptuous  classification  of  Dr. 
Carpenter  and  my  father  as  disciple  and  master.  In  the  course  of  the  let- 
ter Dr.  Carpenter  says — p.  461  : — 

"  Under  the  influence  of  his  foregone  conclusion  that  I  have  accepted 
Mr.  Darwin  as  my  master,  and  his  hypothesis  as  my  guide,  your  reviewer 
represents  me  as  blind  to  the  significance  of  the  general  fact  stated  by  me, 
that  '  there  has  been  no  advance  in  the  foraminiferous  type  from  the  palaeo- 
zoic period  to  the  present  time/  But  for  such  a  foregone  conclusion  he 
would  have  recognised  in  this  statement  the  expression  of  my  conviction 
that  the  present  state  of  scientific  evidence,  instead  of  sanctioning  the  idea 
that  the  descendants  of  the  primitive  type  or  types  of  Foraminifera  can  ever 
rise  to  any  higher  grade,  justifies  the  anti- Darwinian  inference,  that  how- 
ever widely  they  diverge  from  each  other  and  from  their  originals,  they 
still  remain  Foraminifera" 

\  On  the  same  subject  my  father  wrote  in  1871  :  "  It  is  often  said  that 
all  the  conditions  for  the  first  production  of  a  living  organism  are  now 
present,  which  could  ever  have  been  present.     But  if  (and  oh  !  what  a  big 


1863.]  THE  'ATHEN^ZUM/  203 

truckled  to  public  opinion,  and  used  the  Pentateuchal  term 
of  creation,*  by  which  I  really  meant  "  appeared  "  by  some 
wholly  unknown  process.  It  is  mere  rubbish,  thinking  at 
present  of  the  origin  of  life  ;  one  might  as  well  think  of  the 
origin  of  matter. 

C.  Darwin  to  J,  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Friday  night  [April  17,  1863]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — I  have  heard  from  Oliver  that  you 
will  be  now  at  Kew,  and  so  I  am  going  to  amuse  myself  by 
scribbling  a  bit.  I  hope  you  have  thoroughly  enjoyed  your 
tour.  I  never  in  my  life  saw  anything  like  the  spring  flowers 
this  year.  What  a  lot  of  interesting  things  have  been  lately 
published.  I  liked  extremely  your  review  of  De  Candolle. 
What  an  awfully  severe  article  that  by  Falconer  on  Lyell ;  \ 
I  am  very  sorry  for  it  ;  I  think  Falconer  on  his  side  does  not 

if !)  we  could  conceive  in  some  warm  little  pond,  with  all  sorts  of  ammonia 
and  phosphoric  salts,  light,  heat,  electricity,  &c,  present,  that  a  proteine 
compound  was  chemically  formed  ready  to  undergo  still  more  complex 
changes,  at  the  present  day  such  matter  would  be  instantly  devoured  or 
absorbed,  which  would  not  have  been  the  case  before  living#ereatures  were 
formed." 

*  This  refers  to  a  passage  in  which  the  reviewer  of  Dr.  Carpenter's 
books  speaks  of  "  an  operation  of  force,"  or  "  a  concurrence  of  forces  which 
have  now  no  place  in  nature,"  as  being,  aa  creative  force,  in  fact,  which 
Darwin  could  only  express  in  Pentateuchal  terms  as  the  primordial  form 
*  into  which  life  was  first  breathed.' "  The  conception  of  expressing  a 
creative  force  as  a  primordial  form  is  the  Reviewer's. 

f  Athenceum,  April  4,  1863,  p.  459.     The  writer  asserts  that  justice  has 

not  been  done  either  to  himself  or  Mr.  Prestwich — that  Lyell  has  not  made 

it  clear  that  it  was  their  original  work  which  supplied  certain  material  for 

the  l  Antiquity  of  Man.'     Falconer  attempts  to  draw  an  unjust  distinction 

between  a  "  philosopher "  (here  used  as   a  polite  word  for  compiler)  like 

Sir  Charles  Lyell,  and  original  observers,  presumably  such  as  himself,  and 

Mr.  Prestwich.     Ly ell's  reply  was  published  in  the  Athenceum,  April  18, 

1863.     It  ought  to  be  mentioned  that  a  letter  from  Mr.  Prestwich  (Athe- 

ncBwn,  p.  555),  which  formed  part  of  the  controversy,  though  of  the  nature 

of  a  reclamation,  was  written  in  a  very  different  spirit  and  tone  from  Dr, 

Falconer's. 

50 


204  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

do  justice  to  old  Perthes  and  Schmerling.  ....  I  shall  be 
very  curious  to  see  how  he  [Lyell]  answers  it  to-morrow.  (I 
have  been  compelled  to  take  in  the  Athenaeum  for  a  while.)  I 
am  very  sorry  that  Falconer  should  have  written  so  spitefully, 
even  if  there  is  some  truth  in  his  accusations ;  I  was  rather 
disappointed  in  Carpenter's  letter,  no  one  could  have  given  a 
better  answer,  but  the  chief  object  of  his  letter  seems  to  me 
to  be  to  show  that  though  he  has  touched  pitch  he  is  not  de- 
filed. No  one  would  suppose  he  went  so  far  as  to  believe  all 
birds  came  from  one  progenitor.  I  have  written  a  letter  to 
the  Athenaeum,*  (the  first  and  last  time  I  shall  take  such  a  step) 
to  say,  under  the  cloak  of  attacking  Heterogeny,  a  word  in 
my  own  defence.  My  letter  is  to  appear  next  week,  so  the 
Editor  says ;  and  I  mean  to  quote  Lyell's  sentence  f  in  his 
second  edition,  on  the  principle  if  one  puffs  oneself,  one  had 
better  puff  handsomely.  .  .  . 

*  Athenceum^  1863,  p.  554:  "  The  view  given  by  me  on  the  origin  or 
derivation  of  species,  whatever  its  weaknesses  may  be,  connects  (as  has 
been  candidly  admitted  by  some  of  its  opponents,  such  as  Pictet,  Bronn, 
&c),  by  an  intelligible  thread  of  reasoning,  a  multitude  of  facts:  such  as 
the  formation  of  domestic  races  by  man's  selection, — the  classification  and 
affinities  of  all  organic  beings, — the  innumerable  gradations  in  structure 
and  instincts, — the  similarity  of  pattern  in  the  hand,  wing,  or  paddle  of 
animals  of  the  same  great  class, — the  existence  of  organs  become  rudimen- 
tary by  disuse, — the  similarity  of  an  embryonic  reptile,  bird,  and  mammal, 
with  the  retention  of  traces  of  an  apparatus  fitted  for  aquatic  respiration  ; 
the  retention  in  the  young  calf  of  incisor  teeth  in  the  upper  jaw,  &c. — the 
distribution  of  animals  and  plants,  and  their  mutual  affinities  within  the 
same  region, — their  general  geological  succession,  and  the  close  relation- 
ship of  the  fossils  in  closely  consecutive  formations  and  within  the  same 
country  ;  extinct  marsupials  having  preceded  living  marsupials  in  Aus- 
tralia, and  armadillo-like  animals  having  preceded  and  generated  armadil- 
loes  in  South  America, — and  many  other  phenomena,  such  as  the  gradual 
extinction  of  old  forms  and  their  gradual  replacement  by  new  forms  better 
fitted  for  their  new  conditions  in  the  struggle  for  life.  When  the  advocate 
of  Heterogeny  can  thus  connect  large  classes  of  facts,  and  not  until  then, 
he  will  have  respectful  and  patient  listeners." 

f  See  the  next  letter. 


1863.]  LETTER   IN   THE   'ATHENAEUM/  205 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  April  18  [1863]. 
My  dear  Lyell, — I  was  really  quite  sorry  that  you  had 
sent  me  a  second  copy  *  of  your  valuable  book.  But  after  a 
few  hours  my  sorrow  vanished  for  this  reason  :  I  have  written 
a  letter  to  the  Athenceurn,  in  order,  under  the  cloak  of  attack- 
ing the  monstrous  article  on  Heterogeny,  to  say  a  word  for 
myself  in  answer  to  Carpenter,  and  now  I  have  inserted  a 
few  sentences  in  allusion  to  your  analagous  objection  f  about 
bats  on  islands,  and  then  with  infinite  slyness  have  quoted 
your  amended  sentence,  with  your  parenthesis  ("  as  I  fully 
believe  ")  J  ;  I  do  not  think  you  can  be  annoyed  at  my  doing 
this,  and  you  see,  that  I  am  determined  as  far  as  I  can,  that 
the  public  shall  see  how  far  you  go.  This  is  the  first  time  I 
have  ever  said  a  word  for  myself  in  any  journal,  and  it  shall, 
I  think,  be  the  last.  My  letter  is  short,  and  no  great  things. 
I  was  extremely  concerned  to  see  Falconer's  disrespectful 
and  virulent  letter.  I  like  extremely  your  answer  just  read  ; 
you  take  a  lofty  and  dignified  position,  to  which  you  are  so 

well  entitled. § 

■ -+ 

*  The  second  edit,  of  the  *  Antiquity  of  Man'  was  published  a  few 
months  after  the  first  had  appeared. 

f  Lyell  objected  that  the  mammalia  (e.g.  bats  and  seals)  which  alone 
have  been  able  to  reach  oceanic  islands  ought  to  have  become  modified 
into  various  terrestrial  forms  fitted  to  fill  various  places  in  their  new  home. 
My  father  pointed  out  in  the  Athceenum  that  Sir  Charles  has  in  some  measu 
answered  his  own  objection,  and  went  on  to  quote  the  "amended  sen- 
tence" ('  Antiquity  of  Man,'  2nd  Edit.  p.  469)  as  showing  how  far  Lyell 
agreed  with  the  general  doctrines  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species  '  :  "  Yet  we 
ought  by  no  means  to  undervalue  the  importance  of  the  step  which  will 
have  been  made,  should  it  hereafter  become  the  generally  received  opin- 
ion of  men  of  science  (as  I  fully  expect  it  will)  that  the  past  changes  of 
the  organic  world  have  been  brought  about  by  the  subordinate  agency  of 
such  causes  as  Variation  and  Natural  Selection."  In  the  first  edition  the 
words  "  as  I  fully  expect  it  will,"  do  not  occur. 

%  My  father  here  quotes  Lyell  incorrectly  ;  see  the  previous  foot- 
note. 

§  In  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  he  wrote  :  "  I  much  like  Lyell's  letter. 


206  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

I  suspect  that  if  you  had  inserted  a  few  more  superlatives 
in  speaking  of  the*  several  authors  there  would  have  been 
none  of  this  horrid  noise.  No  one,  I  am  sure,  who  knows  you 
could  doubt  about  your  hearty  sympathy  with  every  one  who 
makes  any  little  advance  in  science.  I  still  well  remember  my 
surprise  at  the  manner  in  which  you  listened  to  me  in  Hart 
Street  on  my  return  from  the  Beagle's  voyage.  You  did  me 
a  world  of  good.  It  is  horridly  vexatious  that  so  frank  and 
apparently  amiable  a  man  as  Falconer  should  have  behaved 
so.*     Well  it  will  all  soon  be  forgotten.  .  .  . 

[In  reply  to  the  above-mentioned  letter  of  my  father's 
to  the  Athenceum,  an  article  appeared  in  that  Journal  (May 
2nd,  1863,  p.  586),  accusing  my  father  of  claiming  for  his 
views  the  exclusive  merit  of  "  connecting  by  an  intelligible 
thread  of  reasoning  "  a  number  of  facts  in  morphology,  &c. 
The  writer  remarks  that,  "  The  different  generalizations  cited 
by  Mr.  Darwin  as  being  connected  by  an  intelligible  thread 
of  reasoning  exclusively  through  his  attempt  to  explain 
specific  transmutation  are  in  fact  related  to  it  in  this  wise, 
that  they  have  prepared  the  minds  of  naturalists  for  a  better 
reception  of  such  attempts  to  explain  the  way  of  the  origin  of 
species  from  species." 

To  this  my  father  replied  in  the  Athenceum  of  May  9th, 
1863  :] 

Down,  May  5  [1863]. 
I  hope  that  you  will  grant  me  space  to  own  that  your 
reviewer  is  quiet  correct  when  he  states  that  any  theory  of 
descent  will  connect,  "  by  an  intelligible  thread  of  reasoning," 
the  several  generalizations  before  specified.  I  ought  to  have 
made  this  admission  expressly;  with  the  reservation,  how- 

But  all  this  squabbling  will  greatly  sink  scientific  men.    I  have  seen  sneers 
already  in  the  Times." 

**It  is  to  this  affair  that  the  extract  from  a  letter  to  Falconer,  given 
vol.  i.  p.  134,  refers. 


1863.]  LETTER    IN    THE    'ATHENAEUM.'  207 

ever,  that,  as  far  as  I  can  judge,  no  theory  so  well  explains 
or  connects  these  several  generalizations  (more  especially  the 
formation  of  domestic  races  in  comparison  with  natural  spe- 
cies, the  principles  of  classification,  embryonic  resemblance, 
&c.)  as  the  theory,  or  hypothesis,  or  guess,  if  the  reviewer  so 
likes  to  call  it,  of  Natural  Selection.  Nor  has  any  other 
satisfactory  explanation  been  ever  offered  of  the  almost  per- 
fect adaptation  of  all  organic  beings  to  each  other,  and  to 
their  physical  conditions  of  life.  Whether  the  naturalist 
believes  in  the  views  given  by  Lamarck,  by  Geoffroy  St. 
Hilaire,  by  the  author  of  the  '  Vestiges,'  by  Mr.  Wallace  and 
myseif,  or  in  any  other  such  view,  signifies  extremely  little  in 
comparison  with  the  admission  that  species  have  descended 
from  other  species,  and  have  not  been  created  immutable  ; 
for  he  who  admits  this  as  a  great  truth  has  a  wide  field 
opened  to  him  for  further  inquiry.  I  believe,  however,  from 
what  I  see  of  the  progress  of  opinion  on  the  Continent,  and 
in  this  country,  that  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection  will 
ultimately  be  adopted,  with,  no  doubt,  many  subordinate 
modifications  and  improvements. 

Charles  Darwin. 

[In  the  following,  he  refers  to  the  above  letter  to^he  Athe- 
naeum, .•] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Leith  Hill  Place, 

Saturday  [May  II,  1863]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — You  give  good  advice   about  not 
writing  in  newspapers  ;  I  have  been  gnashing  my  teeth  at  my 

own  folly  ;    and  this  not  caused  by  — 's  sneers,  which 

were  so  good  that  I  almost  enjoyed  them.  I  have  written 
once  again  to  own  to  a  certain  extent  of  truth  in  what  he 
says,  and  then  if  I  am  ever  such  a  fool  again,  have  no  mercy 
on  me.    I  have  read  the  squib  in  Public  Opinion  ;  *  it  is  capi- 

*  Public  Opinion,  April  23,  1863.  A  lively  account  of  a  police  case,  in 
which  the  quarrels  of  scientific  men  are  satirised.  Mr.  John  Bull  gives 
evidence  that — 


2o8  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

tal ;  if  there  is  more,  and  you  have  a  copy,  do  lend  it.  It 
shows  well  that  a  scientific  man  had  better  be  trampled  in 
dirt  than  squabble.  I  have  been  drawing  diagrams,  dissect- 
ing shoots,  and  muddling  my  brains  to  a  hopeless  degree 
about  the  divergence  of  leaves,  and  have  of  course  utterly 
failed.  But  I  can  see  that  the  subject  is  most  curious,  and 
indeed  astonishing 

[The  next  letter  refers  to  Mr.  Bentham's  presidential  ad- 
dress to  the  Linnean  Society  (May  25,  1863).  Mr.  Bentham 
does  not  yield  to  the  new  theory  of  Evolution,  "cannot  sur- 
render at  discretion  so  long  as  many  important  outworks  re- 
main contestable/'  But  he  shows  that  the  great  body  of 
scientific  opinion  is  flowing  in  the  direction  of  belief. 

The  mention  of  Pasteur  by  Mr.  Bentham  is  in  reference 
to  the  promulgation  "as  it  were  ex  cathedrd"  of  a  theory  of 
spontaneous  generation  by  the  reviewer  of  Dr.  Carpenter  in 
the  Athenczum  (March  28,  1863).  Mr.  Bentham  points  out 
that  in  ignoring  Pasteur's  refutation  of  the  supposed  facts  of 
spontaneous  generation,  the  writer  fails  to  act  with  "  that  im- 
partiality which  every  reviewer  is  supposed  to  possess."] 

"  The  whole  neighbourhood  was  unsettled  by  their  disputes ;  Huxley 
quarrelled  with  Owen,  Owen  with  Darwin,  Lyell  with  Owen,  Falconer 
and  Prestwich  with  Lyell,  and  Gray  the  menagerie  man  with  everybody. 
He  had  pleasure,  however,  in  stating  that  Darwin  was  the  quietest  of  the 
set.  They  were  always  picking  bones  with  each  other  and  fighting  over 
their  gains.  If  either  of  the  gravel  sifters  or  stone  breakers  found  any- 
thing, he  was  obliged  to  conceal  it  immediately,  or  one  of  the  old  bone 
collectors  would  be  sure  to  appropriate  it  first  and  deny  the  theft  after- 
wards, and  the  consequent  wrangling  and  disputes  were  as  endless  as  they 
were  wearisome. 

"Lord  Mayor. — Probably  the  clergyman  of  the  parish  might  exert 
some  influence  over  them  ? 

"  The  gentleman  smiled,  shook  his  head,  and  stated  that  he  regretted 
to  say  that  no  class  of  men  paid  so  little  attention  to  the  opinions  of  the 
clergy  as  that  to  which  these  unhappy  men  belonged." 


1863.]  MR.  BENTHAM.  209 

C.  Darwin  to  G.  Bentham. 

Down,  May  22  [1863]. 

My  dear  Bentham, — I  am  much  obliged  for  your  kind 
and  interesting  letter.  I  have  no  fear  of  anything  that  a  man 
like  you  will  say  annoying  me  in  the  very  least  degree.  On 
the  other  hand,  any  approval  from  one  whose  judgment  and 
knowledge  I  have  for  many  years  so  sincerely  respected,  will 
gratify  me  much.  The  objection  which  you  well  put,  of  cer- 
tain forms  remaining  unaltered  through  long  time  and  space, 
is  no  doubt  formidable  in  appearance,  and  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent in  reality  according  to  my  judgment.  But  does  not  the 
difficulty  rest  much  on  our  silently  assuming  that  we  know 
more  than  we  do  ?  I  have  literally  found  nothing  so  difficult 
as  to  try  and  always  remember  our  ignorance.  I  am  never 
weary,  when  walking  in  any  new  adjoining  district  or  country, 
of  reflecting  how  absolutely  ignorant  we  are  why  certain  old 
plants  are  not  there  present,  and  other  new  ones  are,  and 
others  in  different  proportions.  If  we  once  fully  feel  this, 
then  in  judging  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection,  which  im- 
plies that  a  form  will  remain  unaltered  unless  some  alteration 
be  to  its  benefit,  is  it  so  very  wonderful  that  some  forms  should 
change  much  slower  and  much  less,  and  some  few  shouid  have 
changed  not  at  all  under  conditions  which  to  us  (who  really 
know  nothing  what  are  the  important  conditions)  seem  very 
different.  Certainly  a  priori  we  might  have  anticipated  that 
all  the  plants  anciently  introduced  into  Australia  would  have 
undergone  some  modification  ;  but  the  fact  that  they  have 
not  been  modified  does  not  seem  to  me  a  difficulty  of  weight 
enough  to  shake  a  belief  grounded  on  other  arguments.  I 
have  expressed  myself  miserably,  but  I  am  far  from  well 
to-day. 

I  am  very  glad  that  you  are  going  to  allude  to  Pasteur  ;  I 
was  struck  with  infinite  admiration  at  his  work.  With  cordial 
thanks,  believe  me,  dear  Bentham, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 


210  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

P.S. — In  fact,  the  belief  in  Natural  Selection  must  at  pres- 
ent be  grounded  entirely  on  general  considerations.  (1)  On 
its  being  a  vera  causa,  from  the  struggle  for  existence ;  and 
the  certain  geological  fact  that  species  do  somehow  change. 
(2)  From  the  analogy  of  change  under  domestication  by 
man's  selection.  (3)  And  chiefly  from  this  view  connecting 
under  an  intelligible  point  of  view  a  host  of  facts.  When  we 
descend  to  details,  we  can  prove  that  no  one  species  has 
changed  [/.  e.  we  cannot  prove  that  a  single  species  has 
changed]  ;  nor  can  we  prove  that  the  supposed  changes  are 
beneficial,  which  is  the  groundwork  of  the  theory.  Nor  can 
we  explain  why  some  species  have  changed  and  others  have 
not.  The  latter  case  seems  to  me  hardly  more  difficult  to 
understand  precisely  and  in  detail  than  the  former  case  of 
supposed  change.  Bronn  may  ask  in  vain,  the  old  creationist 
school  and  the  new  school,  why  one  mouse  has  longer  ears 
than  another  mouse,  and  one  plant  more  pointed  leaves  than 
another  plant. 

C.  Darwin  to  G.  Benthani. 

Down,  June  19  [1863]. 
My  dear  Bentham, — I  have  been  extremely  much  pleased 
and  interested  by  your  address,  which  you  kindly  sent  me. 
It  seems  to  be  excellently  done,  with  as  much  judicial  calm- 
ness and  impartiality  as  the  Lord  Chancellor  could  have 
shown.  But  whether  the  "  immutable "  gentlemen  would 
agree  with  the  impartiality  may  be  doubted,  there  is  too  much 
kindness  shown  towards  me,  Hooker,  and  others,  they  might 
say.  Moreover  I  verily  believe  that  your  address,  written  as 
it  is,  will  do  more  to  shake  the  unshaken  and  bring  on  those 
leaning  to  our  side,  than  anything  written  directly  in  favor  of 
transmutation.  I  can  hardly  tell  why  it  is,  but  your  address 
has  pleased  me  as  much  as  Lyell's  book  disappointed  me, 
that  is,  the  part  on  species,  though  so  cleverly  written.  I 
agree  with  all  your  remarks  on  the  reviewers.  By  the  way, 
Lecoq  *  is  a  believer  in  the  change  of  species.     I,  for  one,  can 

*  Author  of  '  G£ographie  Botanique.'     9  vols.     1854-58. 


1864.]  ILLNESS.  211 

conscientiously  declare  that  I  never  feel  surprised  at  any  one 
sticking  to  the  belief  of  immutability  ;  though  I  am  often  not 
a  little  surprised  at  the  arguments  advanced  on  this  side.  I 
remember  too  well  my  endless  oscillations  of  doubt  and  diffi- 
culty. It  is  to  me  really  laughable  when  I  think  of  the  years 
which  elapsed  before  I  saw  what  I  believe  to  be  the  explana- 
tion of  some  parts  of  the  case  ;  I  believe  it  was  fifteen  years 
after  I  began  before  I  saw  the  meaning  and  cause  of  the  di- 
vergence of  the  descendants  of  any  one  pair.  You  pay  me 
some  most  elegant  and  pleasing  compliments.  There  is  much 
in  your  address  which  has  pleased  me  much,  especially  your 
remarks  on  various  naturalists.  I  am  so  glad  that  you  have 
alluded  so  honourably  to  Pasteur.  I  have  just  read  over  this 
note  ;  it  does  not  express  strongly  enough  the  interest  which 
I  have  felt  in  reading  your  address.  You  have  done,  I  be- 
lieve, a  real  good  turn  to  the  right  side.  Believe  me,  dear 
Bentham, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

1864. 

[In  my  father's  diary  for  1864  is  the  entry,  "  111  all  Janu- 
ary, February,  March/'  About  the  middle  of  Aprif(seven 
months  after  the  beginning  of  the  illness  in  the  previous 
autumn)  his  health  took  a  turn  for  the  better.  As  soon  as  he 
was  able  to  do  any  work,  he  began  to  write  his  papers  on 
Lythrum,  and  on  Climbing  Plants,  so  that  the  work  which 
now  concerns  us  did  not  begin  until  September,  when  he 
again  set  to  work  on  'Animals  and  Plants.'  A  letter  to  Sir 
J.  D.  Hooker  gives  some  account  of  the  re-commencement 
of  the  work  :  "  I  have  begun  looking  over  my  old  MS.,  and 
it  is  as  fresh  as  if  I  had  never  written  it  ;  parts  are  astonish- 
ingly dull,  but  yet  worth  printing,  I  think ;  and  other  parts 
strike  me  as  very  good.  I  am  a  complete  millionaire  in  odd 
and  curious  little  facts,  and  I  have  been  really  astounded  at 
my  own  industry  whilst  reading  my  chapters  on  Inheritance 
and  Selection.     God  knows  when  the  book  will  ever  be  com- 


212  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1864. 

pleted,  for  I  find  that  I  am  very  weak  and  on  ray  best  days 
cannot  do  more  than  one  or  one  and  a  half  hours'  work.  It 
is  a  good  deal  harder  than  writing  about  my  dear  climbing 
plants/' 

In  this  year  he  received  the  greatest  honour  which  a  sci- 
entific man  can  receive  in  this  country — the  Copley  Medal  of 
the  Royal  Society.  It  is  presented  at  the  Anniversary  Meet- 
ing on  St.  Andrew's  Day  (Nov.  30),  the  medalist  being  usu- 
ally present  to  receive  it,  but  this  the  state  of  my  father's 
health  prevented.     He  wrote  to  Mr.  Fox  on  this  subject : — 

"  I  was  glad  to  see  your  hand-writing.  The  Copley,  be- 
ing open  to  all  sciences  and  all  the  world,  is  reckoned  a  great 
honor  ;  but  excepting  from  several  kind  letters,  such  things 
make  little  difference  to  me.  It  shows,  however,  that  Natural 
Selection  is  making  some  progress  in  this  country,  and  that 
pleases  me.     The  subject,  however,  is  safe  in  foreign  lands." 

To  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  also,  he  wrote  : — 

"  How  kind  you  have  been  about  this  medal ;  indeed,  I 
am  blessed  with  many  good  friends,  and  I  have  received  four 
or  five  notes  which  have  warmed  my  heart.  I  often  wonder 
that  so  old  a  worn-out  dog  as  I  am  is  not  quite  forgotten. 
Talking  of  medals,  has  Falconer  had  the  Royal  ?  he  surely 
ought  to  have  it,  as  ought  John  Lubbock.  By  the  way,  the 
latter  tells  me  that  some  old  members  of  the  Royal  are  quite 
shocked  at  my  having  the  Copley.     Do  you  know  who  ? " 

He  wrote  to  Mr.  Huxley  : — 

"  I  must  and  will  answer  you,  for  it  is  a  real  pleasure  for 
me  to  thank  you  cordially  for  your  note.  Such  notes  as  this 
of  yours,  and  a  few  others,  are  the  real  medal  to  me,  and  not 
the  round  bit  of  gold.  These  have  given  me  a  pleasure 
which  will  long  endure  ;  so  believe  in  my  cordial  thanks  for 
your  note." 

Sir  Charles  Lyell,  writing  to  my  father  in  November  1864 
('  Life,'  vol.  ii.  p.  384),  speaks  of  the  supposed  malcontents 
as  being  afraid  to  crown  anything  so  unorthodox  as  the 
'Origin.'  But  he  adds  that  if  such  were  their  feelings  "they 
had  the  good  sense  to  draw  in  their  horns."    It  appears,  how- 


1864.]  COPLEY   MEDAL.  21 3 

ever,  from  the  same  letter,  that  the  proposal  to  give  the  Cop- 
ley Medal  to  my  father  in  the  previous  year  failed  owing  to 
a  similar  want  of  courage — to  Lyell's  great  indignation. 

In  the  Reader,  December  3,  1864,  General  Sabine's  presi- 
dential address  at  the  Anniversary  Meeting  is  reported  at 
some  length.  Special  weight  was  laid  on  my  father's  work 
in  Geology,  Zoology,  and  Botany,  but  the  '  Origin  of  Species ' 
is  praised  chiefly  as  containing  "a.  mass  of  observations,"  &c. 
It  is  curious  that  as  in  the  case  of  his  election  to  the  French 
Institute,  so  in  this  case,  he  was  honored  not  for  the  great 
work  of  his  life,  but  for  his  less  important  work  in  special 
lines.  The  paragraph  in  General  Sabine's  address  which  re- 
fers to  the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  is  as  follows  : — 

"In  his  most  recent  work  i  On  the  Origin  of  Species,'  al- 
though opinions  may  be  divided  or  undecided  with  respect  to 
its  merits  in  some  respects,  all  will  allow  that  it  contains  a 
mass  of  observations  bearing  upon  the  habits,  structure,  af- 
finities, and  distribution  of  animals,  perhaps  unrivalled  for 
interest,  minuteness,  and  patience  of  observation.  Some 
amongst  us  may  perhaps  incline  to  accept  the  theory  indi- 
cated by  the  title  of  this  work,  while  others  may  perhaps  in- 
cline to  refuse,  or  at  least  to  remit  it  to  a  future  time,  when 
increased  knowledge  shall  afford  stronger  grounds  for  its  ulti- 
mate acceptance  or  rejection.  Speaking  generally  and  col- 
lectively, we  have  expressly  omitted  it  from  the  grounds  of 
our  award." 

I  believe  I  am  right  in  saying  that  no  little  dissatisfaction 
at  the  President's  manner  of  allusion  to  the  '  Origin '  was  felt 
by  some  Fellows  of  the  Society. 

The  presentation  of  the  Copley  Medal  is  of  interest  in 
another  way,  inasmuch  as  it  led  to  Sir  C.  Lyell  making,  in 
his  after-dinner  speech,  a  "  confession  of  faith  as  to  the 
1  Origin.'  "  He  wrote  to  my  father  ('  Life,'  vol.  ii.  p.  384),  "  I 
said  I  had  been  forced  to  give  up  my  old  faith  without  thor- 
oughly seeing  my  way  to  a  new  one.  But  I  think  you  would 
have  been  satisfied  with  the  length  I  went."] 


214  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1864. 


C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  Oct.  3  [1864]. 

My  dear  Huxley, — If  I  do  not  pour  out  my  admiration 
of  your  article  *  on  Kolliker,  I  shall  explode.  I  never  read 
anything  better  done.  I  had  much  wished  his  article  an- 
swered, and  indeed  thought  of  doing  so  myself,  so  that  I  con- 
sidered several  points.  You  have  hit  on  all,  and  on  some  in 
addition,  and  oh  !  by  Jove,  how  well  you  have  done  it.  As 
I  read  on  and  came  to  point  after  point  on  which  I  had 
thought,  I  could  not  help  jeering  and  scoffing  at  myself,  to 
see  how  infinitely  better  you  had  done  it  than  I  could  have 
done.  Well,  if  any  one,  who  does  not  understand  Natural 
Selection,  will  read  this,  he  will  be  a  blockhead  if  it  is  not  as 
as  clear  as  daylight.  Old  Flourens  f  was  hardly  worth  the 
powder  and  shot ;  but  how  capitally  you  bring  in  about  the 
Academician,  and  your  metaphor  of  the  sea-sand  is  inimitable. 

It  is  a  marvel  to  me  how  you  can  resist  becoming  a  regu- 
lar reviewer.  Well,  I  have  exploded  now,  and  it  has  done 
me  a  deal  of  good.  .   .  . 

[In  the  same  article  in  the  '  Natural  History  Review/  Mr. 
Huxley  speaks  of  the  book  above  alluded  to  by  Flourens,  the 
Secretaire  Perpetuel  of  the  Acad£mie  des  Sciences,  as  one  of 
the  two  "  most  elaborate  criticisms  "  of  the  '  Origin  of  Spe- 
cies '  of  the  year.     He  quotes  the  following  passage : — 

"  M.  Darwin  continue:  *  Aucune  distinction  absolue  n'a 
£te  et  ne  peut  etre  £tablie  entre  les  especes  et  les  varietesf 

*  "Criticisms  on  the  Origin  of  Species,"  'Nat.  Hist.  Review,'  1864. 
Republished  in  'Lay  Sermons,'  1870,  p.  328.  The  work  of  Professor 
Kolliker  referred  to  is  '  Ueber  die  Darwin'sche  Schopfungstheorie'  (Leip- 
zig, 1864).  Toward  Professor  Kolliker  my  father  felt  not  only  the  respect 
due  to  so  distinguished  a  naturalist  (a  sentiment  well  expressed  in  Pro- 
fessor Huxley's  review),  but  he  had  also  a  personal  regard  for  him,  and 
often  alluded  with  satisfaction  to  the  visit  which  Professor  Kolliker  paid 
at  DowTn. 

f  '  Examen  du  livre  de  M.  Darwin  sur  l'origine  des  especes.'  Par  P. 
Flourens.     8vo.     Paris,  1864. 


1865.]  M.  FLOURENS.  21 5 

Je  vous  ai  deja  dit  que  vous  vous  trompiez;  une  distinction 
absolue  separe  les  varietes  d'avec  les  especes."  Mr.  Huxley 
remarks  on  this,  "  Being  devoid  of  the  blessings  of  an  Acade- 
my in  England,  we  are  unaccustomed  to  see  our  ablest  men 
treated  in  this  way  even  by  a  Perpetual  Secretary."  After 
demonstrating  M.  Flourens'  misapprehension  of  Natural  Se- 
lection, Mr.  Huxley  says,  "  How  one  knows  it  all  by  heart, 
and  with  what  relief  one  reads  at  p.  65,  'Je  laisse  M.  Dar- 
win/ " 

On  the  same  subject  my  father  wrote  to  Mr.  Wallace  : — 
"A  great  gun,  Flourens,  has  written  a  little  dull  book 
against  me  which  pleases  me  much,  for  it  is  plain  that  our 
good  work  is  spreading  in  France.  He  speaks  of  the 
"  engouement "  about  this  book  [the  '  Origin  'J  "so  full  of 
empty  and  presumptuous  thoughts."  The  passage  here  al- 
luded to  is  as  follows  : — 

"  Enfln  Touvrage'  de  M.  Darwin  a  paru.  On  ne  peut 
qu'etre  frappe  du  talent  de  l'auteur.  Mais  que  d'idees  ob- 
scures, que  d'idees  fausses  !  Quel  jargon  metaphysique  jete 
mal  a  propos  dans  Thistoire  naturelle,  qui  tombe  dans  le 
galimatias  des  qu'elle  sort  des  idees  claires,  des  idees  justes. 
Quel  langage  pretentieux  et  vide  !  Quelles  personifications 
pueriles  et  surannees  !  O  lucidite  !  O  solidite*  de  Pesprit 
francais,  que  devenez-vous  ?  "] 


1865. 

[This  was  again  a  time  of  much  ill-health,  but  towards  the 
close  of  the  year  he  began  to  recover  under  the  care  of  the 
late  Dr.  Bence-Jones,  who  dieted  him  severely,  and  as  he 
expressed  it,  " half-starved  him  to  death."  He  was  able  to 
work  at  '  Animals  and  Plants  '  until  nearly  the  end  of  April, 
and  from  that  time  until  December  he  did  practically  no  work, 
with  the  exception  of  looking  over  the  '  Origin  of  Species  ' 
for  a  second  French  edition.  He  wrote  to  Sir  J*  D.  Hooker  : 
— "  I  am,  as  it  were,  reading  the  '  Origin  *  for  the  first  time, 
for  I  am  correcting  for  a  second  French  edition  :  and  upon 


2i6  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

my  life,  my  dear  fellow,  it  is  a  very  good    book,  but  oh !  my 
gracious,  it  is  tough  reading,  and  I  wish  it  were  done."  * 

The  following  letter  refers  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll's  address 
to  the  Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh,  December  5th,  1864,  in 
which  he  criticises  the  '  Origin  of  Species.'  My  father  seems 
to  have  read  the  Duke's  address  as  reported  in  the  Scotsman 
of  December  6th,  1865.  In  a  letter  to  my  father  (Jan.  16, 
1865,  'Life,'  vol.  ii.  p.  385),  Lyell  wrote,  "  The  address  is  a 
great  step  towards  your  views — far  greater,  I  believe,  than 
it  seems  when  read  merely  with  reference  to  criticisms  and 
objections."] 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  January  22,  1865. 
My  dear  Lyell, — I  thank  you  for  your  very  interesting 
letter.  I  have  the  true  English  instinctive  reverence  for  rank, 
and  therefore  liked  to  hear  about  the  Princess  Royal. f  You 
ask  what  I  think  of  the  Duke's  address,  and  I  shall  be  glad  to 
tell  you.  It  seems  to  me  extremely  clever,  like  everything  I 
have  read  of  his  ;  but  I  am  not  shaken — perhaps  you  will  say 
that  neither  gods  nor  men  could  shake  me.  I  demur  to  the 
Duke  reiterating  his  objection  that  the  brilliant  plumage  of 
the  male  humming-bird  could  not  have  been  acquired  through 
selection,  at  the  same  time  entirely  ignoring  my  discussion 
(p.   93,   3rd  edition)  on  beautiful   plumage   being  acquired 

*  Towards  the  end  of  the  year  my  father  received  the  news  of  a  new 
convert  to  his  views,  in  the  person  of  the  distinguished  American  natural- 
ist Lesquereux.  He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  :  "  I  have  had  an  enormous 
letter  from  Leo  Lesquereux  (after  doubts,  I  did  not  think  it  worth  send- 
ing you)  on  Coal  Flora.  He  wrote  some  excellent  articles  in  '  Silliman  ' 
against  '  Origin  '  views  ;  but  he  says  now,  after  repeated  reading  of  the 
book,  he  is  a  convert  !  " 

f  "  I  had  ...  an  animated  conversation  on  Darwinism  with  the  Prin- 
cess Royal,  who  is  a  worthy  daughter  of  her  father,  in  the  reading  of  good 
books,  and  thinking  of  what  she  reads.  She  was  very  much  au  fait  at  the 
'Origin,'  and  Huxley's  book,  the  \  Antiquity,'  &c."— (Lyell's  ■  Life,'  vol. 
ii.  p.  385.) 


1865.]  DUKE   OF   ARGYLL.  217 

through  sexual  selection.  The  duke  may  think  this  insuffi- 
cient, but  that  is  another  question.  All  analogy  makes  me 
quite  disagree  with  the  Duke  that  the  difference  in  the  beak, 
wing  and  tail,  are  not  of  importance  to  the  several  species. 
In  the  only  two  species  which  I  have  watched,  the  difference 
in  flight  and  in  the  use  of  the  tail  was  conspicuously  great. 

The  Duke,  who  knows  my  Orchid  book  so  well,  might 
have  learnt  a  lesson  of  caution  from  it,  with  respect  to  his 
doctrine  of  differences  for  mere  variety  or  beauty.  It  may  be 
confidently  said  that  no  tribe  of  plants  presents  such  grotesque 
and  beautiful  differences,  which  no  one  until  lately,  con- 
jectured were  of  any  use ;  but  now  in  almost  every  case  I 
have  been  able  to  show  their  important  service.  It  should 
be  remembered  that  with  humming-birds  or  orchids,  a  modi- 
fication in  one  part  will  cause  correlated  changes  in  other 
parts.  I  agree  with  what  you  say  about  beauty.  I  formerly 
thought  a  good  deal  on  the  subject,  and  was  led  quite  to 
repudiate  the  doctrine  of  beauty  being  created  for  beauty's 
sake.  I  demur  also  to  the  Duke's  expression  of  "  new 
births."  That  may  be  a  very  good  theory,  but  it  is  not  mine, 
unless  indeed  he  calls  a  bird  born  with  a  beak  ToTtri  °f  an 
inch  longer  than  usual  "  a  new  birth  ; "  but  this  is  not  the 
sense  in  which  the  term  would  usually  be  understood.  The 
more  I  work  the  more  I  feel  convinced  that  it  is  by  the 
accumulation  of  such  extremely  slight  variations  that  new 
species  arise.  I  do  not  plead  guilty  to  the  Duke's  charge 
that  I  forget  that  natural  selection  means  only  the  preserva- 
tion of  variations  which  independently  arise.*  I  have  ex- 
pressed this  in  as  strong  language  as  I  could  use,  but  it  would 
have  been  infinitely  tedious  had  I  on  every  occasion  thus 
guarded  myself.  I  will  cry  "  peccavi  "  when  I  hear  of  the 
Duke  or  you   attacking  breeders  for  saying  that  man  has 

*  "  Strickly  speaking,  therefore,  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  is  not  a  theory  on 
the  Origin  of  Species  at  all,  but  only  a  theory  on  the  causes  which  lead  to 
the  relative  success  and  failure  of  such  new  forms  as  may  be  born  into  the 
world." — Scotsman,  Dec.  6,  1864. 


2l8  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

made  his  improved  shorthorns,  or  pouter  pigeons,  or  ban- 
tams. And  I  could  quote  still  stronger  expressions  used  by- 
agriculturists.  Man  does  make  his  artificial  breeds,  for  his 
selective  power  is  of  such  importance  relatively  to  that  of  the 
slight  spontaneous  variations.  But  no  one  will  attack  breeders 
for  using  such  expressions,  and  the  rising  generation  will  not 
blame  me. 

Many  thanks  for  your  offer  of  sending  me  the  4  Ele- 
ments.' *  I  hope  to  read  it  all,  but  unfortunately  reading 
makes  my  head  whiz  more  than  anything  else.  I  am  able 
most  days  to  work  for  two  or  three  hours,  and  this  makes  all 
the  difference  in  my  happiness.  I  have  resolved  not  to  be 
tempted  astray,  and  to  publish  nothing  till  my  volume  on 
Variation  is  completed.  You  gave  me  excellent  advice  about 
the  footnotes  in  my  Dog  chapter,  but  their  alteration  gave 
me  infinite  trouble,  and  I  often  wished  all  the  dogs,  and  I 
fear  sometimes  you  yourself,  in  the  nether  regions. 

We  (dictator  and  writer)  send  our  best  love  to  Lady  LyelL 

Yours  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — If  ever  you  should  speak  with  the  Duke  on  the  sub- 
ject, please  say  how  much  interested  I  was  with  his  address. 

[In  his  autobiographical  sketch  my  father  has  remarked 
(p.  36)  that  owing  to  certain  early  memories  he  felt  the  hon- 
our of  being  elected  to  the  Royal  and  Royal  Medical  Socie- 
ties of  Edinburgh  "  more  than  any  similar  honour/'  The 
following  extract  from  a  letter  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  refers 
to  his  election  to  the  former  of  these  societies.  The  latter 
part  of  the  extract  refers  to  the  Berlin  Academy,  to  which  he 
was  elected  in  1878  : — 

"  Here  is  a  really  curious  thing,  considering  that  Brewster 
is  President  and  Balfour  Secretary.  I  have  been  elected 
Honorary  Member  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh.     And 

*  Sixth  edition  in  one  volume. 


i865.]  LYELL'S   'ELEMENTS/  219 

this  leads  me  to  a  third  question.  Does  the  Berlin  Academy 
of  Sciences  send  their  Proceedings  to  Honorary  Members  ? 
I  want  to  know,  to  ascertain  whether  I  am  a  member  ;  I  sup- 
pose not,  for  I  think  it  would  have  made  some  impression 
on  me  ;  yet  I  distinctly  remember  receiving  some  diploma 
signed  by  Ehrenberg.  I  have  been  so  careless  ;  I  have  lost 
several  diplomas,  and  now  I  want  to  know  what  Societies  I 
belong  to,  as  I  observe  every  [one]  tacks  their  titles  to  their 
names  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Royal  Soc."] 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

Down,  Feb.  21  [1865].      ' 

My  dear  Lyell, — I  have  taken  a  long  time  to  thank  you 
very  much  for  your  present  of  the  *  Elements/ 

I  am  going  through  it  all,  reading  what  is  new,  and  what 
I  have  forgotten,  and  this  is  a  good  deal, 

I  am  simply  astonished  at  the  amount  of  labour,  knowl- 
edge, and  clear  thought  condensed  in  this  work.  The  whole 
strikes  me  as  something  quite  grand.  I  have  been  particu- 
larly interested  by  your  account  of  Heer's  work  and  your 
discussion  on  the  Atlantic  Continent.  I  am  particularly  de-r 
lighted  at  the  view  which  you  take  on  this  subject ;  for  I  have 
long  thought  Forbes  did  an  ill  service  in  so  freely  making 
continents. 

I  have  also  been  very  glad  to  read  your  argument  on  the 
denudation  of  the  Weald,  and  your  excellent  resume  on  the 
Purbeck  Beds ;  and  this  is  the  point  at  which  I  have  at  pres- 
ent arrived  in  your  book.  I  cannot  say  that  I  am  quite  con- 
vinced that  there  is  no  connection  beyond  that  pointed  out 
by  you,  between  glacial  action  and  the  formation  of  lake 
basins ;  but  you  will  not  much  value  my  opinion  on  this  head, 
as  I  have  already  changed  my  mind  some  half-dozen  times. 

I  want  to  make  a  suggestion  to  you.     I  found  the  weight 

of  your  volume  intolerable,  especially  when  lying  down,  so 

with  great  boldness  cut  it  into  two  pieces,  and  took  it  out  of 

its  cover;  now  could  not  Murray  without  any  other  change 

51 


220  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1865, 

add  to  his  advertisement  a  line  saying,  "  if  bound  in  two  vol- 
umes, one  shilling  or  one  shilling  and  sixpence  extra."  You 
thus  might  originate  a  change  which  would  be  a  blessing  to 
all  weak-handed  readers. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Lyell, 

Yours  most  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

Originate  a  second  real  blessing  and  have  the  edges  of  the 
sheets  cut  like  a  bound  book.* 


C.  Darwin  to  John  Lubbock. 

Down,  June  11  [1865]. 

My  dear  Lubbock, — The  latter  half  of  your  book  f  has 
been  read  aloud  to  me,  and  the  style  is  so  clear  and  easy  (we 
both  think  it  perfection)  that  I  am  now  beginning  at  the  be- 
ginning. I  cannot  resist  telling  you  how  excellently  well,  in 
my  opinion,  you  have  done  the  very  interesting  chapter  on 
savage  life.  Though  you  have  necessarily  only  compiled  the 
materials  the  general  result  is  most  original.  But  I  ought  to 
keep  the  term  original  for  your  last  chapter,  which  has  struck 
me  as  an  admirable  and  profound  discussion.  It  has  quite 
delighted  me,  for  now  the  public  will  see  what  kind  of  man 
you  are,  which  I  am  proud  to  think  I  discovered  a  dozen 
years  ago. 

I  do  sincerely  wish  you  all  success  in  your  election  and  in 

*  This  was  a  favourite  reform  of  my  father's.  He  wrote  to  the  A  the- 
nceum  on  the  subject,  Feb.  5,  1867,  pointing  out  how  that  a  book  cut,  even 
carefully,  with  a  paper  knife  collects  dust  on  its  edges  far  more  than  a  ma- 
chine-cut book.  He  goes  on  to  quote  the  case  of  a  lady  of  his  acquaint- 
ance who  was  in  the  habit  of  cutting  books  with  her  thumb,  and  finally 
appeals  to  the  Athenaum  to  earn  the  gratitude  of  children  "who  have  to 
cut  through  dry  and  pictureless  books  for  the  benefit  of  their  elders."  He 
tried  to  introduce  the  reform  in  the  case  of  his  own  books,  but  found  the 
conservatism  of  booksellers  too  strong  for  him.  The  presentation  copies, 
however,  of  all  his  later  books  were  sent  out  with  the  edges  cut. 

f  *  Prehistoric  Times,'  1865. 


1865.]  FRITZ    MULLER.  221 

politics;  but  after  reading  this  last  chapter,  you  must  let  me 
say  :  oh,  dear  !  oh,  dear  !  oh  dear  ! 

Yours  affectionately, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.S. — You  pay  me  a  superb  compliment,*  but  I  fear  you 
will  be  quizzed  for  it  by  some  of  your  friends  as  too  exag- 
gerated. 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  Fritz  Miiller's  book,  'Fur 
Darwin,'  which  was  afterwards  translated,  at  my  father's  sug- 
gestion, by  Mr.  Dallas.  It  is  of  interest  as  being  the  first  of 
the  long  series  of  letters  which  my  father  wrote  to  this  distin- 
guished naturalist.  They  never  met,  but  the  correspondence 
with  Miiller,  which  continued  to  the  close  of  my  father's  life, 
was  a  source  of  very  great  pleasure  to  him.  My  impression 
is  that  of  all  his  unseen  friends  Fritz  Miiller  was  the  one  for 
whom  he  had  the  strongest  regard.  Fritz  Miiller  is  the 
brother  of  another  distinguished  man,  the  late  Hermann 
Miiller,  the  author  of  '  Die  Befruchtung  der  Bluraen,'  and  of 
much  other  valuable  work  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  &\  Miiller. 

Down,  August  10  [1865]. 
My  bear  Sir, — I  have  been  for  a  long  time  so  ill  that  I 
have  only  just  finished  hearing  read  aloud  your  work  on  spe- 
cies. And  now  you  must  permit  me  to  thank  you  cordially 
for  the  great  interest  with  which  I  have  read  it.  You  have 
done  admirable  service  in  the  cause  in  which  we  both  believe. 
Many  of  your  arguments  seem  to  me  excellent,  and  many  of 
your  facts  wonderful.  Of  the  latter,  nothing  has  surprised 
me  so  much  as  the  two  forms  of  males.  I  have  lately  inves- 
tigated the  cases  of  dimorphic  plants,  and  I  should  much  like 
to  send  you  one  or  two  of  my  papers  if  I  knew  how.     I  did 

*  *  Prehistoric  Times,'  p.  487,  where  the  words,  "  the  discoveries  of  a 
Newton  or  a  Darwin/'  occur. 


222  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

send  lately  by  post  a  paper  on  climbing  plants,  as  an  experi- 
ment to  see  whether  it  would  reach  you.  One  of  the  points 
which  has  struck  me  most  in  your  paper  is  that  on  the  differ- 
ences in  the  air-breathing  apparatus  of  the  several  forms. 
This  subject  appeared  to  me  very  important  when  I  formerly 
considered  the  electric  apparatus  of  fishes.  Your  observa- 
tions on  Classification  and  Embryology  seem  to  me  very  good 
and  original.  They  show  what  a  wonderful  field  there  is  for 
enquiry  on  the  development  of  Crustacea,  and  nothing  has 
convinced  me  so  plainly  what  admirable  results  we  shall  ar- 
rive at  in  Natural  History  in  the  course  of  a  few  years.  What 
a  marvellous  range  of  structure  the  Crustacea  present,  and 
how  well  adapted  they  are  for  your  enquiry  !  Until  reading 
your  book  I  knew  nothing  of  the  Rhizocephala ;  pray  look  at 
my  account  and  figures  of  Anelasma,  for  it  seems  to  me  that 
this  latter  cirripede  is  a  beautiful  connecting  link  with  the 
Rhizocephala. 

If  ever  you  have  any  opportunity,  as  you  are  so  skilful  a 
dissector,  I  much  wish  that  you  would  look  to  the  orifice  at 
the  base  of  the  first  pair  of  cirrhi  in  cirripedes,  and  at  the 
curious  organ  in  it,  and  discover  what  its  nature  is;  I  suppose 
I  was  quite  in  error,  yet  I  cannot  feel  fully  satisfied  at 
Krohn's  *  observations.  Also  if  you  ever  find  any  species  of 
Scalpellum,  pray  look  for  complemental  males;  a  German 
author  has  recently  doubted  my  observations  for  no  reason 
except  that  the  facts  appeared  to  him  so  strange. 

Permit  me  again  to  thank  you  cordially  for  the  pleasure 
which  I  have  derived  from  your  work  and  to  express  my  sin- 
cere admiration  for  your  valuable  researches. 

Believe  me,  dear  Sir,  with  sincere  respect, 

Yours  very  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  do  not  know  whether  you  care  at  all  about  plants, 
but  if  so,  I  should  much  like  to  send  you  my  little  work  on 

*  See  vol.  ii.,  pp.  138,  187. 


1865.J  CHILDREN   AND   PARENTS.  223 

the  '  Fertilization  of  Orchids/  and  I  think  I  have  a  German 
copy. 

Could  you  spare  me  a  photograph  of  yourself  ?     I  should 
much  like  to  possess  one. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Thursday,  27th  [Sept.,  1865]. 
My  dear  Hooker, — I  had  intended  writing  this  morning 
to  thank  Mrs.  Hooker  most  sincerely  for  her  last  and  several 
notes  about  you,  and  now  your  own  note  in  your  hand  has 
rejoiced  me.  To  walk  between  five  and  six  miles  is  splendid, 
with  a  little  patience  you  must  soon  be  well.  I  knew  you  had 
been  very  ill,  but  I  hardly  knew  how  ill,  until  yesterday,  when 
Bentham  (from  the  Cranworths*)  called  here,  and  I  was  able 
to  see  him  for  ten  minutes.  He  told  me  also  a  little  about 
the  last  days  of  your  father ;  f  I  wish  I  had  known  your  father 
better,  my  impression  is  confined  to  his  remarkably  cordial, 
courteous,  and  frank  bearing.  I  fully  concur  and  understand 
what  you  say  about  the  difference  of  feeling  in  the  loss  of  a 
father  and  child.  I  do  not  think  any  one  could  love  a  father 
much  more  than  I  did  mine,  and  I  do  not  believe  three  or 
four  days  ever  pass  without  my  still  thinking  of  him,  but  his 
death  at  eighty-four  caused  me  nothing  of  that  insufferable 
grief  J  which  the  loss  of  poor  dear  Annie  caused.     And  this 

*  Robert  Rolfe,  Lord  Cranworth,  and  Lord  Chancellor  of  England, 
lived  at  Holwood,  near  Down. 

f  Sir  William  Hooker  ;  b.  1785,  d.  1865.  He  took  charge  of  the 
Royal  Gardens  at  Kew,  in  1840,  when  they  ceased  to  be  the  private  gar- 
dens of  the  Royal  Family.  In  doing  so,  he  gave  up  his  professorship  at 
Glasgow — and  with  it  half  of  his  income.  He  founded  the  herbarium  and 
library,  and  within  ten  years  he  succeeded  in  making  the  gardens  the  first 
in  the  world.  It  is,  thus,  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  creation  of  the  es- 
tablishment at  Kew  is  due  to  the  abilities  and  self-devotion  of  Sir  William 
Hooker.  While,  for  the  subsequent  development  of  the  gardens  up  to 
their  present  magnificent  condition,  the  nation  must  thank  Sir  Joseph 
Hooker,  in  whom  the  same  qualities  are  so  conspicuous. 

\  I  may  quote  here  a  passage  from  a  letter  of  November,  1863.     It  was 


224  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

seems  to  me  perfectly  natural,  for  one  knows  that  for  years 
previously  that  one's  father's  death  is  drawing  slowly  nearer 
and  nearer,  while  the  death  of  one's  child  is  a  sudden  and 
dreadful  wrench.  What  a  wonderful  deal  you  read ;  it  is  a 
horrid  evil  for  me  that  I  can  read  hardly  anything,  for  it 
makes  my  head  almost  immediately  begin  to  sing  violently. 
My  good  womenkind  read  to  me  a  great  deal,  but  I  dare  not 
ask  for  much  science,  and  am  not  sure  that  I  could  stand  it. 
I  enjoyed  Tylor*  extremely,  and  the  first  part  ofLecky;f 
but  I  think  the  latter  is  often  vague,  and  gives  a  false  appear- 
ance of  throwing  light  on  his  subject  by  such  phrases  as 
"spirit  of  the  age,"  "spread  of  civilization,"  &c.  I  confine 
my  reading  to  a  quarter  or  half  hour  per  day  in  skimming 
through  the  back  volumes  of  the  Annals  and  Magazine  of 
Natural  History,  and  find  much  that  interests  me.  I  miss 
my  climbing  plants  very  much,  as  I  could  observe  them  when 
very  poorly. 

I  did  not  enjoy  the  i  Mill  on  the  Floss '  so  much  as  you, 
but  from  what  you  say  we  will  read  it  again.  Do  you  know 
'  Silas  Marner '  ?  it  is  a  charming  little  story  ;  if  you  run 
short,  and  like  to  have  it,  we  could  send  it  by  post.  .  .  .  We 
have  almost  finished  the  first  volume  of  Palgrave,J  and  I  like 
it  much  ;  but  did  you  ever  see  a  book  so  badly  arranged  ? 
The  frequency  of  the  allusions  to  what  will  be  told  in  the 
future  are  quite  laughable.  ...  By  the  way,  I  was  very 
much  pleased  with  the  foot-note  #  about  Wallace  in  Lubbock's 
last  chapter.     I  had  not  heard  that  Huxley  had  backed  up 

written  to  a  friend  who  had  lost  his  child :  "  How  well  I  remember  your 
feeling,  when  we  lost  Annie.  It  was  my  greatest  comfort  that  I  had  never 
spoken  a  harsh  word  to  her.  Your  grief  has  made  me  shed  a  few  teati 
over  our  poor  darling  ;  but  believe  me  that  these  tears  have  lost  that  un- 
utterable bitterness  of  former  days." 

*  '  Researches  into  the  Early  History  of  Mankind,'  by  E  B.  Tylor.    1865. 
f  '  The  Rise  of  Rationalism  in  Europe,'  by  W.  E.  H.  Lecky.     1865. 

X  William  Gifford  Palgrave's  *  Travels  in  Arabia,'  published  in  1865. 

#  The  passage  which  seems  to  be  referred  to  occurs  in  the  text  (p.  47q) 
of  '  Prehistoric  Times.'     It  expresses  admiration  of  Mr.  Wallace's  paper  in 


1865.]  DR.  WELLS— CANON   FARRAR.  225 

Lubbock  about  Parliament.  .  .  .  Did  you  see  a  sneer  some 
time  ago  in  the  Times  about  how  incomparably  more  interest- 
ing politics  were  compared  with  science  even  to  scientific 
men  ?  Remember  what  Trollope  says,  in  *  Can  you  Forgive 
her/  about  getting  into  Parliament,  as  the  highest  earthly 
ambition.  Jeffrey,  in  one  of  his  letters,  I  remember,  says 
that  making  an  effective  speech  in  Parliament  is  a  far  grander 
thing  than  writing  the  grandest  history.  All  this  seems  to 
me  a  poor  short-sighted  view.  I  cannot  tell  you  how  it  has 
rejoiced  me  once  again  seeing  your  handwriting — my  best  of 

old  friends. 

Yours  affectionately, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[In  October  he  wrote  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  : — 
u  Talking  of  the  l  Origin,'  a  Yankee  has  called  my  atten- 
tion to  a  paper  attached  to  Dr.  Wells's  famous  i  Essay  on 
Dew/  which  was  read  in  1813  to  the  Royal  Soc,  but  not 
[then]  printed,  in  which  he  applies  most  distinctly  the  prin- 
ciple of  Natural  Selection  to  the  Races  of  Man.  So  poor  old 
Patrick  Matthew  is  not  the  first,  and  he  cannot,  or  ought  not, 
any  longer  to  put  on  his  title-pages,  '  Discoverer  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  Natural  Selection  ' !  "] 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  W.  Farrar* 

Down,  Nov.  2  [1865  ?]. 
Dear  Sir, — As  I  have  never  studied  the  science  of  lan- 
guage, it  may  perhaps  seem  presumptuous,  but  I  cannot  re- 
sist the  pleasure  of  telling  you  what  interest  and  pleasure  I 
have  derived  from  hearing  read  aloud  your  volume. f 

I  formerly  read  Max  Miiller,  and  thought  his  theory  (if  it 
deserves  to  be  called  so)  both  obscure  and  weak  ;  and  now, 

the  *  Anthropological  Review '  (May,  1864),  and  speaks  of  the  author's 
"  characteristic  unselfishness  "  in  ascribing  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection 
M  unreservedly  to  Mr.  Darwin." 

*  Canon  of  Westminster. 

f  *  Chapters  on  Language,'  1865. 


226  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

after  hearing  what  you  say,  I  feel  sure  that  this  is  the  case, 
aad  that  your  cause  will  ultimately  triumph.  My  indirect 
interest  in  your  book  has  been  increased  from  Mr.  Hensleigh 
Wedgwood,  whom  you  often  quote,  being  my  brother-in-law. 

No  one  could  dissent  from  my  views  on  the  modification 
of  species  with  more  courtesy  than  you  do.  But  from  the 
tenor  of  your  mind  I  feel  an  entire  and  comfortable  convic- 
tion (and  which  cannot  possibly  be  disturbed)  that  if  your 
studies  led  you  to  attend  much  to  general  questions  in  nat- 
ural history  you  would  come  to  the  same  conclusion  that  I 
have  done.  * 

Have  you  ever  read  Huxley's  little  book  of  Lectures?  I 
would  gladly  send  you  a  copy  if  you  think  you  would  read  it. 

Considering  what  Geology  teaches  us,  the  argument  from 
the  supposed  immutability  of  specific  types  seems  to  me 
much  the  same  as  if,  in  a  nation  which  had  no  old  writings, 
some  wise  old  savage  was  to  say  that  his  language  had  never 
changed  ;  but  my  metaphor  is  too  long  to  fill  up. 

Pray  believe  me,  dear  Sir,  yours  very  sincerely  obliged, 

C.  Darwin. 

1866. 

[The  year  1866  is  given  in  my  father's  Diary  in  the  fol- 
lowing words  : — 

"  Continued  correcting  chapters  of  '  Domestic  Animals.' 

March  1st. — Began  on  4th  edition  of  '  Origin '  of  1250 
copies  (received  for  it  ^238),  making  7500  copies  altogether. 

May  10th. — Finished  '  Origin/-  except  revises,  and  began 
going  over  Chapter  XIII.  of  '  Domestic  Animals.' 

Nov.  21st. — Finished  i  Pangenesis.' 

Dec.  21st. — Finished  re-going  over  all  chapters,  and  sent 
them  to  printers. 

Dec.  22nd. — Began  concluding  chapter  of  book." 

He  was  in  London  on  two  occasions  for  a  week  at  a  time, 
staying  with  his  brother,  and  for  a  few  days  (May  29th-June 
2nd)  in  Surrey  ;  for  the  rest  of  the  year  he  was  at  Down. 

There   seems   to   have   been  a  gradual  mending  in  his 


1866.]  PANGENESIS.  227 

health;  thus  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Wallace  (January  1866)  : — 
"  My  health  is  so  far  improved  that  I  am  able  to  work  one  or 
two  hours  a  day." 

With  respect  to  the  4th  edition  he  wrote  to  sir  Sir  J.  D. 
Hooker  : — 

"  The  new  edition  of  the  4  Origin  '  has  caused  me  two 
great  vexations.  I  forgot  Bates's  paper  on  variation,*  but  I 
remembered  in  time  his  mimetic  work,  and  now,  strange  to 
say,  I  find  I  have  forgotten  your  Arctic  paper !  I  know  how 
it  arose  ;  I  indexed  for  my  bigger  work,  and  never  expected 
that  a  new  edition  of  the  '  Origin  '  would  be  wanted. 

lt  I  cannot  say  how  all  this  has  vexed  me.  Everything 
which  I  have  read  during  the  last  four  years  I  find  is  quite 
washy  in  my  mind."  As  far  as  I  know,  Mr.  Bates's  paper 
was  not  mentioned  in  the  later  editions  of  the  '  Origin/  for 
what  reason  I  cannot  say. 

In  connection  with  his  work  on  *  The  Variation  of  Ani- 
mals and  Plants,'  I  give  here  extracts  from  three  letters  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Huxley,  which  are  of  interest  as  giving  some 
idea  of  the  development  of  the  theory  of  '  Pangenesis,'  ulti- 
mately published  in  1868  in  the  book  in  question  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  May  27,  [1865  ?]. 

...  I  write  now  to  ask  a  favour  of  you,  a  very  great 
favour  from  one  so  hard  worked  as  you  are.  It  is  to  read 
thirty  pages  of  MS.,  excellently  copied  out  and  give  me,  not 
lengthened  criticism,  but  your  opinion  whether  I  may  ven- 
ture to  publish  it.  You  may  keep  the  MS.  for  a  month  or 
two.  I  would  not  ask  this  favour,  but  I  really  know  no  one 
else  whose  judgment  on  the  subject  would  be  final  with  me. 

The  case  stands  thus  :  in  my  next  book  I  shall  publish 
long  chapters  on  bud-  and  seminal-variation,  on  inheritance, 

*  This  appears  to  refer  to  "  Notes  on  South  American  Butterflies/1 
Trans,  Entomolog.  Soc.,  vol.  v.  (n.s.). 


228  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866, 

reversion,  effects  of  use  and  disuse,  &c.  I  have  also  for 
many  years  speculated  on  the  different  forms  of  reproduc- 
tion. Hence  it  has  come  to  be  a  passion  with  me  to  try  to 
connect  all  such  facts  by  some  sort  of  hypothesis.  The  MS. 
which  I  wish  to  send  you  gives  such  a  hypothesis  ;  it  is  a 
very  rash  and  crude  hypothesis,  yet  it  has  been  a  consider- 
able relief  to  my  mind,  and  I  can  hang  on  it  a  good  many 
groups  of  facts.  I  well  know  that  a  mere  hypothesis,  and 
this  is  nothing  more,  is  of  little  value ;  but  it  is  very  useful  to 
me  as  serving  as  a  kind  of  summary  for  certain  chapters. 
Now  I  earnestly  wish  for  your  verdict  given  briefly  as,  "  Burn 
it " — or,  which  is  the  most  favourable  verdict  I  can  hope  for, 
"  It  does  rudely  connect  together  certain  facts,  and  I  do  not 
think  it  will  immediately  pass  out  of  my  mind.,,  If  you  can 
say  this  much,  and  you  do  not  think  it  absolutely  ridiculous, 
I  shall  publish  it  in  my  concluding  chapter.  Now  will  you 
grant  me  this  favour  ?  You  must  refuse  if  you  are  too  much 
overworked. 

I  must  say  for  myself  that  I  am  a  hero  to  expose  my  hy- 
pothesis to  the  fiery  ordeal  of  your  criticism. 

July  12,  [1865?]. 
My  dear  Huxley, — I  thank  you  most  sincerely  for  hav- 
ing so  carefully  considered  my  MS.  It  has  been  a  real  act 
of  kindness.  It  would  have  annoyed  me  extremely  to  have 
re-published  Buffon's  views,  which  I  did  not  know  of,  but  I 
will  get  the  book;  and  if  I  have  strength  I  will  also  read 
Bonnet.  I  do  not  doubt  your  judgment  is  perfectly  just, 
and  I  will  try  to  persuade  myself  not  to  publish.  The  whole 
affair  is  much  too  speculative  ;  yet  I  think  some  such  view 
will  have  to  be  adopted,  when  I  call  to  mind  such  facts  as 
the  inherited  effects  of  use  and  disuse,  &c.  But  I  will  try  to 
be  cautious.  .  .  . 

[1865?]. 
My  dear  Huxley, — Forgive  my  writing  in  pencil,  as  I 
can  do  so  lying  down.     I  have  read  Buffon  :  whole  pages 


1866.]  PANGENESIS.  229 

are  laughably  like  mine.  It  is  surprising  how  candid  it 
makes  one  to  see  one's  views  in  another  man's  words.  I  am 
rather  ashamed  of  the  whole  affair,  but  not  converted  to  a 
no-belief.  What  a  kindness  you  have  done  me  with  your 
"  vulpine  sharpness."  Nevertheless,  there  is  a  fundamental 
distinction  between  Buffon's  views  and  mine.  He  does  not 
suppose  that  each  cell  or  atom  of  tissue  throws  off  a  little 
bud  ;  but  he  supposes  that  the  sap  or  blood  includes  his  "  or- 
ganic molecules,"  which  are  ready  formed,  fit  to  nourish  each 
organ,  and  when  this  is  fully  formed,  they  collect  to  form 
buds  and  the  sexual  elements.  It  is  all  rubbish  to  speculate 
as  I  have  done  ;  yet,  if  I  ever  have  strength  to  publish  my 
next  book,  I  fear  I  shall  not  resist  "  Pangenesis,"  but  I  assure 
you  I  will  put  it  humbly  enough.  The  ordinary  course  of 
development  of  beings,  such  as  the  Echinodermata,  in  which 
new  organs  are  formed  at  quite  remote  spots  from  the  analo- 
gous previous  parts,  seem  to  me  extremely  difficult  to  recon- 
cile on  any  view  except  the  free  diffusion  in  the  parent  of 
the  germs  or  gemmules  of  each  separate  new  organ  ;  and  so 
in  cases  of  alternate  generation.  But  I  will  not  scribble  any 
more.  Hearty  thanks  to  you,  you  best  of  critics  and  most 
learned  man 

[The  letters  now  take  up  the  history  of  the  year  1866.] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  July  5  [1866]. 

My  dear  Wallace, — I  have  been  much  interested  by 

your  letter,  which  is  as  clear  as  daylight.     I  fully  agree  with 

all  that  you  say  on  the  advantages  of  H.  Spencer's  excellent 

expression  of  "the  survival  of  the  fittest."*     This,  however, 

*  Extract  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Wallace's,  July  2,  1866:  "The  term 
*  survival  of  the  fittest '  is  the  plain  expression  of  the  fact  ;  '  natural  selec- 
tion' is  a  metaphorical  expression  of  it,  and  to  a  certain  degree  indirect 
and  incorrect,  since  .  .  .  Nature  .  .  .  does  not  so  much  select  special 
varieties  as  exterminate  the  most  unfavourable  ones." 


230  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

had  not  occurred  to  me  till  reading  your  letter.  It  is,  how- 
ever, a  great  objection  to  this  term  that  it  cannot  be  used  as 
a  substantive  governing  a  verb  ;  and  that  this  is  a  real  ob- 
jection I  infer  from  H.  Spencer  continually  using  the  words, 
natural  selection.  I  formerly  thought,  probably  in  an  exag- 
gerated degree,  that  it  was  a  great  advantage  to  bring  into  con- 
nection natural  and  artificial  selection  ;  this  indeed  led  me  to 
use  a  term  in  common,  and  I  still  think  it  some  advantage. 
I  wish  I  had  received  your  letter  two  months  ago,  for  I  would 
have  worked  in  "the  survival,  &c.,',  often  in  the  new  edition 
of  the  '  Origin,'  which  is  now  almost  printed  off,  and  of  which 
I  will  of  course  send  you  a  copy.  I  will  use  the  term  in 
my  next  book  on  Domestic  Animals,  &c,  from  which,  by  the 
way,  I  plainly  see  that  you  expect  much^  too  much.  The  term 
Natural  Selection  has  now  been  so  largely  used  abroad  and 
at  home,  that  I  doubt  whether  it  could  be  given  up,  and  with 
all  its  faults  I  should  be  sorry  to  see  the  attempt  made. 
Whether  it  will  be  rejected  must  now  depend  "on  the  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest.,,  As  in  time  the  term  must  grow  intelli- 
gible the  objections  to  its  use  will  grow  weaker  and  weaker. 
I  doubt  whether  the  use  of  any  term  would  have  made  the 
subject  intelligible  to  some  minds,  clear  as  it  is  to  others  ; 
for  do  we  not  see  even  to  the  present  day  Malthus  on  Popu- 
lation absurdly  misunderstood  ?  This  reflection  about  Mal- 
thus has  often  comforted  me  when  I  have  been  vexed  at  the 
misstatement  of  my  views.  As  for  M.  Janet,*  he  is  a  meta- 
physician, and  such  gentlemen  are  so  acute  that  I  think  they 
often  misunderstand  common  folk.  Your  criticism  on  the 
double  sense  f  in  which  I  have  used  Natural  Selection  is  new 
to  me  and  unanswerable  ;  but  my  blunder  has  done  no  harm, 
for  I  do  not  believe  that  any  one,  excepting  you,  has  ever 

*  This  no  doubt  refers  to  Janet's  '  Materialisme  Contemporain.' 
f  "  I  find  you  use  *  Natural  Selection  '  in  two  senses.  1st,  for  the  sim- 
ple preservation  of  favourable  and  rejection  of  unfavourable  variations,  in 
which  case  it  is  equivalent  to  the  *  survival  of  the  fittest/ — and  2ndly,  for 
the  effect  or  change  produced  by  this  preservation."  Extract  from  Mr, 
Wallace's  letter  above  quoted. 


i866.]  BRITISH   ASSOCIATION.  231 

observed  it.  Again,  I  agree  that  I  have  said  too  much  about 
" favourable  variations;  "  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  you 
put  the  opposite  side  too  strongly  ;  if  every  part  of  every 
being  varied,  I  do  not  think  we  should  see  the  same  end,  or 
object,  gained  by  such  wonderfully  diversified  means. 

I  hope  you  are  enjoying  the  country,  and  are  in  good 
health,  and  are  working  hard  at  your  Malay  Archipelago  book, 
for  I  will  always  put  this  wish  in  every  note  I  write  to  you, 
like  some  good  people  always  put  in  a  text.  My  health  keeps 
much  the  same,  or  rather  improves,  and  I  am  able  to  work 
some  hours  daily.  With  many  thanks  for  your  interesting 
letter. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Wallace,  yours  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Aug.  30  [1866]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — I  was  very  glad  to  get  your  note 
and  the  Notts.  Newspaper.  I  have  seldom  been  more  pleased 
in  my  life  than  at  hearing  how  successfully  your  lecture* 
went  off.  Mrs.  H.  Wedgwood  sent  us  an  account,  saying 
that  you  read  capitally,  and  were  listened  too  with  profound 
attention  and  great  applause.  She  says,  when  your  final 
allegory  f  began,  "  for  a  minute  or  two  we  were  all  mystified, 
and  then  came  such  bursts  of  applause  from  the  audience. 
It  was  thoroughly  enjoyed  amid  roars  of  laughter  and  noise, 
making  a  most  brilliant  conclusion. " 

I  am  rejoiced  that  you  will  publish  your  lecture,  and  felt 
sure  that  sooner  or  later  it  would  come  to   this,  indeed  it 

*  At  the  Nottingham  meeting  of  the  British  Association,  Aug.  27,  1866. 
The  subject  of  the  lecture  was  *  Insular  Floras.'  See  Gardener's  Chronicle, 
1866. 

f  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  allegorized  the  Oxford  meeting  of  the  British 
Association  as  the  gathering  of  a  tribe  of  savages  who  believed  that  the 
new  moon  was  created  afresh  each  month.  The  anger  of  the  priests  and 
medicine  man  at  a  certain  heresy,  according  to  which  the  new  moon  is  but 
the  offspring  of  the  old  one,  is  excellently  given. 


232  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

would  have  been  a  sin  if  you  had  not  done  so.  I  am  espe- 
cially rejoiced  as  you  give  the  arguments  for  occasional  trans- 
port, with  such  perfect  fairness  ;  these  will  now  receive  a 
fair  share  of  attention,  as  coming  from  you  a  professed  bota- 
nist. Thanks  also  for  Grove's  address  ;  as  a  whole  it  strikes 
me  as  very  good  and  original,  but  I  was  disappointed  in  the 
part  about  Species  ;  it  dealt  in  such  generalities  that  it  would 

apply  to  any  view  or  no  view  in  particular 

And  now  farewell.  I  do  most  heartily  rejoice  at  your 
success,  and  for  Grove's  sake  at  the  brilliant  success  of  the 

whole  meeting. 

Yours  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  next  letter  is  of  interest,  as  giving  the  beginning  of 
the  connection  which  arose  between  my  father  and  Professor 
Victor  Carus.  The  translation  referred  to  is  the  third  Ger- 
man edition  made  from  the  fourth  English  one.  From  this 
time  forward  Professor  Carus  continued  to  translate  my 
father's  books  into  German.  The  conscientious  care  with 
which  this  work  was  done  was  of  material  service,  and  I  well 
remember  the  admiration  (mingled  with  a  tinge  of  vexation 
at  his  own  short-comings)  with  which  my  father  used  to 
receive  the  lists  of  oversights,  &c,  which  Professor  Carus 
discovered  in  the  course  of  translation.  The  connection  was 
not  a  mere  business  one,  but  was  cemented  by  warm  feelings 
of  regard  on  both  sides.] 

C.  Darwin  to  Victor  Carus. 

Down,  November  10,  1866. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  thank  you  for  your  extremely  kind 
letter.  I  cannot  express  too  strongly  my  satisfaction  that  you 
have  undertaken  the  revision  of  the  new  edition,  and  I  feel 
the  honour  which  you  have  conferred  on  me.  I  fear  that 
you  will  find  the  labour  considerable,  not  only  on  account  of 
the  additions,  but  I  suspect  that  Bronn's  translation  is  very 
defective,  at  least  I  have  heard  complaints  on  this  head  from 


1866,]  PROF.  VICTOR   CARUS.  233 

quite  a  large  number  of  persons.  It  would  be  a  great  gratifi- 
cation to  me  to  know  that  the  translation  was  a  really  good 
one,  such  as  I  have  no  doubt  you  will  produce.  According 
to  our  English  practice,  you  will  be  fully  justified  in  entirely 
omitting  Bronn's  Appendix,  and  I  shall  be  very  glad  of  its 
omission.  A  new  edition  may  be  looked  at  as  a  new  work. 
....  You  could  add  anything  of  your  own  that  you  liked, 
and  I  should  be  much  pleased.  Should  you  make  any  addi- 
tions or  append  notes,  it  appears  to  me  that  Nageli  "  Ent- 
stehung  und  Begriff,"  &c.,*  would  be  worth  noticing,  as  one  of 
the  most  able  pamphlets  on  the  subject.  I  am,  however,  far 
from  agreeing  with  him  that  the  acquisition  of  certain  char- 
acters which  appear  to  be  of  no  service  to  plants,  offers  any 
great  difficulty,  or  affords  a  proof  of  some  innate  tendency 
in  plants  towards  perfection.  If  you  intend  to  notice  this 
pamphlet,  I  should  like  to  write  hereafter  a  little  more  in 
detail  on  the  subject. 

....  I  wish  I  had  known  when  writing  my  Historical 
Sketch  that  you  had  in  1853  published  your  views  on  the 
genealogical  connection  of  past  and  present  forms. 

I  suppose  you  have  the  sheets  of  the  last  English  edition 
on  which  I  marked  with  pencil  all  the  chief  additions,  but 
many  little  corrections  of  style  were  not  marked. 

Pray  believe  that  I  feel  sincerely  grateful  for  the  great 
service  and  honour  which  you  do  me  by  the  present  trans- 
lation. 

I  remain,  my  dear  Sir,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  should  be  very  much  pleased  to  possess  your 
photograph,  and  I  send  mine  in  case  you  should  like  to  have 
a  copy. 

*  '  Entstehung  und  Begriff  der  Naturhistorischen  Art.'  An  Address 
given  at  a  public  meeting  of  the  '  R.  Academy  of  Sciences'  at  Munich, 
Mar.  28,  1865. 


234  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  fi866. 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Nageli* 

Down,  June  12  [1866]. 

Dear  Sir, — I  hope  you  will  excuse  the  liberty  which  I 
take  in  writing  to  you.  I  have  just  read,  though  imperfectly, 
your  '  Entstehung  und  Begriff,'  and  have  been  so  greatly 
interested  by  it,  that  I  have  sent  it  to  be  translated,  as  I  am 
a  poor  German  scholar.  I  have  just  finished  a  new  [4th] 
edition  of  my  '  Origin,'  which  will  be  translated  into  German, 
and  my  object  in  writing  to  you  is  to  say  that  if  you  should 
see  this  edition  you  would  think  that  I  had  borrowed  from 
you,  without  acknowledgment,  two  discussions  on  the  beauty 
of  flowers  and  fruit  ;  but  I  assure  you  every  word  was  printed 
off  before  I  had  opened  your  pamphlet.  Should  you  like  to 
possess  a  copy  of  either  the  German  or  English  new  edition, 
I  should  be  proud  to  send  one.  I  may  add,  with  respect  to  the 
beauty  of  flowers,  that  I  have  already  hinted  the  same  views 
as  you  hold  in  my  paper  on  Lythrum. 

Many  of  your  criticisms  on  my  views  are  the  best  which  I 
have  met  with,  but  I  could  answer  some,  at  least  to  my  own 
satisfaction  ;  and  I  regret  extremely  that  I  had  not  read  your 
pamphlet  before  printing  my  new  edition.  On  one  or  two 
points,  I  think,  you  have  a  little  misunderstood  me,  though  I 
dare  say  I  have  not  been  cautious  in  expressing  myself.  The 
remark  which  has  struck  me  most,  is  that  on  the  position  of 
the  leaves  not  having  been  acquired  through  natural  selec- 
tion, from  not  being  of  any  special  importance  to  the  plant. 
I  well  remember  being  formerly  troubled  by  an  analogous 
difficulty,  namely,  the  position  of  the  ovules,  their  anatropous 
condition,  &c.  It  was  owing  to  forgetfulness  that  I  did  not 
notice  this  difficulty  in  the  '  Origin/  f  Although  I  can  offer 
no  explanation  of  such  facts,  and  only  hope  to  see  that  they 
may  be  explained,  yet  I  hardly  see  how  they  support  the 
doctrine  of  some  law  of  necessary  development,  for  it  is  not 

*  Professor  of  Botany  at  Munich. 

f  Nageli's  Essay  is  noticed  in  the  5th  edition. 


1866.]  NAGELI   ON   SPECIES.  235 

clear  to  me  that  a  plant,  with  its  leaves  placed  at  some  par- 
ticular angle,  or  with  its  ovules  in  some  particular  position, 
thus  stands  higher  than  another  plant.  But  I  must  apologise 
for  troubling  you  with  these  remarks. 

As  I  much  wish  to  possess  your  photograph,  I  take  the 
liberty  of  enclosing  my  own,  and  with  sincere  respect  I  re- 
main, dear  Sir,  Yours  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[I  give  a  few  extracts  from  letters  of  various  dates  show- 
ing my  fathers  interest,  alluded  to  in  the  last  letter,  in  the 
problem  of  the  arrangement  of  the  leaves  on  the  stems  of 
plants.  It  may  be  added  that  Professor  Schwendener  of 
Berlin  has  successfully  attacked  the  question  in  his'Mechan- 
ische  Theorie  der  Blattstellungen,'  1878. 

To  Dr.  Falconer. 

August  26  [1863]. 

u  Do  you  remember  telling  me  that  I  ought  to  study  Phyllo- 
taxy  ?  well  I  have  often  wished  you  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea  ; 
for  I  could  not  resist,  and  I  muddled  my  brains  with  dia- 
grams, &c,  and  specimens,  and  made  out,  as  might  have 
been  expected,  nothing.  Those  angles  are  a  most  wonderful 
problem  and  I  wish  I  could  see  some  one  give  a  rational  ex- 
planation of  them.,, 

To  Dr.  Asa  Gray. 

May  11  [1861]. 

"  If  you  wish  to  save  me  from  a  miserable  death,  do  tell 
me  why  the  angles  |-,  -J,  f,  -§-,  &c .,  series  occur,  and  no  other 
angles.  It  is  enough  to  drive  the  quietest  man  mad.  Did 
you  and  some  mathematician  *  publish  some  paper  on,  the 
subject?    Hooker  says  you  did;  where  is  it? 

*  Probably  my  father  was  thinking  of  Chauncey  Wright's  work  on 
Phyllotaxy,  in  Gould's  'Astronomical  Journal/  No.  99,  1856,  and  in  the 
*  Mathematical  Monthly,'  1859.  These  papers  are  mentioned  in  the  '  Let- 
ters of  Chauncey  Wright.'  Mr.  Wright  corresponded  with  my  father  on 
the  subject. 

52 


236  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

To  Dr.  Asa  Gray. 

[May  3T,  1863?]. 

"I  have  been  looking  at  Nageli's  work  on  this  subject, 
and  am  astonished  to  see  that  the  angle  is  not  always  the  same 
in  young  shoots  when  the  leaf-buds  are  first  distinguishable, 
as  in  full-grown  branches.  This  shows,  I  think,  that  there 
must  be  some  potent  cause  for  those  angles  which  do  occur : 
I  dare  say  there  is  some  explanation  as  simple  as  that  for  the 
angles  of  the  Bees-cells." 

My  father  also  corresponded  with  Dr.  Hubert  Airy  and 
was  interested  in  his  views  on  the  subject,  published  in  the 
Royal  Soc.  Proceedings,  1873,  p.  176. 

We  now  return  to  the  year  1866. 

In  November,  when  the  prosecution  of  Governor  Eyre 
was  dividing  England  into  two  bitterly  opposed  parties,  he 
wrote  to  Sir  J.  Hooker  : — 

"  You  will  shriek  at  me  when  you  hear  that  I  have  just 
subscribed  to  the  Jamaica  Committee."  * 

On  this  subject  I  quote  from  a  letter  of  my  brother's  : — 

"  With  respect  to  Governor  Eyre's  conduct  in  Jamaica, 
he  felt  strongly  that  J.  S.  Mill  was  right  in  prosecuting  him. 
I  remember  one  evening,  at  my  Uncle's,  we  were  talking  on 
the  subject,  and  as  I  happened  to  think  it  was  too  strong  a 
measure  to  prosecute  Governor  Eyre  for  murder,  I  made 
some  foolish  remark  about  the  prosecutors  spending  the  sur- 
plus of  the  fund  in  a  dinner.  My  father  turned  on  me  almost 
with  fury,  and  told,  me  if  those  were  my  feelings,  I  had  bet- 
ter go  back  to  Southampton ;  the  inhabitants  having  given  a 
dinner  to  Governor  Eyre  on  his  landing,  but  with  which  I 
had  had  nothing  to  do."  The  end  of  the  incident,  as  told  by 
my  brother,  is  so  characteristic  of  my  father  that  I  cannot 
resist  giving  it,  though  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  point  at  issue. 
"  Next  morning  at   7  o'clock,  or  so,  he  came  into  my  bed- 

*  He  subscribed  £\o. 


x866.]  GOVERNOR   EYRE.  237 

room  and  sat  on  my  bed,  and  said  that  he  had  not  been  able 
to  sleep  from  the  thought  that  he  had  been  so  angry  with  me, 
and  after  a  few  more  kind  words  he  left  me." 

The  same  restless  desire  to  correct  a  disagreeable  or  in- 
correct impression  is  well  illustrated  in  an  extract  which  I 
quote  from  some  notes  by  Rev.  J.  Brodie  Innes  : — 

"  Allied  to  the  extreme  carefulness  of  observation  was  his 
most  remarkable  truthfulness  in  all  matters.  On  one  occa- 
sion, when  a  parish  meeting  had  been  held  on  some  disputed 
point  of  no  great  importance,  I  was  surprised  by  a  visit  from 
Mr.  Darwin  at  night.  He  came  to  say  that,  thinking  over 
the  debate,  though  what  he  had  said  was  quite  accurate,  he 
thought  I  might  have  drawn  an  erroneous  conclusion,  and  he 
would  not  sleep  till  he  had  explained  it.  I  believe  that  if  on 
any  day  some  certain  fact  had  come  to  his  knowledge  which 
contradicted  his  most  cherished  theories,  he  would  have 
placed  the  fact  on  record  for  publication  before  he  slept." 

This  tallies  with  my  father's  habits,  as  described  by  him- 
self. When  a  difficulty  or  an  objection  occurred  to  him,  he 
thought  it  of  paramount  importance  to  make  a  note  of  it  in- 
stantly because  he  found  hostile  facts  to  be  especially  eva- 
nescent. 

The  same  point  is  illustrated  by  the  following  incident, 
for  which  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Romanes  :  — 

"  I  have  always  remembered  the  following  little  incident 
as  a  good  example  of  Mr.  Darwin's  extreme  solicitude  on  the 
score  of  accuracy.  One  evening  at  Down  there  was  a  gen- 
eral conversation  upon  the  difficulty  of  explaining  the  evolu- 
tion of  some  of  the  distinctively  human  emotions,  especially 
those  appertaining  to  the  recognition  of  beauty  in  natural 
scenery.  I  suggested  a  view  of  my  own  upon  the  subject, 
which,  depending  upon  the  principle  of  association,  required 
the  supposition  that  a  long  line  of  ancestors  should  have  in- 
habited regions,  the  scenery  of  which  is  now  regarded  as 
beautiful.  Just  as  I  was  about  to  observe  that  the  chief  diffi- 
culty attaching  to  my  hypothesis  arose  from  feelings  of  the 
sublime  (seeing  that  these  are  associated  with  awe,  and  might 


238  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

therefore  be  expected  not  to  be  agreeable),  Mr.  Darwin  an- 
ticipated the  remark,  by  asking  how  the  hypothesis  was  to 
meet  the  case  of  these  feelings.  In  the  conversation  which 
followed,  he  said  the  occasion  in  his  own  life,  when  he  was 
most  affected  by  the  emotions  of  the  sublime  was  when  he 
stood  upon  one  of  the  summits  of  the  Cordillera,  and  sur- 
veyed the  magnificent  prospect  all  around.  It  seemed,  as  he 
quaintly  observed,  as  if  his  nerves  had  become  fiddle-strings, 
and  had  all  taken  to  rapidly  vibrating.  This  remark  was 
only  made  incidentally,  and  the  conversation  passed  into 
some  other  branch.  About  an  hour  afterwards  Mr.  Darwin 
retired  to  rest,  while  I  sat  up  in  the  smoking-room  with  one 
of  his  sons.  We  continued  smoking  and  talking  for  several 
hours,  when  at  about  one  o'clock  in  the  morning  the  door 
gently  opened  and  Mr.  Darwin  appeared,  in  his  slippers  and 
dressing-gown.  As  nearly  as  I  can  remember,  the  following 
are  the  words  he  used  : — 

"  '  Since  I  went  to  bed  I  have  been  thinking  over  our  con- 
versation in  the  drawing-room,  and  it  has  just  occurred  to 
me  that  I  was  wrong  in  telling  you  I  felt  most  of  the  sublime 
when  on  the  top  of  the  Cordillera  ;  I  am  quite  sure  that  I 
felt  it  even  more  when  in  the  forests  of  Brazil.  I  thought  it 
best  to  come  and  tell  you  this  at  once  in  case  I  should  be 
putting  you  wrong.  I  am  sure  now  that  I  felt  most  sublime 
in  the  forests/ 

"  This  was  all  he  had  come  to  say,  and  it  was  evident  that 
he  had  come  to  do  so,  because  he  thought  that  the  fact  of  his 
feeling  '  most  sublime  in  forests  '  was  more  in  accordance 
with  the  hypothesis  which  we  had  been  discussing,  than  the 
fact  which  he  had  previously  stated.  Now,  as  no  one  knew 
better  than  Mr.  Darwin  the  difference  between  a  speculation 
and  a  fact,  I  thought  this  little  exhibition  of  scientific  con- 
scientiousness very  noteworthy,  where  the  only  question  con- 
cerned was  of  so  highly  speculative  a  character.  I  should  not 
have  been  so  much  impressed  if  he  had  thought  that  by  his 
temporary  failure  of  memory  he  had  put  me  on  a  wrong  scent 
in  any  matter  of  fact,  although  even  in  such  a  case  he  is  the 


1866.]  DISTRIBUTION.  239 

only  man  I  ever  knew  who  would  care  to  get  out  of  bed  at 
such  a  time  at  night  in  order  to  make  the  correction  immedi- 
ately, instead  of  waiting  till  next  morning.  But  as  the  cor- 
rection only  had  reference  to  a  flimsy  hypothesis,  I  certainly 
was  very  much  impressed  by  this  display  of  character."] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  December  10  [1866]. 

....  I  have  now  read  the  last  No.  of  H.  Spencer.*  I 
do  not  know  whether  to  think  it  better  than  the  previous 
number,  but  it  is  wonderfully  clever,  and  I  dare  say  mostly 
true.  I  feel  rather  mean  when  I  read  him  :  I  could  bear,  and 
rather  enjoy  feeling  that  he  was  twice  as  ingenious  and  clever 
as  myself,  but  when  I  feel  that  he  is  about  a  dozen  times 
my  superior,  even  in  the  master  art  of  wriggling,  I  feel  ag- 
grieved. If  he  had  trained  himself  to  observe  more,  even  if 
at  the  expense,  by  the  law  of  balancement,  of  some  loss  of 
thinking  power,  he  would  have  been  a  wonderful  man. 

....  I  am  heartily  glad  you  are  taking  up  the  Distribu- 
tion of  Plants  in  New  Zealand,  and  suppose  it  will  make 
part  of  your  new  book.  Your  view,  as  I  understand  it, 
that  New  Zealand  subsided  and  formed  two  or  more  small 
islands,  and  then  rose  again,  seems  to  me  extremely  proba- 
ble  When  I  puzzled  my  brains  about  New  Zealand,  I 

remember  I  came  to  the  conclusion,  as  indeed  I  state  in  the 
1  Origin/  that  its  flora,  as  well  as  that  of  other  southern  lands, 
had  been  tinctured  by  an  Antarctic  flora,  which  must  have  ex- 
isted before  the  Glacial  period.  I  concluded  that  New  Zea- 
land never  could  have  been  closely  connected  with  Australia, 
though  I  supposed  it  had  received  some  few  Australian  forms 
by  occasional  means  of  transport.  Is  there  any  reason  to 
suppose  that  New  Zealand  could  have  been  more  closely 
connected  with  South  Australia  during  the  glacial  period, 
when  the  Eucalypti,  &c,  might  have  been  driven  further 
North  ?     Apparently  there   remains  only  the  line,  which  I 


#  < 


Principles  of  Biology.' 


240  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

think  you  suggested,  of  sunken  islands  from  New  Caledonia. 

Please  remember  that  the  Edwardsia  was   certainly  drifted 

there  by  the  sea. 

I  remember  in  old  days  speculating  on  the  amount  of  life, 

i.e.  of  organic  chemical  change,  at  different  periods.     There 

seems    to    me   one  very  difficult    element   in    the    problem, 

namely,  the  state  of  development  of  the  organic  beings  at  each 

period,  for  I  presume  that  a  Flora  and    Fauna   of  cellular 

cryptogamic  plants,  of  Protozoa  and  Radiata  would  lead  to 

much  less  chemical  change  than  is  now  going  on.     But  I  have 

scribbled  enough. 

Yours  affectionately, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  is  in  acknowledgment  of  Mr.  Rivers' 
reply  to  an  earlier  letter  in  which  my  father  had  asked  for 
information  on  bud-variation  : 

It  may  find  a  place  here  in  illustration  of  the  manner  of 
my  father's  intercourse  with  those  " whose  avocations  in  life, 
had  to  do  with  the  rearing  or  use  of  living  things  "  * — an  in- 
tercourse which  bore  such  good  fruit  in  the  '  Variation  of 
Animals  and  Plants.'  Mr.  Dyer  has  some  excellent  remarks 
on  the  unexpected  value  thus  placed  on  apparently  trivial  facts 
disinterred  from  weekly  journals,  or  amassed  by  correspond- 
ence. He  adds  :  "  Horticulturists  who  had  ....  moulded 
plants  almost  at  their  will  at  the  impulse  of  taste  or  profit 
were  at  once  amazed  and  charmed  to  find  that  they  had  been 
doing  scientific  work  and  helping  to  establish  a  great  theory."] 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  River s.\ 

Down,  December  28  [1866?] 
My  dear  Sir, — Permit   me   to  thank  you  cordially  for 
your  most  kind  letter.     For  years  I  have  read  with  interest 

*  "  Mr.  Dyer  in  '  Charles  Darwin,' "  Nature  Series,  1882,  p.  39. 
f  The  late  Mr.  Rivers  was  an  eminent  horticulturist  and  writer  on 
horticulture. 


1866.]  SCIENCE   AND    HORTICULTURE.  241 

every  scrap  which  you  have  written  in  periodicals,  and  ab- 
stracted in  MS.  your  book  on  Roses,  and  several  times  I 
thought  I  would  write  to  you,  but  did  not  know  whether  you 
would  think  me  too  intrusive.  I  shall,  indeed,  be  truly 
obliged  for  any  information  you  can  supply  me  on  bud-varia- 
tion or  sports.  When  any  extra  difficult  points  occur  to  me 
in  my  present  subject  (which  is  a  mass  of  difficulties),  I  will 
apply  to  you,  but  I  will  not  be  unreasonable.  It  is  most  true 
what  you  say  that  any  one  to  study  well  the  physiology  of  the 
life  of  plants,  ought  to  have  under  his  eye  a  multitude  of 
plants.  I  have  endeavoured  to  do  what  I  can  by  comparing 
statements  by  many  writers  and  observing  what  I  could  my- 
self. Unfortunately  few  have  observed  like  you  have  done. 
As  you  are  so  kind,  I  will  mention  one  other  point  on  which 
I  am  collecting  facts  ;  namely,  the  effect  produced  on  the 
stock  by  the  graft  ;  thus,  it  is  said,  that  the  purple-leaved  fil- 
bert affects  the  leaves  of  the  common  hazel  on  which  it  is 
grafted  (I  have  just  procured  a  plant  to  try),  so  variegated 
jessamine  is  said  to  affect  its  stock.  I  want  these  facts  partly 
to  throw  light  on  the  marvellous  laburnum  Adami,  trifacial 
oranges,  &c.  That  laburnum  case  seems  one  of  the  strangest 
in  physiology.  I  have  now  growing  splendid,  fertile,  yellow 
laburnums  (with  a  long  raceme  like  the  so-called  Waterer's 
laburnum)  from  seed  of  yellow  flowers  on  the  C.  Adami,  To 
a  man  like  myself,  who  is  compelled  to  live  a  solitary  life, 
and  sees  few  persons,  it  is  no  slight  satisfaction  to  hear  that  I 
have  been  able  at  all  [to]  interest  by  my  books  observers  like 
yourself. 

As  I  shall  publish  on  my  present  subject,  I  presume,  within 
a  year,  it  will  be  of  no  use  your  sending  me  the  shoots  of  peaches 
and  nectarines  which  you  so  kindly  offer ;  I  have  recorded 
your  facts. 

Permit  me  again  to  thank  you  cordially ;  I  have  not  often 
in  my  life  received  a  kinder  letter. 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 


CHAPTER   V. 

the  publication  of  the  *  variation  of  animals  and 
plants  under  domestication.' 

January  1867,  to  June  1868. 

[At  the  beginning  of  the  year  1867  he  was  at  work  on  the 
final  chapter — u  Concluding  Remarks  "  of  the"  '  Variation  of 
Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication/  which  was  begun 
after  the  rest  of  the  MS.  had  been  sent  to  the  printers  in  the 
preceding  December.  With  regard  to  the  publication  of  the 
book  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Murray,  on  January  3  : — 

"  I  cannot  tell  you  how  sorry  I  am  to  hear  of  the  enor- 
mous size  of  my  book.*  I  fear  it  can  never  pay.  But  I  can- 
not shorten  it  now ;  nor,  indeed,  if  I  had  foreseen  its  length, 
do  I  see  which  parts  ought  to  have  been  omitted. 

"  If  you  are  afraid  to  publish  it,  say  so  at  once,  I  beg  you, 
and  I  will  consider  your  note  as  cancelled.  If  you  think  fit, 
get  any  one  whose  judgment  you  rely  on,  to  look  over  some 
of  the  more  legible  chapters,  namely,  the  Introduction,  and 
on  dogs  and  plants,  the  latter  chapters  being  in  my  opinion, 
the  dullest  in  the  book.  .  .  .  The  list  of  chapters,  and  the 
inspection  of  a  few  here  and  there,  would  give  a  good  judge 

*  On  January  9  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker :  "  I  have  been  these 
last  few  days  vexed  and  annoyed  to  a  foolish  degree  by  hearing  that  my 
MS.  on  Dom.  An.  and  Cult.  Plants  will  make  2  vols.,  both  bigger  than  the 
*  Origin.'  The  volumes  will  have  to  be  full-sized  octavo,  so  I  have  writ- 
ten to  Murray  to  suggest  details  to  be  printed  in  small  type.  But  I  feel 
that  the  size  is  quite  ludicrous  in  relation  to  the  subject.  I  am  ready  to 
swear  at  myself  and  at  every  fool  who  writes  a  book." 


t867.]  'JOURNAL   OF   RESEARCHES/  243 

a  fair  idea  of  the  whole  book.  Pray  do  not  publish  blindly, 
as  it  would  vex  me  all  my  life  if  I  led  you  to  heavy  loss." 

Mr.  Murray  referred  the  MS.  to  a  literary  friend,  and,  in 
spite  of  a  somewhat  adverse  opinion,  willingly  agreed  to  pub- 
lish the  book.     My  father  wrote  : — 

"  Your  note  has  been  a  great  relief  to  me.  I  am  rather 
alarmed  about  the  verdict  of  your  friend,  as  he  is  not  a  man 
of  science.  I  think  if  you  had  sent  the  '  Origin  '  to  an  un- 
scientific man,  he  would  have  utterly  condemned  it.  I  am, 
however,  very  glad  that  you  have  consulted  any  one  on  whom 
you  can  rely. 

"  I  must  add,  that  my  i  Journal  of  Researches '  was  seen 
in  MS.  by  an  eminent  semi-scientific  man,  and  was  pronounced 
unfit  for  publication.,, 

The  proofs  were  begun  in  March,  and  the  last  revise  was 
finished  on  November  15th,  and  during  this  period  the  only 
intervals  of  rest  were  two  visits  of  a  week  each  at  his  brother 
Erasmus's  house  in  Queen  Anne  Street.  He  notes  in  his 
Diary  : — 

"I  began  this  book  [in  the]  beginning  of  i860  (and  then 
had  some  MS.),  but  owing  to  interruptions  from  my  illness, 
and  illness  of  children  ;  from  various  editions  of  the  '  Origin/ 
and  Papers,  especially  Orchis  book  and  Tendrils,  I  have 
spent  four  years  and  two  months  over  it." 

The  edition  of  ' Animals  and  Plants'  was  of  1500  copies, 
and  of  these  1260  were  sold  at  Mr.  Murray's  autumnal  sale, 
but  it  was  not  published  until  January  30,  1868.  A  new  edi- 
tion of  1250  copies  was  printed  in  February  of  the  same  year. 

In  1867  ne  received  the  distinction  of  being  made  a 
knight  of  the  Prussian  Order  "  Pour  le  Merite."  *     He  seems 

*  The  Order  "  Pour  le  Merite  "  was  founded  in  1740  by  Frederick  II. 
by  the  re-christening  of  an  "Order  of  Generosity,"  founded  in  1665.  It 
was  at  one  time  strictly  military,  having  been  previously  both  civil  and 
military,  and  in  1840  the  Order  was  again  opened  to  civilians.  The  order 
consists  of  thirty  members  of  German  extraction,  but  distinguished  foreign- 
ers are  admitted  to  a  kind  of  extraordinary  membership.  Faraday,  Her- 
schel,  and  Thomas  Moore,  have  belonged  to  it  in  this  way.     From  the 


244  'VARIATION    UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

not  to  have  known  how  great  the  distinction  was,  for  in  June 
1868  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  : — 

"What    a    man    you    are    for   sympathy.       I   was   made 
"  Eques  "  some  months  ago,  but  did  not  think  much  about  it. 

Now,  by  Jove,  we  all   do  ;  but  you,  in  fact,  have  knighted 

it 
me. 

The  letters  may  now  take  up  the  story.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  JD.  Hooker. 

Down,  February  8  [1867]. 
My  dear  Hooker, — I  am  heartily  glad  that  you  have 
been  offered  the  Presidentship  of  the  British  Association,  for 
it  is  a  great  honour,  and  as  you  have  so  much  work  to  do,  I 
am  equally  glad  that  you  have  declined  it.  I  feel,  however, 
convinced  that  you  would  have  succeeded  very  well ;  but  if 
I  fancy  myself  in  such  a  position,  it  actually  makes  my  blood 
run  cold.  I  look  back  with  amazement  at  the  skill  and  taste 
with  which  the  Duke  of  Argyll  made  a  multitude  of  little 
speeches  at  Glasgow.  By  the  way,  I  have  not  seen  the 
Duke's  book,*  but  I  formerly  thought  that  some  of  the  arti- 
cles which  appeared  in  periodicals  were  very  clever,  but  not 
very  profound.  One  of  these  was  reviewed  in  the  Saturday 
Review  f  some  years  ago,  and  the  fallacy  of  some  main  argu- 
ment was  admirably  exposed,  and  I  sent  the  article  to  you, 
and  you  agreed  strongly  with  it.  .  .  .  There  was  the  other 
day  a  rather  good  review  of  the  Duke's  book  in  the  Spectator, 
and  with  a  new  explanation,  either  by  the  Duke  or  the  re- 
viewer (I  could  not  make  out  which),  of  rudimentary  organs, 
namely,  that  economy  of  labour  and   material  was  a  great 

thirty  members  a  chancellor  is  elected  by  the  king  (the  first  officer  of  this 
kind  was  Alexander  v.  Humboldt) ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  chancellor  to 
notify  a  vacancy  in  the  Order  to  the  remainder  of  the  thirty,  who  then 
elect  by  vote  the  new  member — but  the  king  has  technically  the  appoint- 
ment in  his  own  hands. 

*  '  The  Reign  of  Law/  1867. 

f  Sat.  Review ■,  Nov.  15,  1862,  *  The  Edinburgh  Review  on  the  Su- 
pernatural.'    Written  by  my  cousin,  Mr.  Henry  Parker. 


1867.]  'REIGN   OF   LAW.'  245 

guiding  principle  with  God  (ignoring  waste  of  seed  and  of 
young  monsters,  &c),  and  that  making  a  new  plan  for  the 
structure  of  animals  was  thought,  and  thought  was  labour, 
and  therefore  God  kept  to  a  uniform  plan,  and  left  rudiments. 
This  is  no  exaggeration.  In  short,  God  is  a  man,  rather 
cleverer  than  us.  ...  I  am  very  much  obliged  for  the  Nation 
(returned  by  this  post)  ;  it  is  admirably  good.  You  say  I  al- 
ways guess  wrong,  but  I  do  not  believe  any  one,  except  Asa 
Gray,  could  have  done  the  thing  so  well.  I  would  bet  even, 
or  three  to  two,  that  it  is  Asa  Gray,  though  one  or  two  pas- 
sages staggered  me. 

I  finish  my  book  on  '  Domestic  Animals,'  &c,  by  a  single 
paragraph,  answering,  or  rather  throwing  doubt,  in  so  far  as 
so  little  space  permits,  on  Asa  Gray's  doctrine  that  each 
variation  has  been  specially  ordered  or  led  along  a  beneficial 
line.  It  is  foolish  to  touch  such  subjects,  but  there  have  been 
so  many  allusions  to  what  I  think  about  the  part  which  God 
has  played  in  the  formation  of  organic  beings,*  that  I 
thought  it  shabby  to  evade  the  question.  ...  I  have  even 
received  several  letters  on  the  subject.  ...  I  overlooked 
your  sentence  about  Providence,  and  suppose  I  treated  it  as 
Buckland  did  his  own  theology,  when  his  Bridgewater  Treat- 
ise was  read  aloud  to  him  for  correction.  .  .  . 

[The  following  letter,  from  Mrs.  Boole,  is  one  of  those 
referred  to  in  the  last  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker :] 

Dear  Sir, — Will  you  excuse  my  venturing  to  ask  you  a 
question,  to  which  no  one's  answer  but  your  own  would  be 
quite  satisfactory? 

*  Prof.  Judd  allows  me  to  quote  from  some  notes  which  he  has  kindly 
given  me : — "  Lyell  once  told  me  that  he  had  frequently  been  asked  if 
Darwin  was  not  one  of  the  most  unhappy  of  men,  it  being  suggested  that 
his  outrage  upon  public  opinion  should  have  filled  him  with  remorse."  Sir 
Charles  Lyell  must  have  been  able,  I  think,  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer 
on  this  point.     Professor  Judd  continues  : — 

"  I  made  a  note  of  this  and  other  conversations  of  Lyell's  at  the  time. 


246  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

Do  you  consider  the  holding  of  your  theory  of  Natural 
Selection,  in  its  fullest  and  most  unreserved  sense,  to  be 
inconsistent — I  do  not  say  with  any  particular  scheme  of 
theological  doctrine — but  with  the  following  belief,  namely  : — 

That  knowledge  is  given  to  man  by  the  direct  inspiration 
of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

That  God  is  a  personal  and  Infinitely  good  Being. 

That  the  effect  of  the  action  of  the  Spirit  of  God  on  the 
brain  of  man  is  especially  a  moral  effect. 

And  that  each  individual  man  has  within  certain  limits  a 
power  of  choice  as  to  how  far  he  will  yield  to  his  hereditary 
animal  impulses,  and  how  far  he  will  rather  follow  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Spirit,  who  is  educating  him  into  a  power  of  re- 
sisting those  impulses  in  obedience  to  moral  motives  ? 

The  reason  why  I  ask  you  is  this  :  my  own  impression  has 
always  been,  not  only  that  your  theory  was  perfectly  com- 
patible  with  the  faith  to  which  I  have  just  tried  to  give 
expression,  but  that  your  books  afforded  me  a  clue  which 
would  guide  me  in  applying  that  faith  to  the  solution  of 
certain  complicated  psychological  problems  which  it  was 
of  practical  importance  to  me  as  a  mother  to  solve.  I  felt 
that  you  had  supplied  one  of  the  missing  links — not  to  say 
the  missing  link — between  the  facts  of  science  and  the  prom- 
ises of  religion.  Every  year's  experience  tends  to  deepen 
in  me  that  impression. 

But  I  have  lately  read  remarks  on  the  probable  bearing  of 
your  theory  on  religious  and  moral  questions  which  have 
perplexed  and  pained  me  sorely.  I  know  that  the  persons 
who  make  such  remarks  must  be  cleverer  and  wiser  than 
myself.  I  cannot  feel  sure  that  they  are  mistaken,  unless 
you  will  tell  me  so.  And  I  think — I  cannot  know  for  certain 
— but  I  think — that  if  I  were  an  author,  I  would  rather  that 
the  humblest  student  of  my  works  should  apply  to  me  directly 

At  the  present  time  such  statements  must  appear  strange  to  any  one  wh* 
does  not  recollect  the  revolution  in  opinion  which  has  taken  place  during 
the  last  23  years  [1882]." 


1867.]  EVOLUTION   AND   RELIGION.  247 

in  a  difficulty,  than  that  she  should  puzzle  too   long  over 
adverse  and  probably  mistaken  or  thoughtless  criticisms. 

At  the  same  time  I  feel  that  you  have  a  perfect  right  to 
refuse  to  answer  such  questions  as  I  have  asked  you.  Science 
must  take  her  path,  and  Theology  hers,  and  they  will  meet 
when  and  where  and  how  God  pleases,  and  you  are  in  no 
sense  responsible  for  it  if  the  meeting-point  should  still  be 
very  far  off.  If  I  receive  no  answer  to  this  letter  I  shall  infer 
nothing  from  your  silence,  except  that  you  felt  I  had  no  right 
to  make  such  inquiries  of  a  stranger. 

[My  father  replied  as  follows  :] 

Down,  December  14,  [1866]. 

Dear  Madam, — It  would  have  gratified  me  much  if  I 
could  have  sent  satisfactory  answers  to  your  questions,  or, 
indeed,  answers  of  any  kind.  But  I  cannot  see  how  the  be- 
lief that  all  organic  beings,  including  man,  have  been  geneti- 
cally derived  from  some  simple  being,  instead  of  having  been 
separately  created,  bears  on  your  difficulties.  These,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  can  be  answered  only  by  widely  different  evi- 
dence from  science,  or  by  the  so-called  "  inner  consciousness. " 
My  opinion  is  not  worth  more  than  that  of  any  other  man 
who  has  thought  on  such  subjects,  and  it  would  be  folly  in 
me  to  give  it.  I  may,  however,  remark  that  it  has  always  ap- 
peared to  me  more  satisfactory  to  look  at  the  immense  amount 
of  pain  and  suffering  in  this  world  as  the  inevitable  result  of 
the  natural  sequence  of  events,  i.e.  general  laws,  rather  than 
from  the  direct  intervention  of  God,  though  I  am  aware  this 
is  not  logical  with  reference  to  an  omniscient  Deity.  Your 
last  question  seems  to  resolve  itself  into  the  problem  of  free 
will  and  necessity,  which  has  been  found  by  most  persons 
insoluble.  I  sincerely  wish  that  this  note  had  not  been  as 
utterly  valueless  as  it  is.  I  would  have  sent  full  answers, 
though  I  have  little  time  or  strength  to  spare,  had  it  been  in 
my  power.     I  have  the  honour  to  remain,  dear  Madam, 

Yours  very  faithfully, 
Charles  Darwin. 


248  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

P.S. — I  am  grieved  that  my  views  should  incidentally  have 
caused  trouble  to  your  mind,  but  I  thank  you  for  your  judg- 
ment, and  honour  you  for  it,  that  theology  and  science  should 
each  run  its  own  course,  and  that  in  the  present  case  I  am 
not  responsible  if  their  meeting-point  should  still  be  far  off. 

[The  next  letter  discusses  the  '  Reign  of  Law/  referred 
to  a  few  pages  back  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

Down,  June  1  [1867]. 

...  I  am  at  present  reading  the  Duke,  and  am  very  much 
interested  by  him  ;  yet  I  cannot  but  think,  clever  as  the  whole 
is,  that  parts  are  weak,  as  when  he  doubts  whether  each  curva- 
ture of  the  beak  of  humming-birds  is  of  service  to  each  spe- 
cies. He  admits,  perhaps  too  fully,  that  I  have  shown  the 
use  of  each  little  ridge  and  shape  of  each  petal  in  orchids, 
and  how  strange  he  does  not  extend  the  view  to  humming- 
birds. Still  odder,  it  seems  to  me,  all  that  he  says  on  beauty, 
which  I  should  have  thought  a  nonentity,  except  in  the  mind 
of  some  sentient  being.  He  might  have  as  well  said  that  love 
existed  during  the  secondary  or  Palaeozoic  periods.  I  hope 
you  are  getting  on  with  your  book  better  than  I  am  with 
mine,  which  kills  me  with  the  labour  of  correcting,  and  is 
intolerably  dull,  though  I  did  not  think  so  when  I  was  writ- 
ing it.  A  naturalist's  life  would  be  a  happy  one  if  he  had 
only  to  observe,  and  never  to  write. 

We  shall  be  in  London  for  a  week  in  about  a  fortnight's 
time,  and  I  shall  enjoy  having  a  breakfast  talk  with  you. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  the  new  and  improved 
translation  of  the  '  Origin,'  undertaken  by  Professor  Carus  :] 


1867.]  GERMAN   'ORIGIN/  249 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  Victor  Carus. 

Down,  February  17  [1867]. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  have  read  your  preface  with  care.  It 
seems  to  me  that  you  have  treated  Bronn  with  complete 
respect  and  great  delicacy,  and  that  you  have  alluded  to  your 
own  labour  with  much  modesty.  I  do  not  think  that  any  of 
Bronn's  friends  can  complain  of  what  you  say  and  what  you 
have  done.  For  my  own  sake,  I  grieve  that  you  have  not 
added  notes,  as  I  am  sure  that  I  should  have  profited  much 
by  them;  but  as  you  have  omitted  Bronn's  objections,  I 
believe  that  you  have  acted  with  excellent  judgment  and 
fairness  in  leaving  the  text  without  comment  to  the  inde- 
pendent verdict  of  the  reader.  I  heartily  congratulate  you 
that  the  main  part  of  your  labour  is  over  ;  it  would  have  been 
to  most  men  a  very  troublesome  task,  but  you  seem  to  have 
indomitable  powers  of  work,  judging  from  those  two  wonder- 
ful and  most  useful  volumes  on  zoological  literature  *  edited 
by  you,  and  which  I  never  open  without  surprise  at  their  ac- 
curacy, and  gratitude  for  their  usefulness.  I  cannot  suffi- 
ciently tell  you  how  much  I  rejoice  that  you  were  persuaded 
to  superintend  the  translation  of  the  present  edition  of  my 
book,  for  I  have  now  the  great  satisfaction  of  knowing  that 
the  German  public  can  judge  fairly  of  its  merits  and  de- 
merits  

With  my  cordial  and  sincere  thanks,  believe  me, 
My  dear  Sir,  yours  very  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  earliest  letter  which  I  have  seen  from  my  father  to 
Professor  Haeckel,  was  written  in  1865,  and  from  that  time 
forward  they  corresponded  (though  not,  I  think,  with  any  regu- 
larity) up  to  the  end  of  my  father's  life.  His  friendship  with 
Haeckel  was  not  merely  growth  of  correspondence,  as  was 


*  i 


Bibliotheca  Zoologica/  1861. 


250  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

the  case  with  some  others,  for  instance,  Fritz  Miiller.  Haeckel 
paid  more  than  one  visit  to  Down,  and  these  were  thoroughly 
enjoyed  by  my  father.  The  following  letter  will  serve  to 
show  the  strong  feeling  of  regard  which  he  entertained  for  his 
correspondent — a  feeling  which  I  have  often  heard  him  em- 
phatically express,  and  which  was  warmly  returned.  The 
book  referred  to  is  Haeckel's  '  Generelle  Morphologic,'  pub- 
lished in  1866,  a  copy  of  which  my  father  received  from  the 
author  in  January  1867. 

Dr.  E.  Krause  *  has  given  a  good  account  of  Professor 
Haeckel's  services  to  the  cause  of  Evolution.  After  speak- 
ing of  the  lukewarm  reception  which  the  '  Origin '  met  with 
in  Germany  on  its  first  publication,  he  goes  on  to  describe 
the  first  adherents  of  the  new  faith  as  more  or  less  popular 
writers,  not  especially  likely  to  advance  its  acceptance  with 
the  professorial  or  purely  scientific  world.  And  he  claims  for 
Haeckel  that  it  was  his  advocacy  of  Evolution  in  his  '  Radio- 
laria'  (1862),  and  at  the  "  Versammlung  "  of  Naturalists  at 
Stettin  in  1863,  that  placed  the  Darwinian  question  for  the 
first  time  publicly  before  the  forum  of  German  science,  and 
his  enthusiastic  propagandism  that  chiefly  contributed  to  its 
success. 

Mr.  Huxley,  writing  in  1869,  paid  a  high  tribute  to  Pro- 
fessor Haeckel  as  the  Coryphaeus  of  the  Darwinian  move- 
ment in  Germany.  Of  his  '  Generelle  Morphologic/  "  an 
attempt  to  work  out  the  practical  application  "  of  the  doctrine 
of  Evolution  to  their  final  results,  he  says  that  it  has  the 
"  force  and  suggestiveness,  and  .  .  .  systematising  power 
of  Oken  without  his  extravagance. "  Professor  Huxley  also 
testifies  to  the  value  of  Haeckel's  6  Schopfungs-Geschichte  '  as 
an  exposition  of  the  '  Generelle  Morphologie '  "  for  an  edu- 
cated public." 

Again,  in  his  '  Evolution  in  Biology,'  f  Mr.  Huxley  wrote  : 

*  ■  Charles  Darwin  und  sein  Verhaltniss  zu  Deutschland,'  1885. 
f  An  article  in  the  '  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,'  9th  edit.,  reprinted  in 
*  Science  and  Culture,'  1881,  p.  298. 


1867.]  PROFESSOR  HAECKEL.  25  I 

"  Whatever  hesitation  may,  not  unfrequently,  be  felt  by  less 
daring  minds,  in  following  Haeckel  in  many  of  his  specula- 
tions, his  attempt  to  systematise  the  doctrine  of  Evolution, 
and  to  exhibit  its  influence  as  the  central  thought  of  modern 
biology,  cannot  fail  to  have  a  far-reaching  influence  on  the 
progress  of  science.,, 

In  the  following  letter  my  father  alludes  to  the  somewhat 
fierce  manner  in  which  Professor  Haeckel  fought  the  battle  of 
1  Darwinismus,'  and  on  this  subject  Dr.  Krause  has  some  good 
remarks  (p.  162).  He  asks  whether  much  that  happened  in 
the  heat  of  the  conflict  might  not  well  have  been  otherwise, 
and  adds  that  Haeckel  himself  is  the  last  man  to  deny  this. 
Nevertheless  he  thinks  that  even  these  things  may  have  worked 
well  for  the  cause  of  Evolution,  inasmuch  as  Haeckel  "  con- 
centrated on  himself  by  his  '  Ursprung  des  Menschen- 
Geschlechts,'  his  i  Generelle  Morphologic/  and  i  Schopfungs- 
Geschichte,'  all  the  hatred  and  bitterness  which  Evolution 
excited  in  certain  quarters,"  so  that,  "  in  a  surprisingly  short 
time  it  became  the  fashion  in  Germany  that  Haeckel  alone 
should  be  abused,  while  Darwin  was  held  up  as  the  ideal  of 
forethought  and  moderation."] 

C.  Darwin  to  E.  Haeckel. 

Down,  May  21,  1867. 

Dear  Haeckel. — Your  letter  of  the  18th  has  given  me 

great  pleasure,  for  you  have  received  what  I  said  in  the  most 

kind  and  cordial  manner.     You  have  in  part  taken  what  I 

said  much  stronger  than  I  had  intended.     It  never  occurred 

to  me  for  a  moment  to  doubt  that  your  work,  with  the  whole 

subject  so  admirably  and  clearly  arranged,  as  well  as  fortified 

by  so  many  new  facts  and  arguments,  would  not  advance  our 

common  object  in  the  highest  degree.     All  that  I  think  is 

that  you  will  excite  anger,   and    that  anger  so  completely 

blinds  every  one,  that  your  arguments  would  have  no  chance 

of  influencing  those  who  are  already  opposed  to  our  views. 

Moreover,  I  do  not  at  all  like  that  you,  towards  whom  I  feel 
53 


252  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

so  much  friendship,  should  unnecessarily  make  enemies,  and 
there  is  pain  and  vexation  enough  in  the  world  without  more 
being  caused.  But  I  repeat  that  I  can  feel  no  doubt  that 
your  work  will  greatly  advance  our  subject,  and  I  heartily 
wish  it  could  be  translated  into  English,  for  my  own  sake  and 
that  of  others.  With  respect  to  what  you  say  about  my  ad- 
vancing too  strongly  objections  against  my  own  views,  some 
of  my  English  friends  think  that  I  have  erred  on  this  side ; 
but  truth  compelled  me  to  write  what  I  did,  and  I  am  inclined 
to  think  it  was  good  policy.  The  belief  in  the  descent  theory 
is  slowly  spreading  in  England,*  even  amongst  those  who  can 
give  no  reason  for  their  belief.  No  body  of  men  were  at  first 
so  much  opposed  to  my  views  as  the  members  of  the  London 
Entomological  Society,  but  now  I  am  assured  that,  with  the 
exception  of  two  or  three  old  men,  all  the  members  concur 
with  me  to  a  certain  extent.  It  has  been  a  great  disappoint- 
ment to  me  that  I  have  never  received  your  long  letter  writ- 
ten to  me  from  the  Canary  Islands.  I  am  rejoiced  to  hear 
that  your  tour,  which  seems  to  have  been  a  most  interesting 
one,  has  done  your  health  much  good.  I  am  working  away 
at  my  new  book,  but  make  very  slow  progress,  and  the  work 
tries  my  health,  which  is  much  the  same  as  when  you  were 
here. 

Victor  Carus  is  going  to  translate  it,  but  whether  it  is 
worth  translation,  I  am  rather  doubtful.  I  am  very  glad  to 
hear  that  there  is  some  chance  of  your  visiting  England  this 
autumn,  and  all  in  this  house  will  be  delighted  to  see  you 
here. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Haeckel, 

Yours  very   sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

*  In  October  1867  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Wallace  : — "  Mr.  Warrington  has 
lately  read  an  excellent  and  spirited  abstract  of  the  '  Origin  '  before  the 
Victoria  Institute,  and  as  this  is  a  most  orthodox  body,  he  has  gained  the 
name  of  the  Devil's  Advocate.  The  discussion  which  followed  during 
three  consecutive  meetings  is  very  rich  from  the  nonsense  talked.  If  you 
would  care  to  see  the  number  I  could  send  it  you." 


1867.]  FRITZ    MULLER.  253 

C,  Darwin  to  F.  Miiller. 

Down,  July  31  [1867^ 
My  dear  Sir, — I  received  a  week  ago  your  letter  of 
June  2,  full  as  usual  of  valuable  matter  and  specimens.  It 
arrived  at  exactly  the  right  time,  for  I  was  enabled  to  give  a 
pretty  full  abstract  of  your  observations  on  the  plant's  own 
pollen  being  poisonous.  I  have  inserted  this  abstract  in  the 
proof-sheets  in  my  chapter  on  sterility,  and  it  forms  the  most 
striking  part  of  my  whole  chapter.*  I  thank  you  very  sin- 
cerely for  the  most  interesting  observations,  which,  however, 
I  regret  that  you  did  not  publish  independently.  I  have  been 
forced  to  abbreviate  one  or  two  parts  more  than  I  wished. 
.  .  .  Your  letters  always  surprise  me,  from  the  number  of 
points  to  which  you  attend.  I  wish  I  could  make  my  letters 
of  any  interest  to  you,  for  I  hardly  ever  see  a  naturalist,  and 
live  as  retired  a  life  as  you  in  Brazil.  With  respect  to  mi- 
metic plants,  I  remember  Hooker  many  years  ago  saying  he 
believed  that  there  were  many,  but  I  agree  with  you  that 
it  would  be  most  difficult  to  distinguish  between  mimetic 
resemblance  and  the  effects  of  peculiar  conditions.  Who 
can  say  to  which  of  these  causes  to  attribute  the  several 
plants  with  heath-like  foliage  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  ? 
Is  it  not  also  a  difficulty  that  quadrupeds  appear  to  recognise 
plants  more  by  their  [scent]  than  their  appearance  ?  What  I 
have  just  said  reminds  me  to  ask  you  a  question.  Sir  J.  Lub- 
bock brought  me  the  other  day  what  appears  to  be  a  terres- 
trial Planaria  (the  first  ever  found  in  the  northern  hem- 
isphere) and  which  was  coloured  exactly  like  our  dark- 
coloured  slugs.  Now  slugs  are  not  devoured  by  birds,  like 
the  shell-bearing  species,  and  this  made  me  remember  that  I 
found  the  Brazilian  Planariae  actually  together  with  striped 
Vaginuli  which  I  believe  were  similarly  coloured.  Can  you 
throw  any  light  on  this  ?  I  wish  to  know,  because  I  was 
puzzled  some  months  ago  how  it  would  be  possible  to  ac- 


*  In  '  The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants. 


254  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

count  for  the  bright  colours  of  the  Planariae  in  reference  to 
sexual  selection.  By  the  way,  I  suppose  they  are  herma- 
phrodites. 

Do  not  forget  to  aid  me,  if  in  your  power,  with  answers 
to  any  of  my  questions  on  expression,  for  the  subject  interests 
me  greatly.  With  cordial  thanks  for  your  never-failing  kind- 
ness, believe  me, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 
Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  July  18  [1867]. 

My  dear  Lyell, — Many  thanks  for  your  long  letter.  I 
am  sorry  to  hear  that  you  are  in  despair  about  your  book  ;  * 
I  well  know  that  feeling,  but  am  now  getting  out  of  the  lower 
depths.  I  shall  be  very  much  pleased,  if  you  can  make  the 
least  use  of  my  present  book,  and  do  not  care  at  all  whether 
it  is  published  before  yours.  Mine  will  appear  towards  the 
end  of  November  of  this  year ;  you  speak  of  yours  as  not 
coming  out  till  November,  1868,  which  I  hope  may  be  an 
error.  There  is  nothing  about  Man  in  my  book  which  can 
interfere  with  you,  so  I  will  order  all  the  completed  clean 
sheets  to  be  sent  (and  others  as  soon  as  ready)  to  you,  but 
please  observe  you  will  not  care  for  the  .first  volume,  which 
is  a  mere  record  of  the  amount  of  variation  ;  but  I  hope  the 
second  will  be  somewhat  more  interesting.  Though  I  fear 
the  whole  must  be  dull. 

I  rejoice  from  my  heart  that  you  are  going  to  speak  out 
plainly  about  species.  My  book  about  Man,  if  published, 
will  be  short,  and  a  large  portion  will  be  devoted  to  sexual 
selection,  to  which  subject  I  alluded  in  the  '  Origin  '  as  bear- 
ing on  Man.  .  .  . 

*  The  2nd  volume  of  the  10th  Edit,  of  the  *  Principles.' 


1867.]  ENCOURAGEMENT.  255 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  August  22  [1867]. 

My  dear  Lyell, — I  thank  you  cordially  for  your  last  two 
letters.  The  former  one  did  me  real  good,  for  I  had  got  so 
wearied  with  the  subject  that  I  could  hardly  bear  to  correct 
the  proofs,*  and  you  gave  me  fresh  heart.  I  remember 
thinking  that  when  you  came  to  the  Pigeon  chapter  you 
would  pass  it  over  as  quite  unreadable.  Your  last  letter  has 
interested  me  in  very  many  ways,  and  I  have  been  glad  to 
hear  about  those  horrid  unbelieving  Frenchmen.  I  have  been 
particularly  pleased  that  you  have  noticed  Pangenesis.  I  do 
not  know  whether  you  ever  had  the  feeling  of  having  thought 
so  much  over  a  subject  that  you  had  lost  all  power  of  judging 
it.  This  is  my  case  with  Pangenesis  (which  is  26  or  27  years 
old),  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  if  it  be  admitted  as  a 
probable  hypothesis  it  will  be  a  somewhat  important  step  in 
Biology. 

I  cannot  help  still  regretting  that  you  have  ever  looked  at 
the  slips,  for  I  hope  to  improve  the  whole  a  good  deal.  It  is 
surprising  to  me,  and  delightful,  that  you  should  care  in  the 
least  about  the  plants.  Altogether  you  have  given  me  one  of 
the  best  cordials  I  ever  had  in  my  life,  and  I  heartily  thank 
you.  I  despatched  this  morning  the  French  edition. f  The 
introduction  was  a  complete  surprise  to  me,  and  I  dare  say 
has  injured  the  book  in  France  ;  nevertheless  ...  it  shows, 
I  think,  that  the  woman  is  uncommonly  clever.  Once  again 
many  thanks  for  the  renewed  courage  with  which  I  shall  at- 
tack the  horrid  proof-sheets. 

Yours  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 

*  The  proofs  of  *  Animals  and  Plants/  which  Lyell  was  then  reading. 

\  Of  the  4  Origin.'  It  appears  that  my  father  was  sending  a  copy  of 
the  French  edition  to  Sir  Charles.  The  introduction  was  by  Mdlle. 
Royer,  who  translated  the  book. 


256  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

P.S. — A  Russian  who  is  translating  my  new  book  into 
Russian  has  been  here,  and  says  you  are  immensely  read  in 
Russia,  and  many  editions — how  many  I  forget.  Six  editions 
of  Buckle  and  four  editions  of  the  '  Origin.' 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  October  16  [1867]. 
My  dear  Gray, — I  send  by  this  post  clean  sheets  of  Vol. 
I.  up  to  p.  336,  and  there  are  only  411  pages  in  this  vol.  I 
am  very  glad  to  hear  that  you  are  going  to  review  my  book  ; 
but  if  the  Nation  *  is  a  newspaper  I  wish  it  were  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  sea,  for  I  fear  that  you  will  thus  be  stopped  re- 
viewing me  in  a  scientific  journal.  The  first  volume  is  all 
details,  and  you  will  not  be  able  to  read  it ;  and  you  must 
remember  that  the  chapters  on  plants  are  written  for  natural- 
ists who  are  not  botanists.  The  last  chapter  in  Vol.  I.  is, 
however,  I  think,  a  curious  compilation  of  facts  ;  it  is  on 
bud-variation.  In  Vol.  II.  some  of  the  chapters  are  more 
interesting;  and  I  shall  be  very  curious  to  hear  your  verdict 
on  the  chapter  on  close  inter-breeding.  The  chapter  on  what 
I  call  Pangenesis  will  be  called  a  mad  dream,  and  I  shall  be 
pretty  well  satisfied  if  you  think  it  a  dream  worth  publishing; 
but  at  the  bottom  of  my  own  mind  I  think  it  contains  a  great 
truth.  I  finish  my  book  with  a  semi-theological  paragraph, 
in  which  I  quote  and  differ  from  you ;  what  you  will  think  of 
it,  I  know  not.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  November  17  [1867]. 
My  dear  Hooker, — Congratulate  me,  for  I  have  finished 
the  last  revise  of  the  last  sheet  of  my  book.  It  has  been  an 
awful  job  :  seven  and  a  half  months  correcting  the  press  :  the 
book,  from  much  small  type,  does  not  look  big,  but  is  really 
very  big.     I  have  had  hard  work  to  keep  up  to  the  mark,  but 

*  The  book  was  reviewed  by  Dr.  Gray  in  the  Nation,  Mar.  19,  1868. 


1868.]  PUBLICATION.  257 

during  the  last  week  only  few  revises  came,  so  that  I  have 
rested  and  feel  more  myself.  Hence,  after  our  long  mutual 
silence,  I  enjoy  myself  by  writing  a  note  to  you,  for  the  sake 
of  exhaling,  and  hearing  from  you.  On  account  of  the 
index,*  I  do  not  suppose  that  you  will  receive  your  copy  till 
the  middle  of  next  month.  I  shall  be  intensely  anxious  to 
hear  what  you  think  about  Pangenesis  ;  though  I  can  see  how 
fearfully  imperfect,  even  in  mere  conjectural  conclusions,  it 
'is  ;  yet  it  has  been  an  infinite  satisfaction  to  me  somehow  to 
connect  the  various  large  groups  of  facts,  which  I  have  long 
considered,  by  an  intelligible  thread.  I  shall  not  be  at  all 
surprised  if  you  attack  it  and  me  with  unparalleled  ferocity. 
It  will  be  my  endeavor  to  do  as  little  as  possible  for  some 
time,  but  [I]  shall  soon  prepare  a  paper  or  two  for  the  Lin- 
nean  Society.  In  a  short  time  we  shall  go  to  London  for  ten 
days,  but  the  time  is  not  yet  fixed.  Now  I  have  told  you  a 
deal  about  myself,  and  do  let  me  hear  a  good  deal  about  your 
own  past  and  future  doings.  Can  you  pay  us  a  visit,  early  in 
December  ?  ....  I  have  seen  no  one  for  an  age,  and  heard 
no  news. 

.  .  .  About  my  book  I  will  give  you  a  bit  of  advice.  Skip 
the  whole  of  Vol.  I.,  except  the  last  chapter  (and  that  need 
only  be  skimmed)  and  skip  largely  in  the  2nd  volume  ;  and 
then  you  will  say  it  is  a  very  good  book. 

1868. 

['  The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants '  was,  as  already 
mentioned,  published  on  January  30,  1868,  and  on  that  day 
he  sent  a  copy  to  Fritz  Mliller,  and  wrote  to  him  : — 

"  I  send  by  this  post,  by  French  packet,  my  new  book,  the 
publication  of  which  has  been  much  delayed.  The  greater 
part,  as  you  will  see,  is  not  meant  to  be  read ;  but  I  should 
very  much  like  to  hear  what  you  think  of  '  Pangenesis,'  though 
I  fear  it  will  appear  to  every  one  far  too  speculative."] 

*  The  index  was  made  by  Mr.  W.  S.  Dallas  ;  I  have  often  heard  my 
father  express  his  admiration  of  this  excellent  piece  of  work. 


258  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION/  [1868. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

February  3  [1868]. 
...  I  am  very  much  pleased  at  what  you  say  about  my 
Introduction  ;  after  it  was  in  type  I  was  as  near  as  possible 
cancelling  the  whole.  I  have  been  for  some  time  in  despair 
about  my  book,  and  if  I  try  to  read  a  few  pages  I  feel  fairly 
nauseated,  but  do  not  let  this  make  you  praise  it ;  for  I  have 
made  up  my  mind  that  it  is  not  worth  a  fifth  part  of  the 
enormous  labour  it  has  cost  me.  I  assure  you  that  all  that  is 
worth  your  doing  (if  you  have  time  for  so  much)  is  glancing 
at  Chapter  VI.,  and  reading  parts  of  the  later  chapters.  The 
facts  on  self-impotent  plants  seem  to  me  curious,  and  I  have 
worked  out  to  my  own  satisfaction  the  good  from  crossing  and 
evil  from  interbreeding,  I  did  read  Pangenesis  the  other 
evening,  but  even  this,  my  beloved  child,  as  I  had  fancied, 
quite  disgusted  me.  The  devil  take  the  whole  book  ;  and 
yet  now  I  am  at  work  again  as  hard  as  I  am  able.  It  is  really 
a  great  evil  that  from  habit  I  have  pleasure  in  hardly  anything 
except  Natural  History,  for  nothing  else  makes  me  forget  my 
ever-recurrent  uncomfortable  sensations.  But  I  must  not 
howl  any  more,  and  the  critics  may  say  what  they  like  ;  I 
did  my  best,  and  man  can  do  no  more.  What  a  splendid 
pursuit  Natural  History  would  be  if  it  was  all  observing  and 
no  writing  !  .  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  February  10  [1868]. 
My  dear  Hooker, — What  is  the  good  of  having  a  friend, 
if  one  may  not  boast  to  him  ?  I  heard  yesterday  that  Mur- 
ray has  sold  in  a  week  the  whole  edition  of  1500  copies  of  my 
book,  and  the  sale  so  pressing  that  he  has  agreed  with  Clowes 
to  get  another  edition  in  fourteen  days  !  This  has  done  me 
a  world  of  good,  for  I  had  got  into  a  sort  of  dogged  hatred 
of  my  book.  And  now  there  has  appeared  a  review  in  the 
Pall  Mall  which  has  pleased  me  excessively,  more  perhaps 


1868.]  REVIEWS.  259 

than  is  reasonable.     I  am  quite  content,  and  do  not  care  how 

much  I  may  be  pitched  into.     If  by  any  chance  you  should 

hear  who  wrote  the  article  in  the  Pall  Mall,  do  please  tell 

me  ;  it  is  some  one  who  writes  capitally,  and  who  knows  the 

subject.     I  went  to  luncheon  on  Sunday,  to  Lubbock's,  partly 

in  hopes  of  seeing  you,  and,  be  hanged  to  you,  you  were  not 

there. 

Your  cock-a-hoop  friend, 

C.  D. 

[Independently  of  the  favourable  tone  of  the  able  series 
of  notices  in  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette  (Feb.  10,  15,  17,  1868), 
my  father  may  well  have  been  gratified  by  the  following  pas- 
sages : — 

"We  must  call  attention  to  the  rare  and  noble  calmness 
with  which  he  expounds  his  own  views,  undisturbed  by  the 
heats  of  polemical  agitation  which  those  views  have  excited, 
and  persistently  refusing  to  retort  on  his  antagonists  by  ridi- 
cule, by  indignation,  or  by  contempt.  Considering  the  amount 
of  vituperation  and  insinuation  which  has  come  from  the 
other  side,  this  forbearance  is  supremely  dignified." 

And  again  in  the  third  notice,  Feb.  17  : — 

"  Nowhere  has  the  author  a  word  that  could  wound  the 
most  sensitive  self-love  of  an  antagonist ;  nowhere  does  he,  in 
text  or  note,  expose  the  fallacies  and  mistakes  of  brother  in- 
vestigators .  .  .  but  while  abstaining  from  impertinent  cen- 
sure, he  is  lavish  in  acknowledging  the  smallest  debts  he  may 
owe  ;  and  his  book  will  make  many  men  happy." 

I  am  indebted  to  Messrs.  Smith  &  Elder  for  the  informa- 
tion that  these  articles  were  written  by  Mr.  G.  H.  Lewes.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  Z).  Hooker. 

Down,  February  23  [1868]. 
My  dear  Hooker, — I  have  had  almost  as  many  letters 
to  write  of  late  as  you  can  have,  viz.  from  8  to  10  per  diem, 


26o  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

chiefly  getting  up  facts  on  sexual  selection,  therefore  I  have 
felt  no  inclination  to  write  to  you,  and  now  I  mean  to  write 
solely  about  my  book  for  my  own  satisfaction,  and  not  at  all 
for  yours.  The  first  edition  was  1500  copies,  and  now  the 
second  is  printed  off  ;  sharp  work.  Did  you  look  ar  the  re- 
view in  the  Athenceum*  showing  profound  contempt  of  me? 
...  It  is  a  shame  that  he  should  have  said  that  I  have  taken 
much  from  Pouchet,  without  acknowledgment ;  for  I  took 
literally  nothing,  there  being  nothing  to  take.  There  is  a 
capital  review  in  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle  which  will  sell  the 
book  if  anything  will.  I  don't  quite  see  whether  I  or  the 
writer  is  in  a  muddle  about  man  causing  variability.  If  a 
man  drops  a  bit  of  iron  into  sulphuric  acid  he  does  not  cause 
the  affinities  to  come  into  play,  yet  he  may  be  said  to  make 
sulphate  of  iron.     I  do  not  know  how  to  avoid  ambiguity. 

After  what  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette  and  the  Chronicle  have 
said  I  do  not  care  a  d . 

I  fear  Pangenesis  is  stillborn  ;  Bates  says  he  has  read  it 
twice,  and  is  not  sure  that  he  understands  it.  H.  Spencer 
says  the  view  is  quite  different  from  his  (and  this  is  a  great 
relief  to  me,  as  I  feared  to  be  accused  of  plagiarism,  but 

*  Athenceum,  February  15,  1868.  My  father  quoted  Pouchet's  assertion 
that  "variation  under  domestication  throws  no  light  on  the  natural  modifi- 
cation of  species."  The  reviewer  quotes  the  end  of  a  passage  in  which  my 
father  declares  that  he  can  see  no  force  in  Pouchet's  arguments,  or  rather 
assertions,  and  then  goes  on  :  "  We  are  sadly  mistaken  if  there  are  not 
clear  proofs  in  the  pages  of  the  book  before  us  that,  on  the  contrary,  Mr. 
Darwin  has  perceived,  felt,  and  yielded  to  the  force  of  the  arguments  or 
assertions  of  his  French  antagonist."  The  following  may  serve  as  samples 
of  the  rest  of  the  review  : — 

11  Henceforth  the  rhetoricians  will  have  a  better  illustration  of  anti-cli- 
max than  the  mountain  which  brought  forth  a  mouse,  ...  in  the  dis- 
coverer of  the  origin  of  species,  who  tried  to  explain  the  variation  of 
pigeons ! 

"  A  few  summary  words.  On  the  '  Origin  of  Species  '  Mr.  Darwin  has 
nothing,  and  is  never  likely  to  have  anything,  to  say  ;  but  on  the  vastly 
important  subject  of  inheritance,  the  transmission  of  peculiarities  once  ac- 
quired through  successive  generations,  this  work  is  a  valuable  store-house 
of  facts  for  curious  students  and  practical  breeders." 


1868.]  REVIEWS.  261 

utterly  failed  to  be  sure  what  he  meant,  so  thought  it  safest 
to  give  my  view  as  almost  the  same  as  his),  and  he  says  he  is 
not  sure  he  understands  it.  .  .  .  Am  I  not  a  poor  devil  ?  yet 
I  took  such  pains,  I  must  think  that  I  expressed  myself 
clearly.  Old  Sir  H.  Holland  says  he  has  read  it  twice,  and 
thinks  it  very  tough  ;  but  believes  that  sooner  or  later  "  some 
view  akin  to  it  "  will  be  accepted. 

You  will  think  me  very  self-sufficient,  when  I  declare  that 
I  feel  sure  if  Pangenesis  is  now  stillborn  it  will,  thank  God, 
at  some  future  time  reappear,  begotten  by  some  other  father, 
and  christened  by  some  other  name. 

Have  you  ever  met  with  any  tangible  and  clear  view  of 
what  takes  place  in  generation,  whether  by  seeds  or  buds,  or 
how  a  long-lost  character  can  possibly  reappear ;  or  how  the 
male  element  can  possibly  affect  the  mother  plant,  or  the 
mother  animal,  so  that  her  future  progeny  are  affected  ?  Now 
all  these  points  and  many  others  are  connected  together, 
whether  truely  or  falsely  is  another  question,  by  Pangenesis. 
You  see  I  die  hard,  and  stick  up  for  my  poor  child. 

This  letter  is  written  for  my  own  satisfaction,  and  not  for 

yours.     So  bear  it. 

Yours  affectionately, 

Ch.   Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  Newton* 

Down,  February  9  [1870]. 

Dear  Newton, — I  suppose  it  would  be  universally  held 
extremely  wrong  for  a  defendant  to  write  to  a  Judge  to 
express  his  satisfaction  at  a  judgment  in  his  favour  ;  and  yet 
I  am  going  thus  to  act.  I  have  just  read  what  you  have  said 
in  the  '  Record '  f  about  my  pigeon  chapters,  and  it  has  grati- 
fied me  beyond  measure.  I  have  sometimes  felt  a  little  dis- 
appointed that  the  labour  of  so  many  years  seemed  to  be 
almost  thrown  away,  for  you  are  the  first  man  capable  of 

*  Prof,  of  Zoology  at  Cambridge. 

f  '  Zoological  Record.'     The  volume  for  1868,  published  Dec.  1869. 


262  'VARIATION    UNDER    DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

forming   a   judgment    (excepting   partly    Quatrefages),    who 

seems  to  have  thought  anything  of  this  part  of  "my  work. 

The  amount  of  labour,  correspondence,  and  care,  which  the 

subject  cost  me,  is  more  than  you  could  well  suppose.      I 

thought  the  article  in   the  Athenceum  was  very  unjust ;  but 

now  I  feel  amply  repaid,  and  I  cordially  thank  you  for  your 

sympathy  and   too   warm    praise.      What    labour  you    have 

bestowed  on  your  part  of  the  '  Record  '  !     I   ought  to  be 

ashamed  to  speak  of  my  amount  of  work.      I   thoroughly 

enjoyed  the  Sunday,  which  you  and   the  others  spent  here, 

and 

I  remain,  dear  Newton,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.   Wallace. 

Down,  February  27  [1868]. 

My  dear  Wallace, — You  cannot  well  imagine  how  much 
I  have  been  pleased  by  what  you  say  about  '  Pangenesis.' 
None  of  my  friends  will  speak  out.  .  .  .  Hooker,  as  far  as  I 
understand  him,  which  I  hardly  do  at  present,  seems  to 
think  that  the  hypothesis  is  little  more  than  saying  that 
organisms  have  such  and  such  potentialities.  What  you 
say  exactly  and  fully  expresses  my  feeling,  viz.  that  it  is  a 
relief  to  have  some  feasible  explanation  of  the  various  facts, 
which  can  be  given  up  as  soon  as  any  better  hypothesis  is 
found.  It  has  certainly  been  an  immense  relief  to  my  mind  ; 
for  I  have  been  stumbling  over  the  subject  for  years,  dimly 
seeing  that  some  relation  existed  between  the  various  classes 
of  facts.  I  now  hear  from  H.  Spencer  that  his  views  quoted 
in  my  foot-note  refer  to  something  quite  distinct,  as  you 
seem  to  have  perceived. 

I  shall  be  very  glad  to  hear  at  some  future  day  your  criti- 
cisms on  the  "  causes  of  variability."  Indeed  I  feel  sure  that 
I  am  right  about  sterility  and  natural  selection.  ...  I  do  not 
quite  understand  your  case,  and  we  think  that  a  word  or  two 
is  misplaced.  I  wish  sometime  you  would  consider  the  case 
under  the  following  point  of  view  : — If  sterility  is  caused  or 


1868.]  PANGENESIS.  263 

accumulated  through  natural  selection,  then  as  every  degree 
exists  up  to  absolute  barrenness,  natural  selection  must  have 
the  power  of  increasing  it.  Now  take  two  species,  A  and  B, 
and  assume  that  they  are  (by  any  means)  half-sterile,  i.e. 
produce  half  the  full  number  of  offspring.  Now  try  and 
make  (by  natural  selection)  A  and  B  absolutely  sterile  when 
crossed,  and  you  will  find  how  difficult  it  is.  I  grant  indeed, 
it  is  certain,  that  the  degree  of  sterility  of  the  individuals  A 
and  B  will  vary,  but  any  such  extra-sterile  individuals  of,  we 
will  say  A,  if  they  should  hereafter  breed  with  other  indi- 
viduals of  A,  will  bequeath  no  advantage  to  their  progeny,  by 
which  these  families  will  tend  to  increase  in  number  over 
other  families  of  A,  which  are  not  more  sterile  when  crossed 
with  B.  But  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  made  this  any  clearer 
than  in  the  chapter  in  my  book.  It  is  a  most  difficult  bit  of 
reasoning,  which  I  have  gone  over  and  over  again  on  paper 
with  diagrams. 

.  .  .  Hearty  thanks  for  your  letter.  You  have  indeed 
pleased  me,  for  I  had  given  up  the  great  god  Pan  as  a  still- 
born deity.  I  wish  you  could  be  induced  to  make  it  clear 
with  your  admirable  powers  of  elucidation  in  one  of  the 
scientific  journals.  ... 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  February  28  [1868]. 
My  dear  Hooker, — I  have  been  deeply  interested  by 
your  letter,  and  we  had  a  good  laugh  over  Huxley's  remark, 
which  was  so  deuced  clever  that  you  could  not  recollect  it.  I 
cannot  quite  follow  your  train  of  thought,  for  in  the  last  page 
you  admit  all  that  I  wish,  having  apparently  denied  all,  or 
thought  all  mere  words  in  the  previous  pages  of  your  note  ; 
but  it  may  be  my  muddle.  I  see  clearly  that  any  satisfaction 
which  Pan  may  give  will  depend  on  the  constitution  of  each 
man's  mind.  If  you  have  arrived  already  at  any  similar 
conclusion,  the  whole  will  of  course  appear  stale  to  you.  I 
heard    yesterday   from   Wallace,    who    says    (excuse    horrid 


264  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

vanity),  "  I  can  hardly  tell  you  how  much  I  admire  the 
chapter  on  '  Pangenesis/  It  is  a.  positive  comfort  to  me  to 
have  any  feasible  explanation  of  a  difficulty  that  has  always 
been  haunting  me,  and  I  shall  never  be  able  to  give  it  up  till 
a  better  one  supplies  its  place,  and  that  I  think  hardly  possi- 
ble, &c."  Now  his  foregoing  [italicised]  words  express  my 
sentiments  exactly  and  fully  :  though  perhaps  I  feel  the 
relief  extra  strongly  from  having  during  many  years  vainly 
attempted  to  form  some  hypothesis.  When  you  or  Huxley 
say  that  a  single  cell  of  a  plant,  or  the  stump  of  an  amputa- 
ted limb,  have  the  "  potentiality  "  of  reproducing  the  whole 
— or  "diffuse  an  influence/'  these  words  give  me  no  positive 
idea ; — but  when  it  is  said  that  the  cells  of  a  plant,  or  stump, 
include  atoms  derived  from  every  other  cell  of  the  whole 
organism  and  capable  of  development,  I  gain  a  distinct  idea. 
But  this  idea  would  not  be  worth  a  rush,  if  it  applied  to  one 
case  alone  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  to  apply  to  all  the  forms  of 
reproduction — inheritance — metamorphosis — to  the  abnormal 
transposition  of  organs — to  the  direct  action  of  the  male  ele- 
ment on  the  mother  plant,  &c.  Therefore  I  fully  believe 
that  each  cell  does  actually  throw  off  an  atom  or  gemmule  of 
its  contents  ; — but  whether  or  not,  this  hypothesis  serves  as 
a  useful  connecting  link  for  various  grand  classes  of  physio- 
logical facts,  which  at  present  stand  absolutely  isolated. 

I  have  touched  on  the  doubtful  point  (alluded  to  by 
Huxley)  how  far  atoms  derived  from  the  same  cell  may 
become  developed  into  different  structure  accordingly  as  they 
are  differently  nourished  ;  I  advanced  as  illustrations  galls 
and  polypoid  excrescences.  .  .  . 

It  is  a  real  pleasure  to  me  to  write  to  you  on  this  subject, 
and  I  should  be  delighted  if  we  can  understand  each  other; 
but  you  must  not  let  your  good  nature  lead  you  on.  Re- 
member, we  always  fight  tooth  and  nail.  We  go  to  London 
on  Tuesday,  first  for  a  week  to  Queen  Anne  Street,  and  after- 
wards to  Miss  Wedgwood's,  in  Regent's  Park,  and  stay  the 
whole  month,  which,  as  my  gardener  truly  says,  is  a  "  terrible 
thing  "  for  my  experiments. 


i868.]  PANGENESIS.  265 


C.  Darwin  to  W.  Ogle* 

Down,  March  6  [1868]. 

Dear  Sir, — I  thank  you  most  sincerely  for  your  letter, 
which  is  very  interesting  to  me.  I  wish  I  had  known  of  these 
views  of  Hippocrates  before  I  had  published,  for  they  seem 
almost  identical  with  mine — merely  a  change  of  terms — and 
an  application  of  them  to  classes  of  facts  necessarily  unknown 
to  the  old  philosopher.  The  whole  case  is  a  good  illustration 
of  how  rarely  anything  is  new. 

Hippocrates  has  taken  the  wind  out  of  my  sails,  but  I 
care  very  little  about  being  forestalled.  I  advance  the  views 
merely  as  a  provisional  hypothesis,  but  with  the  secret  expec- 
tation that  sooner  or  later  some  such  view  will  have  to  be 
admitted. 

...  I  do  not  expect  the  reviewers  will  be  so  learned  as 
you:  otherwise,  no  doubt,  I  shall  be  accused  of  wilfully 
stealing  Pangenesis  from  Hippocrates, — for  this  is  the  spirit 
some  reviewers  delight  to  show. 

C.  Darwin  to  Victor  Car  us. 

Down,  March  21  [1868]. 
...  I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  sending  me  so 
frankly  your  opinion  on  Pangenesis,  and  I  am  sorry  it  is  un- 
favourable, but  I  cannot  quite  understand  your  remark  on 
pangenesis,  selection,  and  the  struggle  for  life  not  being  more 
methodical.  I  am  not  at  all  surprised  at  your  unfavourable 
verdict ;  I  know  many,  probably  most,  will  come  to  the  same 
conclusion.  One  English  Review  says  it  is  much  too  com- 
plicated. .  .  .  Some  of  my  friends  are  enthusiastic  on  the 
hypothesis.  ...  Sir  C.  Lyell  says  to  every  one,  "  You  may 
not  believe  in  '  Pangenesis,'  but  if  you  once  understand  it,  you 
will  never  get  it  out  of  your  mind.,,     And  with  this  criticism 

*  Dr.  William   Ogle,   now   the   Superintendent   of  Statistics   to   the 
Registrar-General. 


266  '  VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

I  am  perfectly  content.  All  cases  of  inheritance  and  re- 
version and  development  now  appear  to  me  under  a  new 
light.  .  .  . 

[An  extract  from  a  letter  to  Fritz  Miiller,  though  of  later 
date  (June),  may  be  given  here  : — 

11  Your  letter  of  April  22  has  much  interested  me.  I  am 
delighted  that  you  approve  of  my  book,  for  I  value  your 
opinion  more  than  that  of  almost  any  one.  I  have  yet  hopes 
that  you  will  think  well  of  Pangenesis.  I  feel  sure  that  our 
minds  are  somewhat  alike,  and  I  find  it  a  great  relief  to  have 
some  definite,  though  hypothetical  view,  when  I  reflect  on  the 
wonderful  transformations  of  animals,  —  the  re-growth  of 
parts,  —  and  especially  the  direct  action  of  pollen  on  the 
mother-form,  &c.  It  often  appears  to  me  almost  certain  that 
the  characters  of  the  parents  are  "  photographed "  on  the 
child,  only  by  means  of  material  atoms  derived  from  each 
cell  in  both  parents,  and  developed  in  the  child."] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  May  8  [1868]. 

My  dear  Gray, — I  have  been  a  most  ungrateful  and  un- 
gracious man  not  to  have  written  to  you  an  immense  time  ago 
to  thank  you  heartily  for  the  Nation,  and  for  all  your  most 
kind  aid  in  regard  to  the  American  edition  [of  '  Animals  and 
Plants'].  But  I  have  been  of  late  overwhelmed  with  letters, 
which  I  was  forced  to  answer,  and  so  put  off  writing  to  you. 
This  morning  I  received  the  American  edition  (which  looks 
capital),  with  your  nice  preface,  for  which  hearty  thanks.  I 
hope  to  heaven  that  the  book  will  succeed  well  enough  to 
prevent  you  repenting  of  your  aid.  This  arrival  has  put  the 
finishing  stroke  to  my  conscience,  which  will  endure  its 
wrongs  no  longer. 

.  .  .  Your  article  in  the  Nation  [Mar.  19]  seems  to  me  very 
good,  and  you  give  an  excellent  idea  of  Pangenesis — an  infant 
cherished  by  few  as  yet,  except  his  tender  parent,  but  which 
will  live  a  long  life.     There  is  parental  presumption  for  you  ! 


1868.]  MR.  BENTHAM.  267 

You  give  a  good  slap  at  my  concluding  metaphor:*  un- 
doubtedly I  ought  to  have  brought  in  and  contrasted  natural 
and  artificial  selection  ;  but  it  seemed  so  obvious  to  me  that 
natural  selection  depended  on  contingencies  even  more  com- 
plex than  those  which  must  have  determined  the  shape  of 
each  fragment  at  the  base  of  my  precipice.  What  I  wanted 
to  show  was  that  in  reference  to  pre-ordainment  whatever 
holds  good  in  the  formation  of  a  pouter  pigeon  holds  good  in 
the  formation  of  a  natural  species  of  pigeon.  1  cannot  see 
that  this  is  false.  If  the  right  variations  occurred,  and  no 
others,  natural  selection  would  be  superfluous.  A  reviewer  in 
an  Edinburgh  paper,  who  treats  me  with  profound  contempt, 
says  on  this  subject  that  Professor  Asa  Gray  could  with  the 
greatest  ease  smash  me  into  little  pieces. f 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Gray,  ' 

Your  ungrateful  but  sincere  friend, 
Charles  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  G.  Benthcwi. 

Down,  June  23,  1868. 

My  dear  Mr.  Bentham, — As  your  address  J  is  somewhat 
of  the  nature  of  a  verdict  from  a  judge,  I  do  not  know  whether 

*  A  short  abstract  of  the  precipice  metaphor  is  given  at  p.  307,  vol.  i. 
Dr.  Gray's  criticism  on  this  point  is  as  follows  :  <4  But  in  Mr.  Darwin's 
parallel,  to  meet  the  case  of  nature  according  to  his  own  view  of  it,  not 
only  the  fragments  of  rock  (answering  to  variation)  should  fall,  but  the  edi- 
fice (answering  to  natural  selection)  should  rise,  irrespective  of  will  or 
choice  ! "  But  my  father's  parallel  demands  that  natural  selection  shall  be 
the  architect,  not  the  edifice — the  question  of  design  only  comes  in  with 
regard  to  the  form  of  the  building  materials. 

f  The  Daily  Review,  April  27,  1868.  My  father  has  given  rather  a 
highly  coloured  version  of  the  reviewer's  remarks :  "  We  doubt  not  that 
Professor  Asa  Gray  .  .  .  could  show  that  natural  selection  ...  is  simply 
an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  an  omnipotent  and  omniscient  creator." 
The  reviewer  goes  on  to  say  that  the  passage  in  question  is  a  "  very  melan- 
choly one,"  and  that  the  theory  is  the  "apotheosis  of  materialism." 

%  Presidential  Address  to  the  Linnean  Society. 
54 


268  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

it  is  proper  for  me  to  do  so,  but  I  must  and  will  thank v  you 

for  the  pleasure  which  you  have  given  me.     I  am  delighted  at 

what  you  say  about  my  book.     1  got  so  tired  of  it,  that  for 

months  together  I  thought  myself  a  perfect  fool  for  having 

given  up  so  much  time  in  collecting  and  observing  little  facts, 

but  now  I  do  not  care  if  a  score  of  common  critics  speak  as 

contemptuously  of  the  book  as  did  the  Athenceutn.     I  feel 

justified  in  this,  for  I  have  so  complete  a  reliance  on  your 

judgment  that  I  feel  certain  that  I  should  have  bowed  to  your 

judgment  had  it  been  as  unfavourable  as  it  is  the  contrary. 

What  you  say  about  Pangenesis  quite  satisfies  me,  and  is  as 

much  perhaps  as  any  one  is  justified  in  saying.     I  have  read 

your  whole  Address  with  the  greatest  interest.     It  must  have 

cost  you   a  vast  amount  of  trouble.     With  cordial  thanks, 

1  pray  believe  me, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  fear  that  it  is  not  likely  that  you  have  a  superfluous 
copy  of  your  Address  ;  if  you  have,  I  should  much  like  to 
send  one  to  Fritz  Mtiller  in  the  interior  of  Brazil.  By  the 
way  let  me  add  that  I  discussed  bud-variation  chiefly  from  a 
belief  which  is  common  to  several  persons,  that  all  variability 
is  related  to  sexual  generation  ;  I  wished  to  show  clearly  that 
this  was  an  error. 

[The  above  series  of  letters  may  serve  to  show  to  some 
extent  the  reception  which  the  new  book  received.  Before 
passing  on  (in  the  next  chapter)  to  the  '  Descent  of  Man,'  I 
give  a  letter  referring  to  the  translation  of  Fritz  Muller's  book, 
'Fur  Darwin/  It  was  originally  published  in  1864,  but  the 
English  translation,  by  Mr.  Dallas,  which  bore  the  title  sug- 
gested by  Sir  C.  Lyell,  of  '  Facts  and  Arguments  for  Darwin/ 
did  not  appear  until  1869  :] 


t868.]  M.  GAUDRY.  269 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  Milller. 

Down,  March  16  [1868]. 
My  dear  Sir, — Your  brother,  as  you  will  have  heard  from 
him,  felt  so  convinced  that  you  would  not  object  to  a  transla- 
tion of  *  Fur  Darwin,'  *  that  I  have  ventured  to  arrange  for  a 
translation.  Engelmann  has  very  liberally  offered  me  cliches 
of  the  woodcuts  for  22  thalers  ;  Mr.  Murray  has  agreed  to 
bring  out  a  translation  (and  he  is  our  best  publisher)  on  com- 
mission, for  he  would  not  undertake  the  work  on  his  own 
risk  ;  and  I  have  agreed  with  Mr.  W.  S.  Dallas*  (who  has 
translated  Von  Siebold  on  Parthenogenesis,  and  many  Ger- 
man works,  and  who  writes  very  good  English)  to  translate 
the  book.  He  thinks  (and  he  is  a  good  judge)  that  it  is  im- 
portant to  have  some  few  corrections  or  additions,  in  order 
to  account  for  a  translation  appearing  so  lately  [i.e.  at  such  a 
long  interval  of  time]  after  the  original;  so  that  I  hope  you 
will  be  able  to  send  some 

[Two  letters  may  be  placed  here  as  bearing  on  the  spread 
of  Evolutionary  ideas  in  France  and  Germany  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  Gaudry. 

Down,  January  21  [1868]. 
Dear  Sir, — I  thank  you  for  your  interesting  essay  on  the 
influence  of  the  Geological  features  of  the  country  on  the 
mind  and  habits  of  the  Ancient  Athenians,f  and  for  your 
very  obliging  letter.  I  am  delighted  to  hear  that  you  intend 
to  consider  the  relations  of  fossil  animals  in  connection  with 
their  genealogy  ;  it  will  afford  you  a  fine  field  for  the  exercise 
of  your  extensive  knowledge  and  powers  of  reasoning.     Your 

*  In  a  letter  to  Fritz  Miiller,  my  father  wrote  : — "  I  am  vexed  to  see 
that  on  the  title  my  name  is  more  conspicuous  than  yours,  which  I  espe- 
cially objected  to,  and  I  cautioned  the  printers  after  seeing  one  proof." 

f  This  appears  to  refer  to  M.  Gaudry's  paper  translated  in  the  *  GeoL 
Mag.,'  1868,  p.  372. 


270  'VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION.*  [1868. 

belief  will  I  suppose,  at  present,  lower  you  in  the  estimation 
of  your  countrymen  ;  but  judging  from  the  rapid  spread  in 
all  parts  of  Europe,  excepting  France,  of  the  belief  in  the 
common  descent  of  allied  species,  I  must  think  that  this 
belief  will  before  long  become  universal.  How  strange  it  is 
that  the  country  which  gave  birth  to  Bufifon,  the  elder 
Geoffroy,  and  especially  to  Lamarck,  should  now  cling  so 
pertinaciously  to  the  belief  that  species  are  immutable  cre- 
ations. 

My  work  on  Variation,  &c,  under  domestication,  will  ap- 
pear in  a  French  translation  in  a  few  months'  time,  and  I  will 
do  myself  the  pleasure  and  honour  of  directing  the  publisher 
to  send  a  copy  to  you  to  the  same  address  as  this  letter. 
With  sincere  respect,  I  remain,  dear  sir, 
Yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  next  letter  is  of  especial  interest,  as  showing  how 
high  a  value  my  father  placed  on  the  support  of  the  younger 
German  naturalists  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Preyer* 

March  31,  1868. 
.  ...  I  am  delighted  to  hear  that  you  uphold  the  doctrine 
of  the  Modification  of  Species,  and  defend  my  views.  The 
support  which  I  receive  from  Germany  is  my  chief  ground 
for  hoping  that  our  views  will  ultimately  prevail.  To  the 
present  day  I  am  continually  abused  or  treated  with  con- 
tempt by  writers  of  my  own  country ;  but  the  younger  natural- 
ists are  almost  all  on  my  side,  and  sooner  or  later  the  public 
must  follow  those  who  make  the  subject  their  special  .study. 
The  abuse  and  contempt  of  ignorant  writers  hurts  me  very 
little.  .  .  . 


*  Now  Professor  of  Physiology  at  Jena. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

Work  on  i  Man.' 

1864-1870. 

[In  the  autobiographical  chapter  (vol.  i.  p.  76),  my  father 
gives  the  circumstances  which  led  to  his  writing  the  '  Descent 
of  Man/  He  states  that  his  collection  of  facts,  begun  in  1837 
or  1838,  was  continued  for  many  years  without  any  definite 
idea  of  publishing  on  the  subject.  The  following  letter  to 
Mr.  Wallace  shows  that  in  the  period  of  ill-health  and  de- 
pression about  1864  he  despaired  of  ever  being  able  to  do  so  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  [May?]  28  [1864]. 

Dear  Wallace, — I  am  so  much  better  that  I  have  just 
finished  a  paper  for  Linnean  Society  ;  *  but  I  am  not  yet  at 
all  strong,  I  felt  much  disinclination  to  write,  and  therefore 
you  must  forgive  me  for  not  having  sooner  thanked  you  for 
your  paper  on  'Man,'f  received  on  the  nth.  But  first  let 
me  say  that  I  have  hardly  ever  in  my  life  been  more  struck 
by  any  paper  than  that  on  '  Variation/  &c.  &c,  in  the  Reader. \ 
I  feel  sure  that  such  papers  will  do  more  for  the  spreading  of 
our  views  on  the  modification  of  species  than  any  separate 
Treatises  on  the  simple  subject  itself.  It  is  really  admirable; 
but  you  ought  not  in  the  Man  paper  to  speak  of  the  theory 


*  On  the  three  forms,  &c,  of  Lythrum. 
f  '  Anthropological  Review/  March  1864. 

\  Reader,  Ap.  16,  1864.     "On  the  Phenomena  of  Variation,"  &c.    Ab- 
stract  of  a  paper  read  before  the  Linnean  Society,  March  17,  1864. 


272  WORK  ON  ■  MAN/  [1864. 

as  mine  ;  it  is  just  as  much  yours  as  mine.  One  correspond- 
ent has  already  noticed  to  me  your  "  high-minded  "  conduct 
on  this  head.  But  now  for  your  Man  paper,  about  which  I 
should  like  to  write  more  than  I  can.  The  great  leading 
idea  is  quite  new  to  me,  viz.  that  during  late  ages,  the  mind 
will  have  been  modified  more  than  the  body  ;  yet  I  had  got 
as  far  as  to  see  with  you  that  the  struggle  between  the  races 
of  man  depended  entirely  on  intellectual  and  moral  qualities. 
The  latter  part  of  the  paper  I  can  designate  only  as  grand 
and  most  eloquently  done.  I  have  shown  your  paper  to  two 
or  three  persons  who  have  been  here,  and  they  have  been 
equally  struck  with  it.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  go  with  you  on 
all  minor  points  :  when  reading  Sir  G.  Grey's  account  of  the 
constant  battles  of  Australian  savages,  I  remember  thinking 
that  natural  selection  would  come  in;  and  likewise  with  the 
Esquimaux,  with  whom  the  art  of  fishing  and  managing  ca- 
noes is  said  to  be  hereditary.  I  rather  differ  on  the  rank, 
under  a  classificatory  point  of  view,  which  you  assign  to  man  ; 
I  do  not  think  any  character  simply  in  excess  ought  ever  to 
be  used  for  the  higher  divisions.  Ants  would  not  be  sepa- 
rated from  other  hymenopterous  insects,  however  high  the 
instinct  of  the  one,  and  however  low  the  instincts  of  the  other. 
With  respect  to  the  differences  of  race,  a  conjecture  has  oc- 
curred to  me  that  much  may  be  due  to  the  correlation  of 
complexion  (and  consequently  hair)  with  constitution.  As- 
sume that  a  dusky  individual  best  escaped  miasma,  and  you 
will  readily  see  what  I  mean.  I  persuaded  the  Director- 
General  of  the  Medical  Department  of  the  Army  to  send 
printed  forms  to  the  surgeons  of  all  regiments  in  tropical 
countries  to  ascertain  this  point,  but  I  dare  say  I  shall  never 
get  any  returns.  Secondly,  I  suspect  that  a  sort  of  sexual 
selection  has  been  the  most  powerful  means  of  changing  the 
races  of  man.  I  can  show  that  the  different  races  have  a 
widely  different  standard  of  beauty.  Among  savages  the 
most  powerful  men  will  have  the  pick  of  the  women,  and  they 
will  generally  leave  the  most  descendants.  I  have  collected 
a  few  notes  on  man,  but  I  do  not  suppose  that  I  shall  ever 


1867.]  MR.  WALLACE.  273 

use  them.  Do  you  intend  to  follow  out  your  views,  and  it 
so,  would  you  like  at  some  future  time  to  have  my  few  refer- 
ences and  notes  ?  I  am  sure  I  hardly  know  whether  they  are 
of  any  value,  and  they  are  at  present  in  a  state  of  chaos. 

There  is  much  more  that  I  should  like  to  write,  but  I 
have  not  strength. 

Believe  me,  dear  Wallace,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.S.  — Our  aristocracy  is  handsomer  (more  hideous  ac- 
cording to  a  Chinese  or  Negro)  than  the  middle  classes,  from 
(having  the)  pick  of  the  women  ;  but  oh,  what  a  scheme  is 
primogeniture  for  destroying  natural  selection  !  I  fear  my 
letter  will  be  barely  intelligible  to  you. 

[In  February  1867,  when  the  manuscript  of  '  Animals  and 
.  Plants '  had  been  sent  to  Messrs.  Clowes  to  be  printed,  and 
before  the  proofs  began  to  come  in,  he  had  an  interval  of 
spare  time,  and  began  a  "chapter  on  Man,"  but  he  soon 
found  it  growing  under  his  hands,  and  determined  to  publish 
it  separately  as  a  "very  small  volume." 

The  work  was  interrupted  by  the  necessity  of  correcting 
the  proofs  of  '  Animals  and  Plants/  and  by  some  botanical 
work,  but  was  resumed  in  the  following  year,  1868,  the  mo- 
ment he  could  give  himself  up  to  it. 

He  recognized  with  regret  the  gradual  change  in  his  mind 
that  rendered  continuous  work  more  and  more  necessary  to 
him  as  he  grew  older.  This  is  expressed  in  a  letter  to  Sir  J. 
D.  Hooker,  June  17,  1868,  which  repeats  to  some  extent  what 
is  expressed  in  the  Autobiography  : — 

"  I  am  glad  you  were  at  the  '  Messiah/  it  is  the  one  thing 
that  I  should  like  to  hear  again,  but  I  dare  say  I  should  find 
my  soul  too  dried  up  to  appreciate  it  as  in  old  days  ;  and 
then  I  should  feel  very  flat,  for  it  is  a  horrid  bore  to  feel  as  I 
constantly  do,  that  I  am  a  withered  leaf  for  every  subject 
except  Science.  It  sometimes  makes  me  hate  Science,  though 
God  knows  I  ought  to  be  thankful  for  such  a  perennial  inter- 


274 


WORK  ON  'MAN.'  [1867. 


est,   which  makes  me  forget  for  some  hours  every  day  my 
accursed  stomach.'' 

The  work  on  Man  was  interrupted  by  illness  in  the  early 
summer  of  1868,  and  he  left  home  on  July  16th  for  Fresh- 
water, in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  where  he  remained  with  his 
family  until  August  21st.  Here  he  made  the  acquaintance 
of  Mrs.  Cameron.  She  received  the  whole  family  with  open- 
hearted  kindness  and  hospitality,  and  my  father  always  re- 
tained a  warm  feeling  of  friendship  for  her.  She  made  an 
excellent  photograph  of  him,  which  was  published  with  the 
inscription  written  by  him  :  "  I  like  this  photograph  very 
much  better  than  any  other  which  has  been  taken  of  me." 
Further  interruption  occurred  in  the  autumn  so  that  continu- 
ous work  on  the  '  Descent  of  Man  '  did  not  begin  until  1869. 
The  following  letters  give  some  idea  of  the  earlier  work  in 
1867  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  February  22,  [1867?] 
My  dear  Wallace, — I  am  hard  at  work  on  sexual  selec- 
tion, and  am  driven  half  mad  by  the  number  of  collateral 
points  which  require  investigation,  such  as  the  relative  num- 
ber of  the  two  sexes,  and  especially  on  polygamy.  Can  you 
aid  me  with  respect  to  birds  which  have  strongly  marked  sec- 
ondary sexual  characters,  such  as  birds  of  paradise,  humming- 
birds, the  Rupicola,  or  any  other  such  cases  ?  Many  gallina- 
ceous birds  certainly  are  polygamous.  I  suppose  that  birds 
may  be  known  not  to  be  polygamous  if  they  are  seen  during 
the  whole  breeding  seasion  to  associate  in  pairs,  or  if  the 
male  incubates  or  aids  in  feeding  the  young.  Will  you  have 
the  kindness  to  turn  this  in  your  mind  ?  But  it  is  a  shame 
to  trouble  you  now  that,  as  I  am  heartily  glad  to  hear,  you  are 
at  work  on  your  Malayan  travels.  I  am  fearfully  puzzled 
how  far  to  extend  your  protective  views  with  respect  to  the 
females  in  various  classes.  The  more  I  work  the  more  im- 
portant sexual  selection  apparently  comes  out. 


I867-]  SEXUAL   SELECTION.  275 

Can  butterflies  be  polygamous  !  i.  c.  will  one  male  impreg- 
nate more  than  one  female  ?  Forgive  me  troubling  you,  and 
I  dare  say  I  shall  have  to  ask  forgiveness  again.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  February  23  [1867]. 

Dear  Wallace, — I  much  regretted  that  I  was  unable  to 
call  on  you,  but  after  Monday  I  was  unable  even  to  leave  the 
house.  On  Monday  evening  I  called  on  Bates,  and  put  a 
difficulty  before  him,  which  he  could  not  answer,  and,  as  on 
some  former  similar  occasion,  his  first  suggestion  was,  "  You 
had  better  ask  Wallace."  My  difficulty  is,  why  are  caterpil- 
lars sometimes  so  beautifully  and  artistically  coloured  ?  See- 
ing that  many  are  coloured  to  escape  danger,  I  can  hardly 
attribute  their  bright  color  in  other  cases  to  mere  physical 
conditions.  Bates  says  the  most  gaudy  caterpillar  he  ever 
saw  in  Amazonia  (of  a  sphinx)  was  conspicuous  at  the  dis- 
tance of  yards,  from  its  black  and  red  colours,  whilst  feeding 
on  large  green  leaves.  If  any  one  objected  to  male  butter- 
flies having  been  made  beautiful  by  sexual  selection,  and 
asked  why  should  they  not  have  been  made  beautiful  as  well 
as  their  caterpillars,  what  would  you  answer  ?  I  could  not 
answer,  but  should  maintain  my  ground.  Will  you  think 
over  this,  and  some  time,  either  by  letter  or  when  we  meet, 
tell  me  what  you  think  ?  Also  I  want  to  know  whether  your 
female  mimetic  butterfly  is  more  beautiful  and  brighter  than 
the  male.  When  next  in  London  I  must  get  you  to  show  me 
your  kingfishers.  My  health  is  a  dreadful  evil ;  I  failed  in 
half  my  engagements  during  this  last  visit  to  London. 
Believe  me,  yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 


2/6  WORK  ON  '  MAN.'  [1867. 


C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.   Wallace. 

Down,  February  26  [1867]. 

My  dear  Wallace, — Bates  was  quite  right ;  you  are  the 
man  to  apply  to  in  a  difficulty.  I  never  heard  anything  more 
ingenious  than  your  suggestion,*  and  I  hope  you  may  be  able 
to  prove  it  true.  That  is  a  splendid  fact  about  the  white 
moths  ;  it  warms  one's  very  blood  to  see  a  theory  thus  almost 
proved  to  be  true.f  With  respect  to  the  beauty  of  male  but- 
terflies, I  must  as  yet  think  that  it  is  due  to  sexual  selection. 
There  is  some  evidence  that  dragon-flies  are  attracted  by 
bright  colours ;  but  what  leads  me  to  the  above  belief  is,  so 
many  male  Orthoptera  and  Cicadas  having  musical  instru- 
ments. This  being  the  case,  the  analogy  of  birds  makes  me 
believe  in  sexual  selection  with  respect  to  colour  in  insects. 
I  wish  I  had  strength  and  time  to  make  some  of  the  experi- 
ments suggested  by  you,  but  I  thought  butterflies  would  not 
pair  in  confinement.  I  am  sure  I  have  heard  of  some  such 
difficulty.  Many  years  ago  I  had  a  dragon-fly  painted  with 
gorgeous  colours,  but  I  never  had  an  opportunity  of  fairly 
trying  it. 

The  reason  of  my  being  so  much  interested  just  at  present 
about  sexual  selection  is,  that  I  have  almost  resolved  to 
publish  a  little  essay  on  the  origin  of  Mankind,  and  I  still 
strongly  think  (though  I  failed  to  convince  you,  and  this,  to 
me,  is  the  heaviest  blow  possible)  that  sexual  selection  has 
been  the  main  agent  in  forming  the  races  of  man. 

By  the  way,  there  is  another  subject  which  I  shall  intro- 
duce in  my  essay,  namely,  expression  of  countenance.     Now, 

*  The  suggestion  that  conspicuous  caterpillars  or  perfect  insects  (e.  g. 
white  butterflies),  which  are  distasteful  to  birds,  are  protected  by  being 
easily  recognised  and  avoided.  See  Mr.  Wallace's  *  Natural  Selection,' 
2nd  edit.,  p.  117. 

f  Mr.  Jenner  Weir's  observations  published  in  the  Transactions  of  the 
Entomolog.  Soc.  (1S69  and  1870)  give  strong  support  to  the  theory  in 
question. 


1367.]  SEXUAL   SELECTION.  277 

do  you  happen  to  know  by  any  odd  chance  a  very  good- 
natured  and  acute  observer  in  the  Malay  Archipelago,  who 
you  think  would  make  a  few  easy  observations  for  me  on  the 
expression  of  the  Malays  when  excited  by  various  emotions  ? 
For  in  this  case  I  would  send  to  such  person  a  list  of  queries. 
I  thank  you  for  your  most  interesting  letter,  and  remain, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  March  [1867]. 
My  dear  Wallace, — I  thank  you  much  for  your  two 
notes.  The  case  of  Julia  Pastrana*  is  a  splendid  addition  to 
my  other  cases  of  correlated  teeth  and  hair,  and  I  will  add  it 
in  correcting  the  press  of  my  present  volume.  Pray  let  me 
hear  in  the  course  of  the  summer  if  you  get  any  evidence 
about  the  gaudy  caterpillars.  I  should  much  like  to  give 
(or  quote  if  published)  this  idea  of  yours,  if  in  any  way  sup- 
ported, as  suggested  by  you.  It  will,  however,  be  a  long 
time  hence,  for  I  can  see  that  sexual  selection  is  growing 
into  quite  a  large  subject,  which  I  shall  introduce  into  my 
essay  on  Man,  supposing  that  I  ever  publish  it.  I  had 
intended  giving  a  chapter  on  man,  inasmuch  as  many  call 
him  (not  quite  truly)  an  eminently  domesticated  animal,  but 
I  found  the  subject  too  large  for  a  chapter.  Nor  shall  I  be 
capable  of  treating  the  subject  well,  and  my  sole  reason  for 
taking  it  up  is,  that  I  am  pretty  well  convinced  that  sexual 
selection  has  played  an  important  part  in  the  formation  of 
races,  and  sexual  selection  has  always  been  a  subject  which 
has  interested  me  much.  I  have  been  very  glad  to  see  your 
impression  from  memory  on  the  expression  of  Malays.  I 
fully  agree  with  you  that  the  subject  is  in  no  way  an  im- 
portant one  ;  it  is  simply  a  "  hobby-horse  "  with  me,  about 
twenty-seven  years  old  ;  and  after  thinking  that  I  would  write 


*  A  bearded  woman  having  an  irregular  double  set  of  teeth.     '  Animals 
and  Plants,*  vol.  ii.  p.  328. 


278  WORK  ON  'MAN.'  [1868. 

an  essay  on  man,  it  flashed  on  me  that  I  could  work  in  some 
"  supplemental  remarks  on  expression. "  After  the  horrid, 
tedious,  dull  work  of  my  present  huge,  and  I  fear  unreadable, 
book  ['The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants'],  I  thought  I 
would  amuse  myself  with  my  hobby-horse.  The  subject  is, 
I  think,  more  curious  and  more  amenable  to  scientific  treat- 
ment than  you  seem  willing  to  allow.  I  want,  anyhow,  to 
upset  Sir  C.  Bell's  view,  given  in  his  most  interesting  work, 
'The  Anatomy  of  Expression,'  that  certain  muscles  have 
been  given  to  man  solely  that  he  may  reveal  to  other  men 
his  feelings.  I  want  to  try  and  show  how  expressions  have 
arisen.  That  is  a  good  suggestion  about  newspapers,  but  my 
experience  tells  me  that  private  applications  are  generally 
most  fruitful.  I  will,  however,  see  if  I  can  get  the  queries 
inserted  in  some  Indian  paper.  I  do  not  know  the  names  or 
addresses  of  any  other  papers. 

.  .  .  My  two  female  amanuenses  are  busy  with  friends,  and 
I  fear  this  scrawl  will  give  you  much  trouble  to  read.     With 

many  thanks, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  may  be  worth  giving,  as  an  example 
of  his  sources  of  information,  and  as  showing  what  were  the 
thoughts  at  this  time  occupying  him  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  Miiller. 

Down,  February  22  [1867]. 
.  .  .  Many  thanks  for  all  the  curious  facts  about  the  un- 
equal number  of  the  sexes  in  Crustacea,  but  the  more  I  in- 
vestigate this  subject  the  deeper  I  sink  in  doubt  and  difficulty. 
Thanks  also  for  the  confirmation  of  the  rivalry  of  Cicadae.  I 
have  often  reflected  with  surprise  on  the  diversity  of  the  means 
for  producing  music  with  insects,  and  still  more  with  birds. 
We  thus  get  a  high  idea  of  the  importance  of  song  in  the  ani- 
mal kingdom.  Please  to  tell  me  where  I  can  find  any  account 
of  the  auditory  organs  in  the  Orthoptera.     Your  facts  are 


i868.]  SEXUAL   SELECTION.  279 

quite  new  to  me.  Scudder  has  described  an  insect  in  the 
Devonian  strata,  furnished  with  a  stridulating  apparatus. 
I  believe  he  is  to  be  trusted,  and,  if  so,  the  apparatus  is  of 
astonishing  antiquity.  After  reading  Landois's  paper  I  have 
been  working  at  the  stridulating  organ  in  the  Lamellicorn 
beetles,  in  expectation  of  finding  it  sexual  ;  but  I  have  only 
found  it  as  yet  in  two  cases,  and  in  these  it  was  equally  de- 
veloped in  both  sexes.  I  wish  you  would  look  at  any  of 
your  common  lamellicorns,  and  take  hold  of  both  males 
and  females,  and  observe  whether  they  make  the  squeaking 
or  grating  noise  equally.  If  they  do  not,  you  could,  perhaps, 
send  me  a  male  and  female  in  a  light  little  box.  How 
curious  it  is  that  there  should  be  a  special  organ  for  an  object 
apparently  so  unimportant  as  squeaking.  Here  is  another 
point ;  have  you  any  toucans  ?  if  so,  ask  any  trustworthy 
hunter  whether  the  beaks  of  the  males,  or  of  both  sexes,  are 
more  brightly  coloured  during  the  breeding  season  than  at 
other  times  of  the  year.  .  .  .  Heaven  knows  whether  I  shall 
ever  live  to  make  use  of  half  the  valuable  facts  which  you 
have  communicated  to  me  !  Your  paper  on  Balanus  ar- 
matus,  translated  by  Mr.  Dallas,  has  just  appeared  in  our 
'  Annals  and  Magazine  of  Natural  History,'  and  I  have  read 
it  with  the  greatest  interest.  I  never  thought  that  I  should 
live  to  hear  of  a  hybrid  Balanus  !  I  am  very  glad  that  you 
have  seen  the*cement  tubes;  they  appear  to  me  extremely 
curious,  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  you  are  the  first  man  who  has 
verified  my  observations  on  this  point. 

With  most  cordial  thanks  for  all  your  kindness,  my  dear 
Sir, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  De  Candolle. 

Down,  July  6,  1868. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  return  you  my  sincere  thanks  for  your 
long  letter,  which  I  consider  a  great  compliment,  and  which 
is  quite   full   of   most    interesting   facts    and  views.       Your 


2g0  WORK  ON  '  MAN.'  [1868. 

references  and  remarks  will  be  of  great  use  should  a  new 
edition  of  my  book  *  be  demanded,  but  this  is  hardly  prob- 
able, for  the  whole  edition  was  sold  within  the  first  week, 
and  another  large  edition  immediately  reprinted,  which  I 
should  think  would  supply  the  demand  for  ever.  You  ask 
me  when  I  shall  publish  on  the  '  Variation  of  Species  in  a 
State  of  Nature.'  1  have  had  the  MS.  for  another  volume 
almost  ready  during  several  years,  but  I  was  so  much 
fatigued  by  my  last  book  that  I  determined  to  amuse  myself 
by  publishing  a  short  essay  on  the  4  Descent  of  Man.'  I  was 
partly  led  to  do  this  by  having  been  taunted  that  I  concealed 
my  views,  but  chiefly  from  the  interest  which  I  had  long 
taken  in  the  subject.  Now  this  essay  has  branched  out  into 
some  collateral  subjects,  and  I  suppose  will  take  me  more 
than  a  year  to  complete.  I  shall  then  begin  on  '  Species/ 
but  my  health  makes  me  a  very  slow  workman.  I  hope  that 
you  will  excuse  these  details,  which  I  have  given  to  show 
that  you  will  have  plenty  of  time  to  publish  your  views  first, 
which  will  be  a  great  advantage  to  me.  Of  all  the  curious 
facts  which  you  mention  in  your  letter,  I  think  that  of  the 
strong  inheritance  of  the  scalp-muscles  has  interested  me 
most.  I  presume  that  you  would  not  object  to  my  giving 
this  very  curious  case  on  your  authority.  As  I  believe  all 
anatomists  look  at  the  scalp-muscles  as  a  remnant  of  the 
Panniculus  carnosus  which  is  common  to  all  the  lower  quad- 
rupeds, I  should  look  at  the  unusual  development  and  inheri- 
tance of  these  muscles  as  probably  a  case  of  reversion.  Your 
observation  on  so  many  remarkable  men  in  noble  families 
having  been  illegitimate  is  extremely  curious ;  and  should  I 
ever  meet  any  one  capable  of  writing  an  essay  on  this  subject, 
I  will  mention  your  remarks  as  a  good  suggestion.  Dr. 
Hooker  has  several  times  remarked  to  me  that  morals  and 
politics  would  be  very  interesting  if  discussed  like  any  branch 
of  natural  history,  and  this  is  nearly  to  the  same  effect  with 
your  remarks.  .  .  . 

*  ■  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants/ 


1868.]  „  AGASSIZ.  28l 


C.  Darwin  to  L.  Agassiz. 

Down,  August  19,  1868. 

Dear  Sir, — I  thank  you  cordially  for  your  very  kind 
letter.  I  certainly  thought  that  you  had  formed  so  low  an 
opinion  of  my  scientific  work  that  it  might  have  appeared 
indelicate  in  me  to  have  asked  for  information  from  you,  but 
it  never  occurred  to  me  that  my  letter  would  have  been 
shown  to  you.  I  have  never  for  a  moment  doubted  your 
kindness  and  generosity,  and  I  hope  you  will  not  think  it 
presumption  in  me  to  say,  that  when  we  met,  many  years  ago, 
at  the  British  Association  at  Southampton,  I  felt  for  you  the 
warmest  admiration. 

Your  information  on  the  Amazonian  fishes  has  interested 
me  extremely ',  and  tells  me  exactly  what  I  wanted  to  know. 
I  was  aware,  through  notes  given  me  by  Dr.  Glinther,  that 
many  fishes  differed  sexually  in  colour  and  other  characters, 
but  I  was  particularly  anxious  to  learn  how  far  this  was  the 
case  with  those  fishes  in  which  the  male,  differently  from 
what  occurs  with  most  birds,  takes  the  largest  share  in 
the  care  of  the  ova  and  young.  Your  letter  has  not  only 
interested  me  much,  but  has  greatly  gratified  me  in  other 
respects,  and  I  return  you  my  sincere  thanks  for  your  kind- 
ness.    Pray  believe  me,  my  dear  Sir, 

Yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Sunday,  August  23  [1868]. 

My  dear  old  Friend, — I  have  received  your  note.     I 

can  hardly  say  how  pleased  I  have  been  at  the  success  of 

your  address,*  and  of  the  whole  meeting.     I  have  seen  the 

Times,  Telegraph,  Spectator,  and  Athenceum,  and  have  heard 

*  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  was  President  of  the  British  Association  at  the 
Norwich  Meeting  in  1868. 


282  WORK  ON  'MAN/  1 1868. 

of  other  favourable  newspapers,  and  have  ordered  a  bundle. 
There  is  a  "  chorus  of  praise."  The  Times  reported  miserably, 
i.e.  as  far  as  errata  was  concerned ;  but  I  was  very  glad  at 
the  leader,  for  I  thought  the  way  you  brought  in  the  mega- 
lithic  monuments  most  happy.*  I  particularly  admired  Tyn- 
dall's  little  speech. f  .  .  .  The  Spectator  pitches  a  little  into 
you  about  Theology,  in  accordance  with  its  usual  spirit.  .  .  . 
Your  great  success  has  rejoiced  my  heart.  I  have  just 
carefully  read  the  whole  address  in  the  Athenceum ;  and 
though,  as  you  know,  I  liked  it  very  much  when  you  read  it 
to  me,  yet,  as  I  was  trying  all  the  time  to  find  fault,  I  missed 
to  a  certain  extent  the  effect  as  a  whole  ;  and  this  now 
appears  to  me  most  striking  and  excellent.  How  you  must 
rejoice  at  all  your  bothering  labour  and  anxiety  having  had 
so  grand  an  end.  I  must  say  a  word  about  myself ;  never 
has  such  a  eulogium  been  passed  on  me,  and  it  makes  me 
very  proud.  I  cannot  get  over  my  amazement  at  what  you 
say  about  my  botanical  work.  By  Jove,  as  far  as  my  memory 
goes,  you  have  strengthened  instead  of  weakened  some  of  the 
expressions.  What  is  far  more  important  than  anything  per- 
sonal, is  the  conviction  which  I  feel  that  you  will  have  im- 
mensely advanced  the  belief  in  the  evolution  of  species. 
This  will  follow  from  the  publicity  of  the  occasion,  your  posi- 
tion, so  responsible,  as  President,  and  your  own  high  reputa- 
tion. It  will  make  a  great  step  in  public  opinion.  I  feel  sure, 
and  I  had  not  thought  of  this  before.  The  Athenceum  takes 
your  snubbing  \  with  the  utmost  mildness.  I  certainly  do 
rejoice  over  the  snubbing,  and  hope  [the  reviewer]  will  feel 
it  a  little.  Whenever  you  have  spare  time  to  write  again, 
tell  me  whether  any  astronomers  §  took  your  remarks  in  ill 


*  The  British  Association  was  desirous  of  interesting  the  Government 
in  certain  modern  cromlech  builders,  the  Khasia  race  of  East  Bengal,  in 
order  that  their  megalithic  monuments  might  be  efficiently  described. 

f  Professor  Tyndall  was  President  of  Section  A. 

%  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  made  some  reference  to  the  review  of  '  Animals 
and  Plants '  in  the  Athenceum  of  Feb.  15,  1868. 

§  In  discussing  the  astronomer's  objection  to  Evolution,  namely  that 


1868.]  THE  'ATHEN.EUM.'  283 

part  ;  as  they  now  stand  they  do  not  seem  at  all  too  harsh 
and  presumptuous.  Many  of  your  sentences  strike  me  as 
extremely  felicitous  and  eloquent.  That  of  Lyell's  "  under- 
pinning," *  is  capital.  Tell  me,  was  Lyell  pleased  ?  I  am  so 
glad  that  you  remembered  my  old  dedication.!  Was  Wallace 
pleased  ? 

How  about  photographs  ?  Can  you  spare  time  for  a  line 
to  our  dear  Mrs.  Cameron  ?  J  She  came  to  see  us  off,  and 
loaded  us  with  presents  of  photographs,  and  Erasmus  called 
after  her,  "  Mrs.  Cameron,  there  are  six  people  in  this  house 
all  in  love  with  you."  When  I  paid  her,  she  cried  out,  "  Oh 
what  a  lot  of  money  !  "  and  ran  to  boast  to  her  husband. 

I  must  not  write  any  more,  though  I  am  in  tremendous 
spirits  at  your  brilliant  success. 

Yours  ever  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

[In  the  Athenceum  of  November  29,  1868,  appeared  an 
article  which  was  in  fact  a  reply  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker's  re- 
marks at  Norwich.  He  seems  to  have  consulted  my  father 
as  to  the  wisdom  of  answering  the  article.  My  father  wrote 
on  September  1  : 

"  In  my  opinion  Dr.  Joseph  Dalton  Hooker  need  take  no 
notice  of  the  attack  in  the  Athenceum  in  reference  to  Mr. 
Charles  Darwin.  What  an  ass  the  man  is  to  think  he  cuts 
one  to  the  quick  by  giving  one's  Christian  name  in  full.  How 
transparently  false  is  the  statement  that  my  sole  groundwork 

our  globe  has  not  existed  for  a  long  enough  period  to  give  time  for  the 
as  umed  transmutation  of  living  beings,  Hooker  challenged  Whe well's 
dictum  that,  astronomy  is  the  queen  of  sciences — the  only  perfect  science. 

*  After  a  eulogium  on  Sir  Charles  Lyell's  heroic  renunciation  of  his 
old  views  in  accepting  Evolution,  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  continued,  "  Well  may 
he  be  proud  of  a  superstructure,  raised  on  the  foundations  of  an  insecure 
doctrine,  when  he  finds  that  he  can  underpin  it  and  substitute  a  new 
foundation  ;  and  after  all  is  finished,  survey  his  edifice,  not  only  more 
secure  but  more  harmonious  in  its  proportion  than  it  was  before." 

\  The  *  Naturalist's  Voyage  '  was  dedicated  to  Lyell. 

%  See  p.  274. 

55 


284  WORK  ON  'MAN.  [1868. 

is  from  pigeons,  because  I  state  I  have  worked  them  out  more 
fully  than  other  beings  !  He  muddles  together  two  books  of 
Flourens." 

The  following  letter  refers  to  a  paper  *  by  Judge  Caton, 
of  which  my  father  often  spoke  with  admiration  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  John  D.  Caton. 

Down,  September  18,  1868. 

Dear  Sir, — I  beg  leave  to  thank  you  very  sincerely  for 
your  kindness  in  sending  me,  through  Mr.  Walsh,  your  ad- 
mirable paper  on  American  Deer. 

It  is  quite  full  of  most  interesting  observations,  stated  with 
the  greatest  clearness.  I  have  seldom  read  a  paper  with 
more  interest,  for  it  abounds  with  facts  of  direct  use  for  my 
work.  Many  of  them  consist  of  little  points  which  hardly 
any  one  besides  yourself  has  observed,  or  perceived  the  im- 
portance of  recording.  I  would  instance  the  age  at  which 
the  horns  are  developed  (a  point  on  which  I  have  lately  been 
in  vain  searching  for  information),  the  rudiment  of  horns  in 
the  female  elk,  and  especially  the  different  nature  of  the 
plants  devoured  by  the  deer  and  elk,  and  several  other 
points.  With  cordial  thanks  for  the  pleasure  and  instruction 
which  you  have  afforded  me,  and  with  high  respect  for  your 
power  of  observation,  I  beg  leave  to  remain,  dear  Sir, 

Yours  faithfully  and  obliged, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  following  extract  from  a  letter  (Sept.  24,  1868)  to 
the  Marquis  de  Saporta,  the  eminent  palseo-botanist,  refers 
to  the  growth  of  evolutionary  views  in  France  : — f 

"As  I  have  formerly  read  with  great  interest  many  of 
your  papers  on  fossil  plants,  you  may  believe  with  what  high 

'""'Transactions  of  the  Ottawa  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,'  1868. 
By  John  D.  Caton,  late  Chief  Justice  of  Illinois. 

f  In  1868  he  was  pleased  at  being  asked  to  authorise  a  French  transla- 
tion of  his  '  Naturalist's  Voyage/ 


1868.]  HAECKEL'S   BOOKS.  28$ 

satisfaction  I  hear  that  you  are  a  believer  in  the  gradual  evo- 
lution of  species.  I  had  supposed  that  my  book  on  the 
'  Origin  of  Species '  had  made  very  little  impression  in 
France,  and  therefore  it  delights  me  to  hear  a  different  state- 
ment from  you.  All  the  great  authorities  of  the  Institute 
seem  firmly  resolved  to  believe  in  the  immutability  of  spe- 
cies, and  this  has  always  astonished  me.  .  .  .  Almost  the  one 
exception,  as  far  as  I  know,  is  M.  Gaudry,  and  I  think  he 
will  be  soon  one  of  the  chief  leaders  in  Zoological  Palaeon- 
tology in  Europe  ;  and  now  I  am  delighted  to  hear  that  in 
the  sister  department  of  Botany  you  take  nearly  the  same 
view."] 

C.  Darwin  to  E.  Haeckel. 

Down,  Nov.  19  [1868]. 

My  dear  Haeckel, — I  must  write  to  you  again,  for  two 
reasons.  Firstly,  to  thank  you  for  your  letter  about  your 
baby,  which  has  quite  charmed  both  me  and  my  wife;  I 
heartily  congratulate  you  on  its  birth.  I  remember  being 
surprised  in  my  own  case  how  soon  the  paternal  instincts 
became  developed,  and  in  you  they  seem  to  be  unusually 
strong,  ...  I  hope  the  large  blue  eyes  and  the  principles  of 
inheritance  will  make  your  child  as  good  a  naturalist  as  you 
are ;  but,  judging  from  my  own  experience,  you  will  be  aston- 
ished to  find  how  the  whole  mental  disposition  of  your  chil- 
dren changes  with  advancing  years.  A  young  child,  and  the 
same  when  nearly  grown,  sometimes  differ  almost  as  much  as 
do  a  caterpillar  and  butterfly. 

The  second  point  is  to  congratulate  you  on  the  projected 
translation  of  your  great  work,*  about  which  I  heard  from 
Huxley  last  Sunday.  I  am  heartily  glad  of  it,  but  how  it  has 
been  brought  about,  I  know  not,  for  a  friend  who  supported 
the  supposed  translation  at  Norwich,  told  me  he  thought 
there  would  be  no  chance  of  it.     Huxley  tells  me  that  you 


*  *  Generelle  Morphologic/  1866.     No  English  translation  of  this  book 
has  appeared. 


286  WORK  ON  '  MAN.'  [1868. 

consent  to  omit  and  shorten  some  parts,  and  I  am  confident 
that  this  is  very  wise.  As  I  know  your  object  is  to  instruct 
the  public,  you  will  assuredly  thus  get  many  more  readers  in 
England.  Indeed,  I  believe  that  almost  every  book  would 
be  improved  by  condensation.  I  have  been  reading  a  good 
deal  of  your  last  book,*  and  the  style  is  beautifully  clear  and 
easy  to  me  ;  but  why  it  should  differ  so  much  in  this  respect 
from  your  great  work  I  cannot  imagine.  I  have  not  yet  read 
the  first  part,  but  began  with  the  chapter  on  Lyell  and  myself, 
which  you  will  easily  believe  pleased  me  very  much,  I  think 
Lyell,  who  was  apparently  much  pleased  by  your  sending 
him  a  copy,  is  also  much  gratified  by  this  chapter.f  Your 
chapters  on  the  affinities  and  genealogy  of  the  animal  king- 
dom strike  me  as  admirable  and  full  of  original  thought. 
Your  boldness,  however,  sometimes  makes  me  tremble,  but 
as  Huxley  remarked,  some  one  must  be  bold  enough  to  make 
a  beginning  in  drawing  up  tables  of  descent.  Although  you 
fully  admit  the  imperfection  of  the  geological  record,  yet 
Huxley  agreed  with  me  in  thinking  that  you  are  sometimes 
rather  rash  in  venturing  to  say  at  what  periods  the  several 
groups  first  appeared.  I  have  this  advantage  over  you,  that 
I  remember  how  wonderfully  different  any  statement  on  this 
subject  made  20  years  ago,  would  have  been  to  what  would 
now  be  the  case,  and  I  expect  the  next  20  years  will  make 
quite  as  great  a  difference.  Reflect  on  the  monocotyle- 
donous  plant  just  discovered  in  the  primordial  formation  in 
Sweden. 

I  repeat  how  glad  I  am  at  the  prospect  of  the  translation, 
for  I  fully  believe  that  this  work  and  all  your  works  will  have 
a  great  influence  in  the  advancement  of  Science. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Hackel,  your  sincere  friend, 

Charles  Darwin. 


*  '  Die  Naturliche  Schopfungs-Geschichte,'  1868.  It  was  translated 
and  published  in  1876,  under  the  title,  '  The  History  of  Creation.' 

f  See  Lyell's  interesting  letter  to  Haeckel.  i  Life  of  Sir  C.  Lyell,'  ii. 
P.  435- 


1869.]  FIFTH    EDITION   OF    THE  'ORIGIN.'  287 

[It  was  in  November  of  this  year  that  he  sat  for  the  bust 
by  Mr.  Woolner :  he  wrote  : — 

"  I  should  have  written  long  ago,  but  I  have  been  pestered 
with  stupid  letters,  and  am  undergoing  the  purgatory  of  sit- 
ting for  hours  to  Woolner,  who,  however,  is  wonderfully  pleas- 
ant, and  lightens  as  much  as  man  can,  the  penance ;  as  far  as 
I  can  judge,  it  will  make  a  fine  bust." 

If  I  may  criticise  the  work  of  so  eminent  a  sculptor  as 
Mr.  Woolner,  I  should  say  that  the  point  in  which  the  bust 
fails  somewhat  as  a  portrait,  is  that  it  has  a  certain  air, 
almost  of  pomposity,  which  seems  to  me  foreign  to  my  fa- 
ther's expression.] 

1869. 

[At  the  beginning  of  the  year  he  was  at  work  in  preparing 
the  fifth  edition  of  the  '  Origin. '  This  work  was  begun  on 
the  day  after  Christmas,  1868,  and  was  continued  for  "forty- 
six  days,"  as  he  notes  in  his  diary,  i.e.  until  February  10th, 
1869.  He  then,  February  nth,  returned  to  Sexual  Selection, 
and  continued  at  this  subject  (excepting  for  ten  days  given 
up  to  Orchids,  and  a  week  in  London),  until  June  10th,  when 
he  went  with  his  family  to  North  Wales,  where  he  remained 
about  seven  weeks,  returning  to  Down  on  July  31st. 

Caerdeon,  the  house  where  he  stayed,  is  built  on  the  north 
shore  of  the  beautiful  Barmouth  estuary,  and  is  pleasantly 
placed,  in  being  close  to  wild  hill  country  behind,  as  well  as 
to  the  picturesque  wooded  "  hummocks,"  between  the  steeper 
hills  and  the  river.  My  father  was  ill  and  somewhat  de- 
pressed throughout  this  visit,  and  I  think  felt  saddened  at 
being  imprisoned  by  his  want  of  strength,  and  unable  even  to 
reach  the  hills  over  which  he  had  once  wandered  for  days 
together. 

He  wrote  from  Caerdeon  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (June 
22nd)  : — 

u  We  have  been  here  for  ten  days,  how  I  wish  it  was  pos- 
sible for  you  to  pay  us  a  visit  here  ;  we  have  a  beautiful 
house  with  a  terraced  garden,  and  a  really  magnificent  view 


288  WORK  ON  ■  MAN.'  [1869. 

of  Cader,  right  opposite.  Old  Cader  is  a  grand  fellow,  and 
shows  himself  off  superbly  with  every  changing  light.  We 
remain  here  till  the  end  of  July,  when  the  H.  Wedgwoods 
have  the  house.  I  have  been  as  yet  in  a  very  poor  way  ;  it 
seems  as  soon  as  the  stimulus  of  mental  work  stops,  my  whole 
strength  gives  way.  As  yet  I  have  hardly  crawled  half  a 
mile  from  the  house,  and  then  have  been  fearfully  fatigued. 
It  is  enough  to  make  one  wish  oneself  quiet  in  a  comfortable 
tomb." 

With  regard  to  the  fifth  edition  of  the  '  Origin/  he  wrote 
to  Mr.  Wallace  (January  22,  1869)  : — 

"  I  have  been  interrupted  in  my  regular  work  in  prepar- 
ing a  new  edition  of  the  '  Origin/  which  has  cost  me  much 
labour,  and  which  I  hope  I  have  considerably  improved  in 
two  or  three  important  points.  I  always  thought  individual 
differences  more  important  than  single  variations,  but  now  I 
have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  are  of  paramount  im- 
portance, and  in  this  I  believe  I  agree  with  you.  Fleeming 
Jenkin's  arguments  haye  convinced  me." 

This  somewhat  obscure  sentence  was  explained,  February 
2,  in  another  letter  to  Mr.  Wallace  :  — 

u  I  must  have  expressed  myself  atrociously  ;  I  meant  to 
say  exactly  the  reverse  of  what  you  have  understood.  F.  Jen- 
kin  argued  in  the  '  North  British  Review '  against  single 
variations  ever  being  perpetuated,  and  has  convinced  me, 
though  not  in  quite  so  broad  a  manner  as  here  put.  I  always 
thought  individual  differences  more  important ;  but  I  was 
blind  and  thought  that  single  variations  might  be  preserved 
much  oftener  than  I  now  see  is  possible  or  probable.  I  men- 
tioned this  in  my  former  note  merely  because  I  believed  that 
you  had  come  to  a  similar  conclusion,  and  I  like  much  to  be 
in  accord  with  you.  I  believe  I  was  mainly  deceived  by 
single  variations  offering  such  simple  illustrations,  as  when 
man  selects. " 

The  late  Mr.  Fleeming  Jenkin's  review,  on  the  i  Origin  of 
Species/ was  published  in  the  '  North  Britfsh  Review' for 
June  1867.     It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  the  criticisms, 


1869.]  FLEEMING   JENKIN.  289 

which  my  father,  as  I  believe,  felt  to  be  the  most  valuable 
ever  made  on  his  views  should  have  come,  not  from  a  pro- 
fessed naturalist  but  from  a  Professor  of  Engineering. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  in  a  short  compass  an  account  of 
Fleeming  Jenkin's  argument.  My  father's  copy  of  the  paper 
(ripped  out  of  the  volume  as  usual,  and  tied  with  a  bit  of 
string)  is  annotated  in  pencil  in  many  places.  I  may  quote 
one  passage  opposite  which  my  father  has  written  "  good 
sneers  " — but  it  should  be  remembered  that  he  used  the  word 
"sneer"  in  rather  a  special  sense,  not  as  necessarily  implying 
a  feeling  of  bitterness  in  the  critic,  but  rather  in  the  sense  of 
"banter."  Speaking  of  the  'true  believer,'  Fleeming  Jenkin 
says,  p.  293  :— 

"  He  can  invent  trains  of  ancestors  of  whose  existence 
there  is  no  evidence  ;  he  can  marshal  hosts  of  equally  imagi- 
nary foes;  he  can  call  up  continents,  floods,  and  peculiar 
atmospheres  ;  he  can  dry  up  oceans,  split  islands,  and  parcel 
out  eternity  at  will ;  surely  with  these  advantages  he  must  be 
a  dull  fellow  if  he  cannot  scheme  some  series  of  animals  and 
circumstances  explaining  our  assumed  difficulty  quite  natu- 
rally. Feeling  the  difficulty  of  dealing  with  adversaries  who 
command  so  huge  a  domain  of  fancy,  we  will  abandon  these 
arguments,  and  trust  to  those  which  at  least  cannot  be  as- 
sailed by  mere  efforts  of  imagination." 

In  the  fifth  edition  of  the  '  Origin/  my  father  altered  a 
passage  in  the  Historical  Sketch  (fourth  edition  p.  xviii.). 
He  thus  practically  gave  up  the  difficult  task  of  understand- 
ing whether  or  no  Sir  R.  Owen  claims  to  have  discovered  the 
principle  of  Natural  Selection.  Adding,  "As  far  as  the  mere 
enunciation  of  the  principle  of  Natural  Selection  is  concerned, 
it  is  quite  immaterial  whether  or  not  Professor  Owen  preceded 
me,  for  both  of  us.  .  .  .  were  long  ago  preceded  by  Dr.  Wells 
and  Mr.  Matthew." 

A  somewhat  severe  critique  on  the  fifth  edition,  by  Mr. 
John  Robertson,  appeared  in  the  Athenceum,  August  14,  1869. 
The  writer  comments  with  some  little  bitterness  on  the  suc- 
cess of  the  '  Origin  :  '  "  Attention  is  not  acceptance.     Many 


2Q0  WORK  ON  'MAN.'  [1869. 

editions  do  not  mean  real  success.  The  book  has  sold  ;  the 
guess  has  been  talked  over ;  and  the  circulation  and  discus- 
sion sum  up  the  significance  of  the  editions."  Mr.  Robert- 
son makes  the  true,  but  misleading  statement :  "  Mr.  Darwin 
prefaces  his  fifth  English  edition  with  an  Essay,  which  he 
calls  '  An  Historical  Sketch/  &c."  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
Sketch  appeared  in  the  third  edition  in  1861. 

Mr.  Robertson  goes  on  to  say  that  the  Sketch  ought  to 
be  called  a  collection  of  extracts  anticipatory  or  corroborative 
of  the  hypothesis  of  Natural  Selection.  "  For  no  account  is 
given  of  any  hostile  opinions.  The  fact  is  very  significant. 
This  historical  sketch  thus  resembles  the  histories  of  the 
reign  of  Louis  XVIII.,  published  after  the  Restoration,  from 
which  the  Republic  and  the  Empire,  Robespierre  and  Buo- 
naparte were  omitted." 

The  following  letter  to  Prof.  Victor  Carus  gives  an  idea 
of  the  character  of  the  new  edition  of  the  '  Origin  : '] 

C.  Darwin  to  Victor  Carus. 

Down,  May  4,  1869. 

...  I  have  gone  very  carefully  through  the  whole,  trying 
to  make  some  parts  clearer,  and  adding  a  few  discussions  and 
facts  of  some  importance.  The  new  edition  is  only  two 
pages  at  the  end  longer  than  the  old  ;  though  in  one  part 
nine  pages  in  advance,  for  I  have  condensed  several  parts 
and  omitted  some  passages.  The  translation  I  fear  will  cause 
you  a  great  deal  of  trouble  ;  the  alterations  took  me  six  weeks, 
besides  correcting  the  press  ;  you  ought  to  make  a  special 
agreement  with  M.  Koch  [the  publisher].  Many  of  the  cor- 
rections are  only  a  few  words,  but  they  have  been  made  from 
the  evidence  on  various  points  appearing  to  have  become  a 
little  stronger  or  weaker. 

Thus  I  have  been  led  to  place  somewhat  more  value  on 
the  definite  and  direct  action  of  external  conditions  ;  to  think 
the  lapse  of  time,  as  measured  by  years,  not  quite  so  great  as 
most  geologists  have  thought ;  and  to  infer  that  single  varia- 


1869]  FIFTH    EDITION    OF    THE  'ORIGIN.'  29 1 

tions  are  of  even  less  importance,  in  comparison  with  indi- 
vidual differences,  than  I  formerly  thought.  I  mention  these 
points  because  I  have  been  thus  led  to  alter  in  many  places 
a  few  words  ;  and  unless  you  go  through  the  whole  new  edi- 
tion, one  part  will  not  agree  with  another,  which  would  be  a 
great  blemish.  ... 

[The  desire  that  his  views  might  spread  in  France  was 
always  strong  with  my  father,  and  he  was  therefore  justly  an- 
noyed to  find  that  in  1869  the  Editor  of  the  first  French  edi- 
tion had  brought  out  a  third  edition  without  consulting  the 
author.  He  was  accordingly  glad  to  enter  into  an  arrange- 
ment for  a  French  translation  of  the  fifth  edition  ;  this  was 
undertaken  by  M.  Reinwald,  with  whom  he  continued  to 
have  pleasant  relations  as  the  publisher  of  many  of  his  books 
into  French. 

He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  :  — 

"I  must  enjoy  myself  and  tell  you  about  Mdlle.  C.  Royer, 
who  translated  the  '  Origin '  into  French,  and  for  whose  sec- 
ond edition  I  took  infinite  trouble.  She  has  now  just  brought 
out  a  third  edition  without  informing  me,  so  that  all  the  cor- 
rections, &c,  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  English  editions  are 
lost.  Besides  her  enormously  long  preface  to  the  first  edi- 
tion, she  has  added  a  second  preface  abusing  me  like  a  pick- 
pocket for  Pangenesis,  which  of  course  has  no  relation  to  the 
'Origin.'  So  I  wrote  to  Paris  ;  and  Reinwald  agrees  to  bring 
out  at  once  a  new  translation  from  the  fifth  English  edition, 
in  competition  with  her  third  edition.  .  .  .  This  fact  shows 
that  "evolution  of  species"  must  at  last  be  spreading  in 
France. " 

With  reference  to  the  spread  of  Evolution  among  the 
orthodox,  the  following  letter  is  of  some  interest.  In  March 
he  received,  from  the  author,  a  copy  of  a  lecture  by  Rev.  T. 
R.  R.  Stebbing,  given  before  the  Torquay  Natural  History 
Society,  February  1,  1869,  bearing  the  title  "Darwinism." 
My  father  wrote  to  Mr.  Stebbing :] 


292  WORK  ON  'MAN.'  [1869. 

Down,  March  3,  1869. 
Dear  Sir, — I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  your 
kindness  in  sending  me  your  spirited  and  interesting  lecture ; 
if  a  layman  had  delivered  the  same  address,  he  would  have 
done  good  service  in  spreading  what,  as  I  hope  and  believe, 
is  to  a  large  extent  the  truth  ;  but  a  clergyman  in  delivering 
such  an  address  does,  as  it  appears  to  me,  much  more  good 
by  his  power  to  shake  ignorant  prejudices,  and  by  setting,  if 
I  may  be  permitted  to  say  so,  an  admirable  example  of  lib- 
erality. 

With  sincere  respect,  I  beg  leave  to  remain, 

Dear  Sir,  yours  faithfully  and  obliged, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  references  to  the  subject  of  expression  in  the  follow- 
ing letter  are  explained  by  the  fact  that  my  father's  original 
intention  was  to  give  his  essay  on  this  subject  as  a  chapter  in 
the  i  Descent  of  Man/  which  in  its  turn  grew,  as  we  have 
seen,  out  of  a  proposed  chapter  in  i  Animals  and  Plants  : '] 

C.  Darwin  io  F.  Miiller. 

Down,  February  22  [1869?] 
.  .  .  Although  you  have  aided  me  to  so  great  an  extent  in 
many  ways,  I  am  going  to  beg  for  any  information  on  two 
other  subjects.  I  am  preparing  a  discussion  on  "Sexual  Se- 
lection, "  and  I  want  much  to  know  how  low  down  in  the  ani- 
mal scale  sexual  selection  of  a  particular  kind  extends.  Do 
you  know  of  any  lowly  organised  animals,  in  which  the  sexes 
are  separated,  and  in  which  the  male  differs  from  the  female 
in  arms  of  offence,  like  the  horns  and  tusks  of  male  mammals, 
or  in  gaudy  plumage  and  ornaments,  as  with  birds  and  but- 
terflies ?  I  do  not  refer  to  secondary  sexual  characters,  by 
which  the  male  is  able  to  discover  the  female,  like  the  plumed 
antennae  of  moths,  or  by  which  the  male  is  enabled  to  seize 
the  female,  like  the  curious  pincers  described  by  you  in  some 
of  the  lower  Crustaceans.     But  what  I  want  to  know  is,  how 


1869.]  DR.  H.  THIEL.  293 

low  in  the  scale  sexual  differences  occur  which  require  some 
degree  of  self-consciousness  in  the  males,  as  weapons  by 
which  they  fight  for  the  female,  or  ornaments  which  attract 
the  opposite  sex.  Any  differences  between  males  and  females 
which  follow  different  habits  of  life  would  have  to  be  ex- 
cluded. I  think  you  will  easily  see  what  I  wish  to  learn.  A 
priori,  it  would  never  have  been  anticipated  that  insects 
would  have  been  attracted  by  the  beautiful  colouring  of  the 
opposite  sex,  or, by  the  sounds  emitted  by  the  various  musical 
instruments  of  the  male  Orthoptera.  I  know  no  one  so  likely 
to  answer  this  question  as  yourself,  and  should  be  grateful  for 
any  information,  however  small. 

My  second  subject  refers  to  expression  of  countenance,  to 
which  I  have  long  attended,  and  on  which  I  feel  a  keen  in- 
terest ;  but  to  which,  unfortunately,  I  did  not  attend  when  I 
had  the  opportunity  of  observing  various  races  of  man.  It 
has  occurred  to  me  that  you  might,  without  much  trouble, 
make  a  few  observations  for  me,  in  the  course  of  some 
months,  on  Negroes,  or  possibly  on  native  South  Americans, 
though  I  care  most  about  Negroes  ;  accordingly  I  enclose 
some  questions  as  a  guide,  and  if  you  could  answer  me  even 
one  or  two  I  should  feel  truly  obliged.  I  am  thinking  of 
writing  a  little  essay  on  the  Origin  of  Mankind,  as  I  have 
been  taunted  with  concealing  my  opinions,  and  I  should  do 
this  immediately  after  the  completion  of  my  present  book. 
In  this  case  I  should  add  a  chapter  on  the  cause  or  meaning 
of  expression.  .  .  . 

[The  remaining  letters  of  this  year  deal  chiefly  with  the 
books,  reviews,  &c,  which  interested  him.] 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  ThieL 

Down,  February  25  1869. 
Dear  Sir, — On  my  return  home  after  a  short  absence,  I 
found  your  very  courteous  note,  and  the  pamphlet,*  and  I 

*  '  Ueber  einige  Formen  der  Landwirthschaftlichen  Genossenschaften.* 
By  Dr.  H.  Thiel,  then  of  the  Agricultural  Station  at  Poppelsdorf. 


294  WORK  ON  '  MAN.'  [1869. 

hasten  to  thank  you  for  both,  and  for  the  very  honourable 
mention  which  you  make  of  my  name.  You  will  readily  be- 
lieve how  much  interested  I  am  in  observing  that  you  apply 
to  moral  and  social  questions  analogous  views  to  those  which 
I  have  used  in  regard  to  the  modification  of  species.  It  did 
not  occur  to  me  formerly  that  my  views  could  be  extended 
to  such  widely  different,  and  most  important,  subjects.  With 
much  respect,  I  beg  leave  to  remain,  dear  Sir, 

Yours  faithfully  and  obliged, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  March  19  [1869]. 
My  dear  Huxley, — Thanks  for  your  '  Address/  *  Peo- 
ple complain  of  the  unequal  distribution  of  wealth,  but  it  is  a 
much  greater  shame  and  injustice  that  any  one  man  should 
have  the  power  to  write  so  many  brilliant  essays  as  you  have 
lately  done.  There  is  no  one  who  writes  likes  you.  ...  If  I 
were  in  your  shoes,  I  should  tremble  for  my  life.  I  agree 
with  all  you  say,  except  that  I  must  think  that  you  draw 
too  great  a  distinction  between  the  evolutionists  and  the  uni- 
formitarians. 

I  find  that  the  few  sentences  which  I  have  sent  to  press  in 
the  '  Origin '  about  the  age  of  the  world  will  do  fairly  well  .  ,  . 

Ever  yours, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace, 

Down,  March  22  [1869]. 
My  dear  Wallace, — I   have  finished  your  book ;  f   it 
seems  to  me  excellent,  and  at  the  same  time  most  pleasant  to 
read.     That  you   ever  returned  alive  is  wonderful  after  all 

*  In  his  '  Anniversary  Address '  to  the  Geological  Society,  1869,  Mr. 
Huxley  criticised  Sir  William  Thomson's  paper  ('  Trans.  Geol.  Soc,  Glas- 
gow,' vol.  iii.)  "On  Geological  Time." 

f  '  The  Malay  Archipelago,'  &c,  1869. 


1869.]  MR.  WALLACE   ON   LYELL.  295 

your  risks  from  illness  and  sea  voyages,  especially  that  most 
interesting  one  to  Waigiou  and  back.  Of  all  the  impressions 
which  I  have  received  from  your  book,  the  strongest  is  that 
your  perseverance  in  the  cause  of  science  was  heroic.  Your 
descriptions  of  catching  the  splendid  butterflies  have  made 
me  quite  envious,  and  at  the  same  time  have  made  me  feel 
almost  young  again,  so  vividly  have  they  brought  before  my 
mind  old  days  when  I  collected,  though  I  never  made  such 
captures  as  yours.  Certainly  collecting  is  the  best  sport  in 
the  world.  I  shall  be  astonished  if  your  book  has  not  a  great 
success  ;  and  your  splendid  generalizations  on  Geographical 
Distribution,  with  which  I  am  familiar  from  your  papers,  will 
be  new  to  most  of  your  readers.  I  think  I  enjoyed  most  the 
Timor  case,  as  it  is  best  demonstrated ;  but  perhaps  Celebes 
is  really  the  most  valuable.  I  should  prefer  looking  at  the 
whole  Asiatic  continent  as  having  formerly  been  more  African 
in  its  fauna,  than  admitting  the  former  existence  of  a  conti- 
nent across  the  Indian  Ocean.  .  .  . 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  Mr.  Wallace's  article  in  the 
April  number  of  the  '  Quarterly  Review/*  1869,  which  to  a 
large  extent  deals  with  the  tenth  edition  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell's 
'  Principles/  published  in  1867  and  1868.  The  review  con- 
tains a  striking  passage  on  Sir  Charles  Lyell's  confession  of 
evolutionary  faith  in  the  tenth  edition  of  his  '  Principles/ 
which  is  worth  quoting  :  "  The  history  of  science  hardly  pre- 
sents so  striking  an  instance  of  youthfulness  of  mind  in  ad- 
vanced life  as  is  shown  by  this  abandonment  of  opinions  so 
long  held  and  so  powerfully  advocated;  and  if  we  bear  in 
mind  the  extreme  caution,  combined  with  the  ardent  love  of 
truth  which  characterise  every  work  which  our  author  has 
produced,  we  shall  be  convinced  that  so  great  a  change  was 
not  decided  on  without  long  and  anxious  deliberation,  and 

*  My  father  wrote  to  Mr.  Murray  :  "  The  article  by  Wallace  is  inimit- 
ably good,  and  it  is  a  great  triumph  that  such  an  article  should  appear  in 

the  *  Quarterly,'  and  will  make  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  and gnash  their 

teeth." 


296  work  on  'man;  [1869. 

that  the  views  now  adopted  must  indeed  be  supported  by  ar- 
guments of  overwhelming  force.  If  for  no  other  reason  than 
that  Sir  Charles  Lyell  in  his  tenth  edition  has  adopted  it,  the 
theory  of  Mr.  Darwin  deserves  an  attentive  and  respectful 
consideration  from  every  earnest  seeker  after  truth."] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace, 

Down,  April  14,  1869. 

My  dear  Wallace, — I  have  been  wonderfully  interested 
by  your  article,  and  I  should  think  Lyell  will  be  much  grati- 
fied by  it.  I  declare  if  I  had  been  editor,  and  had  the  power 
of  directing  you,  I  should  have  selected  for  discussion  the 
very  points  which  you  have  chosen.  I  have  often  said  to 
younger  geologists  (for  I  began  in  the  year  1830)  that  they 
did  not  know  what  a  revolution  Lyell  had  effected  ;  neverthe- 
less, your  extracts  from  Cuvier  have  quite  astonished  me. 
Though  not  able  really  to  judge,  I  am  inclined  to  put  more 
confidence  in  Croll  than  you  seem  to  do  ;  but  I  have  been 
much  struck  by  many  of  your  remarks  on  degradation. 
Thomson's  views  of  the  recent  age  of  the  world  have  been  for 
some  time  one  of  my  sorest  troubles,  and  so  I  have  been  glad 
to  read  what  you  say.  Your  exposition  of  Natural  Selection 
seems  to  me  inimitably  good  ;  there  never  lived  a  better  ex- 
pounder than  you.  I  was  also  much  pleased  at  your  dis- 
cussing the  difference  between  our  views  and  Lamarck's.  One 
sometimes  sees  the  odious  expression,  "  Justice  to  myself 
compels  me  to  say,"  &c,  but  you  are  the  only  man  I  ever 
heard  of  who  persistently  does  himself  an  injustice,  and  never 
demands  justice.  Indeed,  you  ought  in  the  review  to  have 
alluded  to  your  paper  in  the  i  Linnean  Journal/  and  I  feel 
sure  all  our  friends  will  agree  in  this.  But  you  cannot 
"  Burke  "  yourself,  however  much  you  may  try,  as  may  be 
seen  in  half  the  articles  which  appear.  I  was  asked  but  the 
other  day  by  a  German  professor  for  your  paper,  which  I 
sent  him.  Altogether  I  look  at  your  article  as  appearing  in 
the  '  Quarterly '  as  an  immense  triumph  for  our  cause.    I  pre- 


1869.]  MAN.  297 

sume  that  your  remarks  on  Man  are  those  to  which  you 
alluded  in  your  note.  If  you  had  not  told  me  I  should  have 
thought  that  they  had  been  added  by  some  one  else.  As  you 
expected,  I  differ  grievously  from  you,  and  I  am  very  sorry 
for  it.  I  can  see  no  necessity  for  calling  in  an  additional  and 
proximate  cause  in  regard  to  man.*  But  the  subject  is  too 
long  for  a  letter.  I  have  been  particularly  glad  to  read  your 
discussion  because  I  am  now  writing  and  thinking  much 
about  man. 

I  hope  that  your  Malay  book  sells  well ;  I  was  extremely 
pleased  with  the  article  in  the  '  Quarterly  Journal  of  Science/ 
inasmuch  as  it  is  thoroughly  appreciative  of  your  work  :  alas  ! 
you  will  probably  agree  with  what  the  writer  says  about  the 
uses  of  the  bamboo. 

I  hear  that  there  is  also  a  good  article  in  the  Saturday 
Review,  but  have  heard  nothing  more  about  it.     Believe  me 

my  dear  Wallace, 

Yours  ever  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  C.  Lyell. 

Down,  May  4  [1869]. 

My  dear  Lyell, — I  have  been  applied  to  for  some  pho- 
tographs (carte  de  visite)  to  be  copied  to  ornament  the  diplo- 
mas of  honorary  members  of  a  new  Society  in  Servia !  Will 
you  give  me  one  for  this  purpose  ?  I  possess  only  a  full- 
length  one  of  you  in  my  own  album,  and  the  face  is  too  small, 
I  think,  to  be  copied. 

I  hope  that  you  get  on  well  with  your  work,  and  have  sat- 
isfied yourself  on  the  difficult  point  of  glacier  lakes.     Thank 

*  Mr.  Wallace  points  out  that  any  one  acquainted  merely  with  the 
"  unaided  productions  of  nature,"  might  reasonably  doubt  whether  a  dray- 
horse,  for  example,  could  have  been  developed  by  the  power  of  man  direct- 
ing the  "  action  of  the  laws  of  variation,  multiplication,  and  survival,  for 
his  own  purpose.  We  know,  however,  that  this  has  been  done,  and  we 
must  therefore  admit  the  possibility  that  in  the  development  of  the  human 
race,  a  higher  intelligence  has  guided  the  same  laws  for  nobler  ends." 


298  WORK  ON  'MAN.'  [1869. 

heaven,  I   have  finished  correcting  the  new   edition  of  the 
'  Origin,'  and  am  at  my  old  work  of  Sexual  Selection. 

Wallace's  article  struck  me  as  admirable  ;  how  well  he 
brought  out  the  revolution  which  you  effected  some  30  years 
ago.  I  thought  I  had  fully  appreciated  the  revolution,  but  I 
was  astounded  at  the  extracts  from  Cuvier.  What  a  good 
sketch  of  natural  selection  !  but  I  was  dreadfully  disappointed 
about  Man,  it  seems  to  me  incredibly  strange  .  .  .  ;  and  had 
I  not  known  to  the  contrary,  would  have  sworn  it  had  been 
inserted  by  some  other  hand.  But  I  believe  that  you  will 
not  agree  quite  in  all  this. 

My  dear  Lyell,  ever  yours  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  L.  A.  de  Quatrefages. 

Down,  May  28  [1869  or  1870]. 
Dear  Sir, — I  have  received  and  read  your  volume,*  and 
am  much  obliged  for  your  present.  The  whole  strikes  me  as 
a  wonderfully  clear  and  able  discussion,  and  I  was  much 
interested  by  it  to  the  last  page.  It  is  impossible  that  any 
account  of  my  views  could  be  fairer,  or,  as  far  as  space  per- 
mitted, fuller,  than  that  which  you  have  given.  The  way  in 
which  you  repeatedly  mention  my  name  is  most  gratifying  to 
me.  When  I  had  finished  the  second  part,  I  thought  that 
you  had  stated  the  case  so  favourably  that  you  would  make 
more  converts  on  my  side  than  on  your  own  side.  On  read- 
ing the  subsequent  parts  I  had  to  change  my  sanguine  view. 
In  these  latter  parts  many  of  your  strictures  are  severe 
enough,  but  all  are  given  with  perfect  courtesy  and  fairness. 
I  can  truly  say  I  would  rather  be  criticised  by  you  in  this 
manner  than  praised  by  many  others.  I  agree  with  some  of 
your  criticisms,  but  differ  entirely  from  the  remainder  ;  but  I 
will  not  trouble  you  with  any  remarks.  I  may,  however,  say, 
that  you  must  have  been  deceived  by  the  French  translation, 

*  Essays  reprinted  from  the  '  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,'  under  the  title 
1  Histoire  Naturelle  Generale,'  &c,  1869. 


1869.]  MR.  HUXLEY   ON    HAECKEL.  299 

as  you  infer  that  I  believe  that  the  Parus  and  the  Nuthatch 
(or  Sitta)  are  related  by  direct  filiation.  I  wished  only  to 
show  by  an  imaginary  illustration,  how  either  instincts  or 
structures  might  first  change.  If  you  had  seen  Cam's  Magel- 
lanicus  alive  you  would  have  perceived  how  foxlike  its  appear- 
ance is,  or  if  you  had  heard  its  voice,  I  think  that  you  would 
never  have  hazarded  the  idea  that  it  was  a  domestic  dog  run 
wild  ;  but  this  does  not  much  concern  me.  It  is  curious  how 
nationality  influences  opinion  ;  a  week  hardly  passes  without 
my  hearing  of  some  naturalist  in  Germany  who  supports  my 
views,  and  often  puts  an  exagg  rated  value  on  my  works  ; 
whilst  in  France  I  have  not  heard  of  a  single  zoologist,  except 
M.  Gaudry  (and  he  only  partially),  who  supports  my  views. 
But  I  must  have  a  good  many  readers  as  my  books  are  trans- 
lated, and  I  must  hope,  notwithstanding  your  strictures,  that 
I  may  influence  some  embryo  naturalists  in  France. 

You  frequently  speak  of  my  good  faith,  and  no  compli- 
ment can  be  more  delightful  to  me,  but  I  may  return  you  the 
compliment  with  interest,  for  every  word  which  you  write 
bears  the  stamp  of  your  cordial  love  for  the  truth.  Believe 
me,  dear  Sir,  with  sincere  respect, 

Yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  October  14  [1869]. 
My  dear  Huxley, — I  have  been  delighted  to  see  your 
review  of  Hackel,*  and  as  usual  you  pile  honours  high  on  my 
head.  But  I  write  now  {requiring  no  answer)  to  groan  a  little 
over  what  you  have  said  about  rudimentary  organs. f  Many 
heretics  will  take  advantage  of  what  you  have  said.    I  cannot 

*  A  review  of  Haeckel's  '  Schopfungs-Geschichte.'  The  Academy,  1869. 
Reprinted  in  '  Critiques  and  Addresses,'  p.  303. 

f  In  discussing  Teleology  and  Haeckel's  "  Dysteleology,"  Prof.  Huxley 

says : — "  Such  cases  as  the  existence  of  lateral  rudiments  of  toes,  in  the 

foot  of  a  horse,  place  us  in  a  dilemma.     For  either  these  rudiments  are  of 

no  use  to  the  animals,  in  which  case  .  .  .  they  surely  ought  to  have  dis- 

56 


300  WORK  ON  'MAN.'  [1870. 

but  think  that  the  explanation  given  at  p.  541  of  the  last 
edition  of  the  i  Origin '  of  the  long  retention  of  rudimentary 
organs  and  of  their  greater  relative  size  during  early  life,  is 
satisfactory.  Their  final  and  complete  abortion  seems  to  me 
a  much  greater  difficulty.  Do  look  in  my  '  Variations  under 
Domestication,'  vol.  ii.  p.  397,  at  what  Pangenesis  suggests  on 
this  head,  though  I  did  not  dare  to  put  in  the  '  Origin/ 
The  passage  bears  also  a  little  on  the  struggle  between  the 
molecules  or  gemmules.*  There  is  likewise  a  word  or  two 
indirectly  bearing  on  this  subject  at  pp.  394-395.  It  won't 
take  you  five  minutes,  so  do  look  at  these  passages.  I  am 
very  glad  that  you  have  been  bold  enough  to  give  your  idea 
about  Natural  Selection  amongst  the  molecules,  though  I  can 
not  quite  follow  you. 

1870    AND    BEGINNING    OF    1871. 

[My  father  wrote  in  his  Diary  : — "  The  whole  of  this  year 
[1870]  at  work  on  the  '  Descent  of  Man/  .  .  .  Went  to  Press 
August  30,  1870." 

The  letters  are  again  of  miscellaneous  interest,  dealing,  not 
only  with  his  work,  but  also  serving  to  indicate  the  course  of 
his  reading.] 

C.  Darwin  to  E.  Ray  Lankester. 

Down,  March  15  [1870]. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  do  not  know  whether  you  will  consider 
me  a  very  troublesome  man,  but  I  have  just  finished  your 

appeared  ;  or  they  are  of  some  use  to  the  animal,  in  which  case  they  are 
of  no  use  as  arguments  against  Teleology." — ('Critiques  and  Addresses,' 
p.  308.) 

*  "  It  is  a  probable  hypothesis,  that  what  the  world  is  to  organisms  in 
general,  each  organism  is  to  the  molecules  of  which  it  is  composed.  Mul- 
titudes of  these  having  diverse  tendencies,  are  competing  with  one  another 
for  opportunity  to  exist  and  multiply  ;  and  the  organism,  as  a  whole,  is  as 
much  the  product  of  the  molecules  which  are  victorious  as  the  Fauna,  or 
Flora,  of  a  country  is  the  product  of  the  victorious  organic  beings  in  it."— 
('Critiques  and  Addresses,'  p.  309.) 


1870.]         MR.  WALLACE'S  'NATURAL   SELECTION/  301 

book,*  and  can  not  resist  telling  ycu  how  the  whole  has  much 
interested  me.  No  doubt,  as  you  say,  there  must  be  much 
speculation  on  such  a  subject,  and  certain  results  can  not  be 
reached  ;  but  all  your  views  are  highly  suggestive,  and  to  my 
mind  that  is  high  praise.  I  have  been  all  the  more  interested 
as  I  am  now  writing  on  closely  allied  though  not  quite  identi- 
cal points.  I  was  pleased  to  see  you  refer  to  my  much 
despised  child, '  Pangenesis/  who  I  think  will  some  day,  under 
some  better  nurse,  turn  out  a  fine  stripling.  It  has  also 
pleased  me  to  see  how  thoroughly  you  appreciate  (and  I  do 
not  think  that  this  is  general  with  the  men  of  science) 
H.  Spencer ;  I  suspect  that  hereafter  he  will  be  looked  at  as 
by  far  the  greatest  living  philosopher  in  England  ;  perhaps 
equal  to  any  that  have  lived.  But  I  have  no  business  to 
trouble  you  with  my  notions.  With  sincere  thanks  for  the 
interest  which  your  work  has  given  me, 

I  remain,  yours  very  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  next  letter  refers  to  Mr.  Wallace's  '  Natural  Selec- 
tion '  (1870),  a  collection  of  essays  reprinted  with  certain  al- 
terations of  which  a  list  is  given  in  the  volume  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  April  20  [1870]. 
My  dear  Wallace, — I  have  just  received  your  book, 
and  read  the  preface.  There  never  has  been  passed  on  me, 
or  indeed  on  any  one,  a  higher  eulogium  than  yours.  I  wish 
that  I  fully  deserved  it.  Your  modesty  and  candour  are  very 
far  from  new  to  me.  I  hope  it  is  a  satisfaction  to  you  to 
reflect — and  very  few  things  in  my  life  have  been  more  satis- 
factory to  me — that  we  have  never  felt  any  jealousy  towards 
each  other,  though  in  one  sense  rivals.  I  believe  that  I  can 
say  this  of  myself  with  truth,  and  I  am  absolutely  sure  that 
it  is  true  of  you. 

*  '  Comparative  Longevity.' 


302  WORK  ON  '  MAN.'  [1870, 

You  have  been  a  good  Christian  to  give  a  list  of  your 
additions,  for  I  want  much  to  read  them,  and  I  should  hardly 
have  had  time  just  at  present  to  have  gone  through  all  your 
articles.  Of  course  I  shall  immediately  read  those  that  are 
new  or  greatly  altered,  and  I  will  endeavour  to  be  as  honest 
as  can  reasonably  be  expected.  Your  book  looks  remarkably 
well  got  up. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Wallace,  to  remain, 

Yours  very  cordially, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[Here  follow  one  or  two  letters  indicating  the  progress  of 
the  '  Descent  of  Man  ; '  the  woodcuts  referred  to  were  being 
prepared  for  that  work  •] 

C.  Darwin  to  A,  Gunther* 

March  23,  [1870?] 
Dear  Gunther, — As. I  do  not  know  Mr.  Ford's  address, 
will  you  hand  him  this  note,  which  is  written  solely  to  express 
my  unbounded  admiration  of  the  woodcuts.  I  fairly  gloat 
over  them.  The  only  evil  is  that  they  will  make  all  the  other 
woodcuts  look  very  poor !  They  are  all  excellent,  and  for 
the  feathers  I  declare  I  think  it  the  most  wonderful  woodcut 
I  ever  saw  ;  I  can  not  help  touching  it  to  make  sure  that  it  is 
smooth.  How  I  wish  to  see  the  two  other,  and  even  more 
important,  ones  of  the  feathers,  and  the  four  [of]  reptiles,  &c. 
Once  again  accept  my  very  sincere  thanks  for  all  your  kind- 
ness. I  am  greatly  indebted  to  Mr.  Ford.  Engravings  have 
always  hitherto  been  my  greatest  misery,  and  now  they  are  a 

real  pleasure  to  me. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.  S. — I  thought  I  should  have  been  in  press  by  this  time, 
but  my  subject  has  branched  off  into  sub-branches,  which 


*  Dr.  Gunther,  Keeper  of  Zoology  in  the  British  Museum, 


1870.]  DR.  GUNTHER'S   HELP.  303 

have  cost  me  infinite  time,  and  heaven  knows  when  I  shall 
have  all  my  MS   ready  ;  but  I  am  never  idle. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  Giinther. 

May  15  [1870]. 
My  dear  Dr.  Gunther, — Sincere  thanks.  Your  answers 
are  wonderfully  clear  and  complete.  I  have  some  analogous 
questions  on  reptiles,  &c,  which  I  will  send  in  a  few  days, 
and  then  I  think  I  shall  cause  no  more  trouble.  I  will  get 
the  books  you  refer  me  to.  The  case  of  the  Solenostoma*  is 
magnificent,  so  exactly  analogous  to  that  of  those  birds  in 
which  the  female  is  the  more  gay,  but  ten  times  better  for  me, 
as  she  is  the  incubator.  As  I  crawl  on  with  the  successive 
classes  I  am  astonished  to  find  how  similar  the  rules  are  about 
the  nuptial  or  "  wedding  dress  "  of  all  animals.  The  subject 
has  begun  to  interest  me  in  an  extraordinary  degree ;  but  I 
must  try  not  to  fall  into  my  common  error  of  being  too 
speculative.  But  a  drunkard  might  as  well  say  he  would 
drink  a  little  and  not  too  much  !  My  essay,  as  far  as  fishes, 
batrachians  and  reptiles  are  concerned,  will  be  in  fact  yours, 
only  written  by  me.     With  hearty  thanks. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  is  of  interest,  as  showing  the  exces- 
sive care  and  pains  which  my  father  took  in  forming  his 
opinion  on  a  difficult  point :] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  September  23  [undated]. 
My  dear  Wallace, — I  am  very  much  obliged  for  all  your 
trouble  in  writing  me  your  long  letter,  which  I  will  keep  by 

*  In  most  of  the  Lophobranchii  the  male  has  a  marsupial  sack  in  which 
the  eggs  are  hatched,  and  in  these  species  the  male  is  slightly  brighter  col- 
oured than  the  female.  But  in  Solenostoma  the  female  is  the  hatcher,  and 
is  also  the  more  brightly  coloured. — '  Descent  of  Man,'  ii.  21. 


304  WORK  ON  'MAN.'  [1870. 

me  and  ponder  over.  To  answer  it  would  require  at  least 
200  folio  pages  !  If  you  could  see  how  often  I  have  re-written 
some  pages  you  would  know  how  anxious  I  am  to  arrive  as 
near  as  I  can  to  the  truth.  I  lay  great  stress  on  what  I  know 
takes  place  under  domestication ;  I  think  we  start  with 
different  fundamental  notions  on  inheritance.  I  find  it  is 
most  difficult,  but  not  I  think  impossible,  to  see  how,  for  in- 
stance, a  few  red  feathers  appearing  on  the  head  of  a  male 
bird,  and  which  are  at  first  transmitted  to  both  sexes,  could 
come  to  be  transmitted  to  males  alone.  It  is  not  enough  that 
females  should  be  produced  from  the  males  with  red  feathers, 
which  should  be  destitute  of  red  feathers  ;  but  these  females 
must  have  a  latent  tendency  to  produce  such  feathers,  other- 
wise they  would  cause  deterioration  in  the  red  head-feathers 
of  their  male  offspring.  Such  latent  tendency  would  be 
shown  by  their  producing  the  red  feathers  when  old,  or  dis- 
eased in  their  ovaria.  But  I  have  no  difficulty  in  making  the 
whole  head  red  if  the  few  red  feathers  in  the  male  from  the 
first  tended  to  be  sexually  transmitted.  I  am  quite  willing 
to  admit  that  the  female  may  have  been  modified,  either  at 
the  same  time  or  subsequently,  for  protection  by  the  accumu- 
lation of  variations  limited  in  their  transmission  to  the  female 
sex.  I  owe  to  your  writings  the  consideration  of  this  latter 
point.  But  I  cannot  yet  persuade  myself  that  females  alone 
have  often  been  modified  for  protection.  Should  you  grudge 
the  trouble  briefly  to  tell  me  whether  you  believe  that  the 
plainer  head  and  less  bright  colours  of  9  chaffinch,*  the  less 
red  on  the  head  and  less  clean  colours  of  9  goldfinch,  the 
much  less  red  on  the  breast  of  9  bull-finch,  the  paler  crest  of 
golden-crested  wren,  &c,  have  been  acquired  by  them  for 
protection.  I  cannot  think  so  any  more  than  I  can  that  the 
considerable  differences  between  9  and  8  house  sparrow,  or 
much  greater  brightness  of  $  Parus  ccendeus  (both  of  which 
build  under  cover)  than  of  9  Parus,  are  related  to  protection. 
I  even  mis-doubt  much  whether  the  less  blackness  of  9  black- 
bird is  for  protection. 

*  The  symbols  $  $  stand  for  male  and  female. 


1S70J  SEDGWICK.  305 

Again,  can  you  give  me  reasons  for  believing  that  the 
moderate  differences  between  the  female  pheasant,  the  female 
Gallus  bankiva,  the  female  black  grouse,  the  pea-hen,  the 
female  partridge,  [and  their  respective  males,]  have  all  special 
references  to  protection  under  slightly  different  conditions  ? 
I,  of  course,  admit  that  they  are  all  protected  by  dull  colours, 
derived,  as  I  think,  from  some  dull-ground  progenitor;  and  I 
account  partly  for  their  difference  by  partial  transference  of 
colour  from  the  male  and  by  other  means  too  long  to  speci- 
fy ;  but  I  earnestly  wish  to  see  reason  to  believe  that  each  is 
specially  adapted  for  concealment  to  its  environment. 

I  grieve  to  differ  from  you,  and  it  actually  terrifies  me  and 
makes  me  constantly  distrust  myself.  I  fear  we  shall  never 
quite  understand  each  other.  I  value  the  cases  of  bright- 
coloured,  incubating  male  fishes,  and  brilliant  female  butter- 
flies, solely  as  showing  that  one  sex  may  be  made  brilliant 
without  any  necessary  transference  of  beauty  to  the  other  sex  ; 
for  in  these  cases  I  cannot  suppose  that  beauty  in  the  other 
sex  was  checked  by  selection. 

I  fear  this  letter  will  trouble  you  to  read  it.  A  very  short 
answer  about  your  belief  in  regard  to  the  9  finches  and  gal- 
linaceae  would  suffice. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Wallace, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  May  25  [1870]. 
....  Last  Friday  we  all  went  to  the  Bull  Hotel  at 
Cambridge  to  see  the  boys,  and  for  a  little  rest  and  enjoy- 
ment. The  backs  of  the  Colleges  are  simply  paradisaical.  On 
Monday  I  saw  Sedgwick,  who  was  most  cordial  and  kind  ;  in 
the  morning  I  thought  his  brain  was  enfeebled  ;  in  the  evening 
he  was  brilliant  and  quite  himself.  His  affection  and  kind- 
ness charmed  us  all.  My  visit  to  him  was  in  one  way  un- 
fortunate ;  for  after  a  long  sit  he  proposed  to  take  me  to  the 
museum,  and  I  could  not  refuse,  and  in  consequence  he  utterly 


306  WORK  ON  '  MAN.'  [187a 

prostrated  me  ;  so  that  we  left  Cambridge  next  morning,  and 
I  have  not  recovered  the  exhaustion  yet.  Is  it  not  humiliating 
to  be  thus  killed  by  a  man  of  eighty-six,  who  evidently  never 
dreamed  that  he  was  killing  me  ?  As  he  said  to  me,  "  Oh,  1 
consider  you  as  a  mere  baby  to  me  !  "  I  saw  Newton  several 
times,  and  several  nice  friends  of  F.'s.  But  Cambridge  with- 
out dear  Henslow  was  not  itself  ;  I  tried  to  get  to  the  two 
old  houses,  but  it  was  too  far  for  me.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  B.  J.  Sulivan* 

Down,  June  30  [1870]. 
My  dear  Sulivan, — It  was  very  good  of  you  to  write  to 
me  so  long  a  letter,  telling  me  much  about  yourself  and  your 
children,  which  I  was  extremely  glad  to  hear.  Think  what  a 
benighted  wretch  I  am,  seeing  no  one  and  reading  but  little 
in  the  newspapers,  for  I  did  not  know  (until  seeing  the  paper 
of  your  Natural  History  Society)  that  you  were  a  K.C.B. 
Most  heartily  glad  I  am  that  the  Government  have  at  last 
appreciated  your  most  just  claim  for  this  high  distinction.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  am  sorry  to  hear  so  poor  an  account  of  your 
health ;  but  you  were  surely  very  rash  to  do  all  that  you  did 
and  then  pass  through  so  exciting  a  scene  as  a  ball  at  the 
Palace.  It  was  enough  to  have  tired  a  man  in  robust  health. 
Complete  rest  will,  however,  I  hope,  quite  set  you  up  again. 
As  for  myself,  I  have  been  rather  better  of  late,  and  if  noth- 
ing disturbs  me  I  can  do  some  hours'  work  every  day.  I  shall 
this  autumn  publish  another  book  partly  on  man,  which  I 
dare  say  many  will  decry  as  very  wicked.  I  could  have 
travelled  to  Oxford,  but  could  no  more  have  withstood  the 
excitement  of   a  commemoration  \   than    I  could  a  ball  at 

*  Admiral  Sir  James  Sulivan  was  a  lieutenant  on  board  the  Beagle. 

f  This  refers  to  an  invitation  to  receive  the  honorary  degree  of  D.C.L. 
He  was  one  of  those  nominated  for  the  degree  by  Lord  Salisbury  on  as- 
suming the  office  of  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Oxford.  The  fact 
that  the  honour  was  declined  on  the  score  of  ill-health  was  published  in 
the  Oxford  University  Gazette,  June  17,  1870. 


1870.]  SOUTH   AMERICAN    MISSION.  307 

Buckingham  Palace.  Many  thanks  for  your  kind  remarks 
about  my  boys.  Thank  God,  all  give  me  complete  satisfac- 
tion ;  my  fourth  stands  second  at  Woolwich,  and  will  be  an 
Engineer  Officer  at  Christmas.  My  wife  desires  to  be  very 
kindly  remembered  to  Lady  Sulivan,  in  which  I  very  sincere- 
ly join,  and  in  congratulation  about  your  daughter's  marriage. 
We  are  at  present  solitary,  for  all  our  younger  children  are 
gone  a  tour  in  Switzerland.  I  had  never  heard  a  word  about 
the  success  of  the  T.  del  Fuego  mission.  It  is  most  wonder- 
ful, and  shames  me,  as  I  always  prophesied  utter  failure.  It 
is  a  grand  success.  I  shall  feel  proud  if  your  Committee 
think  fit  to  elect  me  an  honorary  member  of  your  society. 
With  all  good  wishes  and  affectionate  remembrances  of  ancient 
days, 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Sulivan, 

Your  sincere  friend, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[My  father's  connection  with  the  South  American  Mission, 
which  is  referred  to  in  the  above  letter,  has  given  rise  to  some 
public  comment,  and  has  been  to  some  extent  misunderstood. 
The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  speaking  at  the  annual  meet- 
ing of  the  South  American  Missionary  Society,  April  21st, 
1885,*  said  that  the  Society  "  drew  the  attention  of  Charles 
Darwin,  and  made  him,  in  his  pursuit  of  the  wonders  of  the 
kindom  of  nature,  realise  that  there  was  another  kingdom  just 
as  wonderful  and  more  lasting."  Some  discussion  on  the 
subject  appeared  in  the  Daily  News  of  April  23rd,  24th,  29th, 
1885,  and  finally  Admiral  Sir  James  Sulivan,  on  April  24th, 
wrote  to  the  same  journal,  giving  a  clear  account  of  my  fath- 
er's connection  with  the  Society  : — 

u  Your  article  in  the  Daily  News  of  yesterday  induces  me 
to  give  you  a  correct  statement  of  the  connection  between  the 
South  American  Missionary  Society  and  Mr.  Charles  Darwin, 
my  old  friend  and   shipmate   for  five  years.     I   have   been 

*  I  quote  a  '  Leaflet,'  published  by  the  Society. 


3o8  WORK  ON  '  MAN.'  [1870. 

closely  connected  with  the  Society  from  the  time  of  Captain 
Allen  Gardiner's  death,  and  Mr.  Darwin  has  often  expressed 
to  me  his  conviction  that  it  was  utterly  useless  to  send  Mis- 
sionaries to  such  a  set  of  savages  as  the  Fuegians,  probably 
the  very  lowest  of  the  human  race.  I  had  always  replied  that 
I  did  not  believe  any  human  beings  existed  too  low  to  compre- 
hend the  simple  message  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  After 
many  years,  I  think  about  1869,*  but  I  cannot  find  the  letter, 
he  wrote  to  me  that  the  recent  accounts  of  the  Mission  proved 
to  him  that  he  had  been  wrong  and  I  right  in  our  estimates 
of  the  native  character,  and  the  possibility  of  doing  them  good 
through  Missionaries ;  and  he  requested  me  to  forward  to  the 
Society  an  enclosed  cheque  for  ^5,  as  a  testimony  of  the 
interest  he  took  in  their  good  work.  On  June  6th,  1874,  he 
wrote  :  'lam  very  glad  to  hear  so  good  an  account  of  the 
Fuegians,  and  it  is  wonderful.'  On  June  10th,  1879:  'The 
progress  of  the  Fuegians  is  wonderful,  and  had  it  not  oc- 
curred would  have  been  to  me  quite  incredible.'  On  Janu- 
ary 3rd,  1880  :  '  Your  extracts  '  [from  a  journal]  'about  the 
Fuegians  are  extremely  curious,  and  have  interested  me  much. 
I  have  often  said  that  the  progress  of  Japan  was  the  greatest 
wonder  in  the  world,  but  I  declare  that  the  progress  of 
Fuegia  is  almost  equally  wonderful.  On  March  20th,  1881  : 
'  The  account  of  the  Fuegians  interested  not  only  me,  but  all 
my  family.  It  is  truly  wonderful  what  you  have  heard  from 
Mr.  Bridges  about  their  honesty  and  their  language.  I  cer- 
tainly should  have  predicted  that  not  all  the  Missionaries  in 
the  world  could  have  done  what  has  been  done.'  On  De- 
cember 1st,  1881,  sending  me  his  annual  subscription  to  the 
Orphanage  at  the  Mission  Station,  he  wrote  :  '  Judging  from 
the  Missionary  Journal,  the  Mission  in  Tierra  del  Fuego 
seems  going  on  quite  wonderfully  well.'  "] 

*  It  seems  to  have  been  in  1867. 


1870.]  COUSIN   MARRIAGES.  309 


C.  Darwin  to  John  Lubbock, 

Down,  July  17,  1870. 

My  dear  Lubbock, — As  I  hear  that  the  Census  will  be 
brought  before  the  House  to-morrow,  I  write  to  say  how 
much  I  hope  that  you  will  express  your  opinion  on  the  de- 
sirability of  queries  in  relation  to  consanguineous  marriages 
being  inserted.  As  you  are  aware,  I  have  made  experiments 
on  the  subject  during  several  years  ;  and  it  is  my  clear  con- 
viction that  there  is  now  ample  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  great 
physiological  law,  rendering  an  enquiry  with  reference  to  mankind 
of  much  importance.  In  England  and  many  parts  of  Europe  the 
marriages  of  cousins  are  objected  to  from  their  supposed  injurious 
consequences  ;  but  this  belief  rests  on  no  direct  evidence.  It  is 
therefore  manifestly  desirable  that  the  belief  should  either  be  proved 
false,  or  should  be  confirmed,  so  that  in  this  latter  case  the 
marriages  of  cousins  might  be  discouraged.  If  the  proper 
queries  are  inserted,  the  returns  would  show  whether  married 
cousins  have  in  their  households  on  the  night  of  the  census 
as  many  children  as  have  parents  who  are  not  related  ;  and 
should  the  number  prove  fewer,  we  might  safely  infer  either 
lessened  fertility  in  the  parents,  or  which  is  more  probable, 
lessened  vitality  in  the  offspring. 

It  is,  moreover,  much  to  be  wished  that  the  truth  of  the 
often  repeated  assertion  that  consanguineous  marriages  lead 
to  deafness,  and  dumbness,  blindness,  &c,  should  be  ascer- 
tained ;  and  all  such  assertions  could  be  easily  tested  by  the 
returns  from  a  single  census. 

Believe  me, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[When  the  Census  Act  was  passing  through  the  House  of 
Commons,  Sir  John  Lubbock  and  Dr.  Playfair  attempted  to 
carry  out  this  suggestion.  The  question  came  to  a  division, 
which  was  lost,  but  not  by  many  votes. 


3io 


WORK  ON  '  MAN, 


[1870. 


The  subject  of  cousin  marriages  was  afterwards  investi- 
gated by  my  brother.*  The  results  of  this  laborious  piece 
of  work  were  negative ;  the  author  sums  up  in  the  sen- 
tence : — 

"  My  paper  is  far  from  giving  any  thing  like  a  satisfactory 
solution  of  the  question  as  to  the  effects  of  consanguineous 
marriages,  but  it  does,  I  think,  show  that  the  assertion  that 
this  question  has  already  been  set  at  rest,  cannot  be  sub- 
stantiated. "] 


*  "  Marriages  between  First  Cousins  in  England,  and  their  EfFects0?: 
By  George  Darwin.     'Journal  of  the  Statistical  Society,'  June,  1875. 


CHAPTER   VIL 
Publication  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man. 


Work  on  '  Expression.' 


1871-1873. 


[The  last  revise  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man '  was  corrected  on 
January  15th,  1871,  so  that  the  book  occupied  him  for  about 
three  years.  He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  Hooker :  "  I  finished  the 
last  proofs  of  my  book  a  few  days  ago,  the  work  half-killed 
me,  and  I  have  not  the  most  remote  idea  whether  the  book 
is  worth  publishing/' 

He  also  wrote  to  Dr.  Gray  : — 

"  I  have  finished  my  book  on  the  '  Descent  of  Man,'  &c, 
and  its  publication  is  delayed  only  by  the  Index :  when  pub- 
lished,  I  will  send  you  a  copy,  but  I  do  not  know  that  you 
will  care  about  it.  Parts,  as  on  the  moral  sense,  will,  I  dare 
say,  aggravate  you,  and  if  I  hear  from  you,  I  shall  probably 
receive  a  few  stabs  from  your  polished  stiletto  of  a  pen." 

The  book  was  published  on  February  24,  1871.  2500 
copies  were  printed  at  first,  and  5000  more  before  the  end  of 
the  year.  My  father  notes  that  he  received  for  this  edition 
^"1470.  The  letters  given  in  the  present  chapter  deal  with 
its  reception,  and  also  with  the  progress  of  the  work  on  Ex- 
pression. The  letters  are  given,  approximately,  in  chrono- 
logical order,  an  arrangement  which  necessarily  separates 
letters  of  kindred  subject-matter,  but  gives  perhaps  a  truer 
picture  of  the  mingled  interests  and  labours  of  my  father's  life. 

Nothing  can  give  a  better  idea  (in  small  compass)  of  the 


312 


DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION. 


[1871. 


growth  of  Evolutionism  and  its  position  at  this  time,  than  a 
quotation  from  Mr.  Huxley  *  : — 

"  The  gradual  lapse  of  time  has  now  separated  us  by  more 
than  a  decade  from  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  '  Origin 
of  Species  ; '  and  whatever  may  be  thought  or  said  about 
Mr.  Darwin's  doctrines,  or  the  manner  in  which  he  has  pro- 
pounded them,  this  much  is  certain,  that  in  a  dozen  years  the 
6  Origin  of  Species '  has  worked  as  complete  a  revolution  in 
Biological  Science  as  the  *  Principia  '  did  in  Astronomy;'* 
and  it  has  done  so,  "  because,  in  the  words  of  Helmholtz,  it 
contains  '  an  essentially  new  creative  thought.'  And,  as  time 
has  slipped  by,  a  happy  change  has  come  over  Mr.  Darwin's 
critics.  The  mixture  of  ignorance  and  insolence  which  at 
first  characterised  a  large  proportion  of  the  attacks  with  which 
he  was  assailed,  is  no  longer  the  sad  distinction  of  anti-Dar- 
winian criticism." 

A  passage  in  the  Introduction  to  the  '  Descent  of  Man  \ 
shows  that  the  author  recognised  clearly  this  improvement  in 
the  position  of  Evolution.  "When  a  naturalist  like  Carl 
Vogt  ventures  to  say  in  his  address,  as  President  of  the  Na- 
tional Institution  of  Geneva  (1869),  'personne,  en  Europe  au 
moins,  n'ose  plus  soutenir  la  creation  independante  et  de 
toutes  pieces,  des  especes,'  it  is  manifest  that  at  least  a  large 
number  of  naturalists  must  admit  that  species  are  the  modi- 
fied descendants  of  other  species ;  and  this  especially  holds 
good  with  the  younger  and  rising  naturalists.  ...  Of  the 
older  and  honoured  chiefs  in  natural  science,  many,  unfortu- 
nately, are  still  opposed  to  Evolution  in  every  form." 

In  Mr.  James  Hague's  pleasantly  written  article,  "  A  Rem- 
iniscence of  Mr.  Darwin "  ('  Harper's  Magazine,'  October 
1884),  he  describes  a  visit  to  my  father  u  early  in  1871,"! 
shortly  after  the  publication  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man.'  Mr. 
Hague  represents  my  father  as  "  much  impressed  by  the  gen- 


*  'Contemporary  Review,'  1871. 

f  It  must  have  been  at  the  end  of  February,  within  a  week  after  the 
publication  of  the  book. 


1871J  'EXPRESSION   OF    THE   EMOTIONS/  313 

eral  assent  with  which  his  views  had  been  received, "  and  as 
remarking  that  "  everybody  is  talking  about  it  without  being 
shocked." 

Later  in  the  year  the  reception  of  the  book  is  described 
in  different  language  in  the  '  Edinburgh  Review':*  "On 
every  side  it  is  raising  a  storm  of  mingled  wrath,  wonder, 
and  admiration." 

With  regard  to  the  subsequent  reception  of  the  '  Descent 
of  Man/  my  father  wrote  to  Dr.  Dohrn,  February  3,  1872  : — 

u  I  did  not  know  until  reading  your  article,  f  that  my 
'  Descent  of  Man  '  had  excited  so  much  furore  in  Germany. 
It  has  had  an  immense  circulation  in  this  country  and  in 
America,  but  has  met  the  approval  of  hardly  any  naturalists 
as  far  as  I  know.  Therefore  I  suppose  it  was  a  mistake  on 
my  part  to  publish  it ;  but,  anyhow,  it  will  pave  the  way  for 
some  better  work." 

The  book  on  the  '  Expression  of  the  Emotions  '  was  begun 
on  January  17th,  187 1,  the  last  proof  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man  ' 
having  been  finished  on  January  15th.  The  rough  copy  was 
finished  by  April  27th,  and  shortly  after  this  (in  June)  the 
work  was  interrupted  by  the  preparation  of  a  sixth  edition  of 
the  '  Origin.'  In  November  and  December  the  proofs  of  the 
*  Expression  '  book  were  taken  in  hand,  and  occupied  him 
until  the  following  year,  when  the  book  was  published. 

Some  references  to  the  work  on  Expression  have  occurred 
in  letters  already  given,  showing  that  the  foundation  of  the 
book  was,  to  some  extent,  laid  down  for  some  years  before  he 
began  to  write  it.  Thus  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray,  April  15, 
1867  :— 

"  I  have  been,  lately  getting  up  and  looking  over  my  old 
notes  on  Expression,  and  fear  that  I  shall  not  make  so  much 
of  my  hobby-horse   as   I   thought   I   could  ;  nevertheless,  it 

*  July  1 871.  An  adverse  criticism.  The  reviewer  sums  up  by  saying 
that:  "Never  perhaps  in  the  history  of  philosophy  have  such  wide  gen- 
eralisations been  derived  from  such  a  small  basis  of  fact." 

f  In  'Das  Ausland.' 


314  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871. 

seems  to  me  a  curious  subject  which  has  been  strangely 
neglected." 

It  should,  however,  be  remembered  that  the  subject  had 
been  before  his  mind,  more  or  less,  from  1837  or  1838,  as 
I  judge  from  entries  in  his  early  note-books.  It  was  in 
December,  1839,  that  he  began  to  make  observations  on 
children. 

The  work  required  much  correspondence,  not  only  with 
missionaries  and  others  living  among  savages,  to  whom  he 
sent  his  printed  queries,  but  among  physiologists  and  phy- 
sicians. He  obtained  much  information  from  Professor 
Donders,  Sir  W.  Bowman,  Sir  James  Paget,  Dr.  W.  Ogle, 
Dr.  Crichton  Browne,  as  well  as  from  other  observers. 

The  first  letter  refers  to  the  i  Descent  of  Man.'] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  January  30  [1871]. 
My  dear  Wallace, — Your  note  *  has  given  me  very  great 
pleasure,  chiefly  because  I  was  so  anxious  not  to  treat  you 
with  the  least  disrespect,  and  it  is  so  difficult  to  speak  fairly 
when  differing  from  any  one.  If  I  had  offended  you,  it 
would  have  grieved  me  more  than  you  will  readily  believe. 
Secondly,  I  am  greatly  pleased  to  hear  that  Vol.  I.  interests 

*  In  the  note  referred  to,  dated  January  27,  Mr.  Wallace  wrote  : — 
"  Many  thanks  for  your  first  volume  which  I  have  just  finished  reading 
through  with  the  greatest  pleasure  and  interest  ;  and  I  have  also  to  thank 
you  for  the  great  tenderness  with  which  you  have  treated  me  and  my 
heresies." 

The  heresy  is  the  limitation  of  natural  selection  as  applied  to  man. 
My  father  wrote  ('  Descent  of  Man,'  i.  p.  137) : — "  I  cannot  therefore  un- 
derstand how  it  is  that  Mr.  Wallace  maintains  that  '  natural  selection 
could  only  have  endowed  the  savage  with  a  brain  a  little  superior  to  that 
of  an  ape.'  "  In  the  above  quoted  letter  Mr.  Wallace  wrote  : — "  Your 
chapters  on  '  Man  '  are  of  intense  interest,  but  as  touching  my  special 
heresy  not  as  yet  altogether  convincing,  though  of  course  I  fully  agree 
with  every  word  and  every  argument  which  goes  to  prove  the  evolution  or 
development  of  man  out  of  a  lower  form." 


I87i.]  'DESCENT   OF    MAN.'  315 

you  ;  I  have  got  so  sick  of  the  whole  subject  that  I  felt  in 
utter  doubt  about  the  value  of  any  part.  I  intended,  when 
speaking  of  females  not  having  been  specially  modified  for 
protection,  to  include  the  prevention  of  characters  acquired 
by  the  S  being  transmitted  to  ?  ;  but  I  now  see  it  would 
have  been  better  to  have  said  li  specially  acted  on,"  or  some 
such  term.  Possibly  my  intention  may  be  clearer  in  Vol.  II. 
Let  me  say  that  my  conclusions  are  chiefly  founded  on  the 
consideration  of  all  animals  taken  in  a  body,  bearing  in  mind 
how  common  the  rules  of  sexual  differences  appear  to  be  in 
all  classes.  The  first  copy  of  the  chapter  on  Lepidoptera 
agreed  pretty  closely  with  you.  I  then  worked  on,  came  back 
to  Lepidoptera,  and  thought  myself  compelled  to  alter  it- 
finished  Sexual  Selection  and  for  the  last  time  went  over 
Lepidoptera,  and  again  I  felt  forced  to  alter  it.  I  hope  to 
God  there  will  be  nothing  disagreeable  to  you  in  Vol.  II.,  and 
that  I  have  spoken  fairly  of  your  views  ;  I  am  fearful  on  this 
head,  because  I  have  just  read  (but  not  with  sufficient  care) 
Mivart's  book,*  and  I  feel  absolutely  certain  that  he  meant  to 
be  fair  (but  he  was  stimulated  by  theological  fervour)  ;  yet  I 
do  not  think  he  has  been  quite  fair.  .  .  .  The  part  which,  I 
think,  will  have  most  influence  is  where  he  gives  the  whole 
series  of  cases  like  that  of  the  whalebone,  in  which  we  can- 
not explain  the  gradational  steps  ;  but  such  cases  have  no 
weight  on  my  mind — if  a  few  fish  were  extinct,  who  on  earth 
would  have  ventured  even  to  conjecture  that  lungs  had 
originated  in  a  swim-bladder  ?  In  such  a  case  as  the  Thy- 
lacine,  I  think  he  was  bound  to  say  that  the  resemblance  of 
the  jaw  to  that  of  the  dog  is  superficial ;  the  number  and 
correspondence  and  development  of  teeth  being  widely  dif- 
ferent. I  think  again  when  speaking  of  the  necessity  of 
altering  a  number  of  characters  together,  he  ought  to  have 
thought  of  man  having  power  by  selection  to  modify  simul- 
taneously or  almost  simultaneously  many  points,  as  in  making 
a  greyhound  or  racehorse — as  enlarged  upon  in  my  \  Domes- 

*  *  The  Genesis  of  Species/  by  St.  G.  Mivart,  1871. 

57 


316  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871, 

tic  Animals.'  Mivart  is  savage  or  contemptuous  about  my 
"moral  sense,"  and  so  probably  will  you  be.  I  am  extremely 
pleased  that  he  agrees  with  my  position,  as  far  as  animal  na- 
ture is  concerned,  of  man  in  the  series  ;  or  if  anything,  thinks 
I  have  erred  in  making  him  too  distinct. 

Forgive  me  for  scribbling  at  such  length.  You  have  put 
me  quite  in  good  spirits  ;  I  did  so  dread  having  been  unin- 
tentionally unfair  towards  your  views.  I  hope  earnestly  the 
second  volume  will  escape  as  well.  I  care  now  very  little 
what  others  say.  As  for  our  not  quite  agreeing,  really  in 
such  complex  subjects,  it  is  almost  impossible  for  two  men 
who  arrive  independently  at  their  conclusions  to  agree  fully, 
it  would  be  unnatural  for  them  to  do  so. 

Yours  ever,  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[[Professor  Haeckel  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  first  to 
write  to  my  father  about  the  *  Descent  of  Man/  I  quote 
.from  his  reply  : — 

"I  must  send  you  a  few  words  to  thank  you  for  your  in- 
teresting, and  I  may  truly  say,  charming  letter.  I  am  de- 
lighted that  you  approve  of  my  book,  as  far  as  you  have  read 
it.  I  felt  very  great  difficulty  and  doubt  how  often  I  ought 
to  allude  to  what  you  have  published  ;  strictly  speaking  every 
idea,  although  occurring  independently  to  me,  if  published  by 
you  previously  ought  to  have  appeared  as  if  taken  from  your 
works,  but  this  would  have  made  my  book  very  dull  reading ; 
and  I  hoped  that  a  full  acknowledgment  at  the  beginning 
would  suffice.*  I  cannot  tell  you  how  glad  I  am  to  find  that 
I  have  expressed  my  high  admiration  of  your  labours  with 

*  In  the  introduction  to  the  'Descent  of  Man'  the  author  wrote: — 
"This  last  naturalist  [Haeckel]  .  .  .  has  recently  .  .  .  published  his 
VNaturliche  Schopfungs-geschichte,'  in  which  he  fully  discusses  the  gene- 
alogy of  man.  If  this*  work  had  appeared  before  my  essay  had  been  writ- 
ten, I  should  pijobably.never  have  completed  it.  Almost  all  the  conclusions 
at  which  I  have  arrived,  I  find  confirmed  by  this  naturalist,  whose  knowl- 
edge on  many  points is_ much,  fuller  than  mine." 


1871.]  MR.  WALLACE'S   REVIEW.  317 

sufficient  clearness ;  I  am  sure  that  I  have  not  expressed  it 
too  strongly/'] 

C.  Darwin  to  A,  R%  Wallace. 

Down,  March  16,  1871. 
My  dear  Wallace, — I  have  just  read  your  grand  re- 
view.* It  is  in  every  way  as  kindly  expressed  towards  my- 
self as  it  is  excellent  in  matter.  The  Lyells  have  been  here, 
and  Sir  C.  remarked  that  no  one  wrote  such  good  scientific 
reviews  as  you,  and  as  Miss  Buckley  added,  you  delight  in 
picking  out  all  that  is  good,  though  very  far  from  blind  to 
the  bad.  In  all  this  I  most  entirely  agree.  I  shall  always 
consider  your  review  as  a  great  honour ;  and  however  much 
my  book  may  hereafter  be  abused,  as  no  doubt  it  will  be, 
your  review  will  console  me,  notwithstanding  that  we  differ 
so  greatly.  I  will  keep  your  objections  to  my  views  in  my 
mind,  but  I  fear  that  the  latter  are  almost  stereotyped  in  my 
mind.  I  thought  for  long  weeks  about  the  inheritance  and 
selection  difficulty,  and  covered  quires  of  paper  with  notes  in 
trying  to  get  out  of  it,  but  could  not,  though  clearly  seeing 
that  it  would  be  a  great  relief  if  I  could.  I  will  confine  my- 
self to  two  or  three  remarks.  I  have  been  much  impressed 
with  what  you  urge  against  colour  f  in  the  case  of  insects, 
having  been  acquired  through  sexual  selection.  I  always 
saw  that  the  evidence  was  very  weak ;  but  I  still  think,  if  it 
be  admitted  that  the  musical  instruments  of  insects  have  been 
gained  through  sexual  selection,  that  there  is  not  the  least 
improbability  in  colour  having  been  thus  gained.  Your  argu- 
ment with  respect  to  the  denudation  of  mankind  and  also  to 
insects,  that  taste  on  the  part  of  one  sex  would  have  to  re- 

*  Academy,  March  15,  187 1. 

f  Mr.  Wallace  says  that  the  pairing  of  butterflies  is  probably  deter- 
mined by  the  fact  that  one  male  is  stronger-winged,  or  more  pertinacious 
than  the  rest,  rather  than  by  the  choice  of  the  females.  He  quotes  the 
case  of  caterpillars  which  are  brightly  coloured  and  yet  sexless.  Mr.  Wal- 
lace also  makes  the  good  criticism  that  the  *  Descent  of  Man*  consists  of 
two  books  mixed  together. 


318  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871. 

main  nearly  the  same  during  many  generations,  in  order  that 
sexual  selection  should  produce  any  effect,  I  agree  to  ;  and  I 
think  this  argument  would  be  sound  if  used  by  one  who  de- 
nied that,  for  instance,  the  plumes  of  birds  of  Paradise  had 
been  so  gained.  I  believe  you  admit  this,  and  if  so  I  do  not 
see  how  your  argument  applies  in  other  cases.  I  have  recog- 
nized for  some  short  time  that  I  have  made  a  great  omission 
in  not  having  discussed,  as  far  as  I  could,  the  acquisition  of 
taste,  its  inherited  nature,  and  its  permanence  within  pretty 
close  limits  for  long  periods. 

[With  regard  to  the  success  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man/  I 
quote  from  a  letter  to  Professor  Ray  Lankester  (March  22, 

1871):- 

"  I  think  you  will  be  glad  to  hear,  as  a  proof  of  the  in- 
creasing liberality  of  England,  that  my  book  has  sold  wonder- 
fully ....  and  as  yet  no  abuse  (though  some,  no  doubt,  will 
come,  strong  enough),  and  only  contempt  even  in  the  poor 
old  Athenceum" 

As  to  reviews  that  struck  him  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Wallace 
(March  24,  1871) : — 

"  There  is  a  very  striking  second  article  on  my  book  in 
the  Pall  Mall, %  The  articles  in  the  Spectator*  have  also  in- 
terested me  much." 

On  March  20  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Murray  : — 

"  Many  thanks  for  the  Nonconformist  [March  8,  1871].  I 
like  to  see  all  that  is  written,  and  it  is  of  some  real  use.  If 
you  hear  of  reviewers  in  out-of-the-way  papers,  especially  the 
religious,  as  Record,  Guardian,  Tablet,  kindly  inform  me.  It 
is  wonderful  that  there  has  been  no  abuse  \  as  yet,  but  I 

*  Spectator,  March  11  and  18,  1871.  With  regard  to  the  evolution  of 
conscience  the  reviewer  thinks  that  my  father  comes  much  nearer  to  the 
"  kernel  of  the  psychological  problem  "  than  many  of  his  predecessors. 
The  second  article  contains  a  good  discussion  of  the  bearing  of  the  book 
on  the  question  of  design,  and  concludes  by  finding  in  it  a  vindication  of 
Theism  more  wonderful  than  that  in  Paley's  '  Natural  Theology.' 

f  "  I  feel  a  full  conviction  that  my  chapter  on  man  will  excite  attention 


i87i.]  REVIEWS.  319 

suppose  I  shall  not  escape.  On  the  whole,  the  reviews  have 
been  highly  favourable." 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Murray  (April 
13,  1871)  refers  to  a  review  in  the  Times.\ 

"I  have  no  idea  who  wrote  the  Times  review.  He  has  no 
knowledge  of  science,  and  seems  to  me  a  wind-bag  full  of 
metaphysics  and  classics,  so  that  I  do  net  much  regard  his 
adverse  judgment,  though  I  suppose  it  will  injure  the  sale." 

A  review  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man/  which  my  father  spoke 
of  as  "capital,"  appeared  in  the  Saturday  Review  (Mar.  4 
and  11,  1 871).  A  passage  from  the  first  notice  (Mar.  4)  may 
be  quoted  in  illustration  of  the  broad  basis  as  regards  general 
acceptance,  on  which  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  now  stood  : 
"  He  claims  to  have  brought  man  himself,  his  origin  and  con- 
stitution, within  that  unity  which  he  had  previously  sought 
to  trace  through  all  lower  animal  forms.  The  growth  of 
opinion  in  the  interval,  due  in  chief  measure  to  his  own  in- 
termediate works,  has  placed  the  discussion  of  this  problem 
in  a  position  very  much  in  advance  of  that  held  by  it  fifteen 
years  ago.  The  problem  of  Evolution  is  hardly  any  longer  to 
be  treated  as  one  of  first  principles  ;  nor  has  Mr.  Darwin  to 
do  battle  for  a  first  hearing  of  his  central  hypothesis,  upborne 
as  it  is  by  a  phalanx  of  names  full  of  distinction  and  promise, 
in  either  hemisphere." 

The  infolded  point  of  the  human  ear,  discovered  by  Mr. 
Woolner,  and  described  in  the  '  Descent  of  Man,'  seems 
especially  to  have  struck  the  popular  imagination ;  my  father 
wrote  to  Mr.  Woolner: — 

and  plenty  of  abuse,  and  I  suppose  abuse  is  as  good  as  praise  for  selling  a 
book." — (From  a  letter  to  Mr.  Murray,  Jan.  31,  1867.) 

\  Times,  April  7  and  8,  187 1.  The  review  is  not  only  unfavourable  as 
regards  the  book  under  discussion,  but  also  as  regards  Evolution  in  general, 
as  the  following  citation  will  show :  "  Even  had  it  been  rendered  highly 
probable,  which  we  doubt,  that  the  animal  creation  has  been  developed 
into  its  numerous  and  widely  different  varieties  by  mere  evolution,  it  would 
still  require  an  independent  investigation  of  overwhelming  force  and  com- 
pleteness to  justify  the  presumption  that  man  is  but  a  term  in  this  self- 
evolving  series." 


320  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871. 

"  The  tips  to  the  ears  have  become  quite  celebrated.  One 
reviewer  ('  Nature  ')  says  they  ought  to  be  called,  as  I  sug- 
gested in  joke,  Angulus  Woolnerianus*  A  German  is  very 
proud  to  find  that  he  has  the  tips  well  developed,  and  I 
believe  will  send  me  a  photograph  of  his  ears."] 

C.  Darwin  to  John  Brodie  Innes.\ 

Down,  May  29  [1871]. 
My  dear  Innes, — I  have  been  very  glad  to  receive  your 
pleasant  letter,  for  to  tell  you  the  truth,  I  have  sometimes 
wondered  whether  you  would  not  think  me  an  outcast  and  a 
reprobate  after  the  publication  of  my  last  book  ['  Descent ']. J 
I  do  not  wonder  at  all  at  your  not  agreeing  with  me,  for  a 
good  many  professed  naturalists  do  not.  Yet  when  I  see  in 
how  extraordinary  a  manner  the  judgment  of  naturalists  has 
changed  since  I  published  the  '  Origin/  I  feel  convinced  that 
there  will  be  in  ten  years  quite  as  much  unanimity  about  man, 
as  far  as  his  corporeal  frame  is  concerned.  .  .  . 

[The  following  letters  addressed  to  Dr.  Ogle  deal  with 
the  progress  of  the  work  on  expression.] 

Down,  March  12  [1871]. 
My  dear  Dr.  Ogle, — I  have  received  both  your  letters, 
and  they  tell  me  all  that  I  wanted  to  know  in  the  clearest 
possible  way,  as,  indeed,  all  your  letters  have  ever  done.  I 
thank  you  cordially.  I  will  give  the  case  of  the  murderer  * 
in  my  hobby-horse  essay  on  expression.  I  fear  that  the  Eu- 
stachian tube  question  must  have  cost  you  a  deal  of  labour  ; 

*  '  Nature  '  Ap.  6,  1871.     The  term  suggested  is  Angulus  Woolnerii. 
f  Rev.  J.  Brodie  Innes,  of  Milton  Brodie,  formerly  Vicar  of  Down. 
|Ina  former  letter  of  my  father's  to  Mr.  Innes  : — "  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  which  I  should  feel  very 
proud  of,  if  any  one  could  say  it  of  me." 

*  '  Expression  of  the  Emotions,'  p.  294.     The  arrest  of  a  murderer,  as 
witnessed  by  Dr.  Ogle  in  a  hospital. 


i87i.]  EXPRESSION.  321 

it  is  quite  a  complete  little  essay.  It  is  pretty  clear  that  the 
mouth  is  not  opened  under  surprise  merely  to  improve  the 
hearing.  Yet  why  do  deaf  men  generally  keep  their  mouths 
open  ?  The  other  day  a  man  here  was  mimicking  a  deaf 
friend,  leaning  his  head  forward  and  sideways  to  the  speaker, 
with  his  mouth  well  open;  it  was  a  lifelike  representation  of 
a  deaf  man.  Shakespeare  somewhere  says  :  "  Hold  your 
breath,  listen"  or  "hark,"  I  forget  which.  Surprise  hurries 
the  breath,  and  it  seems  to  me  one  can  breathe,  at  least  hur- 
riedly, much  quieter  through  the  open  mouth  than  through 
the  nose.  I  saw  the  other  day  you  doubted  this.  As  objec- 
tion is  your  province  at  present,  I  think  breathing  through 
the  nose  ought  to  come  within  it  likewise,  so  do  pray  consider 
this  point,  and  let  me  hear  your  judgment.  Consider  the 
nose  to  be  a  flower  to  be  fertilised,  and  then  you  will  make 
out  all  about  it.*  I  have  had  to  allude  to  your  paper  on 
1  Sense  of  Smell ; '  f  is  the  paging  right,  namely,  1,  2,  3  ?  If 
not,  I  protest  by  all  the  gods  against  the  plan  followed  by 
some,  of  having  presentation  copies  falsely  paged ;  and  so 
does  Rolleston,  as  he  wrote  to  me  the  other  day.     In  haste. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

C.   Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Ogle, 

Down,  March  25  [1871]. 
My  dear  Dr.  Ogle, — You  will  think  me  a  horrid  bore, 
but  I  beg  you,  in  relation  to  a  new  point  for  observation,  to 
imagine  as  well  as  you  can  that  you  suddenly  come  across 
some  dreadful  object,  and  act  with  a  sudden  little  start,  a 
shudder  of  horror ;  please  do  this  once  or  twice,  and  observe 
yourself  as  well  as  you  can,  and  afterwards  read  the  rest  of 
this  note,  which  I  have  consequently  pinned  down.  I  find, 
to  my  surprise,  whenever  I  act  thus  my  platysma  contracts. 

•     *  Dr.  Ogle  had  corresponded  with  my  father  on  his  own  observations 
on  the  fertilisation  of  flowers. 
f  Medico-chirurg.  Trans,  liii. 


322  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871. 

Does  yours  ?  (N.B. — See  what  a  man  will  do  for  science  ;  I 
began  this  note  with  a  horrid  lib,  namely,  that  I  want  you  to 
attend  to  a  new  point.*)  I  will  try  and  get  some  persons 
thus  to  act  who  are  so  lucky  as  not  to  know  that  they  even 
possess  this  muscle,  so  troublesome  for  any  one  making  out 
about  expression.  Is  a  shudder  akin  to  the  rigor  or  shiver- 
ing before  fever?  If  so,  perhaps  the  platysma  could  be  ob- 
served in  such  cases.  Paget  told  me  that  he  had  attended 
much  to  shivering,  and  had  written  in  MS.  on  the  subject, 
and  been  much  perplexed  about  it.  He  mentioned  that  pass- 
ing a  catheter  often  causes  shivering.  Perhaps  I  will  write 
to  him  about  the  platysma.  He  is  always  most  kind  in  aiding 
me  in  all  ways,  but  he  is  so  overworked  that  it  hurts  my  con- 
science to  trouble  him,  for  I  have  a  conscience,  little  as  you 
have  reason  to  think  so.  Help  me  if  you  can,  and  forgive 
me.  Your  murderer  case  has  come  in  splendidly  as  the  acme 
of  prostration  from  fear. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Dr.  Ogle. 

Down,  April  29  [1871]. 
My  dear  Dr.  Ogle, — I  am  truly  obliged  for  all  the  great 
trouble  which  you  have  so  kindly  taken.  I  am  sure  you  have 
no  cause  to  say  that  you  are  sorry  you  can  give  me  no  definite 
information,  for  you  have  given  me  far  more  than  I  ever  ex- 
pected to  get.  The  action  of  the  platysma  is  not  very  im- 
portant for  me,  but  I  believe  that  you  will  fully  understand 
(for  I  have  always  fancied  that  our  minds  were  very  similar) 
the  intolerable  desire  I  had  not  to  be  utterly  baffled.  Now  I 
know  that  it  sometimes  contracts  from  fear  and  from  shud- 
dering, but  not  apparently  from  a  prolonged  state  of  fear 
such  as  the  insane  suffer 

*  The  point  was  doubtless  described  as  a  new  one,  to  avoid  the  possi- 
bility of  Dr.  Ogle's  attention  being  directed  to  the  platysma,  a  muscle 
which  had  been  the  subject  of  discussion  in  other  letters. 


1871.]  EXPRESSION.  323 

[Mr.  Mivart's  '  Genesis  of  Species/ — a  eontribution  to  the 
literature  of  Evolution,  which  excited  much  attention — was 
published  in  1871,  before  the  appearance  of  the  '  Descent  of 
Man.'  To  this  book  the  following  letter  (June  21,  187 1)  from 
the  late  Chauncey  Wright  *  to  my  father  refers]  : 

"  I  send  .  .  .  revised  proofs  of  an  article  which  will  be 
published  in  the  July  number  of  the  '  North  American  Re- 
view/ sending  it  in  the  hope  that  it  will  interest  or  even  be 
of  greater  value  to  you.  Mr.  Mivart's  book  ['  Genesis  of 
Species ']  of  which  this  article  is  substantially  a  review,  seems 
to  me  a  very  good  background  from  which  to  present  the 
considerations  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  set  forth  in  the 
article,  in  defence  and  illustration  of  the  theory  of  Natural 
Selection.  My  special  purpose  has  been  to  contribute  to  the 
theory  by  placing  it  in  its  proper  relations  to  philosophical 
inquiries  in  general.,,  f 

With  regard  to  the  proofs  received  from  Mr.  Wr right,  my 
father  wrote  to  Mr.  Wallace  :] 

Down,  July  9  [1871]. 
My  dear  Wallace, — I  send  by  this  post  a  review  by 
Chauncey  Wright,  as  I  much  want  your  opinion  of  it  as  soon 
as  you  can  send  it.  I  consider  you  an  incomparably  better 
critic  than  I  am.  The  article,  though  not  very  clearly 
written,  and  poor  in  parts  from  want  of  knowledge,  seems 
to  me  admirable.     Mivart's  book  is  producing  a  great  effect 

*  Chauncey  Wright  was.  born  at  Northampton,  Massachusetts,  Sept.  20, 
1830,  and  came  of  a  family  settled  in  that  town  since  1654.  He  became  in 
1852  a  computer  in  the  Nautical  Almanac  office  at  Cambridge,  Mass.,  and 
lived  a  quiet  uneventful  life,  supported  by  the  small  stipend  of  his  office, 
and  by  what  he  earned  from  his  occasional  articles,  as  well  as  by  a  little 
teaching.  He  thought  and  read  much  on  metaphysical  subjects,  but  on 
the  whole  with  an  outcome  (as  far  as  the  world  was  concerned)  not  com- 
mensurate to  the  power  of  his  mind.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of 
strong  individuality,  and  to  have  made  a  lasting  impression  on  his  friends. 
He  died  in  Sept.,  1875. 

t  '  Letters  of  Chauncey  Wright,'  by  J.  B.  Thayer.  Privately  printed, 
1878,  p.  230. 


324  *  DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871. 

against  Natural  Selection,  and  more  especially  against  me. 
Therefore  if  you  think  the  article  even  somewhat  good  I  will 
write  and  get  permission  to  publish  it  as  a  shilling  pamphlet, 
together  with  the  MS.  additions  (enclosed),  for  which  there 
was  not  room  at  the  end  of  the  review.  .  .  . 

I  am  now  at  work  at  a  new  and  cheap  edition  of  the 
'  Origin,'  and  shall  answer  several  points  in  Mivart's  book, 
and  introduce  a  new  chapter  for  this  purpose ;  but  I  treat  the 
subject  so  much  more  concretely,  and  I  dare  say  less  philo- 
sophically, than  Wright,  that  we  shall  not  interfere  with  each 
other.  You  will  think  me  a  bigot  when  I  say,  after  studying 
Mivart,  I  was  never  before  in  my  life  so  convinced  of  the 
general  (i.  e.  not  in  detail)  truth  of  the  views  in  the  '  Origin/ 
I  grieve  to  see  the  omission  of  the  words  by  Mivart,  detected 
by  Wright.*  I  complained  to  Mivart  that  in  two  cases  he 
quotes  only  the  commencement  of  sentences  by  me,  and  thus 
modifies  my  meaning ;  but  I  never  supposed  he  would  have 
omitted  words.  There  are  other  cases  of  what  I  consider 
unfair  treatment.  I  conclude  with  sorrow  that  though  he 
means  to  be  honourable  he  is  so  bigoted  that  he  cannot  act 
fairly.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  Chauncey  Wright. 

Down,  July  14,  18 71. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  have  hardly  ever  in  my  life  read  an 
article  which  has  given  me  so  much  satisfaction  as  the  review 
which  you  have  been  so  kind  as  to  send  me.  I  agree  to  al- 
most everything  which  you  say.  Your  memory  must  be  won- 
derfully accurate,  for  you  know  my  works  as  well  as  I  do 
myself,  and  your  power  of  grasping  other  men's  thoughts  is 
something  quite  surprising  ;  and  this,  as  far  as  my  experience 


*  *  North  American  Review,'  vol.  113,  pp.  83,  84.  Chauncey  Wright 
points  out  that  the  words  omitted  are  "  essential  to  the  point  on  which  he 
[Mr.  Mivart]  cites  Mr.  Darwin's  authority."  It  should  be  mentioned  that 
the  passage  from  which  words  are  omitted  is  not  given  within  inverted 
commas  by  Mr.  Mivart. 


1871.]  'GENESIS   OF   SPECIES/  325 

goes,  is  a  very  rare  quality.  As  I  read  on  I  perceived  how 
you  have  acquired  this  power,  viz.  by  thoroughly  analyzing 
each  word. 

.  .  .  Now  I  am  going  to  beg  a  favour.  Will  you  pro- 
visionally give  me  permission  to  reprint  your  article  as  a 
shilling  pamphlet  ?  I  ask  only  provisionally,  as  I  have  not 
yet  had  time  to  reflect  on  the  subject.  It  would  cost  me,  1 
fancy,  with  advertisements,  some  ^20  or  ^30  ;  but  the 
worst  is  that,  as  I  hear,  pamphlets  never  will  sell.  And  this 
makes  me  doubtful.  Should  you  think  it  too  much  trouble 
to  send  me  a  title  for  the  chance  ?  The  title  ought,  I  think, 
to  have  Mr.  Mivart's  name  on  it. 

...  If  you  grant  permission  and  send  a  title,  you  will 
kindly  understand  that  I  will  first  make   further  enquiries 
whether  there  is  any  chance  of  a  pamphlet  being  read. 
Pray  believe  me  yours  very  sincerely  obliged, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  pamphlet  was  published  in  the  autumn,  and  on  Oc- 
tober 23  my  father  wrote  to  Mr.  Wright : — 

"  It  pleases  me  much  that  you  are  satisfied  with  the  ap- 
pearance of  your  pamphlet.  I  am  sure  it  will  do  our  cause 
good  service ;  and  this  same,  opinion  Huxley  has  expressed 
to  me.     ('  Letters  of  Chauncey  Wright,'  p.  235)"] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.   Wallace. 

Down,  July  12  [1871]. 
....  I  feel  very  doubtful  how  far  I  shall  succeed  in  an- 
swering Mivart,  it  is  so  difficult  to  answer  objections  to 
doubtful  points,  and  make  the  discussion  readable.  I. shall 
make  only  a  selection.  The  worst  of  it  is,  that  I  cannot 
possibly  hunt  through  all  my  references  for  isolated  points,  it 
would  take  me  three  weeks  of  intolerably  hard  work.  I  wish 
I  had  your  power  of  arguing  clearly.  At  present  I  feel  sick 
of  everything,  and  if  I  could  occupy  my  time  and  forget  my 
daily  discomforts,  or  rather  miseries,  I  would   never  publish 


326  '  DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871. 

another  word.  But  I  shall  cheer  up,  I  dare  say,  soon,  having 
only  just  got  over  a  bad  attack.  Farewell ;  God  knows  why 
I  bother  you  about  myself.  I  can  say  nothing  more  about 
missing-links  than  what  I  have  said.  I  should  rely  much  on 
pre-silurian  times;  but  then  comes  Sir  W.  Thomson  like  an 
odious  spectre.     Farewell. 

.  .  .  There  is  a  most  cutting  review  of  me  in  the  '  Quar- 
terly ';*  I  have  only  read  a  few  pages.  The  skill  and  style 
make  me  think  of  Mivart.  I  shall  soon  be  viewed  as  the 
most  despicable  of  men.  This  '  Quarterly  Review '  tempts 
me  to  republish  Ch.  Wright,  even  if  not  read  by  any  one,  just 
to  show  some  one  will  say  a  word  against  Mivart,  and  that 
his  (i.e.  Mivart's)  remarks  ought  not  to  be  swallowed  without 
some  reflection.  .  .  .  God  knows  whether  my  strength  and 
spirit  will  last  out  to  write  a  chapter  versus  Mivart  and  others; 
I  do  so  hate  controversy  and  feel  I  shall  do  it  so  badly. 

[The  above-mentioned  '  Quarterly  '  review  was  the  subject 
of  an  article  by  Mr.  Huxley  in  the  November  number  of  the 
'  Contemporary  Review.'  Here,  also,  are  discussed  Mr.  Wal- 
lace's '  Contribution  to  the  Theory  of  Natural  Selection/  and 
the  second  edition  of  Mr.  Mivart 's  '  Genesis  of  Species.' 
What  follows  is  taken  from  Mr.  Huxley's  article.  The 
1  Quarterly '  reviewer,  though  being  to  some  extent  an  evolu- 
tionist, believes  that  Man  "  differs  more  from  an  elephant  or 
a  gorilla,  than  do  these  from  the  dust  of  the  earth  on  which 
they  tread."  The  reviewer  also  declares  that  my  father  has 
"  with  needless  opposition,  set  at  naught  the  first  principles 
of  both  philosophy  and  religion."  Mr.  Huxley  passes  from 
the  '  Quarterly  '  reviewer's  further  statement,  that  there  is  no 
necessary  opposition  between  evolution  and  religion,  to  the 
more  definite  position  taken  by  Mr.  Mivart,  that  the  orthodox 
authorities  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  agree  in  distinctly 
asserting  derivative  creation,  so  that  "  their  teachings  har- 
monize with  all  that  modern  science  can  possibly  require." 
Here  Mr.  Huxley  felt  the  want  of  that  "  study  of  Christian 

*  July  1871. 


1871.]  'QUARTERLY   REVIEW.'  327 

philosophy  "  (at  any  rate,  in  its  Jesuitic  garb),  which  Mr. 
Mivart  speaks  of,  and  it  was  a  want  he  at  once  set  to  work  to 
fill  up.  He  was  then  staying  at  St.  Andrews,  whence  he  wrote 
to  my  father  : — 

"  By  great  good  luck  there  is  an  excellent  library  here, 
with  a  good  copy  of  Suarez,*  in  a  dozen  big  folios.  Among 
these  I  dived,  to  the  great  astonishment  of  the  librarian,  and 
looking  into  them  '  as  the  careful  robin  eyes  the  delver's  toil ' 
(vide  i Idylls'),  1  carried  off  the  two  venerable  clasped  vol- 
umes which  were  most  promising."  Even  those  who  know 
Mr.  Huxley's  unrivalled  power  of  tearing  the  heart  out  of  a 
book  must  marvel  at  the  skill  with  which  he  has  made  Suarez 
speak  on  his  side.  "  So  I  have  come  out,"  he  wrote,  "in  the 
new  character  of  a  defender  of  Catholic  orthodoxy,  and  up- 
set Mivart  out  of  the  mouth  of  his  own  prophet." 

The  remainder  of  Mr.  Huxley's  critique  is  largely  occu- 
pied with  a  dissection  of  the  '  Quarterly '  reviewer's  psychol- 
ogy, and  his  ethical  views.  He  deals,  too,  with  Mr.  Wal- 
lace's objections  to  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  by  natural 
causes  when  applied  to  the  mental  faculties  of  Man.  Finally, 
he  devotes  a  couples  of  pages  to  justifying  his  description  of 
the  '  Quarterly  '  reviewer's  "  treatment  of  Mr.  Darwin  as  alike 
unjust  and  unbecoming." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  two  following  letters  were  written 
before  the  publication  of  Mr.  Huxley's  article.] 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley, 

Down,  September  21  [1871]. 
My  dear  Huxley, — Your  letter  has  pleased  me  in  many 
ways,  to  a  wonderful  degree.  .  .  .  What  a  wonderful  man  you 
are  to  grapple  with  those  old  metaphisico-divinity  books.  It 
quite  delights  me  that  you  are  going  to  some  extent  to  answer 
and  attack  Mivart.  His  book,  as  you  say,  has  produced  a 
great  effect ;  yesterday  I  perceived  the  reverberations  from  it, 
even   from  Italy.     It  was  this  that  made  me   ask  Chauncey 


*  The  learned  Jesuit  on  whom  Mr.  Mivart  mainly  relies. 


328  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871. 

Wright  to  publish  at  my  expense  his  article,  which  seems 
to  me  very  clever,  though  ill-written.     He  has  not  knowledge 
enough  to  grapple  with  Mivart  in  detail.     I  think  there  can 
be  no  shadow  of  doubt  that  he  is  the  author  of  the  article  in 
the  '  Quarterly  Review '  ...  I  am  preparing  a  new  edition 
of  the  'Origin,'  and  shall  introduce  a  new  chapter  in  answer 
to  miscellaneous  objections,  and  shall  give  up  the  greater  part 
to  answer  Mivart's  cases  of  difficulty  of  incipient  structures 
being  of  no  use  :  and  I  find  it  can  be  done  easily.     He  never 
states  his  case  fairly,  and  makes  wonderful   blunders.  .  .  . 
The  pendulum  is  now  swinging  against  our  side,  but  I  feel 
positive  it  will  soon  swing  the  other  way  ;  and  no  mortal  man 
will  do  half  as  much  as  you  in  giving  it  a  start  in  the  right 
direction,  as  you  did  at  the  first  commencement.     God  for- 
give me  for  writing  so  long  and  egotistical  a  letter  ;  but  it 
is  your  fault,  for  you  have  so  delighted  me  ;  I  never  dreamed 
that  you  would  have  time  to  say  a  word  in  defence  of  the 
cause  which  you  have  so  often  defended.     It  will  be  a  long 
battle,  after  we  are  dead  and  gone.  .  .  .  Great  is  the  power 
of  misrepresentation.  ... 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  September  30  [1871]. 
My  dear  Huxley,— It  was  very  good  of  you  to  send  the 
proof-sheets,  for  I  was  very  anxious  to  read  your  article.  I 
have  been  delighted  with  it.  How  you  do  smash  Mivart's 
theology  :  it  is  almost  equal  to  your  article  versus  Comte—  * 
that  never  can  be  transcended.  ...  But  I  have  been  pre- 
eminently glad  to  read  your  discussion  on  [the  '  Quarterly ' 
reviewer's]  metaphysics,  especially  about  reason  and  his  de- 
finition  of  it.     I  felt  sure  he  was  wrong,  but  having  only 


*  ■  Fortnightly  Review/  1869.  With  regard  to  the  relations  of  Posi- 
tivism to  Science  my  father  wrote  to  Mr.  Spencer  in  1875  :  "  How  curi- 
ous and  amusing  it  is  to  see  to  what  an  extent  the  Positivists  hate  all  men 
of  science  ;  I  fancy  they  are  dimly  conscious  what  laughable  and  gigantic 
blunders  their  prophet  made  in  predicting  the  course  of  science." 


1871.]  MR.  HUXLEY'S   REVIEW.  329 

common  observation  and  sense  to  trust  to,  I  did  not  know 
what  to  say  in  my  second  edition  of  my  •  Descent/  Now  a 
footnote  and  reference  to  you  will  do  the  work.  .  .  .  For  me, 
this  is  one  of  the  most  important  parts  of  the  review.  But  for 
pleasure,  I  have  been  particularly  glad  that  my  few  words  * 
on  the  distinction,  if  it  can  be  so  called,  between  Mivart's  two 
forms  of  morality,  caught  your  attention.  I  am  so  pleased 
that  you  take  the  same  view,  and  give  authorities  for  it ;  but  I 
searched  Mill  in  vain  on  this  head.  How  well  you  argue  the 
whole  case.  I  am  mounting  climax  on  climax  ;  for  after  all 
there  is  nothing,  I  think,  better  in  your  whole  review  than 
your  arguments  v.  Wallace  on  the  intellect  of  savages.  I  must 
tell  you  what  Hooker  said  to  me  a  few  years  ago.  "  When  I 
read  Huxley,  I  feel  quite  infantile  in  intellect.,,  By  Jove  I 
have  felt  the  truth  of  this  throughout  your  review.  What  a 
man  you  are.  There  are  scores  of  splendid  passages,  and 
vivid  flashes  of  wit.  I  have  been  a  good  deal  more  than 
merely  pleased  by  the  concluding  part  of  your  review  ;  and 
all  the  more,  as  I  own  I  felt  mortified  by  the  accusation  of 
bigotry,  arrogance,  &c,  in  the  '  Quarterly  Review/  But  I 
assure  you,  he  may  write  his  worst,  and  he  will  never  mortify 
me  again. 

My  dear  Huxley,  yours  gratefully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  Muller. 

Haredene,  Albury,  August  2  [18 71]. 
My  dear  Sir, — Your  last  letter  has  interested  me  greatly; 
it  is  wonderfully  rich  in  facts  and  original  thoughts.  First, 
let  me  say  that  I  have  been  much  pleased  by  what  you  say 
about  my  book.  It  has  had  a.  very  large  sale;  but  I  have 
been  much  abused  for  it,  especially  for  the  chapter  on  the 
moral  sense  ;  and  most  of  my  reviewers  consider  the  book  as 
a  poor  affair.     God  knows  what  its  merits  may  really  be  ;  all 

*  '  Descent  of  Man/  vol.  i.  p.  87.     A  discussion  on  the  question  whether 
an  act  done  impulsively  or  instinctively  can  be  called  moral. 


330  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1871. 

that  I  know  is  that  I  did  my  best.  With  familiarity  I  think 
naturalists  will  accept  sexual  selection  to  a  greater  extent 
than  they  now  seem  inclined  to  do.  I  should  very  much  like 
to  publish  your  letter,  but  I  do  not  see  how  it  could  be  made 
intelligible,  without  numerous  coloured  illustrations,  but  I  will 
consult  Mr.  Wallace  on  this  head.  I  earnestly  hope  that  you 
keep  notes  of  all  your  letters,  and  that  some  day  you  will 
publish  a  book  :  l  Notes  of  a  Naturalist  in  S.  Brazil/  or  some 
such  title.  Wallace  will  hardly  admit  the  possibility  of 
sexual  selection  with  Lepidoptera,  and  no  doubt  it  is  very 
improbable.  Therefore,  I  am  very  glad  to  hear  of  your  cases 
(which  I  will  quote  in  the  next  edition)  of  the  two  sets  of 
Hesperiadae,  which  display  their  wings  differently,  according 
to  which  surface  is  coloured.  I  cannot  believe  that  such  dis- 
play is  accidental  and  purposeless.  ... 

No  fact  of  your  letter  has  interested  me  more  than  that 
about  mimicry.  It  is  a  capital  fact  about  the  males  pursuing 
the  wrong  females.  You  put  the  difficulty  of  the  first  steps  in 
imitation  in  a  most  striking  and  convincing  manner.  Your 
idea  of  sexual  selection  having  aided  protective  imitation 
interests  me  greatly,  for  the  same  idea  had  occurred  to  me  in 
quite  different  cases,  viz.  the  dulness  of  all  animals  in  the 
Galapagos  Islands,  Patagonia,  &c,  and  in  some  other  cases  ; 
but  I  was  afraid  even  to  hint  at  such  an  idea.  Would  you 
object  to  my  giving  some  such  sentence  as  follows  :  il  F. 
Mliller  suspects  that  sexual  selection  may  have  come  into 
play,  in  aid  of  protective  imitation,  in  a  very  peculiar  manner, 
which  will  appear  extremely  improbable  to  those  who  do  not 
fully  believe  in  sexual  selection.  It  is  that  the  appreciation 
of  certain  colour  is  developed  in  those  species  which  fre- 
quently behold  other  species  thus  ornamented."  Again  let 
me  thank  you  cordially  for  your  most  interesting  letter.  .  .  . 


1872.]  'PRIMITIVE   CULTURE.'  33 1 


C.  Darwin  to  E.  B.    Tybr* 

Down  [Sept.  24,  1871]. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  hope  that  you  will  allow  me  to  have  the 
pleasure  of  telling  you  how  greatly  I  have  been  interested  by 
your  '  Primitive  Culture,'  now  that  I  have  finished  it.  It 
seems  to  me  a  most  profound  work,  which  will  be  certain  to 
have  permanent  value,  and  to  be  referred  to  for  years  to  come. 
It  is  wonderful  how  you  trace  animism  from  the  lower  races 
up  to  the  religious  belief  of  the  highest  races.  It  will  make 
me  for  the  future  look  at  religion — a  belief  in  the  soul,  &c. — 
from  a  new  point  of  view.  How  curious,  also,  are  the  survi- 
vals or  rudiments  of  old  customs.  .  .  .  You  will  perhaps  be 
surprised  at  my  writing  at  so  late  a  period,  but  I  have  had  the 
book  read  aloud  to  me,  and  from  much  ill-health  of  late  could 
only  stand  occasional  short  reads.  The  undertaking  must 
have  cost  you  gigantic  labour.  Nevertheless,  I  earnestly  hope 
that  you  may  be  induced  to  treat  morals  in  the  same  enlarged 
yet  careful  manner,  as  you  have  animism.  I  fancy  from  the 
last  chapter  that  you  have  thought  of  this.  No  man  could  do 
the  work  so  well  as  you,  and  the  subject  assuredly  is  a  most 
important  and  interesting  one.  You  must  now  possess  refer- 
ences which  would  guide  you  to  a  sound  estimation  of  the 
morals  of  savages  ;  and  how  writers  like  Wallace,  Lubbock, 
&c,  &c,  do  differ  on  this  head.  Forgive  me  for  troubling 
you,  and  believe  me,  with  much  respect, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

1872. 

[At  the  beginning  of  the  year  the  sixth  edition  of  the 
1  Origin/  which  had  been  begun  in  June,  1871,  was  nearly 
completed.  The  last  sheet  was  revised  on  January  10,  1872, 
and  the  book  was  published  in  the  course  of  the  month. 
This  volume  differs  from  the  previous  ones  in  appearance 

*  Keeper  of  the  Museum,  and  Reader  in  Anthropology  at  Oxford. 
58 


332  '  DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

and  size — it  consists  of  458  pp.  instead  of  596  pp.  and  is 
a  few  ounces  lighter  ;  it  is  printed  on  bad  paper,  in  small 
type,  and  with  the  lines  unpleasantly  close  together.  It  had, 
however,  one  advantage  over  previous  editions,  namely  that 
it  was  issued  at  a  lower  price.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  this 
the  final  edition  of  the  '  Origin  '  should  have  appeared  in 
so  unattractive  a  form  ;  a  form  which  has  doubtless  kept  off 
many  readers  from  the  book. 

The  discussion  suggested  by  the  i  Genesis  of  Species '  was 
perhaps  the  most  important  addition  to  the  book.  The  ob- 
jection that  incipient  structures  cannot  be  of  use  was  dealt 
with  in  some  detail,  because  it  seemed  to  the  author  that 
this  was  the  point  in  Mr.  Mivart's  book  which  has  struck 
most  readers  in  England. 

It  is  a  striking  proof  of  how  wide  and  general  had  become 
the  acceptance  of  his  views  that  my  father  found  it  necessary 
to  insert  (sixth  edition,  p.  424),  the  sentence  :  "  As  a  record 
of  a  former  state  of  things,  I  have  retained  in  the  foregoing 
paragraphs  and  also  elsewhere,  several  sentences  which  imply 
that  naturalists  believe  in  the  separate  creation  of  each 
species  ;  and  I  have  been  much  censured  for  having  thus 
expressed  myself.  But  undoubtedly  this  was  the  general 
belief  when  the  first  edition  of  the  present  work  appeared.  .  . 
Now  things  are  wholly  changed,  and  almost  every  naturalist 
admits  the  great  principle  of  evolution.,, 

A  small  correction  introduced  into  this  sixth  edition  is 
connected  with  one  of  his  minor  papers  :  "  Note  on  the  habits 
of  the  Pampas  Woodpecker."  *  In  the  fifth  edition  of  the 
*  Origin,'  p.  220,  he  wrote  : — 

"  Yet  as  I  can  assert  not  only  from  my  own  observation, 
but  from  that  of  the  accurate  Azara,  it  [the  ground  wood- 
pecker] never  climbs  a  tree."  The  paper  in  question  was  a 
reply  to  Mr.  Hudson's  remarks  on  the  woodpecker  in  a  pre- 
vious number  of  the  same  journal.  The  last  sentence  of 
my  father's  paper  is  worth  quoting  for  its  temperate  tone : 

*  Zoolog.  Soc.  Proc.  1870. 


1872.]  'ORIGIN— SIXTH  EDITION.  333 

u  Finally,  I  trust  that  Mr.  Hudson  is  mistaken  when  he  says 
that  any  one  acquainted  with  the  habits  of  this  bird  might  be 
induced  to  believe  that  I  '  had  purposely  wrested  the  truth ' 
in  order  to  prove  my  theory.  He  exonerates  me  from  this 
charge  ;  but  I  should  be  loath  to  think  that  there  are  many 
naturalists  who,  without  any  evidence,  would  accuse  a  fellow- 
worker  of  telling  a  deliberate  falsehood  to  prove  his  theory." 
In  the  sixth  edition,  p.  142,  the  passage  runs  "  in  certain 
large  districts  it  does  not  climb  trees."  And  he  goes  on  to 
give  Mr.  Hudson's  statement  that  in  other  regions  it  does 
frequent  trees. 

One  of  the  additions  in  the  sixth  edition  (p.  149),  was  a 
reference  to  Mr.  A.  Hyatt's  and  Professor  Cope's  theory  of 
"acceleration."  With  regard  to  this  he  wrote  (October  10, 
1872)  in  characteristic  words  to  Mr.  Hyatt: — 

"  Permit  me  to  take  this  opportunity  to  express  my  sincere 
regret  at  having  committed  two  grave  errors  in  the  last 
edition  of  my  *  Origin  of  Species,'  in  my  allusion  to  yours  and 
Professor  Cope's  views  on  acceleration  and  retardation  of  de- 
velopment. I  had  thought  that  Professor  Cope  had  preceded 
you  ;  but  I  now  well  remember  having  formerly  read  with 
lively  interest,  and  marked,  a  paper  by  you  somewhere  in  my 
library,  on  fossil  Cephalapods  with  remarks  on  the  subject. 
It  seems  also  that  I  have  quite  misrepresented  your  joint 
view.  This  has  vexed  me  much.  I  confess  that  I  have 
never  been  able  to  grasp  fully  what  you  wish  to  show,  and  I 
presume  that  this  must  be  owing  to  some  dulness  on  my 
part." 

Lastly,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  this  cheap  edition  being 
to  some  extent  intended  as  a  popular  one,  was  made  to  in- 
clude a  glossary  of  technical  terms,  "  given  because  several 
readers  have  complained.  .  .  .  that  some  of  the  terms  used 
were  unintelligible  to  them."  The  glossary  was  compiled 
by  Mr.  Dallas,  and  being  an  excellent  collection  of  clear 
and  sufficient  definitions,  must  have  proved  useful  to  many 
readers.] 


334  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  L.  A.  de  Quatrefages. 

Down,  January  15,  1872. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  am  much  obliged  for  your  very  kind 
letter  and  exertions  in  my  favour.  I  had  thought  that  the 
publication  of  my  last  book  ['  Descent  of  Man  ']  would  have 
destroyed  all  your  sympathy  with  me,  but  though  I  estimated 
very  highly  your  great  liberality  of  mind,  it  seems  that  I 
underrated  it. 

I  am  gratified  to  hear  that  M.  Lacaze-Duthiers  will  vote  * 
for  me,  for  I  have  long  honoured  his  name.  I  cannot  help 
regretting  that  you  should  expend  your  valuable  time  in 
trying  to  obtain  for  me  the  honour  of  election,  for  I  fear, 
judging  from  the  last  time,  that  all  your  labour  will  be  in  vain. 
Whatever  the  result  may  be,  I  shall  always  retain  the  most 
lively  recollection  of  your  sympathy  and  kindness,  and  this 
will  quite  console  me  for  my  rejection. 

With  much  respect  and  esteem,  I  remain,  dear  Sir, 

Yours  truly  obliged, 
Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — With  respect  to  the  great  stress  which  you  lay  on 
man  walking  on  two  legs,  whilst  the  quadrumana  go  on  all 
fours,  permit  me  to  remind  you  that  no  one  much  values  the 
great  difference  in  the  mode  of  locomotion,  and  consequently 
in  structure,  between  seals  and  the  terrestrial  carnivora,  or 
between  the  almost  biped  kangaroos  and  other  marsupials. 

C.  Darwin  to  August  Weismann.  f 

Down,  April  5,  1872. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  have  now  read  your  essay  J  with  very 
great  interest.     Your  view  of   the   i  Origin  '   of   local   races 


*  He  was  not  elected  as  a  corresponding  member  of  the  French  Acad- 
emy until  1878. 

f  Professor  of  Zoology  in  Freiburg. 

%  '  Ueber   den  Einfluss   der  Isolirung  auf  die  Artbildung.'     Leipzig, 

1872. 


1872.]  ISOLATION.  33$ 

through  "Amixie,"  is  altogether  new  to  me,  and  seems  to 
throw  an  important  light  on  an  obscure  problem.  There  is, 
however,  something  strange  about  the  periods  or  endurance 
of  variability.  I  formerly  endeavoured  to  investigate  the 
subject,  not  by  looking  to  past  time,  but 'to  species  of  the 
same  genus  widely  distributed  ;  and  I  found  in  many  cases 
that  all  the  species,  with  perhaps  one  or  two  exceptions,  were 
variable.  It  would  be  a  very  interesting  subject  for  a  con- 
chologist  to  investigate,  viz.,  whether  the  species  of  the  same 
genus  were  variable  during  many  successive  geological  forma- 
tions. I  began  to  make  inquiries  on  this  head,  but  failed  in 
this,  as  in  so  many  other  things,  from  the  want  of  time  and 
strength.  In  your  remarks  on  crossing,  you  do  not,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  lay  nearly  stress  enough  on  the  increased  vigour 
of  the  offspring  derived  from  parents  which  have  been  exposed 
to  different  conditions.  I  have  during  the  last  five  years 
been  making  experiments  on  this  subject  with  plants,  and 
have  been  astonished  at  the  results,  which  have  not  yet  been 
published. 

In  the  first  part  of  your  essay,  I  thought  that  you  wasted 
(to  use  an  English  expression)  too  much  powder  and  shot  on 
M.  Wagner ;  *  but  I  changed  my  opinion  when  I  saw  how 
admirably  you  treated  the  whole  case,  and  how  well  you 
used  the  facts  about  the  Planorbis.  I  wish  I  had  studied  this 
latter  case  more  carefully.  The  manner  in  which,  as  you 
show,  the  different  varieties  blend  together  and  make  a  con- 
stant whole,  agrees  perfectly  with  my  hypothetical  illustrations. 
.  Many  years  ago  the  late  E.  Forbes  described  three  closely 
consecutive  beds  in  a  secondary  formation,  each  with  repre- 
sentative forms  of  the  same  fresh-water  shells  :  the  case  is 
evidently  analogous  with  that  of  Hilgendorf,  f  but  the  inter- 

*  Prof.  Wagner  has  written  two  essays  on  the  same  subject.  '  Die  Dar- 
win'sche  Theorie  und  das  Migrationsgesetz,  in  1868,  and  '  Ueber  den  Ein- 
fluss  der  Geographischen  Isolirung,  &c.,'  an  address  to  the  Bavarian  Acad- 
emy of  Sciences  at  Munich,  1870. 

f  "  Ueber  Planorbis  multiformis  im  Steinheimer  Siisswasser-kalk." 
Monatsbericht  of  the  Berlin  Academy,  1866. 


336  'DESCENT  OF  MAN  —EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

esting  connecting  varieties  or  links  were  here  absent.  I  re- 
joice to  think  that  I  formerly  said  as  emphatically  as  I  could, 
that  neither  isolation  nor  time  by  themselves  do  anything  for 
the  modification  of  species.  Hardly  anything  in  your  essay 
has  pleased  me  so  much  personally,  as  to  find  that  you  believe 
to  a  certain  extent  in  sexual  selection.  As  far  as  I  can  judge, 
very  few  naturalists  believe  in  this.  I  may  have  erred  on 
many  points,  and  extended  the  doctrine  too  far,  but  I  feel 
a  strong  conviction  that  sexual  selection  will  hereafter  be 
admitted  to  be  a  powerful  agency.  I  cannot  agree  with  what 
you  say  about  the  taste  for  beauty  in  animals  not  easily  vary- 
ing. It  may  be  suspected  that  even  the  habit  of  viewing 
differently  coloured  surrounding  objects  would  influence  their 
taste,  and  Fritz  Miiller  even  goes  so  far  as  to  believe  that  the 
sight  of  gaudy  butterflies  might  influence  the  taste  of  distinct 
species.  There  are  many  remarks  and  statements  in  your 
essay  which  have  interested  me  greatly,  and  I  thank  you  for 
the  pleasure  which  I  have  received  from  reading  it. 
With  sincere  respect,  I  remain, 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — If  you  should  ever  be  induced  to  consideV  the  whole 
doctrine  of  sexual  selection,  I  think  that  you  will  be  led  to 
the  conclusion,  that  characters  thus  gained  by  one  sex  are 
very  commonly  transferred  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  to  the 
other  sex. 

[With  regard  to  Moritz  Wagner's  first  Essay,  my  father 
wrote  to  that  naturalist,  apparently  in  1868  :] 

Dear  and  respected  Sir, — I  thank  you  sincerely  for 
sending  me  your  '  Migrationsgesetz,  &c.,'  and  for  the  very 
kind  and  most  honourable  notice  which  you  have  taken  of  my 
works.  That  a  naturalist  who  has  travelled  into  so  many  and 
such  distant  regions,  and  who  has  studied  animals  of  so  many 
classes,*  should,  to  a  considerable  extent,  agree  with  me,  is,  I 


1872.]  ISOLATION.  337 

can  assure  you,  the  highest  gratification  of  which  I  am  capa- 
ble. .  .  .  Although  I  saw  the  effects  of  isolation  in  the  case 
of  islands  and  mountain-ranges,  and  knew  of  a  few  instances 
of  rivers,  yet  the  greater  number  of  your  facts  were  quite  un- 
known to  me.  I  now  see  that  from  the  want  of  knowledge  I 
did  not  make  nearly  sufficient  use  of  the  views  which  you 
advocate;  and  I  almost  wish  I  could  believe  in  its  impor- 
tance to  the  same  extent  with  you  ;  for  you  well  show,  in  a 
manner  which  never  occurred  to  me,  that  it  removes  many 
difficulties  and  objections.  But  I  must  still  believe  that  in 
many  large  areas  all  the  individuals  of  the  same  species  have 
been  slowly  modified,  in  the  same  manner,  for  instance,  as  the 
English  race-horse  has  been  improved,  that  is  by  the  con- 
tinued selection  of  the  fleetest  individuals,  without  any  sepa- 
ration. But  I  admit  that  by  this  process  two  or  more  new 
species  could  hardly  be  found  within  the  same  limited  area ; 
some  degree  of  separation,  if  not  indispensable,  would  be 
highly  advantageous ;  and  here  your  facts  and  views  will  be 
of  great  value.  .  .  . 

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

C.  Darwin  to  Moritz  Wagner, 

Down,  October  13,  1876. 
Dear  Sir,  —  I  have  now  finished  reading  your  essays, 
which  have  interested  me  in  a  very  high  degree,  notwith- 
standing that  I  differ  much  from  you  on  various  points.  For 
instance,  several  considerations  make  me  doubt  whether  spe- 
cies are  much  more  variable  at  one  period  than  at  another, 
except  through  the  agency  of  changed  conditions.  I  wish, 
however,  that  I  could  believe  in  this  doctrine,  as  it  removes 
many  difficulties.  But  my  strongest  objection  to  your  theory 
is  that  it  does  not  explain  the  manifold  adaptations  in  struc- 
ture in  every  organic  being — for  instance  in  a  Picus  for 
climbing  trees  and  catching  insects — or  in  a  Strix  for  catching 


338  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

animals  at  night,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum.  No  theory  is  in 
the  least  satisfactory  to  me  unless  it  clearly  explains  such 
adaptations.  I  think  that  you  misunderstand  my  views  on 
isolation.  I  believe  that  all  the  individuals  of  a  species  can 
be  slowly  modified  within  the  same  district,  in  nearly  the 
same  manner  as  man  effects  by  what  I  have  called  the  pro- 
cess of  unconscious  selection.  ...  I  do  not  believe  that  one 
species  will  give  birth  to  two  or  more  new  species  as  long  as 
they  are  mingled  together  within  the  same  district.  Never- 
theless I  cannot  doubt  that  many  new  species  have  been 
simultaneously  developed  within  the  same  large  continental 
area  ;  and  in  my  '  Origin  of  Species '  I  endeavoured  to  ex- 
plain how  two  new  species  might  be  developed,  although 
they  met  and  intermingled  on  the  borders  of  their  range.  It 
would  have  been  a  strange  fact  if  I  had  overlooked  the 
importance  of  isolation,  seeing  that  it  was  such  cases  as  that 
of  the  Galapagos  Archipelago,  which  chiefly  led  me  to  study 
the  origin  of  species.  In  my  opinion  the  greatest  error 
which  I  have  committed,  has  been  not  allowing  sufficient 
weight  to  the  direct  action  of  the  environment,  i.e.  food, 
climate,  &c,  independently  of  natural  selection.  Modifica- 
tions thus  caused,  which  are  neither  of  advantage  nor  disad- 
vantage to  the  modified  organism,  would  be  especially  fa- 
voured, as  I  can  now  see  chiefly  through  your  observations, 
by  isolation  in  a  small  area,  where  only  a  few  individuals 
lived  under  nearly  uniform  conditions. 

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

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  two  following  letters  are  also  of  interest  as  bearing 


1872.]  ISOLATION.  ^9 

on  my  fathers  views  on  the  action  of  isolation  as  regards  the 
origin  of  new  species  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  K.  Semper. 

Down,  November  26,  1878. 

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

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

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

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

C.  Darwin  to  K.  Semper. 

Down,  November  30,  1878. 
Dear  Professor  Semper, — Since  writing  I  have  recalled 
some  of  the  thoughts  and  conclusions  which  have  passed 
through  my  mind  of  late  years.  In  North  America,  in  going 
from  north  to  south  or  from  east  to  west,  it  is  clear  that  the 
changed  conditions  of  life  have  modified  the  organisms  in  the 


340  *  DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

different  regions,  so  that  they  now  form  distinct  races  or  even 
species.  It  is  further  clear  that  in  isolated  districts,  however 
small,  the  inhabitants  almost  always  get  slightly  modified,  and 
how  far  this  is  due  to  the  nature  of  the  slightly  different 
conditions  to  which  they  are  exposed,  and  how  far  to  mere 
interbreeding,  in  the  manner  explained  by  Weismann,  I  can 
form  no  opinion.  The  same  difficulty  occurred  to  me  (as 
shown  in  my  '  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants  under  Do- 
mestication ')  with  respect  to  the  aboriginal  breeds  of  cattle, 
sheep,  &c,  in  the  separated  districts  of  Great  Britain,  and 
indeed  throughout  Europe.  As  our  knowledge  advances, 
very  slight  differences,  considered  by  systematists  as  of  no 
importance  in  structure,  are  continually  found  to  be  function- 
ally important ;  and  I  have  been  especially  struck  with  this 
fact  in  the  case  of  plants  to  which  my  observations  have  of 
late  years  been  confined.  Therefore  it  seems  to  me  rather 
rash  to  consider  the  slight  differences  between  representative 
species,  for  instance  those  inhabiting  the  different  islands  of 
the  same  archipelago,  as  of  no  functional  importance,  and  as 
not  in  any  way  due  to  natural  selection.  With  respect  to  all 
adapted  structures,  and  these  are  innumerable,  I  cannot  see 
how  M.  Wagner's  view  throws  any  light,  nor  indeed  do  I  see 
at  all  more  clearly  than  I  did  before,  from  the  numerous  cases 
which  he  has  brought  forward,  how  and  why  it  is  that  a  long 
isolated  form  should  almost  always  become  slightly  modified. 
I  do  not  know  whether  you  will  care  about  hearing  my 
further  opinion  on  the  point  in  question,  for  as  before  re- 
marked 1  have  not  attended  much  of  late  years  to  such  ques- 
tions, thinking  it  prudent,  now  that  I  am  growing  old,  to 
work  at  easier  subjects. 

Believe  me,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

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

P.S. — I  will  add  another  remark  which  I  remember  oc- 
curred to  me  when  I  first  read  M.  Wagner.     When  a  species 


1872.]  'DESCENT   OF    MAN.'  34I 

first  arrives  on  a  small  island,  it  will  probably  increase  rapidly, 
and  unless  all  the  individuals  change  instantaneously  (which 
is  improbable  in  the  highest  degree),  the  slowly,  more  or  less, 
modifying  offspring  must  intercross  one  with  another,  and 
with  their  unmodified  parents,  and  any  offspring  not  as  yet 
modified.  The  case  will  then  be  like  that  of  domesticated 
animals  which  have  slowly  become  modified,  either  by  the 
action  of  the  external  conditions  or  by  the  process  which  I 
have  called  the  unconscious  selection  by  man — i.e.,  in  contrast 
with  methodical  selection. 

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

C.  Darwin  to  the  Marquis  de  Saporta. 

Down,  April  8,  1872. 

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

I  will  reflect  on  what  you  have  said,  but  I  cannot  at  pres- 
ent give  up  my  belief  in  the  close  relationship  of  Man  to  the 
higher  Simiae.  I  do  not  put  much  trust  in  any  single  char- 
acter, even  that  of  dentition  ;  but  I  put  the  greatest  faith  in 
resemblances  in  many  parts  of  the  whole  organisation,  for  I 
cannot  believe  that  such  resemblances  can  be  due  to  any 
cause  except  close  blood  relationship.  That  man  is  closely 
allied  to  the  higher  Simiae  is  shown  by  the  classification  of 
Linnaeus,  who  was  so  good  a  judge  of  affinity.  The  man 
who  in  England  knows  most  about  the  structure  of  the 
Simiae,  namely,  Mr.  Mivart,  and  who  is  bitterly  opposed  to 
my  doctrines  about  the  derivation  of  the  mental  powers, 
yet  has  publicly  admitted  that  I  have  not  put  man  too 
close  to  the  higher  Simiae,  as  far  as  bodily  structure  is  con- 
cerned.    I  do  not  think  the  absence  of  reversions  of  struct- 


342  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

ure  in  man  is  of  much  weight ;  C.  Vogt,  indeed,  argues  that 
[the  existence  of]  Micro-cephalous  idiots  is  a  case  of  rever- 
sion. No  one  who  believes  in  Evolution  will  doubt  that  the 
Phocae  are  descended  from  some  terrestrial  Carnivore.  Yet 
no  one  would  expect  to  meet  with  any  such  reversion  in 
them.  The  lesser  divergence  of  character  in  the  races  of 
man  in  comparison  with  the  species  of  Simiadae  may  perhaps 
be  accounted  for  by  man  having  spread  over  the  world  at  a 
much  later  period  than  did  the  Simiadae.  I  am  fully  pre- 
pared to  admit  the  high  antiquity  of  man  ;  but  then  we  have 
evidence,  in  the  Dryopithecus,  of  the  high  antiquity  of  the 
Anthropomorphous  Simiae. 

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

Dear  Sir,  yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

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

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

C.  Darwin  to  Chauncey  Wright. 

Down,  June  3,  1872. 

My  dear  Sir, — Many  thanks  for  your  article  *  in  the 
'  North  American   Review/   which   I   have   read  with   great 

*  The  proof-sheets  of  an  article  which  appeared  in  the  July  number  of 
the  •  North  American  Review.'  It  was  a  rejoinder  to  Mr.  Mivart's  reply 
('  N.  Am.  Review,'  April  1872)  to  Mr.  Chauncey  Wright's  pamphlet. 
Chauncey  Wright  says  of  it  (*  Letters,'  p.  238)  : — "  It  is  not  properly  a  re- 
joinder but  a  new  article,  repeating  and  expounding  some  of  the  points  of 
my  pamphlet,  and  answering  some  of  Mr.  Mivart's  replies  incidentally." 


1872.]  CHAUNCEY  WRIGHT.  343 

interest.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  the  way  in  which  you 
discuss  the  permanence  or  fixity  of  species.  It  never  oc- 
curred to  me  to  suppose  that  any  one  looked  at  the  case  as 
it  seems  Mr.  Mivart  does.  Had  I  read  his  answer  to  you, 
perhaps  I  should  have  perceived  this  ;  but  I  have  resolved 
to  waste  no  more  time  in  reading  reviews  of  my  works  or  on 
Evolution,  excepting  when  I  hear  that  they  are  good  and 
contain  new  matter.  ...  It  is  pretty  clear  that  Mr.  Mivart 
has  come  to  the  end  of  his  tether  on  this  subject. 

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

My  dear  Sir,  yours  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[Not  long  afterwards  (September)  Mr.  Chauncey  Wright 
paid  a  visit  to  Down,*  which  he  described  in  a  letter  f  to  Miss 

*  Mr.  and  Mrs.  C.  L.  Brace,  who  had  given  much  of  their  lives  to 
philanthropic  work  in  New  York,  also  paid  a  visit  at  Down  in  this  sum- 
mer. Some  of  their  work  is  recorded  in  Mr.  Brace's  '  The  Dangerous 
Classes  of  New  York,'  and  of  this  book  my  father  wrote  to  the  author : — 

"  Since  you  were  here  my  wife  has  read  aloud  to  me  more  than  half  of 
your  work,  and  it  has  interested  us  both  in  the  highest  degree,  and  we 
shall  read  every  word  of  the  remainder.  The  facts  seem  to  me  very  well 
told,  and  the  inferences  very  striking.  But  after  all  this  is  but  a  weak 
part  of  the  impression  left  on  our  minds  by  what  we  have  read  ;  for  we  are 
both  filled  with  earnest  admiration  at  the  heroic  labours  of  yourself  and 
others." 

f  *  Letters,'  p.  246-248. 


344  *  DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [18725. 

S.  Sedgwick  (now  Mrs.  William  Darwin)  :  "  If  you  can  imag- 
ine me  enthusiastic — absolutely  and  unqualifiedly  so,  without 
a  but  or  criticism,  then  think  of  my  last  evening's  and  this 
morning's  talks  with  Mr.  Darwin.  .  .  .  [  was  never  SO  worked 
up  in  my  life,  and  did  QOt  sleep  many  hours  under  the  hospi- 
table roof.  ...  It  would  be  quite  impossible  to  give  by  way 
of  report  any  idea  of  these  talks  before  and  at  and  after 
dinner,  at  breakfast,  and  at  leave-taking;  and  yet  I  dislike 
the  egotism  of  '  testifying  '  like  other  religious  enthusiasts, 
without  any  verification,  or  hint  of  similar  experience."] 

C.  Darwin  to  Herbert  Spencer. 

Bassett,  Southampton,  June  eo  1 1872]. 
Dear  SPENCER, — I  dare  say  you  will  think  me  a  foolish 
fellow,  but  I  cannot  resist  the  wish  to  express  my  unbounded 
admiration  of  your  article*  in  answer  to  Mr.  Martin eau.  It 
is,  indeed,  admirable,  and  hardly  less  so  your  second  article 
on  Sociology  (which,  however,  I  have  not  yet  finished)  :  I 
never  believed  in  the  reigning  influence  of  great  men  on  the 
world's  progress  ;  but  if  asked  why  I  did  not  believe,  I  should 
have  been  sorely  perplexed  to  have  given  a  good  answer. 
Every  one  with  eyes  to  see  and  ears  to  hear  (the  number,  I 
fear,  are  not  many)  ought  to  bow  their  knee  to  you,  and  1 
for  one  do. 

Believe  me,  yours  most  sincerely, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  July  12  [1872], 

My  DEAR  Hooker, — I  must  exhale  and  express  my  joy  at 
the  way  in  which  the  newspapers  have  taken  up  your  case. 
I  have  seen  the  Times,  the  Daily  Navs,  and  the  Pall  Mall, 
and  hear  that  others  have  taken  up  the  case. 

The   Memorial  has  done    great  good  this  way,  whatever 

*'Mr.  Martinean  on  Evolution,'  by  Herbert  Spencer,  •Contemporary 

Review,'  July  1872. 


i<72.]  TROUBLES    AT    KKW.  345 

may  be  the  result  in  the  action  of  our  wretched  Government. 
On  my  soul,  it  is  enough  to  make  one  turn  into  an  old  honest 
Tory,  .  .  . 

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

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

[  rhe  memorial  here  referred  to  was  addressed  to  Mr. 
Gladstone,  and  was  signed  by  a  number  of  distinguished  men, 
including  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  Mr.  Bentham,  Mr.  Huxley,  and 
Sir  James  Fagot.  It  gives  a  complete  account  of  the  arbi- 
trary and  unjust  treatment  received  by  Sir  J.  I).  Hooker  at 
the  hands  ot"  his  official  chief,  the  First  Commissioner  of 
Works.  The  document  is  published  in  full  in  '  Nature  '  (July 
11,  iS;j),  and  is  well  worth  studying  as  an  example  of  the 
treatment  which  it  is  possible  for  science  to  receive  from  offi- 
cialism. As  'Nature'  observes,  it  is  a  paper  which  must  be 
read  with  the  greatest  indignation  by  scientific  men  in  c\  v\ 
part  of  the  world,  and  with  shame  by  all  Englishmen,  The 
signatories  oi  the  memorial  conclude  by  protesting  against 
the  expected  consequences  ^t  Sir  Joseph  Hooker's  persecu- 
tion— namely  his  resignation,  and  the  loss  of  "a  man  hon- 
oured for  his  integrity,  beloved  for  his  courtesy  and  kindli- 
ness o\  heart  ;  and  who  has  spent  in  the  public  service  not 

Only  a  stainless  but  an  illustrious  lite." 

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

C  Darwin  to  A.  A\  Wall* 

Down,  August  3  [  187a], 

My  im\k  Wai.i  wt,  - 1  hate  controversy,  chiefly  perhaps 

because    I    <\o   it    badly;    but    as    Dr.    l>re<  ;es   you*  of 

"blundering,"   I   have  thought  myself    bound    to    send  the  en 

1  Mi.  Wallace  had  reviewed  Dr,  Bree'a  hook)4  An  1 
laciet  In  the  Hypothesis  oi  Mr,  Darwin,'  in  '  Mature)1  \^\  15,  1S72. 


346  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

closed  letter  *  to  '  Nature/  that  is  if  you  in  the  least  desire  it. 
In  this  case  please  post  it.  If  you  do  not  at  all  wish  it,  I 
should  rather  prefer  not  sending  it,  and  in  this  case  please  to 
tear  it  up.  And  I  beg  you  to  do  the  same,  if  you  intend  an- 
swering Dr.  Bree  yourself,  as  you  will  do  it  incomparably 
better  than  I  should.  Also  please  tear  it  up  if  you  don't  like 
the  letter. 

My  dear  Wallace,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

Down,  August  28,  1872. 

My  dear  Wallace, — I  have  at  last  finished  the  gigantic 
job  of  reading  Dr.  Bastian's  book,f  and  have  been  deeply, 
interested  by  it.  You  wished  to  hear  my  impression,  but  it 
is  not  worth  sending. 

He  seems  to  me  an  extremely  able  man,  as,  indeed,  I 
thought  when  I  read  his  first  essay.  His  general  argument 
in  favour  of  Archebiosis  J  is  wonderfully  strong,  though  I 
cannot  think  much  of  some  few  of  his  arguments.  The  re- 
sult is  that  I  am  bewildered  and  astonished  by  his  statements, 
but  am  not  convinced,  though,  on  the  whole,  it  seems  to  me 
probable  that  Archebiosis  is  true.     I  am  not  convinced,  part- 


*  The  letter  is  as  follows  : — i:  Bree  on  Darwinism."  '  Nature,'  Aug.  8, 
1872.  Permit  me  to  state — though  the  statement  is  almost  superfluous — 
that  Mr.  Wallace,  in  his  review  of  Dr.  Bree's  work,  gives  with  perfect  cor- 
rectness what  I  intended  to  express,  and  what  I  believe  was  expressed 
clearly,  with  respect  to  the  probable  position  of  man  in  the  early  part  of 
his  pedigree.  As  I  have  not  seen  Dr.  Bree's  recent  work,  and  as  his  let- 
ter is  unintelligible  to  me,  I  cannot  even  conjecture  how  he  has  so  com- 
pletely mistaken  my  meaning :  but,  perhaps,  no  one  who  has  read  Mr. 
Wallace's  article,  or  who  has  read  a  work  formerly  published  by  Dr.  Bree 
on  the  same  subject  as  his  recent  one,  will  be  surprised  at  any  amount  of 
misunderstanding  on  his  part. — Charles  Darwin. 
Aug.  3. 

f  '  The  Beginnings  of  Life.'     H.  C.  Bastian,  1872. 

X  That  is  to  say,   Spontaneous  Generation.     For  the  distinction  be- 
tween  Archebiosis  and  Heterogenesis,  see  Bastian,  chapter  vi. 


1872.]  *  BEGINNING  OF  LIFE/  347 

ly  I  think  owing  to  the  deductive  cast  of  much  of  his  reason- 
ing ;  and  I  know  not  why,  but  I  never  feel  convinced  by  de- 
duction, even  in  the  case  of  H.  Spencer's  writings.  If  Dr. 
Bastian's  book  had  been  turned  upside  dowm,  and  he  had 
begun  with  the  various  cases  of  Heterogenesis,  and  then  gone 
on  to  organic,  and  afterwards  to  saline  solutions,  and  had 
then  given  his  general  arguments,  I  should  have  been,  I  be- 
lieve, much  more  influenced.  I  suspect,  however,  that  my 
chief  difficulty  is  the  effect  of  old  convictions  being  stereo- 
typed on  my  brain.  I  must  have  more  evidence  that  germs, 
or  the  minutest  fragments  of  the  lowest  forms,  are  always 
killed  by  2120  of  Fahr.  Perhaps  the  mere  reiteration  of  the 
statements  given  by  Dr.  Bastian  [by]  other  men,  whose  judg- 
ment I  respect,  and  who  have  worked  long  on  the  lower  or- 
ganisms, would  suffice  to  convince  me.  Here  is  a  fine  con- 
fession of  intellectual  weakness;  but  what  an  inexplicable 
frame  of  mind  is  that  of  belief ! 

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

I  wholly  disagree  with  Dr.  Bastian  about  many  points  in 
his  latter  chapters.  Thus  the  frequency  of  generalised  forms 
in  the  older  strata  seems  to  me  clearly  to  indicate  the  com- 
mon descent  with  divergence  of  more  recent  forms.  Not- 
withstanding all  his  sneers,  I  do  not  strike  my  colours  as  yet 
about  Pangenesis.  I  should  like  to  live  to  see  Archebiosis 
proved  true,  for  it  would  be  a  discovery  of  transcendent  im- 
portance ;  or,  if  false,  I  should  like  to  see  it  disproved,  and 
the  facts  otherwise  explained  ;  but  I  shall  not  live  to  see  all 
this.  If  ever  proved,  Dr.  Bastian  will  have  taken  a  promi- 
59 


348  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

nent  part  in  the  work.  How  grand  is  the  onward  rush  of  sci- 
ence ;  it  is  enough  to  console  us  for  the  many  errors  which 
we  have  committed,  and  for  our  efforts  being  overlaid  and 
forgotten  in  the  mass  of  new  facts  and  new  views  which  are 
daily  turning  up. 

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

C.  Darwin  to  A,  De  Candolle. 

Down,  December  11,  1872. 
My  dear  Sir — I  began  reading  your  new  book  *  sooner 
than  I  intended,  and  when  I  once  began,  I  could  not  stop  ; 
and  now  you  must  allow  me  to  thank  you  for  the  very  great 
pleasure  which  it  has  given  me.  I  have  hardly  ever  read 
anything  more  original  and  interesting  than  your  treatment 
of  the  causes  which  favour  the  development  of  scientific  men. 
The  whole  was  quite  new  to  me,  and  most  curious.  When 
I  began  your  essay  I  was  afraid  that  you  were  going  to  attack 
the  principle  of  inheritance  in  relation  to  mind,  but  I  soon 
found  myself  fully  content  to  follow  you  and  accept  your 
limitations.  I  have  felt,  of  course,  special  interest  in  the 
latter  part  of  your  work,  but  there  was  here  less  novelty  to 
me.  In  many  parts  you  do  me  much  honour,  and  everywhere 
more  than  justice.  Authors  generally  like  to  hear  what 
points  most  strike  different  readers,  so  I  will  mention  that  of 
your  shorter  essays,  that  on  the  future  prevalence  of  lan- 
guages, and  on  vaccination  interested  me  the  most,  as,  in- 
deed, did  that  on  statistics,  and  free  will.  Great  liability  to 
certain  diseases,  being  probably  liable  to  atavism,  is  quite  a 
new  idea  to  me.  At  p.  322  you  suggest  that  a  young  swal- 
low ought  to  be  separated,  and  then  let  loose  in  order  to  test 
the  power  of  instinct  ;  but  nature  annually  performs  this  ex- 
periment, as  old  cockoos  migrate  in  England  some  weeks  be- 
fore the  young  birds  of  the  same  year.  By  the  way,  I  have 
just  used  the  forbidden  word  "  nature,"  which,  after  reading 

*  '  Histoire  des  Sciences  et  des  Savants/  1873. 


1872.]      PUBLICATION   OF    THE    EXPRESSION    BOOK.       349 

your  essay,  I  almost  determined  never  to  use  again.  There 
are  very  few  remarks  in  your  book  to  which  I  demur,  but 
when  you  back  up  Asa  Gray  in  saying  that  all  instincts  are 
congenital  habits,  I  must  protest. 

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

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

With  much  respect,  I  remain,  my  dear  Sir, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  last  revise  of  the  '  Expression  of  the  Emotions '  was 
finished  on  August  22nd,  1872,  and  he  wrote  in  his  Diary  : — 
"  Has  taken  me  about  twelve  months/'  As  usual  he  had  no 
belief  in  the  possibility  of  the  book  being  generally  success- 
ful. The  following  passage  in  a  letter  to  Haeckel  gives  the 
impression  that  he  had  felt  the  writing  of  this  book  as  a  some- 
what severe  strain : — 

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

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


350  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

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

Among  the  reviews  of  the  '  Expression  of  the  Emotions ' 
may  be  mentioned  the  unfavourable  notices  in  the  Athenoeum, 
Nov.  9,  1872,  and  the  Times,  Dec.  13,  1872.  A  good  review 
by  Mr.  Wallace  appeared  in  the  '  Quarterly  Journal  of  Sci- 
ence/ Jan.  1873.  Mr.  Wallace  truly  remarks  that  the  book 
exhibits  certain  "  characteristics  of  the  author's  mind  in  an 
eminent  degree,"  namely,  "  the  insatiable  longing  to  discover 
the  causes  of  the  varied  and  complex  phenomena  presented 
by  living  things."  He  adds  that  in  the  case  of  the  author 
"  the  restless  curiosity  of  the  child  to  know  the  '  what  for  ? ' 
the  '  why  ? '  and  the  '  how  ? '  of  everything  "  seems  "  never  to 
have  abated  its  force." 

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

Professor  Alexander  Bain  criticised  the  book  in  a  post- 
script to  the  '  Senses  and  the  Intellect ; '  to  this  essay  the  fol- 
lowing letter  refers  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  Alexander  Bain. 

Down,  October  9,  1873. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  am  particularly  obliged  to  you  for  hav- 
ing sent  me  your  essay.  Your  criticisms  are  all  written  in  a 
quite  fair  spirit,  and  indeed  no  one  who  knows  you  or  your 
works  would  expect  anything  else.  What  you  say  about  the 
vagueness  of  what  I  have  called  the  direct  action  of  the  nerv- 
ous system,  is  perfectly  just.  I  felt  it  so  at  the  time,  and  even 
more  of  late.     I  confess  that  I  have  never  been  able  fully  to 


1872.]  'EXPRESSION   OF    THE   EMOTIONS.'  351 

grasp  your  principle  of  spontaneity,*  as  well  as  some  other  of 
your  points,  so  as  to  apply  them  to  special  cases.  But  as  we 
look  at  everything  from  different  points  of  view,  it  is  not  likely 
that  we  should  agree  closely. 

I  have  been  greatly  pleased  by  what  you  say  about  the 
crying  expression  and  about  blushing.  Did  you  read  a  re- 
view in  a  late  '  Edinburgh  ? '  f  It  was  magnificently  contempt- 
uous towards  myself  and  many  others. 

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

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

Yours  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

*  Professor  Bain  expounded  his  theory  of  Spontaneity  in  the  essay 
here  alluded  to.  It  would  be  impossible  to  do  justice  to  it  within  the 
limits  of  a  foot-note.  The  following  quotations  may  give  some  notion 
of  it  :— 

"  By  Spontaneity  I  understand  the  readiness  to  pass  into  movement  in 
the  absence  of  all  stimulation  whatever  ;  the  essential  requisite  being  that 

the  nerve-centres  and  muscles  shall  be  fresh  and  vigorous The 

gesticulations  and  the  carols  of  young  and  active  animals  are  mere  overflow 
of  nervous  energy  ;  and  although  they  are  very  apt  to  concur  with  pleasing 

emotion,  they  have  an  independent  source They  are  not  properly 

movements  of  expression  ;  they  express  nothing  at  all  except  an  abundant 
stock  of  physical  power." 

f  The  review  on  the  '  Expression  of  the  Emotions '  appeared  in  the 
April  number  of  the  '  Edinburgh  Review,'  1873.  The  opening  sentence  is 
a  fair  sample  of  the  general  tone  of  the  article  :  "Mr.  Darwin  has  added 
another  volume  of  amusing  stories  and  grotesque  illustrations  to  the  re- 
markable series  of  works  already  devoted  to  the  exposition  and  defence  of 
the  evolutionary  hypothesis."  A  few  other  quotations  may  be  worth  giv- 
ing. "  His  one-sided  devotion  to  an  a  priori  scheme  of  interpretation 
seems  thus  steadily  tending  to  impair  the  author's  hitherto  unrivalled  pow- 
ers as  an  observer.  However  this  may  be,  most  impartial  critics  will,  we 
think,  admit  that  there  is  a  marked  falling  off  both  in  philosophical  tone 
and  scientific  interest  in  the  works  produced  since  Mr.  Darwin  committed 
himself  to  the  crude  metaphysical  conception  so  largely  associated  with 
his  name."  The  article  is  directed  against  Evolution  as  a  whole,  almost 
as  much  as  against  the  doctrines  of  the  book  under  discussion.  We  find 
throughout  plenty  of  that  effective  style   of  criticism  which  consists  in  the 


352  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

C.  Darwin  to  Mrs.  Haliburton* 

Down,  November  1  [1872]. 

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

I  have  had  many  years  of  bad  health  and  have  not  been 
able  to  visit  anywhere  ;  and  now  I  feel  very  old.  As  long  as 
I  pass  a  perfectly  uniform  life,  I  am  able  to  do  some  daily 
work  in  Natural  History,  which  is  still  my  passion,  as  it  was 
in  old  days,  when  you  used  to  laugh  at  me  for  collecting 
beetles  with  such  zeal  at  Woodhouse.  Excepting  from  my 
continued  ill-health,  which  has  excluded  me  from  society,  my 
life  has  been  a  very  happy  one  ;  the  greatest  drawback  being 

use  of  such  expressions  as  "  dogmatism,"  "  intolerance,"  "presumptuous," 
"  arrogant."  Together  with  accusations  of  such  various  faults  a  "  virtual 
abandonment  of  the  inductive  method,"  and  the  use  of  slang  and  vulgar- 
isms. 

The  part  of  the  article  which  seems  to  have  interested  my  father  is  the 
discussion  on  the  use  which  he  ought  to  have  made  of  painting  and 
sculpture. 

*  Mrs.  Haliburton  was  a  daughter  of  my  father's  old  friend,  Mr.  Owen 
of  Woodhouse.  Her  husband,  Judge  Haliburton,  was  the  well-known 
author  of  *  Sam  Slick.' 


I873-]  *  DESCENT  '—SECOND   EDITION.  353 

that  several  of  my  children  have  inherited  from  me  feeble 
health.  I  hope  with  all  my  heart  that  you  retain,  at  least  to 
a  large  extent,  the  famous  "  Owen  constitution. "  With  sin- 
cere feelings  of  gratitude  and  affection  for  all  bearing  the  name 
of  Owen,  I  venture  to  sign  myself,' 

Yours  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Mrs.  Haliburton. 

Down,  November  6  [1872]. 
My  dear  Sarah, — I  have  been  very  much  pleased  by 
your  letter,  which  I  must  call  charming.  I  hardly  ventured 
to  think  that  you  would  have  retained  a  friendly  recollection 
of  me  for  so  many  years.  Yet  I  ought  to  have  felt  assured 
that  you  would  remain  as  warm-hearted  and  as  true-hearted 
as  you  have  ever  been  from  my  earliest  recollection.  I  know 
well  how  many  grievous  sorrows  you  have  gone  through  ;  but 
I  am  very  sorry  to  hear  that  your  health  is  not  good.  In  the 
spring  or  summer,  when  the  weather  is  better,  if  you  can 
summon  up  courage  to  pay  us  a  visit  here,  both  my  wife,  as 
she  desires  me  to  say,  and  myself,  would  be  truly  glad  to  see 
you,  and  I  know  that  you  would  not  care  about  being  rather 
dull  here.  It  would  be  a  real  pleasure  to  me  to  see  you. 
— Thank  you  much  for  telling  about  your  family, — much  of 
which  was  new  to  me.  How  kind  you  all  were  to  me  as 
a  boy,  and  you  especially,  and  how  much  happiness  I  owe  to 
you.     Believe  me  your  affectionate  and  obliged  friend, 

Charles  Darwin. 

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

1873. 

[The  only  work  (other  than  botanical)  of  this  year  was  the 

preparation  of  a  second  edition  of  the  i  Descent  of  Man,'  the 

publication  of  which  is  referred  to  in  the  following  chapter. 

This  work  was  undertaken  much  against  the  grain,  as  he  was 


354  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1873. 

at  the  time  deeply  immersed  in  the  manuscript  of  *  Insect- 
ivorous Plants.'  Thus  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Wallace  (Novem- 
ber 19),  "  I  never  in  my  lifetime  regretted  an  interruption  so 
much  as  this  new  edition  of  the  '  Descent/  "  And  later  (in 
December)  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Huxley  :  "  The  new  edition  of 
the  *  Descent '  has  turned  out  an  awful  job.  It  took  me  ten 
days  merely  to  glance  over  letters  and  reviews  with  criticisms 
and  new  facts.     It  is  a  devil  of  a  job." 

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

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

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

C.  Darwin  to  Thos.  Wentworth  Higginson. 

Down,  February  27th  [1873]. 

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

Your  descriptions  have  vividly  recalled  walks  taken  forty 


1873] 


MR.  GALTON'S   QUESTIONS. 


355 


years  ago  in  Brazil.  We  have  your  collected  Essays,  which 
were  kindly  sent  us  by  Mr.  [Moncure]  Conway,  but  have  not 
yet  had  time  to  read  them.  I  occasionally  glean  a  little  news 
of  you  in  the  '  Index  ' ;  and  within  the  last  hour  have  read  an 
interesting  article  of  yours  on  the  progress  of  Free  Thought. 
Believe  me,  my  dear  Sir,  with  sincere  admiration, 

Yours  very  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

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


rHow  taught? 


Conducive  to  or  restrictive  of 
habits  of  observation  ? 


^   .  Conducive  to  health  or  other- 
^  '      wise? 


Peculiar  merits  ? 
Chief  omissions  ? 


Has  the  religious  creed  taught 
in  your  youth  had  any  deter- 
rent effect  on  the  freedom  of 
your  researches  ? 


Do 


o  your   scientific  tastes  appear 
to  have  been  innate  ? 


Were   they   determined    by   any 
and  what  events? 


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

Restrictive   of  observation,    being   al- 
most entirely  classical. 

Yes. 


None  whatever. 

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

No. 


Certainly  innate. 


My  innate  taste  for  natural  history 
strongly  confirmed  and  directed  by 
the  voyage  in  the  Beagle. 


356 


'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION. 


[i873. 


p 

P 

W 


o 

P 

.P 

u 


P     ^ 


I  .2 


p 

o 


Oh 

o 

X 
CD 


rP 

p 

o 


P 

fr 

/v. 

0 

u 

0 

<y   - 

^a 

„ 

0 

a 

GJ 

3 

h3 
Ed 

•a 


G 

.2 
ju 
'p. 

£ 
o 
U 


P 


p 


rP 

P 
g 


-a 

p 
o 
rP 


°s  "  sits 


■M       hi,. 


«^<£ 


;p  o 


p    >-»  w 


t/3    <■*-(       " 


P  H-» 

p    v 

C/3        O 


<d 

o 

>-H 

<u 
'd 


<d  p 
c/a 


p 

1— < 
fcJO 

p 

W 


rP 

o 

P 

rP 

u 

o 


£3       O 
P       ctf 


O 


J-H 

a 

CO 

en 


W) 

p 
p 
o 
t^ 

p 
<u 

rP 

O 
o 

o 


M3 

a 

3  . 

O  •*-! 

>-.  a 

G  M-i 

p 

<U  0 

6  <u 

HfeK 

li-O 

<N 

3  2 

(N 

C/3    G 

Oj"H 

<U 

3 

4 


bJO    . 

a  §  o 

Q_  >-»  C/5 


r»- 

«j 

,£ 

bfl 

«-t-H 

<u 

O 

n 

i 

o 
U 


^       ^  o 


s^ 


rp  <d  *+- 

p  ^^ 

.  b/) 
XP   <^ 
*j  \C   P 

•J3  '55  ^3 

rt    C    CD 


-S.2  8 
^^  p 

8  a  p 


£ 


p 

* 

o 
5-1 

PQ 


-g  O   ^ 
5    ^    P 

rP      O 


O  Zi 
Ph    .  >- 

&2  S* 


bJO 

P 


cd 


cd 


ri 


CD 


P 


2   »A 


C3    p 
pP    rt 


^  p.S 


^ 


I873-] 


MR.  GALTON'S   QUESTIONS. 


357 


<u  -rj 

> 

°  a 

o  .3 

rH 

d  fi 

— ■  u 

d  id 
2  o 

rfi       <L> 

f  pu 

T3    o 

1j 

to 

CU     CO 

>    <U 

.5  o 

TO     CO 

w  -fi       • 

;d  ^^ 

c3    fi    CU 

3.2^ 

fi    co    £ 


<U  ^4    <D 


o 

O 

^  d  'd  <y 
t— i   o  cu  d     . 


CJ 


cu 


.t   S«" 


CO 

-£r2 


co  >-,  d 

ro    cJ   « 
o.S  ~rQ   & 

HrH         f"  CJ 

o  d  S  J2 
co  .d   d  T3 

ri4      fi 


cu 


°    fi. 

x  9 


■3S.-3  l-g  «2| 


<u   b/)C3 


U  T3  X?  d    C3 

(-1    l-H       ~4       2    . 


ffi 


I- 


o  o 


Ph 

w  H-. 

£§ 

1  d 

d  o 

CU   'Xj 

d   rt 

R  CO 
,  >h 
rn    cu 

g  o 

2  ° 

'*B  d 

3"  "5 
^  j2  w 
>*  *§  _2 

>-i  ,fi  U 

cu  *+-<  cj 

^  *  s 


fi 


rd 

■M 


<u  n       r-r 


CD 

rd 


£  s 
ij  co 

if 

gH 
.2  o 
;d  >-. 

CU    o 

^  d 

CD 

•~  d 

i~<  cu 
<U   -i-' 

IS 
Jig 

rn 


CU    fi    <L»    0) 

°  -s  d  "d 

fi  .         cS    C3 

cu  id  o  d 

<d  2  ^  aj    • 

1J  K  «  S 

*j       d  c  « 
Si  bfl  o       M 

'S^-d'"- 

J3    o  rd    >^  fi 

rd      Jh  TO      O 

*    ^  &   ^  ^ 

^    ^  ^    2 

Oh  CO     ^rO 


e5 


S  T3  2  rt  ^ 


if 


5  ° 

rP      d 


^7, 


d  ^  ^*  d 

•^  ud'H 

pathy 
s  to  n 
oresig 
rosity 

g    CJ  **-•    <u 

w  73  S  S 

S  £  b*> 

cu    QhW    rt 

>-i    CU           $L) 

OJ  co   b« 

CU 

"S    II 

P 

a 

ion    a 

thers. 

s  to  f 

spiri 

co 

co 
to 
ctf 

tJ°d.H 

13 

affe 
s  of 
rious 
publ 

fi 

>> 

-d  2  * 

d 
o 

cj  co       y 

O     TO               fi 

a 

"^     CO     S 

hfl 

b.^^^ 

fi 

fi  cu  .d  o 

p> 

S— i    -*— •    -*— »   r— I 


b^ 


CO 


•JJ.S 

O   bJO 

CU  TJ 

fi    CU    CU 

Crfi       OU 


8  °u 

fi    ccj    fi 
O    cu    O 

"     ^  CO 

?5    CN     S3, 


fi      CO 

fi 


d  +J"—, 

O    O  ^ 
5h     CU     fi 

O-^r.  fi 

.Jir  fi  -  - 

l-     CO     co 


CU 


d 
o 

rd 

co 


o 

C    cu 

fi  a. 

w  CO 

fi  <^ 
o  o 


bJO 


cu 

o  ^ 

^  ^    CO 

TJ  tuOo 

fi  Si53 

CO     C5     fi 

rt  ^  g 

M—  o 

v2^  d 

rr!     O'H 

o  j_,    CU 


big 

bo  S 

§£2 


d 

CU 

a 

CU 
•  i— i 

& 

o 

fi 

bJD 


O 

d 
d 

to" 

d 
o 

fi 

CO 

CU 

> 


d    CU    CU 

•d  d  > 
bJ30   $ 

C3  ^h     fi 

o   cu   d 

G    <->    £ 
d  ^  d 

CU    CU    ^ 

cu    fi    cu 

.S  HH  .S 

i"  ■* 

*i    co    o      • 

SS  eS 

d     "^    'M-H       CJ 


d 


cu  co  i 

CO  fi  fi 

fi  fi  O 

co  cu  +-» 


^     .  fi  W) 

."d     ^ 
*  ^  cj  .-fi  ,fi 

<U    "-<    rd     4-> 
^       fi    -- 


s^ 


d  £ 


us 

Ph 
fi     Sh 


CO 


g  O 

b  .55 

fi  rd  -O 

lrH    l+t     CO  , 

^    co    <U^S  i2 

fi    >  rt    CJ 

Wi       ^   fi 


I     rr-j        I 

PH^-Ci 

w  ni  O 
^    CU    OJ 

^^  d 
,n  d  d 
^  cu 

^^  b 

W     d     d 

cj    O  £ 

d  o,> 

T    co 
>    cu 


.'HgO 


cu 

r» 

fi 

°^ 

CO    +J  I— I 


S£ 


*    I  15 


23  ° 

C3  cj 

CO  Q 

co  O 

cu  ^ 

^  CO 


rP       !=^ 

^   cu 


'■dnd 
fi    fi 

CO      ^ 

O    « 
J*    fl 

^    (U 

O  v+_ 

rQ      O 
fi 


CU 


T!  ^ 


CU 

r-l  . 

<U  CO 

CU  rj 

o  >-% 


4-V  O 


O    cu 


o  o 

cu    bJO 

§.s 


d  rt 
'^  fi 

CO    'l-H 

d  o 


fi  . 

cu  too 

tuo.S 

I  B  ™ 

I  Si  d 

co  V    O 

d  >h    > 


"d  cu  fi 

^   rd      fi 

CO 


cu 


a  co 

co    cu 
co    cu 

9.  ^ 

Ph  bJD 
fi    cu 

.d  13 


cu 


u 

Z  d 

+-rQ 
"^      rH 

nd  « 
d  o 
cjfi    fi 

M 

rH     JH 

I    <"fi 

W  b 


.8 


Ci 


8 


I 


i 

I 


"<3 


:&• 


-^ 

.q 


1^1 


§  %  s 


111 

^  «  S  fc 

^  ^  8  ^ 

to 


358  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1873. 

The  following  letter  refers  inter  alia  to  a  letter  which 
appeared  in  i Nature'  (Sept.  25,  1873),  "On  the  Males  and 
Complemental  Males  of  certain  Cirripedes,  and  on  Rudi- 
mentary Organs  :"] 

C.  Darwin  to  E.  Haeckel. 

Down,  September  25,  1873. 

My  dear  Hackel, — I  thank  you  for  the  present  of  your 
book,*  and  I  am  heartily  glad  to  see  its  great  success.  You 
will  do  a  wonderful  amount  of  good  in  spreading  the  doctrine 
of  Evolution,  supporting  it  as  you  do  by  so  many  original 
observations.  I  have  read  the  new  preface  with  very  great 
interest.  The  delay  in  the  appearance  of  the  English  trans- 
lation vexes  and  surprises  me,  for  I  have  never  been  able  to 
read  it  thoroughly  in  German,  and  I  shall  assuredly  do  so 
when  it  appears  in  English.  Has  the  problem  of  the  later 
stages  of  reduction  of  useless  structures  ever  perplexed  you  ? 
This  problem  has  of  late  caused  me  much  perplexity.  I  have 
just  written  a  letter  to  i  Nature '  with  a  hypothetical  explana- 
tion of  this  difficulty,  and  I  will  send  you  the  paper  with  the 
passage  marked.  I  will  at  the  same  time  send  a  paper  which 
has  interested  me  ;  it  need  not  be  returned.  It  contains  a 
singular  statement  bearing  on  so-called  Spontaneous  Gener- 
ation. I  much  wish  that  this  latter  question  could  be  settled, 
but  I  see  no  prospect  of  it.  If  it  could  be  proved  true  this 
would  be  most  important  to  us.  .  .  . 

Wishing  you  every  success  in  your  admirable  labours, 
I  remain,  my  dear  Hackel,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

*  *  Schopfungs-geschichte,'  4th  ed.     The  translation  ('  The  History  of 
Creation ')  was  not  published  until  1876. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

Miscellanea,  including  Second  Editions  of  *  Coral 
Reefs/  the  '  Descent  of  Man/  and  the  '  Varia- 
tions of  Animals  and  Plants/ 

1874  and  1875. 

[The  year  1874  was  given  up  to  '  Insectivorous  Plants/ 
with  the  exception  of  the  months  (see  vol.  ii,  p.  353)  devoted 
to  the  second  edition  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man/  and  with  the 
further  exception  of  the  time  given  to  a  second  edition  of  his 
'  Coral  Reefs  '  (1874).  The  Preface  to  the  latter  states  that 
new  facts  have  been  added,  the  whole  book  revised,  and  "  the 
latter  chapters  almost  rewritten.,,  In  the  Appendix  some  ac- 
count is  given  of  Professor  Semper's  objections,  and  this  was 
the  occasion  of  correspondence  between  that  naturalist  and 
my  father.  In  Professor  Semper's  volume,  '  Animal  Life  ' 
(one  of  the  International  Series),  the  author  calls  attention 
to  the  subject  in  the  following  passage  which  I  give  in  Ger- 
man, the  published  English  translation  being,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  incorrect  :  "  Es  scheint  mir  als  ob  er  in  der  zweiten 
Ausgabe  seines  allgemein  bekannten  Werks  iiber  KorallenrirTe 
einem  Irrthume  iiber  meine  Beobachtungen  zum  Opfer  gefal- 
len  ist,  indem  er  die  Angaben,  die  ich  allerdings  bisher  immer 
nur  sehr  kurz  gehalten  hatte,  vollstandig  falsch  wiedergegeben 
hat." 

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


360  MISCELLANEA.  [1874. 


C.  Darwin  to  K.  Semper. 

Down,  October  2,  1879. 

My  dear  Professor  Semper, — I  thank  you  for  your 
extremely  kind  letter  of  the  19th,  and  for  the  proof-sheets.  I 
believe  that  I  understand  all,  excepting  one  or  two  sentences, 
where  my  imperfect  knowledge  of  German  has  interfered. 
This  is  my  sole  and  poor  excuse  for  the  mistake  which  1 
made  in  the  second  edition  of  my  '  Coral  '  book.  Your  ac- 
count of  the  Pellew  Islands  is  a  fine  addition  to  our  knowl- 
edge on  coral  reefs.  I  have  very  little  to  say  on  the  subject, 
even  if  I  had  formerly  read  your  account  and  seen  your 
maps,  but  had  known  nothing  of  the  proofs  of  recent  eleva- 
tion, and  of  your  belief  that  the  islands  have  not  since  sub- 
sided. I  have  no  doubt  that  I  should  have  considered  them 
as  formed  during  subsidence.  But  I  should  have  been  much 
troubled  in  my  mind  by  the  sea  not  being  so  deep  as  it  usu- 
ally is  round  atolls,  and  by  the  reef  on  one  side  sloping  so 
gradually  beneath  the  sea ;  for  this  latter  fact,  as  far  as  my 
memory  serves  me,  is  a  very  unusual  and  almost  unparalleled 
case.  I  always  foresaw  that  a  bank  at  the  proper  depth  be- 
neath the  surface  would  give  rise  to  a  reef  which  could  not 
be  distinguished  from  an  atoll,  formed  during  subsidence.  I 
must  still  adhere  to  my  opinion  that  the  atolls  and  barrier 
reefs  in  the  middle  of  the  Pacific  and  Indian  Oceans  indicate 
subsidence  ;  but  I  fully  agree  with  you  that  such  cases  as  that 
of  the  Pellew  Islands,  if  of  at  all  frequent  occurrence,  would 
make  my  general  conclusions  of  very  little  value.  Future 
observers  must  decide  between  us.  It  will  be  a  strange  fact 
if  there  has  not  been  subsidence  of  the  beds  of  the  great 
oceans,  and  if  this  has  not  affected  the  forms  of  the  coral 
veefs. 

In  the  last  three  pages  of  the  last  sheet  sent  I  am  extremely 
glad  to  see  that  you  are  going  to  treat  of  the  dispersion  of 
animals.  Your  preliminary  remarks  seem  to  me  quite  excel- 
lent.    There  is  nothing  about  M.  Wagner,  as  I  expected  to 


I874-]  'CORAL   REEFS'— SECOND    EDITION.  361 

find.     I   suppose  that  you  have  seen   Moseley's  last   book, 
which  contains  some  good  observations  on  dispersion. 

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

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  most  recent  criticism  on  the  Coral-reef  theory  is  by 
Mr.  Murray,  one  of  the  staff  of  the  Challenger,  who  read  a 
paper  before  the  Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh,  April  5,  1880* 
The  chief  point  brought  forward  is  the  possibility  of  the 
building  up  of  submarine  mountains,  which  may  serve  as 
foundations  for  coral  reefs.  Mr.  Murray  also  seeks  to  prove 
that  "  the  chief  features  of  coral  reefs  and  islands  can  be 
accounted  for  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  great  and  general 
subsidence."     The  following  letter  refers  to  this  subject :] 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  Agassi z. 

Down,  May  5,  1881. 
.  .  .  You  will  have  seen  Mr.  Murray's  views  on  the  forma- 
tion of  atolls  and  barrier  reefs.  Before  publishing  my  book,  I 
thought  long  over  the  same  view,  but  only  as  far  as  ordinary  ma- 
rine organisms  are  concerned,  for  at  that  time  little  was  known 
of  the  multitude  of  minute  oceanic  organisms.  I  rejected 
this  view,  as  from  the  few  dredgings  made  in  the  Beagle,  in 
the  south  temperate  regions,  I  concluded  that  shells,  the 
smaller  corals,  &c,  decayed,  and  were  dissolved,  when  not 
protected  by  the  deposition  of  sediment,  and  sediment  could 
not  accumulate  in  the  open  ocean.  Certainly,  shells,  &c,  were 
in  several  cases  completely  rotten,  and  crumbled  into  mud 
between  my  fingers ;  but  you  will  know  well  whether  this  is 
in  any  degree  common.  I  have  expressly  said  that  a  bank  at 
the  proper  depth  would  give  rise  to  an  atoll,  which  could  not 
be  distinguished  from  one  formed  during  subsidence.    I  can, 

*  An  abstract  is  published  in  vol.  x.  of  the  *  Proceedings/  p.  505,  and 
in  'Nature,'  August  12,  1880. 


362  MISCELLANEA.  [1874, 

however,  hardly  believe  in  the  former  presence  of  as  many- 
banks  (there  having  been  no  subsidence)  as  there  are  atolls 
in  the  great  oceans,  within  a  reasonable  depth,  on  which  mi- 
nute oceanic  organisms  could  have  accumulated  to  the  thick- 
ness of  many  hundred  feet.  .  .  .  Pray  forgive  me  for  troubling 
you  at  such  length,  but  it  has  occurred  [to  me]  that  you 
might  be  disposed  to  give,  after  your  wide  experience,  your 
judgment.  If  I  am  wrong,  the  sooner  I  am  knocked  on  the 
head  and  annihilated  so  much  the  better.  It  still  seems  to 
me  a  marvellous  thing  that  there  should  not  have  been  much, 
and  long  continued,  subsidence  in  the  beds  of  the  great 
oceans.  I  wish  that  some  doubly  rich  millionaire  would  take 
it  into  his  head  to  have  borings  made  in  some  of  the  Pacific 
and  Indian  atolls,  and  bring  home  cores  for  slicing  from  a 
depth  of  500  or  600  feet.  .  .   . 

[The  second  edition  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man '  was  published 
in  the  autumn  of  1874.  Some  severe  remarks  on  the  "  mo- 
nistic hypothesis  "  appeared  in  the  July  *  number  of  the 
'  Quarterly  Review'  (p.  45).  The  Reviewer  expresses  his 
astonishment  at  the  ignorance  of  certain  elementary  distinc- 
tions and  principles  (e.  g.  with  regard  to  the  verbum  mentale) 
exhibited,  among  others,  by  Mr.  Darwin,  who  does  not  ex- 
hibit the  faintest  indication  of  having  grasped  them,  yet  a 
clear  perception  of  them,  and  a  direct  and  detailed  exami- 
nation of  his  facts  with  regard  to  them,  "was  a  sine  qua  non 
for  attempting,  with  a  chance  of  success,  the  solution  of  the 
mystery  as  to  the  descent  of  man." 

Some  further  criticisms  of  a  later  date  may  be  here  alluded 
to.  In  the  i  Academy/  1876  (pp.  562,  587),  appeared  a  re- 
view of  Mr.  Mivart's  '  Lessons  from  Nature/  by  Mr.  Wallace. 
When  considering  the  part  of  Mr.  Mivart's  book  relating  to 
Natural  and  Sexual  Selection,  Mr.  Wallace  says  :  li  In  his 
violent  attack  on  Mr.  Darwin's  theories  our  author  uses  unu- 
sually strong  language.     Not  content  with  mere  argument,  he 

*  The  review  necessarily  deals  with  the  first  edition  of  the  '  Descent 
of  Man/ 


1874.]  MR.  MIVART.  363 

expresses  '  reprobation  of  Mr.  Darwin's  views '  ;  and  asserts 
that  though  he  (Mr.  Darwin)  has  been  obliged,  virtually,  to 
give  up  his  theory,  it  is  still  maintained  by  Darwinians  with 
i  unscrupulous  audacity,'  and  the  actual  repudiation  of  it 
concealed  by  the  '  conspiracy  of  silence.'  "  Mr.  Wallace 
goes  on  to  show  that  these  charges  are  without  foundation, 
and  points  out  that,  "  If  there  is  one  thing  more  than  another 
for  which  Mr.  Darwin  is  pre-eminent  among  modern  literary 
and  scientific  men,  it  is  for  his  perfect  literary  honesty,  his 
self-abnegation  in  confessing  himself  wrong,  and  the  eager 
haste  with  which  he  proclaims  and  even  magnifies  small  errors 
in  his  works,  for  the  most  part  discovered  by  himself." 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wallace  (June 
17th)  refers  to  Mr.  Mivart's  statement  ('Lessons  from  Na- 
ture/ p.  144)  that  Mr.  Darwin  at  first  studiously  disguised  his 
views  as  to  the  "  bestiality  of  man  "  : — 

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

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

C.  Darwin  to  E.  Gurney* 

Down,  July  8,  1876. 
My  dear  Mr.  Gurney, — I  have  read  your  article  \  with 
much  interest,  except  the  latter  part,  which  soared  above  my 

*  Author  of  '  The  Power  of  Sound.' 

f  "  Some  disputed  Points  in  Music." — *  Fortnightly  Review,'  July,  1876. 
60 


364  MISCELLANEA.  [1874. 

ken.  I  am  greatly  pleased  that  you  uphold  my  views  to  a 
certain  extent.  Your  criticism  of  the  rasping  noise  made  by 
insects  being  necessarily  rhythmical  is  very  good  ;  but  though 
not  made  intentionally,  it  may  be  pleasing  to  the  females 
from  the  nerve  cells  being  nearly  similar  in  function  through- 
out the  animal  kingdom.  With  respect  to  your  letter,  I  be- 
lieve that  I  understand  your  meaning,  and  agree  with  you.  I 
never  supposed  that  the  different  degrees  and  kinds  of  pleas- 
ure derived  from  different  music  could  be  explained  by  the 
musical  powers  of  our  semi-human  progenitors.  Does  not 
the  fact  that  different  people  belonging  to  the  same  civilized 
nation  are  very  differently  affected  by  the  same  music,  almost 
show  that  these  diversities  of  taste  and  pleasure  have  been 
acquired  during  their  individual  lives  ?  Your  simile  of  archi- 
tecture seems  to  me  particularly  good  ;  for  in  this  case  the 
appreciation  almost  must  be  individual,  though  possibly  the 
sense  of  sublimity  excited  by  a  grand  cathedral,  may  have 
some  connection  with  the  vague  feelings  of  terror  and  super- 
stition in  our  savage  ancestors,  when  they  entered  a  great 
cavern  or  gloomy  forest.  I  wish  some  one  could  analyse  the 
feeling  of  sublimity.  It  amuses  me  to  think  how  horrified 
some  high  flying  aesthetic  men  will  be  at  your  encouraging 
such  low  degraded  views  as  mine. 

Believe  me,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

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

".  .  ..  We  had  grand  fun,  one  afternoon,  for  George  hired  a 
medium,  who  made  the  chairs,  a  flute,  a  bell,  and  candle- 
stick, and  fiery  points  jump  about  in  my  brother's  dining- 
room,  in  a  manner  that  astounded  every  one,  and  took  away 
all  their  breaths.     It  was  in  the  dark,  but  George  and  Hens- 


1874.]  SPIRITUALISM.  365 

leigh  Wedgwood  held  the  medium's  hands  and  feet  on  both 
sides  all  the  time.  I  found  it  so  hot  and  tiring  that  I  went 
away  before  all  these  astounding  miracles,  or  jugglery,  took 
place.  How  the  man  could  possibly  do  what  was  done  passes 
my  understanding.  I  came  downstairs,  and  saw  all  the  chairs, 
&c,  on  the  table,  which  had  been  lifted  over  the  heads  of 
those  sitting  round  it. 

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

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

C  Darwin  to  Professor  T.  Zf,  Huxley. 

Down,  January  29  [1874]. 

My  dear  Huxley, — It  was  very  good  of  you  to  write  so 
long  an  account.  Though  the  seance  did  tire  you  so  much 
it  was,  I  think,  really  worth  the  exertion,  as  the  same  sort  of 

things  are  done  at  all  the  seances,  even  at 's  ;  and  now  to 

my  mind  an  enormous  weight  of  evidence  would  be  requisite 
to  make  one  believe  in  anything  beyond  mere  trickery.  .  .  . 
I  am  pleased  to  think  that  I  declared  to  all  my  family,  the 
day  before  yesterday,  that  the  more  I  thought  of  all  that  I 
had  heard  happened  at  Queen  Anne  St.,  the  more  convinced 
I  was  it  was  all  imposture  ....  my  theory  was  that  [the 
medium]  managed  to  get  the  two  men  on  each  side  of  him  to 
hold  each  other's  hands,  instead  of  his,  and  that  he  was  thus 
free  to  perform  his  antics.  I  am  very  glad  that  I  issued  my 
ukase  to  you  to  attend. 

Yours  affectionately, 

Ch.   Darwin. 

[In  the  spring  of  this  year  (1874)  he  read  a  book  which 
gave  him  great  pleasure  and  of  which  he  often  spoke  with  ad- 
miration : — The  '  Naturalist  in  Nicaragua/  by  the  late  Thomas 


366  MISCELLANEA.  [1874. 

Belt.  Mr.  Belt,  whose  untimely  death  may  well  be  deplored 
by  naturalists,  was  by  profession  an  Engineer,  so  that  all  his 
admirable  observations  in  Natural  History  in  Nicaragua  and 
elsewhere  were  the  fruit  of  his  leisure.  The  book  is  direct 
and  vivid  in  style  and  is  full  of  description  and  suggestive 
discussions.  With  reference  to  it  my  father  wrote  to  Sir  J. 
D.  Hooker  : — 

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


C.  Darwin  to  the  Marquis  de  Saporta. 

Down,  May  30,  1874. 
Dear  Sir, — I  have  been  very  neglectful  in  not  having 
sooner  thanked  you  for  your  kindness  in  having  sent  me  your 
1  Etudes  sur  la  Vegetation/  &c,  and  other  memoirs.  I  have 
read  several  of  them  with  very  great  interest,  and  nothing  can 
be  more  important,  in  my  opinion,  than  your  evidence  of  the 
extremely  slow  and  gradual  manner  in  which  specific  forms 
change.  I  observe  that  M.  A.  De  Candolle  has  lately  quoted 
you  on  this  head  versus  Heer.  I  hope  that  you  may  be  able 
to  throw  light  on  the  question  whether  such  protean,  or  poly- 
morphic forms,  as  those  of  Rubus,  Hieracium,  &c,  at  the 
present  day,  are  those  which  generate  new  species  ;  as  for 
myself,  I  have  always  felt  some  doubt  on  this  head.  I  trust 
that  you  may  soon  bring  many  of  your  countrymen  to  be- 
lieve in  Evolution,  and  my  name  will  then  perhaps  cease  to 
be  scorned.  With  the  most  sincere  respect,  I  remain,  Dear 
Sir, 

Yours  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 


1874.J  DR.  GRAY.  367 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  June  5  [1874]. 

My  dear  Gray, — I  have  now  read  your  article*  in  '  Na- 
ture/ and  the  last  two  paragraphs  were  not  included  in  the 
slip  sent  before.  I  wrote  yesterday  and  cannot  remember 
exactly  Vhat  I  said,  and  now  cannot  be  easy  without  again 
telling  you  how  profoundly  I  have  been  gratified.  Every  one, 
I  suppose,  occasionally  thinks  that  he  has  worked  in  vain, 
and  when  one  of  these  fits  overtakes  me,  I  will  think  of  your 
article,  and  if  that  does  not  dispel  the  evil  spirit,  I  shall  know 
that  I  am  at  the  time  a  little  bit  insane,  as  we  all  are  occa- 
sionally. 

What  you  say  about  Teleology  f  pleases  me  especially,  and 
I  do  not  think  any  one  else  has  ever  noticed  the  point.J  I 
have  always  said  you  were  the  man  to  hit  the  nail  on  the 
head. 

Yours  gratefully  and  affectionately, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[As  a  contribution  to  the  history  of  the  reception  of  the 
'  Origin  of  Species/  the  meeting  of  the  British  Association  in 
1874,  at  Belfast,  should  be  mentioned.  It  is  memorable  for 
Professor  Tyndall's  brilliant  presidential  address,  in  which  a 
sketch  of  the  history  of  Evolution  is  given  culminating  in  an 
eloquent  analysis  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species/  and  of  the  nature 
of  its  great  success.  With  regard  to  Prof.  Tyndall's  address, 
Lyell  wrote  ('  Life/  ii.  p.  455)  congratulating  my  father  on  the 

*  The  article,  "  Charles  Darwin,"  in  the  series  of  Scientific  Worthies 
('  Nature,'  June  4,  1874).  This  admirable  estimate  of  my  father's  work  in 
science  is  given  in  the  form  of  a  comparison  and  contrast  between  Robert 
Brown  and  Charles  Darwin. 

f  "  Let  us  recognise  Darwin's  great  service  to  Natural  Science  in  bring- 
ing back  to  it  Teleology  :  so  that  instead  of  Morphology  versus  Teleology, 
we  shall  have  Morphology  wedded  to  Teleology." 

%  See,  however,  Mr.  Huxley's  chapter  on  the  '  Reception  of  the  Origin 
of  Species'  in  vol.  i.,  p.  554. 


368  MISCELLANEA.  [1874. 

meeting,  "on  which  occasion  you  and  your  theory  of  Evolu- 
tion may  be  fairly  said  to  have  had  an  ovation/*  In  the  same 
letter  Sir  Charles  speaks  of  a  paper  *  of  Professor  Judd's,  and 
it  is  to  this  that  the  following  letter  refers  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  LyelL 

Down,  September  23,  1874. 

My  dear  Lyell, — I  suppose  that  you  have  returned,  or 
will  soon  return,  to  London  ;  \  and,  I  hope,  reinvigorated  by 
your  outing.  In  your  last  letter  you  spoke  of  Mr.  Judd's  pa- 
per on  the  Volcanoes  of  the  Hebrides.  I  have  just  finished  it, 
and  to  ease  my  mind  must  express  my  extreme  admiration. 

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

Yours  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 

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

*  On  the  Ancient  Volcanoes  of  the  Highlands,  'Journal  of  Geolog. 
Soc.,'  1874. 

f  Sir  Charles  Lyell  returned  from  Scotland  towards  the  end  of  Sep- 
tember. 


1874.]  ANTS.  36g 

C.  Darwin  to  Aug.  For  el. 

Down,  October  15,  1874. 

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

I  should  like  to  tell  you  one  little  observation  which  1 
made  with  care  many  years  ago  ;  I  saw  ants  {Formica  rufd) 

*  '  Les  Fourmis  de  la  Suisse,'  4to,  1874. 


370  MISCELLANEA.  [1874. 

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

Yours  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

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


I874-]  '  COSMIC   PHILOSOPHY/  37 1 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  Fiske. 

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


*  1 


Outlines  of  Cosmic  Philosophy,'  2  vols.  8vo.  1874. 


372  MISCELLANEA.  [1875. 

ing  you  for  the  profound  interest  and  profit  with  which  I  have 
read  your  work.     I  remain, 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  very  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

1875. 

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

In  connection  with  this  subject,  a  letter  of  my  father's  to 
■  Nature  '  (April  27,  1871)  should  be  mentioned.  A  paper  by 
Mr.  Galton  had  been  read  before  the  Royal  Society  (March 
30,  1 871)  in  which  were  described  experiments,  on  intertrans- 
fusion  of  blood,  designed  to  test  the  truth  of  the  hypothesis 
of  pangenesis.  My  father,  while  giving  all  due  credit  to  Mr. 
Galton  for  his  ingenious  experiments,  does  not  allow  that 
pangenesis  has  "  as  yet  received  its  death-blow,  though  from 
presenting  so  many  vulnerable  points  its  life  is  always  in 
jeopardy." 

*  ■  Animals  and  Plants,'  2nd  edit.  vol.  ii.  p.  350. 


18751    'ANIMALS  AND  PLANTS '—SECOND  EDITION.       373 

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

"  I  have  no  news  about  myself,  as  I  am  merely  slaving 
over  the  sickening  work  of  preparing  new  editions.  I  wish  I 
could  get  a  touch  of  poor  Lyell's  feelings,  that  it  was  delight- 
ful to  improve  a  sentence,  like  a  painter  improving  a  pic- 
ture." 

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

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

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

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

C.  Darwin  to  Miss  Buckley  (now  Mrs.  Fisher)* 

Down,  February  23,  1875. 
My  dear  Miss  Buckley,— I  am  grieved  to  hear  of  the 
death  of  my  old  and  kind  friend,  though  I  knew  that  it  could 
not  be  long  delayed,  and  that  it  was  a  happy  thing  that  his 
life  should  not  have  been  prolonged,  as  I  suppose  that  his 
mind  would  inevitably  have  suffered.     I  am  glad  that  Lady 


Mrs.  Fisher  acted  as  Secretary  to  Sir  Charles  Lyell. 


374  MISCELLANEA.  [1875. 

Lyell  *  has  been  saved  this  terrible  blow.  His  death  makes 
me  think  of  the  time  when  I  first  saw  him,  and  how  full  of 
sympathy  and  interest  he  was  about  what  I  could  tell  him  of 
coral  reefs  and  South  America.  I  think  that  this  sympathy 
with  the  work  of  every  other  naturalist  was  one  of  the  finest 
features  of  his  character.  How  completely  he  revolutionised 
Geology :  for  I  can  remember  something  of  pre-Lyellian 
days. 

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

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

Believe  me,  my  dear  Miss  Buckley, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Down,  February  25  [1875J. 

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

I  dreaded  nothing  so  much  as  his  surviving  with  impaired 
mental  powers.  He  was,  indeed,  a  noble  man  in  very  many 
ways  ;  perhaps  in  none  more  than  in  his  warm  sympathy  with 
the  work  of  others.  How  vividly  I  can  recall  my  first  con- 
versation with  him,  and  how  he  astonished  me  by  his  interest 
in  what  I  told  him.     How  grand  also  was  his  candour  and 

*  Lady  Lyell  died  in  1873. 


1875.]  LYELL'S   DEATH.  375 

pure  love  of  truth.  Well,  he  is  gone,  and  I  feel  as  if  we  were 
all  soon  to  go.  ...  I  am  deeply  rejoiced  about  Westminster 
Abbey,*  the  possibility  of  which  had  not  occurred  to  me 
when  I  wrote  before.  I  did  think  that  his  works  were  the 
most  enduring  of  all  testimonials  (as  you  say)  to  him  ;  but 
then  I  did  not  like  the  idea  of  his  passing  away  with  no  out- 
ward sign  of  what  scientific  men  thought  of  his  merits.  Now 
all  this  is  changed,  and  nothing  can  be  better  than  West- 
minster Abbey.  Mrs.  Lyell  has  asked  me  to  be  one  of  the 
pall-bearers,  but  I  have  written  to  say  that  I  dared  not,  as  I 
should  so  likely  fail  in  the  midst  of  the  ceremony,  and  have 
my  head  whirling  off  my  shoulders.  All  this  affair  must  have 
cost  you  much  fatigue  and  worry,  and  how  I  do  wish  you 
were  out  of  England.  .  .  . 

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

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

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

C.  Darwin  to  Anton  Dohrn. 

Down  [1875  ?]. 
My  dear  Dr.  Dohrn, — Many  thanks  for  your  most  kind 
letter,  I  most  heartily  rejoice  at  your  improved  health  and  at 
the  success  of  your  grand  undertaking,  which  will  have  so 
much  influence  on  the  progress  of  Zoology  throughout 
Europe. 

If  we  look  to  England  alone,  what  capital  work  has  already 
been  done  at  the  Station  by  Balfour  and  Ray  Lankester.  .  .  . 

*  Sir  C.  Lyell  was  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey. 


376  MISCELLANEA.  [1875. 

When  you  come  to  England,  I  suppose  that  you  will  bring 
Mrs.  Dohrn,  and  we  shall  be  delighted  to  see  you  both  here. 
I  have  often  boasted  that  I  have  had  a  live  Uhlan  in  my 
house  !  It  will  be  very  interesting  to  me  to  read  your  new 
views  on  the  ancestry  of  the  Vertebrates.  I  shall  be  sorry  to 
give  up  the  Ascidians,  to  whom  I  feel  profound  gratitude; 
but  the  great  thing,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  that  any  link  what- 
ever should  be  found  between  the  main  divisions  of  the  Ani- 
mal Kingdom.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  August  Weismann. 

Down,  December  6,  1875. 

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

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

With  much  respect, 

Yours  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

*  '  Umwandlung  des  Axolotl.' 


1875.]  VIVISECTION.  377 


THE    VIVISECTION    QUESTION. 

[It  was  in  November  1875  tnat  mv  father  gave  his  evidence 
before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Vivisection.*  I  have,  there- 
fore, placed  together  here  the  matter  relating  to  this  subject, 
irrespective  of  date.  Something  has  already  been  said  of  my 
father's  strong  feeling  with  regard  to  suffering  both  in  man 
and  beast.  It  was  indeed  one  of  the  strongest  feelings  in  his 
nature,  and  was  exemplified  in  matters  small  and  great,  in 
his  sympathy  with  the  educational  miseries  of  dancing  dogs, 
or  in  his  horror  at  the  sufferings  of  slaves.f 

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

One  other  little  incident  may  be  mentioned,  showing  that 
his  humanity  to  animals  was  well  known  in  his  own  neigh- 
bourhood.    A  visitor,  driving  from  Orpington  to  Down,  told 

*  See  vol.  i.  p.  118. 

f  He  once  made  an  attempt  to  free  a  patient  in  a  mad-house,  who  (as 
he  wrongly  supposed)  was  sane.  He  had  some  correspondence  with  the 
gardener  at  the  asylum,  and  on  one  occasion  he  found  a  letter  from  a 
patient  enclosed  with  one  from  the  gardener.  The  letter  was  rational  in 
tone  and  declared  that  the  writer  was  sane  and  wrongfully  confined. 

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


378  MISCELLANEA.  [1875. 

the  man  to  go  faster,  "Why,"  said  the  driver,  "If  1  had 
whipped  the  horse  this  much,  driving  Mr.  Darwin,  he  would 
have  got  out  of  the  carriage  and  abused  me  well." 

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

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

An  extract  from  Sir  Thomas  Farrer's  notes  shows  how 
strongly  he  expressed  himself  in  a  similar  manner  in  con- 
versation : — 

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

The  Anti-Vivisection  agitation,  to  which  the  following 
letters  refer,  seems  to  have  become  specially  active  in  1874, 
as  may  be  seen,  e.g.  by  the  index  to  '  Nature  '  for  that  year, 
in  which  the  word  "  Vivisection,"  suddenly  comes  into  promi- 
nence. But  before  that  date  the  subject  had  received  the 
earnest  attention  of  biologists.  Thus  at  the  Liverpool  Meet- 
ing of  the  British  Association  in  1870,  a  Committee  was  ap- 
pointed, which  reported,  defining  the  circumstances  and 
conditions  under  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  signatories,  ex- 
periments on  living  animals  were  justifiable.  In  the  spring  of 
1875,  Lord  Hartismere  introduced  a  Bill  into  the  Upper 
House  to  regulate  the  course  of  physiological  research.  Short- 
ly afterwards  a  Bill  more  just  towards  science  in  its  provisions 


1875-1  VIVISECTION.  379 

was  introduced  to  the  House  of  Commons  by  Messrs.  Lyon 
Playfair,  Walpole,  and  Ashley.  It  was  however,  withdrawn 
on  the  appointment  of  a  Royal  Commission  to  inquire  into 
the  whole  question.  The  Commissioners  were  Lords  Card- 
well  and  Winmarleigh,  Mr.  W.  E.  Forster,  Sir  J.  B.  Karslake, 
Mr.  Huxley,  Professor  Erichssen,  and  Mr.  R.  H.  Hutton  : 
they  commenced  their  inquiry  in  July,  1875,  and  the  Report 
was  published  early  in  the  following  year. 

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

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

C.  Darwin  to  Mrs.  Litchfield* 

January  4,  1875. 
My  dear  H. — Your  letter  has  led  me  to  think  over  vivi- 
section (I  wish  some  new  word  like  anses-section  could  be 
invented  f)  for  some  hours,  and  I  will  jot  down  my  conclusions, 
which  will  appear  very  unsatisfactory  to  you.  I  have  long 
thought  physiology  one  of  the  greatest  of  sciences,  sure  sooner, 

*  His  daughter. 

f  He  communicated  to  *  Nature*  (Sep.   30,  1880)  an  article  by  Dr. 
Wilder,  of  Cornell  University,  an  abstract  of  which  was  published  (p.  517). 
Dr.  Wilder  advocated  the  use  of  the  word  '  Callisection  '  for  painless  opera- 
tions on  animals. 
61 


380  MISCELLANEA.  [1875. 

or  more  probably  later,  greatly  to  benefit  mankind  ;  but, 
judging  from  all  other  sciences,  the  benefits  will  accrue  only 
indirectly  in  the  search  for  abstract  truth.  It  is  certain  that 
physiology  can  progress  only  by  experiments  on  living  ani- 
mals. Therefore  the  proposal  to  limit  research  to  points  of 
which  we  can  now  see  the  bearings  in  regard  to  health,  &c, 
I  look  at  as  puerile.  1  thought  at  first  it  would  be  good  to 
limit  vivisection  to  public  laboratories  ;  but  I  have  heard  only 
of  those  in  London  and  Cambridge,  and  I  think  Oxford  ;  but 
probably  there  may  be  a  few  others.  Therefore  only  men 
living  in  a  few  great  towns  would  carry  on  investigation,  and 
this  I  should  consider  a  great  evil.  If  private  men  were  per- 
mitted to  work  in  their  own  houses,  and  required  a  licence,  I 
do  not  see  who  is  to  determine  whether  any  particular  man 
should  receive  one.  It  is  young  unknown  men  who  are  the 
most  likely  to  do  good  work.  I  would  gladly  punish  severely 
any  one  who  operated  on  an  animal  not  rendered  insensible, 
if  the  experiment  made  this  possible  ;  but  here  again  I  do  not 
see  that  a  magistrate  or  jury  could  possibly  determine  such  a 
point.  Therefore  I  conclude,  if  (as  is  likely)  some  experi- 
ments have  been  tried  too  often,  or  anaesthetics  have  not  been 
used  when  they  could  have  been,  the  cure  must  be  in  the 
improvement  of  humanitarian  feelings.  Under  this  point  of 
view  I  have  rejoiced  at  the  present  agitation.  If  stringent 
laws  are  passed,  and  this  is  likely,  seeing  how  unscientific  the 
House  of  Commons  is,  and  that  the  gentlemen  of  England 
are  humane,  as  long  as  their  sports  are  not  considered,  which 
entailed  a  hundred  or  thousand-fold  more  suffering  than  the 
experiments  of  physiologists — if  such  laws  are  passed,  the  re- 
sult will  assuredly  be  that  physiology,  which  has  been  until 
within  the  last  few  years  at  a  standstill  in  England,  will  lan- 
guish or  quite  cease.  It  will  then  be  carried  on  solely  on  the 
Continent;  and  there  will  be  so  many  the  fewer  workers  on 
this  grand  subject,  and  this  I  should  greatly  regret.  By  the 
way,  F.  Balfour,  who  has  worked  for  two  or  three  years  in  the 
laboratory  at  Cambridge,  declares  to  George  that  he  has  never 
seen  an  experiment,  except  with  animals  rendered  insensible. 


I875-]  VIVISECTION.  381 

No  doubt  the  names  of  Doctors  will  have  great  weight  with 
the  House  of  Commons  ;  but  very  many  practitioners  neither 
know  nor  care  anything  about  the  progress  of  knowledge.  I 
cannot  at  present  see  my  way  to  sign  any  petition,  without 
hearing  what  physiologists  thought  would  be  its  effect,  and 
then  judging  for  myself.  I  certainly  could  not  sign  the  paper 
sent  me  by  Miss  Cobbe,  with  its  monstrous  (as  it  seems  to 
me)  attack  on  Virchow  for  experimenting  on  the  Trichinae. 
I  am  tired  and  so  no  more. 

Yours  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  April  14  [1875]. 
My  dear  Hooker, — I  worked  all  the  time  in  London  on 
the  vivisection  question ;  and  we  now  think  it  advisable  to  go 
further  than  a  mere  petition.  Litchfield  *  drew  up  a  sketch 
of  a  Bill,  the  essential  features  of  which  have  been  approved 
.by  Sanderson,  Simon  and  Huxley,  and  from  conversation, 
will,  I  believe,  be  approved  by  Paget,  and  almost  certainly,  I 
think,  by  Michael  Foster.  Sanderson,  Simon  and  Paget  wish 
me  to  see  Lord  Derby,  and  endeavour  to  gain  his  advocacy 
with  the  Home  Secretary.  Now,  if  this  is  carried  into  effect, 
it  will  be  of  great  importance  to  me  to  be  able  to  say  that  the 
Bill  in  its  essential  features  has  the  approval  of  some  half- 
dozen  eminent  scientific  men.  I  have  therefore  asked  Litch- 
field to  enclose  a  copy  to  you  in  its  first  rough  form ;  and  if 
it  is  not  essentially  modified  may  I  say  that  it  meets  with  your 
approval  as  President  of  the  Royal  Society  ?  The  object  is 
to  protect  animals,  and  at  the  same  time  not  to  injure  Physi- 
ology, and  Huxley  and  Sanderson's  approval  almost  suffices 
on  this  head.     Pray  let  me  have  a  line  from  you  soon. 

Yours  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 

*  Mr.  R.  B.  Litchfield,  his  son-in-law. 


382  MISCELLANEA.  [1881. 

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

"  I  was  very  much  gratified  by  the  wholly  unexpected 
honour  of  being  elected  one  of  the  Honorary  Members. 
This  mark  of  sympathy  has  pleased  me  to  a  very  high 
degree.1' 

The  following  letter  appeared  in  the  Tinies,  April  18th, 
1881  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Frithiof  Holmgren* 

Down,  April  14,  1881. 
Dear  Sir, — In  answer  to  your  courteous  letter  of  April  7, 
I  have  no  objection  to  express  my  opinion  with  respect  to 
the  right  of  experimenting  on  living  animals.  I  use  this  latter 
expression  as  more  correct  and  comprehensive  than  that  of 
vivisection.  You  are  at  liberty  to  make  any  use  of  this  letter, 
which  you  may  think  fit,  but  if  published  I  should  wish  the 
whole  to  appear.  I  have  all  my  life  been  a  strong  advocate 
for  humanity  to  animals,  and  have  done  what  I  could  in  my 
writings  to  enforce  this  duty.  Several  years  ago,  when  the 
agitation  against  physiologists  commenced  in  England,  it 
was  asserted  that  inhumanity  was  here  practised,  and  useless 
suffering  caused  to  animals;  and  I  was  led  to  think  that  it 
might  be  advisable  to  have  an  Act  of  Parliament  on  the 
subject.  I  then  took  an  active  part  in  trying  to  get  a  Bill 
passed,  such  as  would  have  removed  all  just  cause  of  com- 
plaint, and  at  the  same  time  have  left  physiologists  free  to 
pursue  their  researches, — a  Bill  very  different  from  the  Act 
which  has  since  been  passed.  It  is  right  to  add  that  the 
investigation  of  the  matter  by  a  Royal  Commission  proved 
that  the  accusations  made  against  our  English  physiologists 

*  Professor  of  Physiology  at  Upsala. 


i88i.]  VIVISECTION.  383 

were  false.  From  all  that  I  have  heard,  however,  I  fear  that 
in  some  parts  of  Europe  little  regard  is  paid  to  the  sufferings 
of  animals,  and  if  this  be  the  case,  I  should  be  glad  to  hear  of 
legislation  against  inhumanity  in  any  such  country.  On  the 
other  hand,  I  know  that  physiology  cannot  possibly  progress 
except  by  means  of  experiments  on  living  animals,  and  I 
feel  the  deepest  conviction  that  he  who  retards  the  progress 
of  physiology  commits  a  crime  against  mankind.  Any  one 
who  remembers,  as  I  can,  the  state  of  this  science  half  a 
century  ago,  must  admit  that  it  has  made  immense  progress, 
and  it  is  now  progressing  at  an  ever-increasing  rate.  What 
improvements  in  medical  practice  may  be  directly  attributed 
to  physiological  research  is  a  question  which  can  be  properly 
discussed  only  by  those  physiologists  and  medical  practitioners 
who  have  studied  the  history  of  their  subjects ;  but,  as  far  as 
I  can  learn,  the  benefits  are  already  great.  However  this  may 
be,  no  one,  unless  he  is  grossly  ignorant  of  what  science  has 
done  for  mankind,  can  entertain  any  doubt  of  the  incalculable 
benefits  which  will  hereafter  be  derived  from  physiology,  not 
only  by  man,  but  by  the  lower  animals.  Look  for  instance 
at  Pasteur's  results  in  modifying  the  germs  of  the  most 
malignant  diseases,  from  which,  as  it  so  happens,  animals  will 
in  the  first  place  receive  more  relief  than  man.  Let  it  be 
remembered  how  many  lives  and  what  a  fearful  amount  of 
suffering  have  been  saved  by  the  knowledge  gained  of 
parasitic  worms  through  the  experiments  of  Virchow  and 
others  on  living  animals.  In  the  future  every  one  will  be 
astonished  at  the  ingratitude  shown,  at  least  in  England,  to 
these  benefactors  of  mankind.  As  for  myself,  permit  me  to 
assure  you  that  I  honour,  and  shall  always  honour,  every  one 
who  advances  the  noble  science  of  physiology. 

Dear  Sir,  yours  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[In  the  Times  of  the  following  day  appeared  a  letter 
headed  "Mr.  Darwin  and  Vivisection, "  signed  by  Miss 
Frances   Power  Cobbe.     To  this  my  father   replied   in  the 


384  MISCELLANEA.  [1881. 

Times  of  April  22,  1881.     On  the  same  day  he  wrote  to  Mr. 
Romanes  : — 

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

C.  Darwin  to  the  Editor  of  the  Times, 

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

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

(2).  The  Commissioners,  after  speaking  of  the  "general 
sentiment  of  humanity"  prevailing  in  this  country,  say 
(p.  10)  :— 

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

Again,  according  to  the  Commissioners  (p.  10)  : — 


i88i.]  VIVISECTION.  385 

"  The  secretary  of  the  Royal  Society  for  the  Prevention  of 

Cruelty  to  Animals,  when  asked  whether  the  general  tendency 

of  the  scientific  world  in   this   country  is   at  variance  with 

humanity,  says  he  believes  it   to  be  very  different,  indeed, 

from  that  of  foreign  physiologists  ;  and  while  giving  it  as  the 

opinion  of  the  society  that  experiments  are  performed  which 

are  in  their  nature  beyond  any  legitimate  province  of  science, 

and  that  the  pain  which  they  inflict  is  pain  which  it  is  not 

justifiable  to  inflict  even  for  the  scientific  object  in  view,  he 

readily  acknowledges  that  he  does  not  know  a  single  case  of 

wanton  cruelty,  and  that  in  general  the  English  physiologists 

have  used  anaesthetics  where  they  think  they  can  do  so  with 

safety  to  the  experiment." 

I  am,  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Charles  Darwin. 
April  21. 

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

C.  Darwin  to  G.  J.  Romanes. 

Down,  April  25,  1881. 
My  dear  Romanes, — I  was  very  glad  to  read  your  last 
note  with  much  news  interesting  to  me.  But  I  write  now  to 
say  how  I,  and  indeed  all  of  us  in  the  house  have  admired 
your  letter  in  the  Times*  It  was  so  simple  and  direct.  I  was 
particularly  glad  about  Burton  Sanderson,  of  whom  I  have 
been  for  several  years  a  great  admirer.  I  was  also  especially 
glad  to  read  the  last  sentences.  I  have  been  bothered  with 
several  letters,  but  none  abusive.  Under  a  selfish  point  of 
view  I  am  very  glad  of  the  publication  of  your  letter,  as  I 
was  at  first  inclined  to  think  that  I  had  done  mischief  by 
stirring  up  the  mud.  Now  I  feel  sure  that  I  have  done  good. 
Mr.  Jesse  has  written  to  me  very  politely,  he  says  his  Society 
has  had  nothing  to  do  with  placards  and  diagrams  against 

*  April  25,  1881. — Mr.  Romanes  defended  Dr.  Sanderson  against  the 
accusations  made  by  Miss  Cobbe. 


386  MISCELLANEA.  [i88i< 

physiology,  and  I  suppose,  therefore,  that  these  all  originate 

with  Miss  Cobbe Mr.  Jesse  complains  bitterly  that  the 

Times  will  "  burke  "  all  his  letters  to  this  newspaper,  nor  am 
I  surprised,  judging  from  the  laughable  tirades  advertised  in 
Nature.  Ever  yours,  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

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

C.  Darwin  to  G.  J.  Romanes. 

Down,  September  2,  1881. 

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

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

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


i88i.]  VIVISECTION.  387 

Allow  me  to  demur  to  your  calling  your  conjoint  article  a 
"  symposium  "  strictly  a  "  drinking  party."  This  seems  to  me 
very  bad  taste,  and  I  do  hope  every  one  of  you  will  avoid  any 
semblance  of  a  joke  on  ,the  subject  I  know  that  words,  like 
a  joke,  on  this  subject  have  quite  disgusted  some  persons  not 
at  all  inimical  to  physiology.  One  person  lamented  to  me 
that  Mr.  Simon,  in  his  truly  admirable  Address  at  the  Medi- 
cal Congress  (by  far  the  best  thing  which  I  have  read),  spoke 
of  the  fantastic  sensuality*  (or  some  such  term)  of  the  many 
mistaken,  but  honest  men  and  women  who  are  half  mad  on 
the  subject.  .  .  . 

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

u  Have  you  read  Mr.  [Edmund]  Gurney's  articles  in  the 
1  Fortnightly  '  f  and  *  Cornhill  ?  '  J  They  seem  to  me  very 
clever,  though  obscurely  written,  and  I  agree  with  almost 
everything  he  says,  except  with  some  passages  which  appear 
to  imply  that  no  experiments  should  be  tried  unless  some  im- 
mediate good  can  be  predicted,  and  this  is  a  gigantic  mistake 
contradicted  by  the  whole  history  of  science."] 

*  *  Transactions  of  the  International  Medical  Congress,'  188 1,  vol.  iv. 
p.  413.  The  expression  " lackadaisical "  (not  fantastic),  and  "feeble  sen- 
suality," are  used  with  regard  to  the  feelings  of  the  anti-vivisectionists. 

f  "  A  chapter  in  the  Ethics  of  Pain,"  'Fortnightly  Review,'  1881,  vol. 
xxx.  p.  778. 

X  "An  Epilogue  on  Vivisection,"  'Cornhill  Magazine,'  1882,  vol.  xlv. 
p.  191. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

MISCELLANEA  {continued} — A  REVIVAL  OF  GEOLOGICAL  WORK 
THE  BOOK  ON  EARTHWORMS — LIFE  OF  ERASMUS  DAR- 
WIN— MISCELLANEOUS    LETTERS. 

1876-1882. 

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

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

"  You  ask  about  my  future  work ;  I  doubt  whether  I  shall 
be  able  to  do  much  more  that  is  new,  and  I  always  keep 

before  my  mind  the  example  of  poor  old ,  who  in  his  old 

age  had  a  cacoethes  for  writing.  But  I  cannot  endure  doing 
nothing,  so  I  suppose  that  I  shall  go  on  as  long  as  I  can 
without  obviously  making  a  fool  of  myself.  I  have  a  great 
mass  of  matter  with  respect  to  variation  under  nature  ;  but  so 
much  has  been  published  since  the  appearance  of  the  '  Origin 
of  Species,'  that  I  very  much  doubt  whether  I  retain  power  of 
mind  and  strength  to  reduce  the  mass  into  a  digested  whole. 
I  have  sometimes  thought  that  I  would  try,  but  dread  the 
attempt.  .  .  ." 


1876.]  GEOLOGY.  389 

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

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

It  may  have  been  the  revival  of  geological  speculation, 
due  to  the  revision  of  his  early  books,  that  led  to  his  recording 
the  observations  of  which  some  account  is  given  in  the  fol- 
lowing letter.  Part  of  it  has  been  published  in  Professor 
James  Geikie's  '  Prehistoric  Europe/  chaps,  vii.  and  ix.,*  a 
few  verbal  alterations  having  been  made  at  my  father's  re- 
quest in  the  passages  quoted.  Mr.  Geikie  lately  wrote  to  me  : 
"  The  views  suggested  in  his  letter  as  to  the  origin  of  the 

*  My  father's  suggestion  is  also  noticed  in  Prof.  Geikie's  address  on  the 
*  Ice  Age  in  Europe  and  North  America/  given  at  Edinburgh,  Nov.  20, 
1884. 


390  MISCELLANEA.  [1876. 

angular  gravels,  &c,  in  the  South  of  England  will,  I  believe, 
come  to  be  accepted  as  the  truth.  This  question  has  a  much 
wider  bearing  than  might  at  first  appear.  In  point  of  fact 
it  solves  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  in  Quaternary 
Geology — and  has  already  attracted  the  attention  of  German 
geologists/'] 

C.  Darwin  to  James  Geikie. 

Down,  November  16,  1876. 

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

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

The  coarse  stratification  has  sometimes  been  disturbed. 
I  find  that  you  allude  "  to  the  larger  stones  often  standing  on 
end  ;  "  and  this  is  the  point  which  struck  me  so  much.  Not 
only  moderately  sized  angular  stones,  but  small  oval  pebbles 
often  stand  vertically  up,  in  a  manner  which  I  have  never 
seen  in  ordinary  gravel  beds.  This  fact  reminded  me  of  what 
occurs  near  my  home,  in  the  stiff  red  clay,  full  of  unworn 
flints  over  the  chalk,  which  is  no  doubt  the  residue  left  un- 
dissolved by  rain  water.  In  this  clay,  flints  as  long  and  thin 
as  my  arm  often  stand  perpendicularly  up ;  and  I  have  been 
told  by  the  tank- diggers  that  it  is  their ." natural  position!  " 


1876.]  GEOLOGY.  39I 

I  presume  that  this  position  may  safely  be  attributed  to  the 
differential  movement  of  parts  of  the  red  clay  as  it  subsided 
very  slowly  from  the  dissolution  of  the  underlying  chalk;  so 
that  the  flints  arrange  themselves  in  the  lines  of  least  resist- 
ance. The  similar  but  less  strongly  marked  arrangement  of 
the  stones  in  the  drift  near  Southampton  makes  me  suspect 
that  it  also  must  have  slowly  subsided  ;  and  the  notion  has 
crossed  my  mind  that  during  the  commencement  and  height 
of  the  glacial  period  great  beds  of  frozen  snow  accumulated 
over  the  south  of  England,  and  that,  during  the  summer, 
gravel  and  stones  were  washed  from  the  higher  land  over  its 
surface,  and  in  superficial  channels.  The  larger  streams  may 
have  cut  right  through  the  frozen  snow,  and  deposited  gravel 
in  lines  at  the  bottom.  But  on  each  succeeding  autumn, 
when  the  running  water  failed,  I  imagine  that  the  lines  of 
drainage  would  have  been  filled  up  by  blown  snow  afterwards 
congealed,  and  that,  owing  to  great  surface  accumulations  of 
snow,  it  would  be  a  mere  chance  whether  the  drainage,  to- 
gether with  gravel  and  sand,  would  follow  the  same  lines  dur- 
ing the  next  summer.  Thus,  as  I  apprehend,  alternate  layers 
of  frozen  snow  and  drift,  in  sheets  and  lines,  would  ultimate- 
ly have  covered  the  country  to  a  great  thickness,  with  lines 
of  drift  probably  deposited  in  various  directions  at  the  bot- 
tom by  the  larger  streams.  As  the  climate  became  warmer, 
the  lower  beds  of  frozen  snow  would  have  melted  with  ex- 
treme slowness,  and  the  many  irregular  beds  of  interstrati- 
fied  drift  would  have  sunk  down  with  equal  slowness  ;  and 
during  this  movement  the  elongated  pebbles  would  have  ar- 
ranged themselves  more  or  less  vertically.  The  drift  would 
also  have  been  deposited  almost  irrespective  of  the  outline 
of  the  underlying  land.  When  I  viewed  the  country  I  could 
not  persuade  myself  that  any  flood,  however  great,  could 
have  deposited  such  coarse  gravel  over  the  almost  level 
platforms  between  the  valleys.  My  view  differs  from  that  of 
Hoist,  p.  415  ['  Great  Ice  Age '],  of  which  I  had  never  heard, 
as  his  relates  to  channels  cut  through  glaciers,  and,  mine  to 
beds  of  drift  interstratified  with  frozen  snow  where   no  gla- 


392  MISCELLANEA.  [1876. 

ciers  existed.  The  upshot  of  this  long  letter  is  to  ask  you  to 
keep  my  notion  in  your  head,  and  look  out  for  upright  peb- 
bles in  any  lowland  country  which  you  may  examine,  where 
glaciers  have  not  existed.  Or  if  you  think  the  notion  de- 
serves any  further  thought,  but  not  otherwise,  to  tell  any  one 
of  it,  for  instance  Mr.  Skertchly,  who  is  examining  such  dis- 
tricts. Pray  forgive  me  for  writing  so  long  a  letter,  and 
again  thanking  you  for  the  great  pleasure  derived  from  your 
book, 

I  remain  yours  very  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.S.  ...  I  am  glad  that  you  have  read  Blytt ;  *  his  paper 
seemed  to  me  a  most  important  contribution  to  Botanical 
Geography.  How  curious  that  the  same  conclusions  should 
have  been  arrived  at  by  Mr.  Skertchly,  who  seems  to  be  a 
first-rate  observer ;  and  this  implies,  as  I  always  think,  a 
sound  theoriser. 

I  have  told  my  publisher  to  send  you  in  two  or  three  days 
a  copy  (second  edition)  of  my  geological  work  during  the 
voyage  of  the  Beagle,  The  sole  point  which  would  perhaps 
interest  you  is  about  the  steppe-like  plains  of  Patagonia. 

For  many  years  past  I  have  had  fearful  misgivings  that  it 
must  have  been  the  level  of  the  sea,  and  not  that  of  the  land 
which  has  changed. 

I  read  a  few  months  ago  your  [brother's]  very  interesting 
life  of  Murchison.f  Though  I  have  always  thought  that  he 
ranked  next  to  W.  Smith  in  the  classification  of  formations, 
and  though  I  knew  how  kind-hearted  [he  was],  yet  the  book 
has  raised  him  greatly  in  my  respect,  notwithstanding  his 
foibles  and  want  of  broad  philosophical  views. 

[The  only  other  geological  work  of  his  later  years  was 
embodied  in  his   book   on  earthworms  (1881),  which   may 

*  Axel  Blytt. — '  Essay  on  the  Immigration  of  the  Norwegian  Flora 
during  alternate  rainy  and  dry  Seasons.'     Christiania,  1876. 
f  By  Mr.  Archibald  Geikie. 


1877]  WORMS.  393 

therefore  be  conveniently  considered  in  this  place.  This 
subject  was  one  which  had  interested  him  many  years  before 
this  date,  and  in  1838  a  paper  on  the  formation  of  mould 
was  published  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Geological  Society 
(see  vol.  i.  p.  255). 

Here  he  showed  that  "  fragments  of  burnt  marl,  cinders, 
&c,  which  had  been  thickly  strewed  over  the  surface  of  sev- 
eral meadows  were  found  after  a  few  years  lying  at  a  depth 
of  some  inches  beneath  the  turf,  but  still  forming  a  layer." 
For  the  explanation  of  this  fact,  which  forms  the  central  idea 
of  the  geological  part  of  the  book,  he  was  indebted  to  his 
uncle  Josiah  Wedgwood,  who  suggested  that  worms,  by  bring- 
ing earth  to  the  surface  in  their  castings,  must  undermine 
any  objects  lying  on  the  surface  and  cause  an  apparent 
sinking. 

In  the  book  of  1881  he  extended  his  observations  on  this 
burying  action,  and  devised  a  number  of  different  ways  of 
checking  his  estimates  as  to  the  amount  of  work  done.*  He 
also  added  a  mass  of  observations  on  the  habits,  natural  his- 
tory and  intelligence  of  worms,  a  part  of  the  work  which 
added  greatly  to  its  popularity. 

In  1877  Sir  Thomas  Farrer  had  discovered  close  to  his 
garden  the  remains  of  a  building  of  Roman-British  times, 
and  thus  gave  my  father  the  opportunity  of  seeing  for  him- 
self the  effects  produced  by  earthworms'  work  on  the  old 
concrete-floors,  walls,  &c.  On  his  return  he  wrote  to  Sir 
Thomas  Farrer  : — 

"  I  cannot  remember  a  more  delightful  week  than  the  last. 
I  know  very  well  that  E.  will  not  believe  me,  but  the  worms 
were  by  no  means  the  sole  charm." 

*  He  received  much  valuable  help  from  Dr.  King,  of  the  Botanical 
Gardens,  Calcutta.  The  following  passage  is  from  a  letter  to  Dr.  King, 
dated  January  18,  1873  : — 

"  I  really  do  not  know  how  to  thank  you  enough  for  the  immense 
trouble  which  you  have  taken.  You  have  attended  exactly  and  fully  to 
the  points  about  which  I  was  most  anxious.  If  I  had  been  each  evening 
by  your  side,  I  could  not  have  suggested  anything  else." 


394  MISCELLANEA.  [1877. 

In  the  autumn  of  1880,  when  the  *  Power  of  Movement 
in  Plants '  was  nearly  finished,  he  began  once  more  on  the 
subject.     He  wrote  to  Professor  Cams  (September  21)  : — 

"  In  the  intervals  of  correcting  the  press,  I  am  writing  a 
very  little  book,  and  have  done  nearly  half  of  it.  Its  title 
will  be  (as  at  present  designed)  *  The  Formation  of  Vegetable 
Mould  through  the  Action  of  Worms.'*  As  far  as  I  can 
judge  it  will  be  a  curious  little  book/' 

The  manuscript  was  sent  to  the  printers  in  April,  1881, 
and  when  the  proof-sheets  were  coming  in  he  wrote  to  Pro- 
fessor Cams  :  "  The  subject  has  been  to  me  a  hobby-horse, 
and  I  have  perhaps  treated  it  in  foolish  detail." 

It  was  published  on  October  10,  and  2000  copies  were 
sold  at  once.  He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  "  I  am  glad  that 
you  approve  of  the  *  Worms/  When  in  old  days  I  used  to 
tell  you  whatever  I  was  doing,  if  you  were  at  all  interested,  I 
always  felt  as  most  men  do  when  their  work  is  finally  pub- 
lished/' 

To  Mr.  Mellard  Reade  he  wrote  (November  8) :  "  It  has 
been  a  complete  surprise  to  me  how  many  persons  have  cared 
for  the  subject."  And  to  Mr.  Dyer  (in  November)  :  "  My 
book  has  been  received  with  almost  laughable  enthusiasm, 
and  3500  copies  have  been  sold  !  !  !  "  Again,  to  his  friend 
Mr.  Anthony  Rich,  he  wrote  on  February  4,  1882,  "I  have 
been  plagued  with  an  endless  stream  of  letters  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  most  of  them  very  foolish  and  enthusiastic ;  but  some 
containing  good  facts  which  I  have  used  in  correcting  yes- 
terday the  i  Sixth  Thousand.'  "  The  popularity  of  the  book 
may  be  roughly  estimated  by  the  fact  that,  in  the  three  years 
following  its  publication,  8500  copies  were  sold — a  sale  rela- 
tively greater  than  that  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species.' 

It  is  not  difficult  to  account  for  its  success  with  the  non- 
scientific  public.  Conclusions  so  wide  and  so  novel,  and  so 
easily  understood,  drawn  from  the  study  of  creatures  so  fa- 

*  The  full  title  is  '  The  Formation  of  Vegetable  Mould  through  the 
Action  of  Worms  with  Observations  on  their  Habits,'  1881. 


1879.]  ERASMUS  DARWIN.  395 

miliar,  and  treated  with  unabated  vigor  and  freshness,  may 
well  have  attracted  many  readers.  A  reviewer  remarks  :  "  In 
the  eyes  of  most  men  .  .  .  the  earthworm  is  a  mere  blind, 
dumb,  senseless,  and  unpleasantly  slimy  annelid.  Mr.  Darwin 
undertakes  to  rehabilitate  his  character,  and  the  earthworm 
steps  forth  at  once  as  an  intelligent  and  beneficent  person- 
age, a  worker  of  vast  geological  changes,  a  planer  down  of 
mountain  sides.  ...  a  friend  of  man.  .  .  and  an  ally  of  the 
Society  for  the  preservation  of  ancient  monuments.,,  The  St. 
James's  Gazette,  October  17,  1881,  pointed  out  that  the  teach- 
ing of  the  cumulative  importance  of  the  infinitely  little  is  the 
point  of  contact  between  this  book  and  the  author's  previous 
work. 

One  more  book  remains  to  be  noticed,  the  '  Life  of  Eras- 
mus Darwin.' 

In  February  1879  an  essay  by  Dr.  Ernst  Krause,  on  the 
scientific  work  of  Erasmus  Darwin,  appeared  in  the  evolu- 
tionary journal,  '  Kosmos.'  The  number  of  '  Kosmos '  in 
question  was  a  "  Gratulationsheft,"  *  or  special  congratulatory 
issue  in  honour  of  my  father's  birthday,  so  that  Dr.  Krause's 
essay,  glorifying  the  older  evolutionist,  was  quite  in  its  place. 
He  wrote  to  Dr.  Krause,  thanking  him  cordially  for  the  hon- 
our paid  to  Erasmus,  and  asking  his  permission  to  publish  \ 
an  English  translation  of  the  Essay. 

His  chief  reason  for  writing  a  notice  of  his  grandfather's 
life  was  "  to  contradict  flatly  some  calumnies  by  Miss  Sew- 
ard." This  appears  from  a  letter  of  March  27,  1879,  to  his 
cousin  Reginald  Darwin,  in  which  he  asks  for  any  documents 
and  letters  which  might  throw  light  on  the  character  of  Eras- 
mus. This  led  to  Mr.  Reginald  Darwin  placing  in  my  father's 
hands  a  quantity  of  valuable  material,  including  a  curious 

*  The  same  number  contains  a  good  biographical  sketch  of  my  father, 
of  which  the  material  was  to  a  large  extent  supplied  by  him  to  the  writer, 
Professor  Preyer  of  Jena.  The  article  contains  an  excellent  list  of  my 
father's  publications. 

f  The  wish  to  do  so  was  shared  by  his  brother,  Erasmus  Darwin  the 
younger,  who  continued  to  be  associated  with  the  project. 
62 


396  MISCELLANEA.  [1879. 

folio  common-place  book,  of  which  he  wrote  :  "  I  have  been 
deeply  interested  by  the  great  book,  ....  reading  and  look- 
ing at  it  is  like  having  communion  with  the  dead  ....  [it] 
has  taught  me  a  good  d  al  about  the  occupations  and  tastes 
of  our  grandfather.,,  A  subsequent  letter  (April  8)  to  the 
same  correspondent  describes  the  source  of  a  further  supply 
of  material  : — 

"  Since  my  last  letter  I  have  made  a  strange  discovery  ; 
for  an  old  box  from  my  father  marked  "  Old  Deeds,"  and 
which  consequently  I  had  never  opened,  I  found  full  of  let- 
ters— hundreds  from  Dr.  Erasmus — and  others  from  old  mem- 
bers of  the  Family  :  some  few  very  curious.  Also  a  drawing 
of  Elston  before  it  was  altered,  about  1750,  of  which  I  think 
I  will  give  a  copy/' 

Dr.  Krause's  contribution  formed  the  second  part  of  the 
*  Life  of  Erasmus  Darwin/  my  father  supplying  a  "  prelimi- 
nary notice. "  This  expression  on  the  title-page  is  somewhat 
misleading  ;  my  father's  contribution  is  more  than  half  the 
book,  and  should  have  been  described  as  a  biography.  Work 
of  this  kind  was  new  to  him,  and  he  wrote  doubtfully  to  Mr. 
Thiselton  Dyer,  June  18th  :  "  God  only  knows  what  I  shall 
make  of  his  life,  it  is  such  a  new  kind  of  work  to  me."  The 
strong  interest  he  felt  about  his  forebears  helped  to  give  zest 
to  the  work,  which  became  a  decided  enjoyment  to  him. 
With  the  general  public  the  book  was  not  markedly  success- 
ful, but  many  of  his  friends  recognised  its  merits.  Sir  J.  D. 
Hooker  was  one  of  these,  and  to  him  my  father  wrote,  "  Your 
praise  of  the  Life  of  Dr.  D.  has  pleased  me  exceedingly,  for  I 
despised  my  work,  and  thought  myself  a  perfect  fool  to  have 
undertaken  such  a  job." 

To  Mr.  Galton,  too,  he  wrote,  November  14 : — 

"  I  am  extremely  glad  that  you  approve  of  the  little  '  Life  ' 
of  our  grandfather,  for  I  have  been  repenting  that  I  ever  un- 
dertook it,  as  the  work  was  quite  beyond  my  tether." 

The  publication  of  the  '  Life  of  Erasmus  Darwin  '  led  to 
an  attack  by  Mr.  Samuel  Butler,  which  amounted  to  a  charge 
of  falsehood  against  my  father.     After  consulting  his  friends, 


i88o.]  ERASMUS  DARWIN.  397 

he  came  to  the  determination  to  leave  the  charge  unanswered, 
as  unworthy  of  his  notice.*  Those  who  wish  to  know  more 
of  the  matter,  may  gather  the  facts  of  the  case  from  Ernst 
Krause's  *  Charles  Darwin/  and  they  will  find  Mr.  Butler's 
statement  of  his  grievance  in  the  Athenceuni,  January  31,  1880, 
and  in  the  St.  James's  Gazette \  December  8,  1880.  The  affair 
gave  my  father  much  pain,  but  the  warm  sympathy  of  thooe 
whose  opinion  he  respected  soon  helped  him  to  let  it  pass 
into  a  well-merited  oblivion. 

The  following  letter  refers  to  M.  J.  H.  Fabre's  '  Souvenirs 
Entomologiques.'  It  may  find  a  place  here,  as  it  contains  a 
defence  of  Erasmus  Darwin  on  a  small  point.  The  postscript 
is  interesting,  as  an  example  of  one  of  my  father's  bold  ideas 
both  as  to  experiment  and  theory  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  H.  Fabre. 

Down,  January  31,  1880. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  hope  that  you  will  permit  me  to  have 
the  satisfaction  of  thanking  you  cordially  for  the  lively  pleas- 
ure which  I  have  derived  from  reading  your  book.  Never 
have  the  wonderful  habits  of  insects  been  more  vividly  de- 
scribed, and  it  is  almost  as  good  to  read  about  them  as  to 
see  them.  I  feel  sure  that  you  would  not  be  unjust  to  even 
an  insect,  much  less  to  a  man.  Now,  you  have  been  misled 
by  some  translator,  for  my  grandfather,  Erasmus  Darwin, 
states  ('Zoonomia,'  vol.  i.  p.  183,  1794)  that  it  was  a  wasp 
(guepe)  which  he  saw  cutting  off  the  wings  of  a  large  fly.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  you  are  right  in  saying  that  the  wings  are 
generally  cut  off  instinctively  ;  but  in  the  case  described  by 
my  grandfather,  the  wasp,  after  cutting  off  the  two  ends  of 
the  body,  rose  in  the  air,  and  was  turned  round  by  the  wind ; 
he  then  alighted  and  cut  off  the  wings.  I  must  believe,  with 
Pierre  Huber,  that  insects  have  "  une  petite  dose  de  raison." 

*  He  had,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Butler,  expressed  his  regret  at  the  over- 
sight  which  caused  so  much  offence. 


398  MISCELLANEA.  [1880. 

In  the  next  edition  of  your  book,  I  hope  that  you  will  alter 
part  of  what  you  say  about  my  grandfather. 

I  am  sorry  that  you  are  so  strongly  opposed  to  the  Descent 
theory  ;  I  have  found  the  searching  for  the  history  of  each 
structure  or  instinct  an  excellent  aid  to  observation ;  and 
wonderful  observer  as  you  are,  it  would  suggest  new  points 
to  you.  If  I  were  to  write  on  the  evolution  of  instincts.  I 
could  make  good  use  of  some  of  the  facts  which  you  give. 
Permit  me  to  add,  that  when  I  read  the  last  sentence  in  your 
book,  I  sympathised  deeply  with  you.* 

With  the  most  sincere  respect, 

I  remain,  dear  Sir,  yours  faithfully, 
Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — Allow  me  to  make  a  suggestion  in  relation  to  your 
wonderful  account  of  insects  finding  their  way  home.  I  for- 
merly wished  to  try  it  with  pigeons  :  namely,  to  carry  the 
insects  in  their  paper  "  cornets,"  about  a  hundred  paces  in  the 
opposite  direction  to  that  which  you  ultimately  intended  to 
carry  them ;  but  before  turning  round  to  return,  to  put  the 
insect  in  a  circular  box,  with  an  axle  which  could  be  made  to 
revolve  very  rapidly,  first  in  one  direction,  and  then  in 
another,  so  as  to  destroy  for  a  time  all  sense  of  direction  in 
the  insects.  I  have  sometimes  imagined  that  animals  may 
feel  in  which  direction  they  were  at  the  first  start  carried. \ 
If  this  plan  failed,  I  had  intended  placing  the  pigeons  within 


*  The  book  is  intended  as  a  memorial  of  the  early  death  of  M.  Fabre's 
son,  who  had  been  his  father's  assistant  in  his  observations  on  insect 
life. 

+  This  idea  was  a  favourite  one  with  him,  and  he  has  described  in 
1  Nature'  (vol.  vii.  1873,  p.  360)  the  behaviour  of  his  cob  Tommy,  in  whom 
he  fancied  he  detected  a  sense  of  direction.  The  horse  had  been  taken  by 
rail  from  Kent  to  the  Isle  of  Wight ;  when  there  he  exhibited  a  marked 
desire  to  go  eastward,  even  when  his  stable  lay  in  the  opposite  direction. 
In  the  same  volume  of  '  Nature,'  p.  417,  is  a  letter  on  the  '  Origin  of 
Certain  Instincts,'  which  contains  a  short  discussion  on  the  sense  of  di- 
rection. 


i88o.]  PORTRAITS.  399 

an  induction  coil,  so  as  to  disturb  any  magnetic  or  dia-mag- 
netic  sensibility,  which  it  seems  just  possible  that  they  may 
possess.  C.  D. 

[During  the  latter  years  of  my  father's  life  there  was  a 
growing  tendency  in  the  public  to  do  him  honour.  In  1877 
he  received  the  honorary  degree  of  LL.D.  from  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge.  The  degree  was  conferred  on  November 
17,  and  with  the  customary  Latin  speech  from  the  Public 
Orator,  concluding  with  the  words  :  "  Tu  vero,  qui  leges  na- 
turae tarn  docte  illustraveris,  legum  doctor  nobis  esto." 

The  honorary  degree  led  to  a  movement  being  set  on  foot 
in  the  University  to  obtain  some  permanent  memorial  of  my 
father.  A  sum  of  about  ^400  was  subscribed,  and  after  the 
rejection  of  the  idea  that  a  bust  would  be  the  best  memorial, 
a  picture  was  determined  on.  In  June  1879  he  sat  to  Mr. 
W.  Richmond  for  the  portrait  in  the  possession  of  the  Uni- 
versity, now  placed  in  the  Library  of  the  philosophical  So- 
ciety at  Cambridge.  He  is  represented  seated  in  his  Doctor's 
gown,  the  head  turned  towards  the  spectator  :  the  picture  has 
many  admirers,  but,  according  to  my  own  view,  neither  the 
attitude  nor  the  expression  are  characteristic  of  my  father. 

A  similar  wish  on  the  part  of  the  Linnean  Society — with 
which  my  father  was  so  closely  associated — led  to  his  sitting 
in  August,  1881,  to  Mr.  John  Collier,  for  the  portrait  now  in 
the  possession  of  the  Society.  Of  the  artist,  he  wrote, 
"  Collier  was  the  most  considerate,  kind  and  pleasant  painter 
a  sitter  could  desire."  The  portrait  represents  him  standing 
facing  the  observer  in  the  loose  cloak  so  familiar  to  those  who 
knew  him,  and  with  his  slouch  hat  in  his  hand.  Many  of 
those  who  knew  his  face  most  intimately,  think  that  Mr. 
Collier's  picture  is  the  best  of  the  portraits,  and  in  this  judg- 
ment the  sitter  himself  was  inclined  to  agree.  According  to 
my  feeling  it  is  not  so  simple  or  strong  a  representation  of 
him  as  that  given  by  Mr.  Ouless.  There  is  a  certain  expres- 
sion in  Mr.  Collier's  portrait  which  I  am  inclined  to  consider 
an   exaggeration  of    the   almost   painful    expression   which 


400  MISCELLANEA.  [1880. 

Professor  Cohn  has  described  in  my  father's  face,  and  which 
he  had  previously  noticed  in  Humboldt.  Professor  Cohn's 
remarks  occur  in  a  pleasantly  written  account  of  a  visit  to 
Down*  in  1876,  published  in  the  Breslauer  Zeitung,  April  23, 
1882. 

Besides  the  Cambridge  degree,  he  received  about  the  same 
time  honours  of  an  academic  kind  from  some  foreign  socie- 
ties. 

On  August  5,  1878,  he  was  elected  a  Corresponding  Mem- 
ber of  the  French  Institute  f  in  the  Botanical  Section,  %  and 
wrote  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray  : — 

"  I  see  that  we  are  both  elected  Corresponding  Members 

*  In  this  connection  may  be  mentioned  a  visit  (1881)  from  another  dis- 
tinguished German,  Hans  Richter.  The  occurrence  is  otherwise  worthy 
of  mention,  inasmuch  as  it  led  to  the  publication,  after  my  father's  death, 
of  Herr  Richter's  recollections  of  the  visit.  The  sketch  is  simply  and  sym- 
pathetically written,  and  the  author  has  succeeded  in  giving  a  true  picture 
of  my  father  as  he  lived  at  Down.  It  appeared  in  the  Neue  Tagblatt  of 
Vienna,  and  was  republished  by  Dr.  O.  Zacharias  in  his  *  Charles  R.  Dar- 
win,' Berlin,  1882. 

f  "  Lyell  always  spoke  of  it  as  a  great  scandal  that  Darwin  was  so  long 
kept  out  of  the  French  Institute.  As  he  said,  even  if  the  development 
hypothesis  were  objected  to,  Darwin's  original  works  on  Coral  Reefs,  the 
Cirripedia,  and  other  subjects,  constituted  a  more  than  sufficient  claim." — 
From  Professor  Judd's  notes. 

%  The  statement  has  been  more  than  once  published  that  he  was 
elected  to  the  Zoological  Section,  but  this  was  not  the  case. 

He  received  twenty-six  votes  out  of  a  possible  39,  five  blank  papers 
were  sent  in,  and  eight  votes  were  recorded  for  the  other  candidates. 

In  1872  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  elect  him  to  the  Section  of  Zo- 
ology, when,  however,  he  only  received  15  out  of  48  votes,  and  Loven  was 
chosen  for  the  vacant  place.  It  appears  ('  Nature,'  August  1,  1872)  that 
an  eminent  member  of  the  Academy  wrote  to  Les  Mondes  to  the  follow- 
ing effect : — 

"  What  has  closed  the  doors  of  the  Academy  to  Mr.  Darwin  is  that  the 
science  of  those  of  his  books  which  have  made  his  chief  title  to  fame — the 
'Origin  of  Species,'  and  still  more  the  'Descent  of  Man,'  is  not  science, 
but  a  mass  of  assertions  and  absolutely  gratuitous  hypotheses,  often  evi- 
dently fallacious.  This  kind  of  publication  and  these  theories  are  a  bad 
example,  which  a  body  that  respects  itself  cannot  encourage." 


i88i.]  BRESSA   PRIZE.  401 

of  the  Institute.  It  is  rather  a  good  joke  that  I  should  be 
elected  in  the  Botanical  Section,  as  the  extent  of  my  knowl- 
edge is  little  more  than  that  a  daisy  is  a  Compositous  plant 
and  a  pea  a  Leguminous  one.,, 

In  the  early  part  of  the  same  year  he  was  elected  a  Corre- 
sponding Member  of  the  Berlin  Academy  of  Sciences,  and  he 
wrote  (March  12)  to  Professor  Du  Bois  Reymond,  who  had 
proposed  him  for  election  : — 

"  I  thank  you  sincerely  for  your  most  kind  letter,  in  which 
you  announce  the  great  honour  conferred  on  me.  The 
knowledge  of  the  names  of  the  illustrious  men,  who  seconded 
the  proposal  is  even  a  greater  pleasure  to  me  than  the  honour 
itself." 

The  seconders  were  Helmholtz,  Peters,  Ewald,  Pringsheim 
and  Virchow. 

In  1879  he  received  the  Baly  Medal  of  the  Royal  College 
of  Physicians.* 

Again  in  1879  he  received  from  the  Royal  Academy  of 
Turin  the  Bressa  Prize  for  the  years  1875-78,  amounting  to 
the  sum  of  12,000  francs.  In  the  following  year  he  received 
on  his  birthday,  as  on  previous  occasions,  a  kind  letter  of 
congratulation  from  Dr.  Dohrn  of  Naples.  In  writing  (Feb- 
ruary 15th)  to  thank  him  and  the  other  naturalists  at  the 
Zoological  Station,  my  father  added  : — 

"Perhaps  you  saw  in  the  papers  that  the  Turin  Society 
honoured  me  to  an  extraordinary  degree  by  awarding  me 
the  Bressa  Prize.     Now  it  occurred  to  me  that  if  your  station 


*  The  visit  to  London,  necessitated  by  the  presentation  of  the  Baly 
Medal,  was  combined  with  a  visit  to  Miss  Forster's  house  at  Abinger,  in 
Surrey,  and  this  was  the  occasion  of  the  following  characteristic  letter : — 
"  I  must  write  a  few  words  to  thank  you  cordially  for  lending  us  your 
house.  It  was  a  most  kind  thought,  and  has  pleased  me  greatly ;  but  I 
know  well  that  I  do  not  deserve  such  kindness  from  any  one.  On  the 
other  hand,  no  one  can  be  too  kind  to  my  dear  wife,  who  is  worth  her 
weight  in  gold  many  times  over,  and  she  was  anxious  that  I  should  get 
some  complete  rest,  and  here  I  cannot  rest.  Your  house  will  be  a  delight- 
ful haven,  and  again  I  thank  you  truly." 


402  MISCELLANEA.  [1881. 

wanted  some  pieces  of  apparatus,  of  about  the  value  of  ^100, 
I  should  very  much  like  to  be  allowed  to  pay  for  it.  Will 
you  be  so  kind  as  to  keep  this  in  mind,  and  if  any  want 
should  occur  to  you,  I  would  send  you  a  cheque  at  any  time.,, 

I  find  from  my  father's  accounts  that  ^100  was  presented 
to  the  Naples  Station. 

He  received  also  several  tokens  of  respect  and  sympathy 
of  a  more  private  character  from  various  sources.  With  re- 
gard to  such  incidents  and  to  the  estimation  of  the  public 
generally,  his  attitude  may  be  illustrated  by  a  passage  from  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Romanes  : — * 

"You  have  indeed  passed  a  most  magnificent  eulogium 
upon  me,  and  I  wonder  that  you  were  not  afraid  of  hearing 
'oh  !  oh!  '  or  some  other  sign  of  disapprobation.  Many  per- 
sons think  that  what  I  have  done  in  science  has  been  much 
overrated,  and  I  very  often  think  so  myself ;  but  my  comfort 
is  that  I  have  never  consciously  done  anything  to  gain  ap- 
plause.    Enough  and  too  much  about  my  dear  self." 

Among  such  expressions  of  regard  he  valued  very  highly 
the  two  photographic  albums  received  from  Germany  and 
Holland  on  his  birthday,  1877.  Herr  Emil  Rade  of  Minister, 
originated  the  idea  of  the  German  birthday  gift,  and  under- 
took the  necessary  arrangements.  To  him  my  father  wrote 
(February  16,  1877)  : — 

"  I  hope  that  you  will  inform  the  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
four  men  of  science,  including  some  of  the  most  highly  hon- 
oured names  in  the  world,  how  grateful  I  am  for  their  kind- 
ness and  generous  sympathy  in  having  sent  me  their  photo- 
graphs on  my  birthday." 

To  Professor  Haeckel  he  wrote  (February  16,  1877)  : — 

"  The  album  has  just  arrived  quite  safe.  It  is  most  su- 
perb, f     It  is  by  far  the  greatest  honour  which  I  have  ever  re- 

*  The  lecture  referred  to  was  given  at  the  Dublin  meeting  of  the  Brit- 
ish Association. 

f  The  album  is  magnificently  bound  and  decorated  with  a  beautifully 
illuminated  title  page,  the  work  of  an  artist,  Herr  A.  Fitger  of  Bremen, 
who  also  contributed  the  dedicatory  poem. 


1881.]  BIRTHDAY   GIFTS.  403 

ceived,  and  my  satisfaction  has  been  greatly  enhanced  by 
your  most  kind  letter  of  February  9.  ...  I  thank  you  all 
from  my  heart.  I  have  written  by  this  post  to  Herr  Rade, 
and  I  hope  he  will  somehow  manage  to  thank  all  my  generous 
friends." 

To  Professor  A.  van  Bemmelen  he  wrote,  on  receiving  a 
similar  present  from  a  number  of  distinguished  men  and 
lovers  of  Natural  History  in  the  Netherlands : — 

"Sir, — I  received  yesterday  the  magnificent  present  of 
the  album,  together  with  your  letter.  I  hope  that  you  will 
endeavour  to  find  some  means  to  express  to  the  two  hundred 
and  seventeen  distinguished  observers  and  lovers  of  natural 
science,  who  have  sent  me  their  photographs,  my  gratitude 
for  their  extreme  kindness.  I  feel  deeply  gratified  by  this 
gift,  and  I  do  not  think  that  any  testimonial  more  honourable 
to  me  could  have  been  imagined.  I  am  well  aware  that  my 
books  could  never  have  been  written,  and  would  not  have 
made  any  impression  on  the  public  mind,  had  not  an  immense 
amount  of  material  been  collected  by  a  long  series  of  admir- 
able observers  ;  and  it  is  to  them  that  honour  is  chiefly  due. 
I  suppose  that  every  worker  at  science  occasionally  feels  de- 
pressed, and  doubts  whether  what  he  has  published  has  been 
worth  the  labour  which  it  has  cost  him,  but  for  the  few  re- 
maining years  of  my  life,  whenever  I  want  cheering,  I  will 
look  at  the  portraits  of  my  distinguished  co-workers  in  the 
field  of  science,  and  remember  their  generous  sympathy. 
When  I  die,  the  album  will  be  a  most  precious  bequest  to  my 
children.  I  must  further  express  my  obligation  for  the  very 
interesting  history  contained  in  your  letter  of  the  progress  of 
opinion  in  the  Netherlands,  with  respect  to  Evolution,  the 
whole  of  which  is  quite  new  to  me.  I  must  again  thank  all 
my  kind  friends,  from  my  heart,  for  their  ever-memorable 
testimonial,  and  I  remain,  Sir, 

Your  obliged  and  grateful  servant, 

Charles  R.  Darwin." 

[In  the  June  of  the  following  year  (1878)  he  was  gratified 


404  MISCELLANEA.  [1882. 

by  learning  that  the  Emperor  of  Brazil  had  expressed  a  wish 
to  meet  him.  Owing  to  absence  from  home  my  father  was 
unable  to  comply  with  this  wish  ;  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D. 
Hooker  : — 

"  The  Emperor  has  done  so  much  for  science,  that  every 
scientific  man  is  bound  to  show  him  the  utmost  respect,  and 
I  hope  that  you  will  express  in  the  strongest  language,  and 
which  you  can  do  with  entire  truth,  how  greatly  I  feel  hon- 
oured by  his  wish  to  see  me ;  and  how  much  I  regret  my  ab- 
sence from  home.', 

Finally  it  should  be  mentioned  that  in  1880  he  received 
an  address  personally  presented  by  members  of  the  Council 
of  the  Birmingham  Philosophical  Society,  as  well  as  a  memo- 
rial from  the  Yorkshire  Naturalist  Union  presented  by  some 
of  the  members,  headed  by  Dr.  Sorby.  He  also  received  in 
the  same  year  a  visit  from  some  of  the  members  of  the  Lewis- 
ham  and  Blackheath  Scientific  Association, — a  visit  which 
was,  I  think,  enjoyed  by  both  guests  and  host.] 

MISCELLANEOUS    LETTERS — 1876-1882. 

[The  chief  incident  of  a  personal  kind  (not  already  dealt 
with)  in  the  years  which  we  are  now  considering  was  the 
death  of  his  brother  Erasmus,  who  died  at  his  house  in  Queen 
Anne  Street,  on  August  26th,  1881.  My  father  wrote  to  Sir 
J.  D.  Hooker  (Aug.  30)  : — 

"  The  death  of  Erasmus  is  a  very  heavy  loss  to  all  of  us, 
for  he  had  a  most  affectionate  disposition.  He  always  ap- 
peared to  me  the  most  pleasant  and  clearest  headed  man, 
whom  I  have  ever  known.  London  will  seem  a  strange  place 
to  me  without  his  presence ;  I  am  deeply  glad  that  he  died 
without  any  great  suffering,  after  a  very  short  illness  from 
mere  weakness  and  not  from  any  definite  disease.* 

"  I  cannot  quite  agree  with  you  about  the  death  of  the  old 

*  "  He  was  not,  I  think,  a  happy  man,  and  for  many  years  did  not 
value  life,  though  never  complaining." — From  a  letter  to  Sir  Thomas 
Farrer. 


1876.]  MR.  WALLACE.  405 

and  young.     Death  in  the  latter  case,  when  there  is  a  bright 
future  ahead,  causes  grief  never  to  be  wholly  obliterated." 

An  incident  of  a  happy  character  may  also  be  selected  for 
especial  notice,  since  it  was  one  which  strongly  moved  my 
father's  sympathy.  A  letter  (Dec.  17,  1879)  to  Sir  Joseph 
Hooker  shows  that  the  possibility  of  a  Government  Pension 
being  conferred  on  Mr.  Wallace  first  occurred  to  my  father  at 
this  time.  The  idea  was  taken  up  by  others,  and  my  father's 
letters  show  that  he  felt  the  most  lively  interest  in  the  success 
of  the  plan.  He  wrote,  for  instance,  to  Mrs.  Fisher,  "  I  hard- 
ly ever  wished  for  anything  more  than  I  do  for  the  success 
of  our  plan."  He  was  deeply  pleased  when  this  thoroughly 
deserved  honour  was  bestowed  on  his  friend,  and  wrote  to 
the  same  correspondent  (January  7,  1881),  on  receiving  a  let- 
ter from  Mr.  Gladstone  announcing  the  fact :  "  How  extraor- 
dinarily kind  of  Mr.  Gladstone  to  find  time  to  write  under 
the  present  circumstances.*  Good  heavens  !  how  pleased  I 
am!" 

The  letters  which  follow  are  of  a  miscellaneous  character 
and  refer  principally  to  the  books  he  read,  and  to  his  minor 
writings.] 

C.  Darwin  to  Miss  Buckley  {Mrs,  Fisher). 

Down,  February  II  [1876]. 

My  dear  Miss  Buckley, — You  must  let  me  have  the 
pleasure  of  saying  that  I  have  just  finished  reading  with  very 
great  interest  your  new  book.f  The  idea  seems  to  me  a 
capital  one,  and  as  far  as  I  can  judge  very  well  carried  out. 
There  is  much  fascination  in  taking  a  bird's  eye  view  of  all 
the  grand  leading  steps  in  the  progress  of  science.  At  first  I 
regretted  that  you  had  not  kept  each  science  more  separate  ; 
but  I  dare  say  you  found  it  impossible.     I  have  hardly  any 

*  Mr.  Gladstone  was  then  in  office,  and  the  letter  must  have  been  writ- 
ten when  he  was  overwhelmed  with  business  connected  with  the  opening 
of  Parliament  (Jan.  6). 

f  *  A  Short  History  of  Natural  Science.' 


4o6  MISCELLANEA.  [1876. 

criticisms,  except  that  I  think  you  ought  to  have  introduced 
Murchison  as  a  great  classifier  of  formations,  second  only  to 
W.  Smith.  You  have  done  full  justice,  and  not  more  than 
justice,  to  our  dear  old  master,  Lyell.  Perhaps  a  little  more 
ought  to  have  been  said  about  botany,  and  if  you  should  ever 
add  this,  you  would  find  Sachs*  '  History,'  lately  published, 
very  good  for  your  purpose. 

You  have  crowned  Wallace  and  myself  with  much  honour 
and  glory.  I  heartily  congratulate  you  on  having  produced 
so  novel  and  interesting  a  work,  and  remain, 

My  dear  Miss  Buckley,  yours  very  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  A.  R.  Wallace. 

[Hopedene]  *,  June  5,  1876. 
My  dear  Wallace, — I  must  have  the  pleasure  of  ex- 
pressing to  you  my  unbounded  admiration  of  your  book,f 
tho'  I  have  read  only  to  page  184 — my  object  having  been  to 
do  as  little  as  possible  while  resting.  I  feel  sure  that  you 
have  laid  a  broad  and  safe  foundation  for  all  future  work  on 
Distribution.  How  interesting  it  will  be  to  see  hereafter 
plants  treated  in  strict  relation  to  your  views  ;  and  then  all- 
insects,  pulmonate  molluscs  and  fresh-water  fishes,  in  greater 
detail  than  I  suppose  you  have  given  to  these  lower  animals. 
The  point  which  has  interested  me  most,  but  I  do  not  say  the 
most  valuable  point,  is  your  protest  against  sinking  imaginary 
continents  in  a  quite  reckless  manner,  as  was  stated  by  Forbes, 
followed,  alas,  by  Hooker,  and  caricatured  by  Wollaston  and 
[Andrew]  Murray  !  By  the  way,  the  main  impression  that 
the  latter  author  has  left  on  my  mind  is  his  utter  want  of  all 
scientific  judgment.  I  have  lifted  up  my  voice  against  the 
above  view  with  no  avail,  but  I  have  no  doubt  that  you  will 
succeed,  owing  to  your  new  arguments  and  the  coloured 
chart.     Of  a  special  value,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  conclusion 

*  Mr.  Hensleigh  Wedgwood's  house  in  Surrey. 
f  *  Geographical  Distribution/  1876. 


1876.]  GEOGRAPHICAL   DISTRIBUTION.  407 

that  we  must  determine  the  areas,  chiefly  by  the  nature  of  the 
mammals.  When  I  worked  many  years  ago  on  this  subject, 
I  doubted  much  whether  the  now  called  Palaearctic  and  Ne- 
arctic  regions  ought  to  be  separated  ;  and  I  determined  if  I 
made  another  region  that  it  should  be  Madagascar.  I  have, 
therefore,  been  able  to  appreciate  your  evidence  on  these 
points.  What  progress  Palaeontology  has  made  during  the 
last  20  years ;  but  if  it  advances  at  the  same  rate  in  the  future, 
our  views  on  the  migration  and  birth-place  of  the  various 
groups  will,  I  fear,  be  greatly  altered.  I  cannot  feel  quite 
easy  about  the  Glacial  period,  and  the  extinction  of  large 
mammals,  but  I  must  hope  that  you  are  right.  I  think  you 
will  have  to  modify  your  belief  about  the  difficulty  of  dispersal 
of  land  molluscs ;  I  was  interrupted  when  beginning  to  ex- 
perimentize  on  the  just  hatched  young  adhering  to  the  feet 
of  ground-roosting  birds.  I  differ  on  one  other  point,  viz. 
in  the  belief  that  there  must  have  existed  a  Tertiary  Ant- 
arctic continent,  from  which  various  forms  radiated  to  the 
southern  extremities  of  our  present  continents.  But  I  could 
go  on  scribbling  for  ever.  You  have  written,  as  I  believe,  a 
grand  and  memorable  work  which  will  last  for  years  as  the 
foundation  for  all  future  treatises  on  Geographical  Distribu- 
tion.    My  dear  Wallace,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — You  have  paid  me  the  highest  conceivable  com- 
pliment, by  what  you  say  of  your  work  in  relation  to  my 
chapters  on  distribution  in  the  '  Origin,'  and  I  heartily  thank 
you  foi  it. 

[The  following  letters  illustrate  my  father's  power  of  tak- 
ing a  vivid  interest  in  work  bearing  on  Evolution,  but  uncon- 
nected with  his  own  special  researches  at  the  time.  The 
books  referred  to  in  the  first  letter  are  Professor  Weismann's 
*  Studien  zur  Descendenzlehre,'  *  being  part  of  the  series  of 

*  My  father  contributed  a  prefatory  note  to  Mr.  Meldola's  translation 
of  Prof.  Weismann's  *  Studein,'  1880-81. 


408  MISCELLANEA.  [1876. 

essays  by  which  the  author  has  done  such  admirable  service 
to  the  cause  of  evolution  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Aug.  Weisniann. 

January  12,  1877. 

...  I  read  German  so  slowly,  and  have  had  lately  to  read 
several  other  papers,  so  that  I  have  as  yet  finished  only  half 
of  your  first  essay  and  two-thirds  of  your  second.  They 
have  excited  my  interest  and  admiration  in  the  highest  de- 
gree, and  whichever  I  think  of  last,  seems  to  me  the  most 
valuable.  I  never  expected  to  see  the  coloured  marks  on 
caterpillars  so  well  explained  ;  and  the  case  of  the  ocelli  de- 
lights me  especially.   .   .  . 

.  .  .  There  is  one  other  subject  which  has  always  seemed 
to  me  more  difficult  to  explain  than  even  the  colours  of  cater- 
pillars, and  that  is  the  colour  of  birds'  eggs,  and  I  wish  you 
would  take  this  up. 

C.  Darwin  to  Melchior  Newnayr*  Vienna. 

Down,  Beckenham,  Kent,  March  9,  1877. 

Dear  Sir, — From  having  been  obliged  to  read  other 
books,  I  finished  only  yesterday  your  essay  on  *  Die  Conge- 
rien,'  &c.f 

I  hope  that  you  will  allow  me  to  express  my  gratitude  for 
the  pleasure  and  instruction  which  I  have  derived  from  read- 
ing it.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  an  admirable  work  ;  and  is  by 
far  the  best  case  which  I  have  ever  met  with,  showing  the 
direct  influence  of  the  conditions  of  life  on  the  organization. 

Mr.  Hyatt,  who  has  been  studying  the  Hilgendorf  case, 
writes  to  me  with  respect  to  the  conclusions  at  which  he  has 
arrived,  and  these  are  nearly  the  same  as  yours.  He  insists 
that  closely  similar  forms  may  be  derived  from  distinct  lines 
of  descent ;  and  this  is  what  I  formerly  called  analogical 
variation.  There  can  now  be  no  doubt  that  species  may  be- 
come greatly  modified  through  the  direct  action  of  the  envi- 

*  Professor  of  Palaeontology  at  Vienna. 

f  '  Die  Congerien  und  Paludinenschichten  Slavoniens,'  4to,  1875. 


1877]  MR.  ALLEN'S   WORKS.  409 

ronment.  I  have  some  excuse  for  not  having  formerly  in- 
sisted more  strongly  on  this  head  in  my  i  Origin  of  Species,' 
as  most  of  the  best  facts  have  been  observed  since  its  publi- 
cation. 

With  my  renewed  thanks  for  your  most  interesting  essay, 
and  with  the  highest  respect,  I  remain,  dear  Sir, 

Yours  very  faithfully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  £.  S.  Morse. 

Down,  April  23,  1877. 

My  dear  Sir, — You  must  allow  me  just  to  tell  you  how 
very  much  I  have  been  interested  with  the  excellent  Address  * 
which  you  have  been  so  kind  as  to  send  me,  and  which  I  had 
much  wished  to  read.  I  believe  that  I  had  read  all,  or  very 
nearly  all,  the  papers  by  your  countrymen  to  which  you  refer, 
but  I  have  been  fairly  astonished  at  their  number  and  im- 
portance when  seeing  them  thus  put  together.  I  quite  agree 
about  the  high  value  of  Mr.  Allen's  works,  f  as  showing  how 
much  change  may  be  expected  apparently  through  the  direct 
action  of  the  conditions  of  life.  As  for  the  fossil  remains  in 
the  West,  no  words  will  express  how  wonderful  they  are. 
There  is  one  point  which  I  regret  that  you  did  not  make  clear 
in  your  Address,  namely  what  is  the  meaning  and  importance 
of  Professors  Cope  and  Hyatt's  views  on  acceleration  and 
retardation.  I  have  endeavoured,  and  given  up  in  despair, 
the  attempt  to  grasp  their  meaning. 

Permit  me  to  thank  you  cordially  for  the  kind  feeling 
shown  towards  me  through  your  Address,  and  I  remain,  my 
dear  Sir, 

Yours  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

*  "  What  American  Zoologists  have  done  for  Evolution,"  an  Address 
to  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  August, 
1876.     Vol.  xxv.  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Association. 

f  Mr.  J.  A.  Allen  shows  the  existence  of  geographical  races  of  birds 
and  mammals.     Proc.  Boston  Soc.  Nat.  Hist.  vol.  xv. 


4io  MISCELLANEA.  [1877 

[The  next  letter  refers  to  his  i  Biographical  Sketch  of 
an  Infant/  written  from  notes  made  37  years  previously,  and 
published  in  '  Mind/  July,  1877.  The  article  attracted  a  good 
deal  of  attention,  and  was  translated  at  the  time  in  '  Kosmos/ 
and  the  i  Revue  Scientifique/  and  has  been  recently  pub- 
lished in  Dr.  Krause's  '  Gesammelte  kleinere  Schriften  von 
Charles  Darwin/  1887  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  G.  Croom  Robertson* 

Down,  April  27,  1877. 
Dear  Sir, — I  hope  that  you  will  be  so  good  as  to  take  the 
trouble  to  read  the  enclosed  MS.,  and  if  you  think  it  fit  for 
publication  in  your  admirable  journal  of  '  Mind/  I  shall  be 
gratified.  If  you  do  not  think  it  fit,  as  is  very  likely,  will  you 
please  to  return  it  to  me.  I  hope  that  you  will  read  it  in  an 
extra  critical  spirit,  as  I  cannot  judge  whether  it  is  worth 
publishing  from  having  been  so  much  interested  in  watching 
the  dawn  of  the  several  faculties  in  my  own  infant.  I  may 
add  that  I  should  never  have  thought  of  sending  you  the 
MS.,  had  not  M.  Taine's  article  appeared  in  your  Journal. f 
If  my  MS.  is  printed,  I  think  that  I  had  better  see  a  proof. 

I  remain,  dear  Sir, 

Yours  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  two  following  extracts  show  the  lively  interest  he 
preserved  in  diverse  fields  of  inquiry.  Professor  Cohn,  of 
Breslau  had  mentioned,  in  a  letter,  Koch's  researches  on 
Splenic  Fever,  my  father  replied,  January  3  : — 

"  I  well  remember  saying  to  myself,  between  twenty  and 
thirty  years  ago,  that  if  ever  the  origin  of  any  infectious 
disease  could  be  proved,  it  would  be  the  greatest  triumph  to 
science  ;  and  now  I  rejoice  to  have  seen  the  triumph." 

*  The  editor  of  '  Mind.' 

\  1877,  P-  252.     The  original  appeared  in  the  *  Revue  Philosophique' 
1876. 


1878.]  GEOLOGY.  411 

In  the  spring  he  received  a  copy  of  Dr.  E.  von  Mojsisovics* 
1  Dolomit  Riffe,'  his  letter  to  the  author  (June  1,  1878)  is 
interesting  as  bearing  on  the  influence  of  his  own  work  on 
the  methods  of  geology. 

"  I  have  at  last  found  time  to  read  the  first  chapter  of  your 
'  Dolomit  Riffe,'  and  have  been  exceedingly  interested  by  it. 
What  a  wonderful  change  in  the  future  of  Geological  chro- 
nology you  indicate,  by  assuming  the  descent  theory  to  be 
established,  and  then  taking  the  graduated  changes  of  the 
same  group  of  organisms  as  the  true  standard  !  I  never 
hoped  to  live  to  see  such  a  step  even  proposed  by  any  one." 

Another  geological  research  which  roused  my  father's 
admiration  was  Mr.  D.  Mackintosh's  work  on  erratic  blocks. 
Apart  from  its  intrinsic  merit  the  work  keenly  excited  his 
sympathy  from  the  conditions  under  which  it  was  executed, 
Mr.  Mackintosh  being  compelled  to  give  nearly  his  whole 
time  to  tuition.  The  following  passage  is  from  a  letter  to 
Mr.  Mackintosh  of  October  9,  1879,  and  refers  to  his  paper 
in  the  Journal  of  the  Geological  Society,  1878  : — 

"  I  hope  that  you  will  allow  me  to  have  the  pleasure  of 
thanking  you  for  the  very  great  pleasure  which  I  have  derived 
from  just  reading  your  paper  on  erratic  blocks.  The  map 
is  wonderful,  and  what  labour  each  of  those  lines  show  !  I 
have  thought  for  some  years  that  the  agency  of  floating  ice, 
which  nearly  half  a  century  ago  was  overrated,  has  of  late 
been  underrated.  You  are  the  sole  man  who  has  ever  noticed 
the  distinction  suggested  by  me  *  between  flat  or  planed 
scored  rocks,  and  mammillated  scored  rocks."] 


C.  Darwin  to  C.  Ridley, 

Down,  November  28,  1878. 
Dear  Sir, — I  just  skimmed  through  Dr.  Pusey's  sermon, 
as  published  in  the  Guardian,  but  it  did  [not]  seem  to  me 

w — ■ ■ 

*  In  his  paper  on  the  '  Ancient  Glaciers  of  Carnarvonshire,'  Phil.  Mag, 
xxi.  1842.     See  p.  187. 
63 


4I2  MISCELLANEA.  [1878. 

worthy  of  any  attention.  As  I  have  never  answered  criti- 
cisms excepting  those  made  by  scientific  men,  I  am  not  will- 
ing that  this  letter  shoald  be  published;  but  I  have  no  ob- 
jection to  your  saying  that  you  sent  me  the  three  questions, 
and  that  I  answered  that  Dr.  Pusey  was  mistaken  in  imagin- 
ing that  I  wrote  the  '  Origin  '  with  any  relation  whatever  to 
Theology.  I  should  have  thought  that  this  would  have  been 
evident  to  any  one  who  had  taken  the  trouble  to  read  the 
book,  more  especially  as  in  the  opening  lines  of  the  introduc- 
tion I  specify  how  the  subject  arose  in  my  mind.  This  an- 
swer disposes  of  your  two  other  questions ;  but  I  may  add 
that  many  years  ago,  when  I  was  collecting  facts  for  the 
i  Origin/  my  belief  in  what  is  called  a  personal  God  was  as 
firm  as  that  of  Dr.  Pusey  himself,  and  as  to  the  eternity  of 
matter  I  have  never  troubled  myself  about  such  insoluble 
questions.  Dr.  Pusey's  attack  will  be  as  powerless  to  retard 
by  a  day  the  belief  in  Evolution,  as  were  the  virulent  attacks 
made  by  divines  fifty  years  ago  against  Geology,  and  the  still 
older  ones  of  the  Catholic  Church  against  Galileo,  for  the 
public  is  wise  enough  always  to  follow  Scientific  men  when 
they  agree  on  any  subject ;  and  now  there  is  almost  complete 
unanimity  amongst  Biologists  about  Evolution,  though  there 
is  still  considerable  difference  as  to  the  means,  such  as  how 
far  natural  selection  has  acted,  and  how  far  external  condi- 
tions, or  whether  there  exists  some  mysterious  innate  ten- 
dency to  perfectability.     I  remain,  dear  Sir, 

Yours  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[Theologians  were  not  the  only  adversaries  of  freedom  in 
science.  On  Sept.  22,  1877,  Prof.  Virchow  delivered  an  ad- 
dress at  the  Munich  meeting  of  German  Naturalists  and 
Physicians,  which  had  the  effect  of  connecting  Socialism  with 
the  Descent  theory.  This  point  of  view  was  taken  up  by 
anti-evolutionists  to  such  an  extent  that,  according  to  Haeckel, 
the  Kreuz  Zeitung  threw  " all  the  blame  of"  the  l( treason- 
able attempts  of  the  democrats  Hodel  and  Nobiling  .  .  . 


I879-]  SOCIALISM.  413 

directly  on  the  theory  of  Descent."  Prof.  Haeckel  replied 
with  vigour  and  ability  in  his  *  Freedom  in  Science  and 
Teaching'  (Eng.  Transl.  1879),  an  essay  which  must  have 
the  sympathy  of  all  lovers  of  freedom. 

The  following  passage  from  a  letter  (December  26,  1879) 
to  Dr.  Scherzer,  the  author  of  the  ' Voyage  of  the  Novara* 
gives  a  hint  of  my  father's  views  on  this  once  burning  ques- 
tion : — 

"  What  a  foolish  idea  seems  to  prevail  in  Germany  on  the 
connection  between  Socialism  and  Evolution  through  Natu- 
ral Selection."] 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  N.  Moseley* 

Down,  January  20,  1879. 
Dear  Moseley, — I  have  just  received  your  book,  and  I 
declare  that  never  in  my  life  have  I  seen  a  dedication  which 
I  admired  so  much.f  Of  course  I  am  not  a  fair  judge,  but  I 
hope  that  I  speak  dispassionately,  though  you  have  touched 
me  in  my  very  tenderest  point,  by  saying  that  my  old  Journal 
mainly  gave  you  the  wish  to  travel  as  a  Naturalist.  I  shall 
begin  to  read  your  book  this  very  evening,  and  am  sure  that 
I  shall  enjoy  it  much. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  N.  Moseley. 

Down,  February  4,  1879. 
Dear  Moseley, — I  have  at  last  read  every  word  of  your 
book,  and  it  has  excited  in  me  greater  interest  than  any  other 


*  Professor  of  Zoology  at  Oxford.  The  book  alluded  to  is  Prof.  Mose- 
ley's  '  Notes  by  a  Naturalist  on  the  Challenger' 

t  "  To  Charles  Darwin,  Esquire,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  &c,  from  the  study 
of  whose  *  Journal  of  Researches '  I  mainly  derived  my  desire  to  travel 
round  the  world  ;  to  the  development  of  whose  theory  I  owe  the  princi- 
pal pleasures  and  interests  of  my  life,  and  who  has  personally  given  me 
much  kindly  encouragement  in  the  prosecution  of  my  studies,  this  book  is, 
by  permission,  gratefully  dedicated." 


414  MISCELLANEA.  [1879. 

scientific  book  which  I  have  read  for  a  long  time.  You  will 
perhaps  be  surprised  how  slow  I  have  been,  but  my  head 
prevents  me  reading  except  at  intervals.  If  I  were  asked 
which  parts  have  interested  me  most,  I  should  be  somewhat 
puzzled  to  answer.  I  fancy  that  the  general  reader  would 
prefer  your  account  of  Japan.  For  myself  I  hesitate  between 
your  discussions  and  description  of  the  Southern  ice,  which 
seems  to  me  admirable,  and  the  last  chapter  which  contained 
many  facts  and  views  new  to  me,  though  I  had  read  your 
papers  on  the  stony  Hydroid  Corals,  yet  your  re'sunie'  made 
me  realise  better  than  I  had  done  before,  what  a  most  curious 
case  it  is. 

You  have  also  collected  a  surprising  number  of  valuable 
facts  bearing  on  the  dispersal  of  plants,  far  more  than  in  any 
other  book  known  to  me.  In  fact  your  volume  is  a  mass  of 
interesting  facts  and  discussions,  with  hardly  a  superfluous 
word ;  and  I  heartily  congratulate  you  on  its  publica- 
tion. 

Your  dedication  makes  me  prouder  than  ever. 

Believe  me,  yours  sincerely, 

Ch;  Darwin. 

[In  November,  1879,  he  answered  for  Mr.  Galton  a  series 
of  questions  utilised  in  his  '  Inquiries  into  Human  Faculty,' 
1883.     He  wrote  to  Mr.  Galton  :— 

"  I  have  answered  the  questions  as  well  as  I  could,  but 
they  are  miserably  answered,  for  I  have  never  tried  looking 
into  my  own  mind.  Unless  others  answer  very  much  better 
than  I  can  do,  you  will  get  no  good  from  your  queries.  Do 
you  not  think  you  ought  to  have  the  age  of  the  answerer  ?  I 
think  so,  because  I  can  call  up  faces  of  many  schoolboys,  not 
seen  for  sixty  years,  with  much  distinctness,  but  nowadays  I 
may  talk  with  a  man  for  an  hour,  and  see  him  several  times 
consecutively,  and,  after  a  month,  I  am  utterly  unable  to 
recollect  what  he  is  at  all  like.  The  picture  is  quite  washed 
out.  The  greater  number  of  the  answers  are  given  in  the 
annexed  table. "] 


1879.] 


VISUALISING. 


415 


Questions  on  the  Faculty  of  Visualising. 


QUESTIONS. 

REPLIES. 

I 

Illumination  ? 

Moderate,  but  my  solitary  breakfast  was  early, 
and  the  morning  dark. 

2 

Definition  ? 

Some  objects  quite  defined,  a  slice  of  cold 
beef,  some  grapes  and  a  pear,  the  state  of 
my  plate  when  I  had  finished,  and  a  few 
other  objects,  are  as  distinct  as  if  I  had 
photo's  before  me. 

3 

Completeness  ? 

Very  moderately  so. 

4 

Colouring? 

The  objects  above  named  perfectly  colored. 

5 

Extent  of  Field  of 

View  ? 

Rather  small. 

DIFFERENT   KINDS  OF 

IMAGERY. 

6 

Pt  inted  pages. 

I  cannot  remember  a  single  sentence,  but  I 
remember  the  place  of  the  sentence  and  the 
kind  of  type. 

7 

Furniture  ? 

I  have  never  attended  to  it. 

8 

Persons  ? 

I  remember  the  faces  of  persons  formerly 
well-known  vividly,  and  can  make  them  do 
anything  I  like. 

9 

Scenery? 

Remembrance  vivid  and  distinct,  and  gives  me 
pleasure. 

10 

Geography  ? 

No. 

11 

Military  movements  ? 

No. 

12 

Mechanism  ? 

Never  tried. 

13 

Geometry  ? 

I  do  not  think  I  have  any  power  of  the 
kind. 

14 

Numerals  ? 

When  I  think  of  any  number,  printed  fig- 
ures arise  before  my  mind.  I  can't  re- 
member for  an  hour  four  consecutive  fig- 
ures. 

15 

Card  playing? 

Have  not  played  for  many  years,  but  I  am 
sure  should  not  remember. 

16 

Chess  ? 

Never  played. 
— — ■■■■■■■ —  ■  1 .  — ....  — ■ ,, » 

4i6  MISCELLANEA.  [1880. 

[in  1880  he  published  a  short  paper  in  *  Nature '  (vol. 
xxi.  p.  207)  on  the  "  Fertility  of  Hybrids  from  the  common 
and  Chinese  goose."  He  received  the  hybrids  from  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Goodacre,  and  was  glad  of  the  opportunity  of  test- 
ing the  accuracy  of  the  statement  that  these  species  are  fer- 
tile inter  se.  This  fact,  which  was  given  in  the  '  Origin '  on 
the  authority  of  Mr.  Eyton,  he  considered  the  most  remark- 
able as  yet  recorded  with  respect  to  the  fertility  of  hybrids. 
The  fact  (as  confirmed  by  himself  and  Dr.  Goodacre)  is  of 
interest  as  giving  another  proof  that  sterility  is  no  criterion 
of  specific  difference,  since  the  two  species  of  goose  now 
shown  to  be  fertile  inter  se  are  so  distinct  that  they  have 
been  placed  by  some  authorities  in ,  distinct  genera  or  sub- 
genera. 

The  following  letter  refers  to  Mr.  Huxley's  lecture  :  "  The 
Coming  of  Age  of  the  Origin  of  Species,"  *  given  at  the 
Royal  Institution,  April  9,  1880,  published  in  i  Nature/  and 
in  '  Science  and  Culture,'  p.  310  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Abinger  Hall,  Dorking,  Sunday,  April  1 1,  1880. 
My  dear  Huxley, — I  wished  much  to  attend  your  Lec- 
ture, but  I  have  had  a  bad  cough,  and  we  have  come  here  to 
see  whether  a  change  would  do  me  good,  as  it  has  done. 
What  a  magnificent  success  your  lecture  seems  to  have  been, 
as  I  judge  from  the  reports  in  the  Standard  and  Daily  News, 
and  more  especially  from  the  accounts  given  me  by  three 
of  my  children.  I  suppose  that  you  have  not  written  out 
your  lecture,  so  I  fear  there  is  no  chance  of  its  being  printed 
in  extenso.  You  appear  to  have  piled,  as  on  so  many  other 
occasions,  honours  high  and  thick  on  my  old  head.  But  I 
well  know  how  great  a  part  you  have  played  in  establishing 

*  This  same  "  Coming  of  Age  "  was  the  subject  of  an  address  from  the 
Council  of  the  Otago  Institute.  It  is  given  in  '  Nature,'  February  24, 
1881. 


i88o.]  MR.  HUXLEY'S   LECTURE.  417 

and  spreading  the  belief  in  the  descent-theory,  ever  since 
that  grand  review  in  the  Times  and  the  battle  royal  at  Ox- 
ford up  to  the  present  day. 

Ever  my  dear  Huxley, 

Yours  sincerely  and  gratefully, 

Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — It  was  absurdly  stupid  in  me,  but  I  had  read  the 
announcement  of  your  Lecture,  and  thought  that  you  meant 
the  maturity  of  the  subject,  until  my  wife  one  day  remarked, 
"it  is  almost  twenty-one  years  since  the  '  Origin '  appeared," 
and  then  for  the  first  time  the  meaning  of  your  words  flashed 
on  me  ! 

[In  the  above-mentioned  lecture  Mr.  Huxley  made  a 
strong  point  of  the  accumulation  of  palaeontological  evidence 
which  the  years  between  1859  and  1880  have  given  us  in  fa- 
vour of  Evolution.  On  this  subject  my  father  wrote  (August 
31,  1880) :] 

My  dear  Professor  Marsh, — I  received  some  time  ago 
your  very  kind  note  of  July  28th,  and  yesterday  the  mag- 
nificent volume.*  I  have  looked  with  renewed  admiration  at 
the  plates,  and  will  soon  read  the  text.  Your  work  on  these 
old  birds,  and  on  the  many  fossil  animals  of  North  America 
has  afforded  the  best  support  to  the  theory  of  Evolution, 
which  has  appeared  within  the  last  twenty  years,  f  The 
general  appearance  of  the  copy  which  you  have   sent  me  is 

*  Odontornithes.  A  monograph  on  the  extinct  Toothed  Birds  of  N. 
America.     1880.     By  O.  C.  Marsh. 

f  Mr.  Huxley  has  well  pointed  out  ('  Science  and  Culture,'  p.  317) 
that:  "In  1875,  the  discovery  of  the  toothed  birds  of  the  cretaceous  for- 
mation in  N.  America,  by  Prof.  Marsh,  completed  the  series  of  transitional 
forms  between  birds  and  reptiles,  and  removed  Mr.  Darwin's  proposition 
that,  *  many  animal  forms  of  life  have  been  utterly  lost,  through  which  the 
early  progenitors  of  birds  were  formerly  connected  with  the  early  progeni- 
tors of  the  other  vertebrate  classes,'  from  the  region  of  hypothesis  to  that 
of  demonstrable  fact." 


4Ig  MISCELLANEA.  [1880. 

worthy  of  its  contents,  and  I  can  say  nothing  stronger  than 

this. 

With  cordial  thanks,  believe  me, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[In  November,  1880,  he  received  an  account  of  a  flood  in 
Brazil,  from  which  his  friend  Fritz  Miiller  had  barely  escaped 
»  with  his  life.  My  father  immediately  wrote  to  Hermann 
Miiller  anxiously  enquiring  whether  his  brother  had  lost  books, 
instruments,  &c,  by  this  accident,  and  begging  in  that  case 
"  for  the  sake  of  science,  so  that  science  should  not  suffer,"  to 
be  allowed  to  help  in  making  good  the  loss.  Fortunately, 
however,  the  injury  to  Fritz  Mullens  possessions  was  not  so 
great  as  was  expected,  and  the  incident  remains  only  as  a 
memento,  which  I  trust  cannot  be  otherwise  than  pleasing  to 
the  survivor,  of  the  friendship  of  the  two  naturalists. 

In  '  Nature  '  (November  n,  1880)  appeared  a  letter  from 
my  father,  which  is,  I  believe,  the  only  instance  in  which  he 
wrote  publicly  with  anything  like  severity.  The  late  Sir 
Wyville  Thomson  wrote,  in  the  Introduction  to  the  '  Voyage 
of  the  Challenger ' :  "  The  character  of  the  abyssal  fauna  re- 
fuses to  give  the  least  support  to  the  theory  which  refers  the 
evolution  of  species  to  extreme  variation  guided  only  by 
natural  selection."  My  father,  after  characterising  these  re- 
marks as  a  "  standard  of  criticism,  not  uncommonly  reached 
by  theologians  and  metaphysicians,"  goes  on  to  take  excep- 
tion to  the  term  "  extreme  variation,"  and  challenges  Sir 
Wyville  to  name  any  one  who  has  u  said  that  the  evolution 
of  species  depends  only  on  natural  selection."  The  letter 
closes  with  an  imaginary  scene  between  Sir  Wyville  and  a 
breeder,  in  which  Sir  Wyville  criticises  artificial  selection  in 
a  somewhat  similar  manner.  The  breeder  is  silent,  but  on 
the  departure  of  his  critic  he  is  supposed  to  make  use  of 
"  emphatic  but  irreverent  language  about  naturalists."  The 
letter,  as  originally  written,  ended  with  a  quotation  from 
Sedgwick  on  the  invulnerability  of  those  who  write  on  what 


i88i.]  *  WORMS/  4!9 

they  do  not  understand,  but  this  was  omitted  on  the  advice 
of  a  friend,  and  curiously  enough  a  friend  whose  combative- 
ness  in  the  good  cause  my  father  had  occasionally  curbed.] 

C.  Darwin  to  G.  J,  Romanes, 

Down,  April  16,  188 1. 

My  dear  Romanes, — My  MS.  on  '  Worms  '  has  been  sent 
to  the  printers,  so  I  am  going  to  amuse  myself  by  scribbling 
to  you  on  a  few  points ;  but  you  must  not  waste  your  time  in 
answering  at  any  length  this  scribble. 

Firstly,  your  letter  on  intelligence  was  very  useful  to  me 
and  I  tore  up  and  re-wrote  what  I  sent  to  you.  I  have  not 
attempted  to  define  intelligence ;  but  have  quoted  your 
remarks  on  experience,  and  have  shown  how  far  they  apply 
to  worms.  It  seems  to  me  that  they  must  be  said  to  work 
with  some  intelligence,  anyhow  they  are  not  guided  by  a 
blind  instinct. 

Secondly,  I  was  greatly  interested  by  the  abstract  in 
*  Nature  '  of  your  work  on  Echinoderms,*  the  complexity  with 
simplicity,  and  with  such  curious  co-ordination  of  the  nervous 
system  is  marvellous  ;  and  you  showed  me  before  what  splen- 
did gymnastic  feats  they  can  perform. 

Thirdly,  Dr.  Roux  has  sent  me  a  book  just  published  by 
him:  l  Der  Kampf  der  Theile,'  &c,  1881  (240  pages  in 
length). 

He  is  manifestly  a  well-read  physiologist  and  pathologist, 
and  from  his  position  a  good  anatomist.  It  is  full  of  reason- 
ing, and  this  in  German  is  very  difficult  to  me,  so  that  I  have 
only  skimmed  through  each  page  ;  here  and  there  reading 
with  a  little  more  care.  As  far  as  I  can  imperfectly  judge,  it 
is  the  most  important  book  on  Evolution,  which  has  appeared 
for  some  time.  I  believe  that  G.  H.  Lewes  hinted  at  the 
same  fundamental  idea,  viz.  that  there  is  a  struggle  going  on 
within  every  organism  between  the  organic  molecules,  the 

*  "  On  the  locomotor  system  of  Echinoderms,"  by  G.  J.  Romanes  and 
J.  Cossar  Ewart.     '  Philosophical  Transactions,'  1881,  p,  82Q. 


420  MISCELLANEA.  [1881. 

cells  and  the  organs.  I  think  that  his  basis  is,  that  every  cell 
which  best  performs  its  function  is,  in  consequence,  at  the 
same  time  best  nourished  and  best  propagates  its  kind.  The 
book  does  not  touch  on  mental  phenomena,  but  there  is  much 
discussion  on  rudimentary  or  atrophied  parts,  to  which  sub- 
ject you  formerly  attended.  Now  if  you  would  like  to  read 
this  book,  I  would  send  it.  .  .  .  If  you  read  it,  and  are 
struck  with  it  (but  I  may  be  wholly  mistaken  about  its  value), 
you  would  do  a  public  service  by  analysing  and  criticising  it 
in  '  Nature/ 

Dr.  Roux  makes,  I  think,  a  gigantic  oversight  in  never 
considering  plants  ;  these  would  simplify  the  problem  for 
him. 

Fourthly,  I  do  not  know  whether  you  will  discuss  in  your 
book  on  the  mind  of  animals  any  of  the  more  complex  and 
wonderful  instincts.  It  is  unsatisfactory  work,  as  there  can 
be  no  fossilised  instincts,  and  the  sole  guide  is  their  state  in 
other  members  of  the  same  order,  and  mere  probability. 

But  if  you  do  discuss  any  (and  it  will  perhaps  be  expected 
of  you),  I  should  think  that  you  could  not  select  a  better  case 
than  that  of  the  sand  wasps,  which  paralyse  their  prey,  as 
formerly  described  by  Fabre,  in  his  wonderful  paper  in  the 
*  Annales  des  Sciences/  and  since  amplified  in  his  admirable 
'Souvenirs.' 

Whilst  reading  this  latter  book,  I  speculated  a  little  on  the 
subject.  Astonishing  nonsense  is  often  spoken  of  the  sand 
wasp's  knowledge  of  anatomy.  Now  will  any  one  say  that 
the  Gauchos  on  the  plains  of  La  Plata  have  such  knowledge, 
yet  I  have  often  seen  them  pith  a  struggling  and  lassoed  cow 
on  the  ground  with  unerring  skill,  which  no  mere  anatomist 
could  imitate.  The  pointed  knife  was  infallibly  driven  in 
between  the  vertebrae  by  a  single  slight  thrust.  I  presume 
that  the  art  was  first  discovered  by  chance,  and  that  each 
young  Gaucho  sees  exactly  how  the  others  do  it,  and  then 
with  a  very  little  practice  learns  the  art.  Now  I  suppose  that 
the  sand  wasps  originally  merely  killed  their  prey  by  stinging 
them  in  many  places  (see  p.  129  of  Fabre's  'Souvenirs/  and 


!88i.]  PROFESSOR   AGASSIZ.  421 

p.  241)  on  the  lower  and  softest  side  of  the  body — and  that 
to  sting  a  certain  segment  was  found  by  far  the  most  suc- 
cessful method  ;  and  was  inherited  like  the  tendency  of  a 
bulldog  to  pin  the  nose  of  a  bull,  or  of  a  ferret  to  bite  the 
cerebellum.  It  would  not  be  a  very  great  step  in  advance  to 
prick  the  ganglion  of  its  prey  only  slightly,  and  thus  to  give 
its  larvae  fresh  meat  instead  of  old  dried  meat.  Though 
Fabre  insists  so  strongly  on  the  unvarying  character  of  in- 
stinct, yet  it  is  shown  that  there  is  some  variability,  as  at  p. 
176,  177. 

I  fear  that  I  shall  have  utterly  wearied  you  with  my  scrib- 
bling and  bad  handwriting. 

My  dear  Romanes,  yours,  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

Postscript  of  a  Letter  to  Professor  A.  Agassiz,  May  $th, 

1 88 1  :— 

I  read  with  much  interest  your  address  before  the  Ameri- 
can Association.  However  true  your  remarks  on  the  gene- 
alogies of  the  several  groups  may  be,  I  hope  and  believe  that 
you  have  over-estimated  the  difficulties  to  be  encountered  in 
the  future  : — A  few  days  after  reading  your  address,  I  inter- 
preted to  myself  your  remarks  on  one  point  (I  hope  in  some 
degree  correctly)  in  the  following  fashion  : — 

Any  character  of  an  ancient,  generalised,  or  intermediate 
form  may,  and  often  does,  re-appear  in  its  descendants,  after 
countless  generations,  and  this  explains  the  extraordinarily 
complicated  affinities  of  existing  groups.  This  idea  seems 
to  me  to  throw  a  flood  of  light  on  the  lines,  sometimes  used 
to  represent  affinities,  which  radiate  in  all  directions,  often  to 
very  distant  sub-groups, — a  difficulty  which  has  haunted  me 
for  half  a  century.  A  strong  case  could  be  made  out  in 
favour  of  believing  in  such  reversion  after  immense  intervals 
of  time.  I  wish  the  idea  had  been  put  into  my  head  in  old 
days,  for  I  shall  never  again  write  on  difficult  subjects,  as  I 
have  seen  too  many  cases  of  old  men  becoming  feeble  in 


422  MISCELLANEA.  [1881. 

their  minds,  without  being  in  the  least  conscious  of  it.  If  I 
have  interpreted  your  ideas  at  all  correctly,  I  hope  that  you 
will  re-urge,  on  any  fitting  occasion,  your  view.  I  have  men- 
tioned it  to  a  few  persons  capable  of  judging,  and  it  seemed 
quite  new  to  them.  I  beg  you  to  forgive  the  proverbial  gar- 
rulity of  old  age. 

C.  D. 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker's  Geo- 
graphical address  at  the  York  Meeting  (1881)  of  the  British 
Association  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Down,  August  6,  1881. 

My  dear  Hooker, — For  Heaven's  sake  never  speak  of 
boring  me,  as  it  would  be  the  greatest  pleasure  to  aid  you  in 
the  slightest  degree  and  your  letter  has  interested  me  ex- 
ceedingly. I  will  go  through  your  points  seriatim,  but  I  have 
never  attended  much  to  the  history  of  any  subject,  and  my 
memory  has  become  atrociously  bad.  It  will  therefore  be  a 
mere  chance  whether  any  of  my  remarks  are  of  any  use. 

Your  idea,  to  show  what  travellers  have  done,  seems  to  me 
a  brilliant  and  just  one,  especially  considering  your  audience. 

1.  I  know  nothing  about  Tournefort's  works. 

2.  I  believe  that  you  are  fully  right  in  calling  Humboldt 
the  greatest  scientific  traveller  who  ever  lived,  I  have  lately 
read  two  or  three  volumes  again.  His  Geology  is  funny 
stuff ;  but  that  merely  means  that  he  was  not  in  advance  of 
his  age.  I  should  say  he  was  wonderful,  more  for  his  near 
approach  to  omniscience  than  for  originality.  Whether  or 
not  his  position  as  a  scientific  man  is  as  eminent  as  we  think, 
you  might  truly  call  him  the  parent  of  a  grand  progeny  of 
scientific  travellers,  who,  taken  together,  have  done  much  for 
science. 

3.  It  seems  to  me  quite  just  to  give  Lyell  (and  secondari- 
ly E.  Forbes)  a  very  prominent  place. 

4.  Dana  was,  I  believe,  the  first  man  who  maintained  the 


i88i.]  SIR   JOSEPH    HOOKER'S   ADDRESS.  423 

permanence  of  continents  and  the  great  oceans.  .  .  .  When 
I  read  the  i  Challenger's '  conclusion  that  sediment  from  the 
land  is  not  deposited  at  greater  distances  than  200  to  300 
miles  from  the  land,  I  was  much  strengthened  in  my  old  be- 
lief. Wallace  seems  to  me  to  have  argued  the  case  excellent- 
ly. Nevertheless,  I  would  speak,  if  I  were  in  your  place, 
rather  cautiously;  for  T.  Mellard  Reade  has  argued  lately 
with  some  force  against  the  view  ;  but  I  cannot  call  to  mind 
his  arguments.  If  forced  to  express  a  judgment,  I  should 
abide  by  the  view  of  approximate  permanence  since  Cambrian 
days. 

5.  The  extreme  importance  of  the  Arctic  fossil-plants,  is 
self-evident.  Take  the  opportunity  of  groaning  over  [our] 
ignorance  of  the  Lignite  Plants  of  Kerguelen  Land,  or  any 
Antarctic  land.     It  might  do  good. 

6.  I  cannot  avoid  feeling  sceptical  about  the  travelling  of 
plants  from  the  North  except  during  the  Tertiary  period.  It 
may  of  course  have  been  so  and  probably  was  so  from  one 
of  the  two  poles  at  the  earliest  period,  during  Pre-Cambrian 
ages  ;  but  such  speculations  seem  to  me  hardly  scientific  see- 
ing how  little  we  know  of  the  old  Floras. 

I  will  now  jot  down  without  any  order  a  few  miscellaneous 
remarks. 

I  think  you  ought  to  allude  to  Alph.  De  Candolle's 
great  book,  for  though  it  (like  almost  everything  else) 
is  washed  out  of  my  mind,  yet  I  remember  most  distinctly 
thinking  it  a  very  valuable  work.  Anyhow,  you  might 
allude  to  his  excellent  account  of  the  history  of  all  culti- 
vated plants. 

How  shall  you  manage  to  allude  to  your  New  Zealand 
and  Tierra  del  Fuego  work  ?  if  you  do  not  allude  to  them  you 
will  be  scandalously  unjust. 

The  many  Angiosperm  plants  in  the  Cretacean  beds  of 
the  United  States  (and  as  far  as  I  can  judge  the  age  of  these 
beds  has  been  fairly  well  made  out)  seems  to  me  a  fact  of 
very  great  importance,  so  is  their  relation  to  the  existing  flora 
of  the  United  States  under  an  Evolutionary  point  of  view. 


424  MISCELLANEA.  [1881. 

Have  not  some  Australian  extinct  forms  been  lately  found  in 
Australia  ?  or  have  I  dreamed  it  ? 

Again,  the  recent  discovery  of  plants  rather  low  down  in 
our  Silurian  beds  is  very  important. 

Nothing  is  more  extraordinary  in  the  history  of  the  Vege- 
table Kingdom,  as  it  seems  to  me,  than  the  apparently  very 
sudden  or  abrupt  development  of  the  higher  plants.  I  have 
sometimes  speculated  whether  there  did  not  exist  somewhere 
during  long  ages  an  extremely  isolated  continent,  perhaps 
near  the  South  Pole. 

Hence  I  was  greatly  interested  by  a  view  which  Saporta 
propounded  to  me,  a  few  years  ago,  at  great  length  in  MS* 
and  which  I  fancy  he  has  since  published,  as  I  urged  him  to 
do — viz.,  that  as  soon  as  flower-frequenting  insects  were  de- 
veloped, during  the  latter  part  of  the  secondary  period,  an 
enormous  impulse  was  given  to  the  development  of  the 
higher  plants  by  cross-fertilization  being  thus  suddenly  formed. 

A  few  years  ago  I  was  much  struck  with  Axel  Blytt's* 
Essay  showing  from  observation,  on  the  peat  beds  in  Scandi- 
navia, that  there  had  apparently  been  long  periods  with  more 
rain  and  other  with  less  rain  (perhaps  connected  with  Croll's 
recurrent  astronomical  periods),  and  that  these  periods  had 
largely  determined  the  present  distribution  of  the  plants  of  Nor- 
way and  Sweden.    This  seemed  to  me,  a  very  important  essay. 

I  have  just  read  over  my  remarks  and  I  fear  that  they  will 
not  be  of  the  slightest  use  to  you. 

I  cannot  but  think  that  you  have  got  through  the  hardest, 
or  at  least  the  most  difficult,  part  of  your  work  in  having 
made  so  good  and  striking  a  sketch  of  what  you  intend  to 
say ;  but  I  can  quite  understand  how  you  must  groan  over 
the  great  necessary  labour. 

I  most  heartily  sympathise  with  you  on  the  successes  of 
B.  and  R.  :  as  years  advance  what  happens  to  oneself  becomes 
of  very  little  consequence,  in  comparison  with  the  careers  of 
our  children. 

*  See  footnote,  p.  392. 


i88i.]  SIR   JOSEPH    HOOKER'S   ADDRESS.  425 

Keep  your  spirits  up,  for  I  am  convinced  that  you  will 
make  an  excellent  address. 

Ever  yours,  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[In  September  he  wrote  : — 

"  I  have  this  minute  finished  reading  your  splendid  but 
too  short  address.  I  cannot  doubt  that  it  will  have  been 
fully  appreciated  by  the  Geographers  of  York ;  if  not,  they 
are  asses  and  fools."] 

C.  Darwin  to  John  Lubbock. 

Sunday  evening  [1881]. 
My  dear  L., — Your  address  *  has  made  me  think  over 
what  have  been  the  great  steps  in  Geology  during  the  last 
fifty  years,  and  there  can  be  no  harm  in  telling  you  my  im- 
pression. But  it  is  very  odd  that  I  cannot  remember  what 
you  have  said  on  Geology.  I  suppose  that  the  classification 
of  the  Silurian  and  Cambrian  formations  must  be  considered 
the  greatest  or  most  important  step  ;  for  I  well  remember 
when  all  these  older  rocks  were  called  grau-wacke,  and 
nobody  dreamed  of  classing  them  ;  and  now  we  have  three 
azoic  formations  pretty  well  made  out  beneath  the  Cambrian  ! 
But  the  most  striking  step  has  been  the  discovery  of  the 
Glacial  period  :  you  are  too  young  to  remember  the  pro- 
digious effect  this  produced  about  the  year  1840  (?)  on  all  our 
minds.  Elie  de  Beaumont  never  believed  in  it  to  the  day  of 
his  death  !  the  study  of  the  glacial  deposits  led  to  the  study 
of  the  superficial  drift,  which  was  formerly  never  studied  and 
called  Diluvium,  as  I  well  remember.  The  study  under  the 
microscope  of  rock-sections  is  another  not  inconsiderable  step. 
So  again  the  making  out  of  cleavage  and  the  foliation  of  the 
metamorphic  rocks.  But  I  will  not  run  on,  having  now 
eased  my  mind.  Pray  do  not  waste  even  one  minute  in  ac- 
knowledging my  horrid  scrawls.     Ever  yours, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

*  Presidential  Address  at  the  York  meeting  of  the  British  Association. 


426  MISCELLANEA.  [1881. 

[The  following  extracts  referring  to  the  late  Francis  Mait- 
land  Balfour,*  show  my  father's  estimate  of  his  work  and 
intellectual  qualities,  but  they  give  merely  an  indication  of 
his  strong  appreciation  of  Balfour's  most  lovable  personal 
character  : — 

From  a  letter  to  Fritz  Miiller,  January  5,  1882  : — 
"  Your  appreciation  of  Balfour's  book  ['  Comparative  Em- 
bryology ']  has  pleased  me  excessively,  for  though  I  could  not 
properly  judge  of  it,  yet  it  seemed  to  me  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  books  which  have  been  published  for  some  con- 
siderable time.  He  is  quite  a  young  man,  and  if  he  keeps 
his  health,  will  do  splendid  work.  .  .  .  He  has  a  fair  fortune 
of  his  own,  so  that  he  can  give  up  his  whore  time  to  Biology. 
He  is  very  modest,  and  very  pleasant,  and  often  visits  here 
and  we  like  him  very  much." 

From  a  letter  to  Dr.  Dohrn,  February  13,  1882  : — 

"  I  have  got  one  very  bad  piece  of  news  to  tell  you,  that 

F.  Balfour  is  very  ill  at  Cambridge  with  typhoid  fever 

I  hope  that  he  is  not  in  a  very  dangerous  state  ;  but  the 
fever  is  severe.  Good  Heavens,  what  a  loss  he  would  be  to 
Science,  and  to  his  many  loving  friends  !  "] 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Huxley. 

Down,  January  12,  1882. 
My  dear  Huxley, — Very  many  thanks  for  '  Science  and 
Culture/  and  I  am  sure  that  I  shall  read  most  of  the  essays 
with  much  interest.  With  respect  to  Automatism,f  I  wish 
that  you  could  review  yourself  in  the  old,  and  of  course  for- 
gotten, trenchant  style,  and  then  you  would  here  answer 
yourself  with   equal   incisiveness ;    and   thus,  by  Jove,  you 

*  Professor  of  Animal  Morphology  at  Cambridge.  He  was  born  in 
185 1,  and  was  killed,  with  his  guide,  on  the  Aiguille  Blanche,  near  Cour- 
mayeur,  in  July,  1882. 

f  "  On  the  hypothesis  that  animals  are  automata  and  its  history/'  an 
Address  given  at  the  Belfast  meeting  of  the  British  Association,  1874,  and 
published  in  the  '  Fortnightly  Review,'  1874,  and  in  '  Science  and  Culture.5 


1882.]  DR.  OGLE'S  TRANSLATION.  427 

might  go  on  ad  infinitum^  to  the  joy  and  instruction  of  the 
world.     Ever  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  Dr.  Ogle's  translation  of 
Aristotle,  'On  the  Parts  of  Animals'  (1882):] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Ogle. 

Down,  February  22,  1882. 

My  dear  Dr.  Ogle, — You  must  let  me  thank  you  for 
the  pleasure  which  the  introduction  to  the  Aristotle  book 
has  given  me.  I  have  rarely  read  anything  which  has  inter- 
ested me  more,  though  I  have  not  read  as  yet  more  than  a 
quarter  of  the  book  proper. 

From  quotations  which  I  had  seen,  I  had  a  high  notion  of 
Aristotle's  merits,  but  I  had  not  the  most  remote  notion  what 
a  wonderful  man  he  was.  Linnaeus  and  Cuvier  have  been 
my  two  gods,  though  in  veTy  different  ways,  but  they  were 
mere  schoolboys  to  old  Aristotle.  How  very  curious,  also, 
his  ignorance  on  some  points,  as  on  muscles  as  the  means  of 
movement.  I  am  glad  that  you  have  explained  in  so  probable 
a  manner  some  of  the  grossest  mistakes  attributed  to  him.  I 
never  realized,  before  reading  your  book,  to  what  an  enormous 
summation  of  labour  we  owe  even  our  common  knowledge. 
I  wish  old  Aristotle  could  know  what  a  grand  Defender  of 
the  Faith  he  had  found  in  you.     Believe  me,  my  dear  Dr. 

Ogle, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[In  February,  he  received  a  letter  and  a  specimen  from  a 
Mr.  W.  D.  Crick,  which  illustrated  a  curious  mode  of  dispersal 
of  bivalve  shells,  namely,  by  closure  of  their  valves  so  as  to 
hold  on  to  the  leg  of  a  water-beetle.  This  class  of  fact  had 
a  special  charm  for  him,  and  he  wrote  to  i  Nature,'  describing 
the  case.* 


*  ■  Nature/  April  6,  1882. 
64 


428  MISCELLANEA.  [1882. 

In  April  he  received  a  letter  from  Dr.  W.  Van  Dyck, 
Lecturer  in  Zoology  at  the  Protestant  College  of  Beyrout. 
The  letter  showed  that  the  street  dogs  of  Beyrout  had  been 
rapidly  mongrelised  by  introduced  European  dogs,  and  the 
facts  have  an  interesting  bearing  on  my  father's  theory  of 
Sexual  Selection.] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  T.  Van  Dyck. 

Down,  April  3,  1882. 

Dear  Sir, — After  much  deliberation,  I  have  thought  it 
best  to  send  your  very  interesting  paper  to  the  Zoological 
Society,  in  hopes  that  it  will  be  published  in  their  Journal. 
This  journal  goes  to  every  scientific  institution  in  the  world, 
and  the  contents  are  abstracted  in  all  year-books  on  Zoology. 
Therefore  I  have  preferred  it  to  i  Nature/  though  the  latter 
has  a  wider  circulation,  but  is  ephemeral. 

I  have  prefaced  your  essay  by  a  few  general  remarks,  to 
which  I  hope  that  you  will  not  object. 

Of  course  I  do  not  know  that  the  Zoological  Society, 
which  is  much  addicted  to  mere  systematic  work,  will  publish 
.your  essay.  If  it  does,  I  will  send  you  copies  of  your  essay, 
but  ■  these  will  not  be  ready  for  some  months.  If  not  pub- 
lished by  the  Zoological  Society,  I  will  endeavour  to  get 
1  Nature  '  to  publish  it.  I  am  very  anxious  that  it  should  be 
published  and  preserved.     Dear  Sir, 

Yours  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  paper  was  read  at  a  meeting  of  the  Zoological  So- 
ciety on  April  18th — the  day  before  my  father's  death. 

The  preliminary  remarks  with  which  Dr.  Van  Dyck's  pa- 
per is  prefaced  aTe  thus  the  latest  of  my  father's  writings.] 


We  must  now  return  to  an  early  period  of  his  life,  and 
give  a  connected .  account  of  his  botanical  work,  which  has 
hitherto  been  omitted. 


CHAPTER   X. 

Fertilisation  of  Flowers. 

[In  the  letters  already  given  we  have  had  occasion  to 
notice  the  general  bearing  of  a  number  of  botanical  problems 
on  the  wider  question  of  Evolution.  The  detailed  work  in 
botany  which  my  father  accomplished  by  the  guidance  of  the 
light  cast  on  the  study  of  natural  history  by  his  own  work  on 
Evolution  remains  to  be  noticed.  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Murray, 
September  24th,  1861,  speaking  of  his  book  on  the  '  Ferti- 
lisation of  Orchids/  he  says  :  "It  will  perhaps  serve  to  illus- 
trate how  Natural  History  may  be  worked  under  the  belief 
of  the  modification  of  species.,,  This  remark  gives  a  sugges- 
tion as  to  the  value  and  interest  of  his  botanical  work,  and 
it  might  be  expressed  in  far  more  emphatic  language  without 
danger  of  exaggeration. 

In  the  same  letter  to  Mr.  Murray,  he  says  :  "  I  think  this 
little  volume  will  do  good  to  the  'Origin/  as  it  will  show  that 
I  have  worked  hard  at  details."  It  is  true  that  his  botanical 
work  added  a  mass  of  corroborative  detail  to  the  case  for 
Evolution,  but  the  chief  support  to  his  doctrines  given  by 
these  researches  was  of  another  kind.  They  supplied  an 
argument  against  those  critics  who  have  so  freely  dogma- 
tised as  to  the  uselessness  of  particular  structures,  and  as  to 
the  consequent  impossibility  of  their  having  been  developed 
by  means  of  natural  selection.  His  observations  on  Orchids 
enabled  him  to  say  :  u  I  can  show  the  meaning  of  some  of 
the  apparently  meaningless  ridges,  horns,  who  will  now  ven- 
ture to  say  that  this  or  that  structure  is  useless  ?  "  A  kindred 
point  is  expressed  in  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (May  14th, 
1862)  :— 


43o  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1862. 

"  When  many  parts  of  structure,  as  in  the  woodpecker, 
show  distinct  adaptation  to  external  bodies,  it  is  preposterous 
to  attribute  them  to  the  effects  of  climate,  &c.,  but  when  a 
single  point  alone,  as  a  hooked  seed,  it  is  conceivable  it  may 
thus  have  arisen.  I  have  found  the  study  of  Orchids  emi- 
nently useful  in  showing  me  how  nearly  all  parts  of  the  flower 
are  co-adapted  for  fertilization  by  insects,  and  therefore  the 
results  of  natural  selection — even  the  most  trifling  details  of 
structure/' 

One  of  the  greatest  services  rendered  by  my  father  to  the 
study  of  Natural  History  is  the  revival  of  Teleology.  The 
evolutionist  studies  the  purpose  or  meaning  of  organs  with 
the  zeal  of  the  older  Teleology,  but  with  far  wider  and  more 
coherent  purpose.  He  has  the  invigorating  knowledge  that 
he  is  gaining  not  isolated  conceptions  of  the  economy  of  the 
present,  but  a  coherent  view  of  both  past  and  present.  And 
even  where  he  fails  to  discover  the  use  of  any  part,  he  may, 
by  a  knowledge  of  its  structure,  unravel  the  history  of  the 
past  vicissitudes  in  the  life  of  the  species.  In  this  way  a 
vigour  and  unity  is  given  to  the  study  of  the  forms  of  organised 
beings,  which  before  it  lacked.  This  point  has  already  been 
discussed  in  Mr.  Huxley's  chapter  on  the  '  Reception  of  the 
Origin  of  Species,'  and  need  not  be  here  considered.  It  does, 
however,  concern  us  to  recognize  that  this  "great  service 
to  natural  science,"  as  Dr.  Gray  describes  it,  was  effected 
almost  as  much  by  his  special  botanical  work  as  by  the  '  Ori- 
gin of  Species/ 

For  a  statement  of  the  scope  and  influence  of  my  father's 
botanical  work,  I  may  refer  to  Mr.  Thiselton  Dyer's  article 
in  '  Charles  Darwin,'  one  of  the  Nature  Series.  Mr.  Dyer's 
wide  knowledge,  his  friendship  with  my  father,  and  especially 
his  power  of  sympathising  with  the  work  of  others,  combine 
to  give  this  essay  a  permanent  value.  The  following  passage 
(p.  43)  gives  a  true  picture  : — 

"  Notwithstanding  the  extent  and  variety  of  his  botanical 
work,  Mr.  Darwin  always  disclaimed  any  right  to  be  regarded 
as  a  professed  botanist.     He  turned  his  attention  to  plants, 


1875.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS,  43 1 

doubtless  because  they  were  convenient  objects  for  studying 
organic  phenomena  in  their  least  complicated  forms  ;  and 
this  point  of  view,  which,  if  one  may  use  the  expression 
without  disrespect,  had  something  of  the  amateur  about  it, 
was  in  itself  of  the  greatest  importance.  For,  from  not  being, 
till  he  took  up  any  point,  familiar  with  the  literature  bearing 
on  it,  his  mind  was  absolutely  free  from  any  prepossession. 
He  was  never  afraid  of  his  facts,  or  of  framing  any  hypothe- 
sis, however  startling,  which  seemed  to  explain  them.  .  .  . 
In  any  one  else  such  an  attitude  would  have  produced  much 
work  that  was  crude  and  rash.  But  Mr.  Darwin — if  one  may 
venture  on  language  which  will  strike  no  one  who  had  con- 
versed with  him  as  over-strained — seemed  by  gentle  persua- 
sion to  have  penetrated  that  reserve  of  nature  which  baffles 
smaller  men.  In  other  words,  his  long  experience  had  given 
him  a  kind  of  instinctive  insight  into  the  method  of  attack  of 
any  biological  problem,  however  unfamiliar  to  him,  while  he 
rigidly  controlled  the  fertility  of  his  mind  in  hypothetical 
explanations  by  the  no  less  fertility  of  ingeniously  devised 
experiment." 

To  form  any  just  idea  of  the  greatness  of  the  revolution 
worked  by  my  father's  researches  in  the  study  of  the  fertilisa- 
tion of  flowers,  it  is  necessary  to  know  from  what  a  condition 
this  branch  of  knowledge  has  emerged.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  it  was  only  during  the  early  years  of  the  present 
century  that  the  idea  of  sex,  as  applied  to  plants,  became  at 
all  firmly  established.  Sachs,  in  his  i  History  of  Botany* 
(1875),  nas  given  some  striking  illustrations  of  the  remark- 
able slowness  with  which  its  acceptance  gained  ground.  He 
remarks  that  when  we  consider  the  experimental  proofs  given 
by  Camerarius  (1694),  and  by  Kolreuter  (1761-66),  it  appears 
incredible  that  doubts  should  afterwards  have  been  raised  as 
to  the  sexuality  of  plants.  Yet  he  shows  that  such  doubts 
did  actually  repeatedly  crop  up.  These  adverse  criticisms 
rested  for  the  most  part  on  careless  experiments,  but  in  many 
cases  on  a  priori  arguments.  Even  as  late  as  1820,  a  book  of 
this  kind,  which  would  now  rank  with  circle  squaring,  or 


432  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1837. 

flat-earth  philosophy,  was    seriously  noticed   in  a  botanical 
journal. 

A  distinct  conception  of  sex  as  applied  to  plants,  had  not 
long  emerged  from  the  mists  of  profitless  discussion  and 
feeble  experiment,  at  the  time  when  my  father  began  botany 
by  attending  Henslow's  lectures  at  Cambridge. 

When  the  belief  in  the  sexuality  of  plants  had  become 
established  as  an  incontrovertible  piece  of  knowledge,  a 
weight  of  misconception  remained,  weighing  down  any  rational 
view  of  the  subject.  Camerarius*  believed  (naturally  enough 
in  his  day)  that  hermaphrodite  flowers  are  necessarily  self- 
fertilised.  He  had  the  wit  to  be  astonished  at  this,  a  degree 
of  intelligence  which,  as  Sachs  points  out,  the  majority  of  his 
successors  did  not  attain  to. 

The  following  extracts  from  a  note-book  show  that  this 
point  occurred  to  my  father  as  early  as  1837  : — 

u  Do  not  plants  which  have  male  and  female  organs  to- 
gether [i.e.  in  the  same  flower]  yet  receive  influence  from 
other  plants?  Does  not  Lyell  give  some  argument  about 
varieties  being  difficult  to  keep  [true]  on  account  of  pollen 
from  other  plants  ?  Because  this  may  be  applied  to  show  all 
plants  do  receive  intermixture." 

Sprengel,f  indeed,  understood  that  the  hermaphrodite 
structure  of  flowers  by  no  means  necessarily  leads  to  self- fer- 
tilisation. But  although  he  discovered  that  in  many  cases 
pollen  is  of  necessity  carried  to  the  stigma  of  another  flower, 
he  did  not  understand  that  in  the  advantage  gained  by  the 
intercrossing  of  distinct  plants  lies  the  key  to  the  whole  ques- 
tion. Hermann  Mtiller  has  well  remarked  that  this  "  omis- 
sion was  for  several  generations  fatal  to  Sprengel's  work.  .  . 
.  .  For  both  at  the  time  and  subsequently,  botanists  felt 
above  all  the  weakness  of  his  theory,  and  they  set  aside,  along 
with  his  defective  ideas,  his  rich  store  of  patient  and  acute 
observations  and  his  comprehensive  and  accurate  interpreta- 


*  Sachs,  '  Geschichte/  p.  419. 

f  Christian  Conrad  Sprengel,  born  1750,  died  1816. 


1839.]  FERTILISATION   OF   FLOWERS.  433 

tions."  It  remained  for  my  father  to  convince  the  world 
that  the  meaning  hidden  in  the  structure  of  flowers  was  to 
be  found  by  seeking  light  in  the  same  direction  in  which 
Sprengel,  seventy  years  before,  had  laboured.  Robert 
Brown  was  the  connecting  link  between  them,  for  it  was 
at  his  recommendation  that  my  father  in  1841  read  Spren- 
gel's  now  celebrated  '  Secret  of  Nature  Displayed/  *  The 
book  impressed  him  as  being  "  full  of  truth,"  although 
"  with  some  little  nonsense."  It  not  only  encouraged  him 
in  kindred  speculation,  but  guided  him  in  his  work,  for  in 
1844  he  speaks  of  verifying  Sprengel's  observations.  It 
may  be  doubted  whether  Robert  Brown  ever  planted  a 
more  beautiful  seed  than  in  putting  such  a  book  into  such 
hands. 

A  passage  in  the  '  Autobiography '  (vol.  i.  p.  73)  shows 
how  it  was  that  my  father  was  attracted  to  the  subject  of 
fertilisation:  il  During  the  summer  of  1839,  and  I  believe 
during  the  previous  summer,  I  was  led  to  attend  to  the  cross- 
fertilisation  of  flowers  by  the  aid  of  insects,  from  having  come 
to  the  conclusion  in  my  speculations  on  the  origin  of  species, 
that  crossing  played  an  important  part  in  keeping  specific 
forms  constant." 

The-  original  connection  between  the  study  of  flowers 
and  the  problem  of  evolution  is  curious,  and  could  hardly 
have  been  predicted.  Moreover,  it  was  not  a  permanent 
bond.  As  soon  as  the  idea  arose  that  the  offspring  of 
cross-fertilisation  is,  in  the  struggle  for  life,  likely  to  con- 
quer the  seedlings  of  self-fertilised  parentage,  a  far  more 
vigorous  belief  in  the  potency  of  natural  selection  in  mould- 
ing the  structure  of  flowers  is  attained.  A  central  idea  is 
gained  towards  which  experiment  and  observation  may  be 
directed. 

Dr.  Gray  has  well  remarked  with  regard  to  this  central 

*  l  Das  entdeckte  Geheimniss  der  Natur  im  Baue  und  in  der  Befruch- 
tung  der  Blumen.'     Berlin,  1793. 


434  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1857. 

idea  ('Nature/  June  4,  1874):— "The  aphorism,  '  Nature 
abhors  a  vacuum/  is  a  characteristic  specimen  of  the  science 
of  the  middle  ages.  The  aphorism,  '  Nature  abhors  close 
fertilisation/  and  the  demonstration  of  the  principle,  belong 
to  our  age  and  to  Mr.  Darwin.  To  have  originated  this,  and 
also  the  principle  of  Natural  Selection  ....  and  to  have 
applied  these  principles  to  the  system  of  nature,  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  make,  within  a  dozen  years,  a  deeper  impres- 
sion upon  natural  history  than  has  been  made  since  Linnaeus, 
is  ample  title  for  one  man's  fame.,, 

The  flowers  of  the  Papilionaceae  attracted  his  attention 
early,  and  were  the  subject  of  his  first  paper  on  fertilisation.* 
The  following  extract  from  an  undated  letter  to  Dr.  Asa 
Gray  seems  to  have  been  written  before  the  publication  of 
this  paper,  probably  in  1856  or  1857  : — 

u .  .  .  .  What  you  say  on  Papilionaceous  flowers  is  very 
true ;  and  I  have  no  facts  to  show  that  varieties  are  crossed ; 
but  yet  (and  the  same  remark  is  applicable  in  a  beautiful  way 
to  Fumaria  and  Dielytra,  as  I  noticed  many  years  ago),  I 
must  believe  that  the  flowers  are  constructed  partly  in  direct 
relation  to  the  visits  of  insects ;  and  how  insects  can  avoid 
bringing  pollen  from  other  individuals  I  cannot  understand. 
It  is  really  pretty  to  watch  the  action  of  a  Humble-bee  on 
the  scarlet  kidney  bean,  and  in  this  genus  (and  in  Lathyrus 
grandiflorus)  the  honey  is  so  placed  that  the  bee  invariably 
alights  on  that  one  side  of  the  flower  towards  which  the  spiral 
pistil  is  protruded  (bringing  out  with  it  pollen),  and  by  the 
depression  of  the  wing-petal  is  forced  against  the  bee's  side 
all  dusted  with  pollen.f  In  the  broom  the  pistil  is  rubbed 
on  the  centre  of  the  back  of  the  bee.    I  suspect  there  is  some- 

*  Gardeners'  Chronicle,  1857,  p.  725.  It  appears  that  this  paper  was  a 
piece  of  "over-time"  work.  He  wrote  to  a  friend,  "that  confounded 
leguminous  paper  was  done  in  the  afternoon,  and  the  consequence  was  I 
had  to  go  to  Moor  Park  for  a  week." 

\  If  you  will  look  at  a  bed  of  scarlet  kidney  beans  you  will  find  that 
the  wing-petals  on  the  left  side  alone  are  all  scratched  by  the  tarsi  of  the 
bees.     [Note  in  the  original  letter  by  C.  Darwin.] 


1857.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  435 

thing  to  be  made  out  about  the  Leguminosae,  which  will 
bring  the  case  within  our  theory  ;  though  I  have  failed  to  do 
so.  Our  theory  will  explain  why  in  the  vegetable  and  animal 
kingdom  the  act  of  fertilisation  even  in  hermaphrodites  usu- 
ally takes  place  sub-jove,  though  thus  exposed  to  great  injury 
from  damp  and  rain.  In  animals  which  cannot  be  [fertilised] 
by  insects  or  wind,  there  is  no  case  of  /ana7- animals  being  her- 
maphrodite without  the  concourse  of  two  individuals." 

A  letter  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray  (Sept.  5th,  1857)  gives  the  sub- 
stance of  the  paper  in  the  Gardeners*  Chronicle  : — 

"  Lately  I  was  led  to  examine  buds  of  kidney  bean  with 
the  pollen  shed ;  but  I  was  led  to  believe  that  the  pollen 
could  hardly  get  on  the  stigma  by  wind  or  otherwise,  except 
by  bees  visiting  [the  flower]  and  moving  the  wing  petals  : 
hence  I  included  a  small  bunch  of  flowers  in  two  bottles  in 
every  way  treated  the  same  :  the  flowers  in  one  I  daily  just 
momentarily  moved,  as  if  by  a  bee  ;  these  set  three  fine  pods, 
the  other  not  one.  Of  course  this  little  experiment  must  be 
tried  again,  and  this  year  in  England  it  is  too  late,  as  the 
flowers  seem  now  seldom  to  set.  If  bees  are  necessary  to 
this  flower's  self-fertilisation,  bees  must  almost  cross  them,  as 
their  dusted  right-side  of  head  and  right  legs  constantly 
touch  the  stigma. 

"I  have,  also,  lately  been  re-observing  daily  Lobelia  ful- 
gens — this  in  my  garden  is  never  visited  by  insects,  and  never 
sets  seeds,  without  pollen  be  put  on  the  stigma  (whereas  the 
small  blue  Lobelia  is  visited  by  bees  and  does  set  seed)  ;  I 
mention  this  because  there  are  such  beautiful  contrivances  to 
prevent  the  stigma  ever  getting  its  own  pollen ;  which  seems 
only  explicable  on  the  doctrine  of  the  advantage  of  crosses." 

The  paper  was  supplemented  by  a  second  in  1858.*  The 
chief  object  of  these  publications  seems  to  have  been  to  obtain 


*  Gardeners'  Chronicle,  1858,  p.  828.  In  1861  another  paper  on  Fer- 
tilisation appeared  in  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle,  p.  552,  in  which  he  ex- 
plained the  action  of  insects  on  Vinca  major.  He  was  attracted  to  the 
periwinkle  by  the  fact  that  it  is  not  visited  by  insects  and  never  sets  seeds. 


436  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1858. 

information  as  to  the  possibility  of  growing  varieties  of  legu- 
minous plants  near  each  other,  and  yet  keeping  them  true. 
It  is  curious  that  the  Papilionaceae  should  not  only  have  been 
the  first  flowers  which  attracted  hib  attention  by  their  obvious 
adaptation  to  the  visits  of  insects,  but  should  also  have  con- 
stituted one  of  his  sorest  puzzles.  The  common  pea  and  the 
sweet  pea  gave  him  much  difficulty,  because,  although  they 
are  as  obviously  fitted  for  insect-visits  as  the  rest  of  the 
order,  yet  their  varieties  keep  true.  The  fact  is  that  neither 
of  these  plants  being  indigenous,  they  are  not  perfectly 
adapted  for  fertilisation  by  British  insects.  He  could  not, 
at  this  stage  of  his  observations,  know  that  the  co-ordination 
between  a  flower  and  the  particular  insect  which  fertilises 
it  may  be  as  delicate  as  that  between  a  lock  and  its 
key,  so  that  this  explanation  was  not  likely  to  occur  to 
him  * 

Besides  observing  the  Leguminosae,  he  had  already  begun, 
as  shown  in  the  foregoing  extracts,  to  attend  to  the  structure 
of  other  flowers  in  relation  to  insects.  At  the  beginning  of 
i860  he  worked  at  Leschenaultia,f  which  at  first  puzzled  him, 
but  was  ultimately  made  out.  A  passage  in  a  letter  chiefly 
relating  to  Leschenaultia  seems  to  show  that  it  was  only  in 
the  spring  of  i860  that  he  began  widely  to  apply  his  knowledge 
to  the  relation  of  insects  to  other  flowers.  This  is  somewhat 
surprising,  when  we  remember  that  he  had  read  Sprengel 
many  years  before.     He  wrote  (May  14)  : —  , 

"  I  should  look  at  this  curious  contrivance  as  specially  re- 
lated to  visits  of  insects  ;  as  I  begin  to  think  is  almost  univer- 
sally the  case." 

Even  in  July  1862  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray  : — 

"  There  is  no  end  to  the  adaptations.  Ought  not  these 
cases  to  make  one  very  cautious  when  one  doubts  about  the 

*  He  was  of  course  alive  to  variety  in  the  habits  of  insects.  He  pub- 
lished a  short  note  in  the  Entomologists  Weekly  Intelligencer,  i860,  asking 
whether  the  Tineina  and  other  small  moths  suck  flowers. 

f  He  published  a  short  paper  on  the  manner  of  fertilisation  of  this 
flower,  in  the  Gardeners   Chronicle,  1871,  p.  11 66. 


i860.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  437 

use  of  all  parts  ?  I  fully  believe  that  the  structure  of  all 
irregular  flowers  is  governed  in  relation  to  insects.  Insects 
are  the  Lords  of  the  floral  (to  quote  the  witty  Athenceum) 
world." 

He  was  probably  attracted  to  the  study  of  Orchids  by 
the  fact  that  several  kinds  are  common  near  Down.  The 
letters  of  i860  show  that  these  plants  occupied  a  good  deal  of 
his  attention  ;  and  in  1861  he  gave  part  of  the  summer  and 
and  all  the  autumn  to  the  subject.  He  evidently  considered 
himself  idle  for  wasting  time  on  Orchids,  which  ought  to 
have  been  given  to  '  Variation  under  Domestication/  Thus 
he  wrote  : — 

"  There  is  to  me  incomparably  more  interest  in  observing 
than  in  writing  ;  but  I  feel  quite  guilty  in  trespassing  on  these 
subjects,  and  not  sticking  to  varieties  of  the  confounded 
cocks,  hens  and  ducks.  I  hear  that  Lyell  is  savage  at  me.  I 
shall  never  resist  Linum  next  summer." 

It  was  in  the  summer  of  i860  that  he  made  out  one  of  the 
most  striking  and  familiar  facts  in  the  book,  namely,  the 
manner  in  which  the  pollen  masses  in  Orchis  are  adapted 
for  removal  by  insects.  He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  July 
12  : — 

"I  have  been  examining  Orchis  pyramidalis,  and  it  almost 
equals,  perhaps  even  beats,  your  Listera  case  ;  the  sticky 
glands  are  congenitally  united  into  a  saddle-shaped  organ, 
which  has  great  power  of  movement,  and  seizes  hold  of  a 
bristle  (or  proboscis)  in  an  admirable  manner,  and  then 
another  movement  takes  place  in  the  pollen  masses,  by 
which  they  are  beautifully  adapted  to  leave  pollen  on  the 
two  lateral  stigmatic  surfaces.  I  never  saw  anything  so  beau- 
tiful." 

In  June  of  the  same  year  he  wrote  : — 

"You  speak  of  adaptation  being  rarely  visible,  though 
present  in  plants.  I  have  just  recently  been  looking  at  the 
common  Orchis,  and  I  declare  I  think  its  adaptations  in 
every  part  of  the  flower  quite  as  beautiful  and  plain,  or  even 
more  beautiful  than  in  the  Woodpecker.     I  have  written  and 


438  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  L1860. 

sent  a  notice  for  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle*  on  a  curious  diffi- 
culty in  the  Bee  Orchis,  and  should  much  like  to  hear  what 
you  think  of  the  case.  In  this  article  I  have  incidentally 
touched  on  adaptation  to  visits  of  insects  ;  but  the  contriv- 
ance to  keep  the  sticky  glands  fresh  and  sticky  beats  almost 
everything  in  nature.  I  never  remember  having  seen  it  de- 
scribed, but  it  must  have  been,  and,  as  I  ought  not  in  my  book 
to  give  the  observation  as  my  own,  I  should  be  very  glad  to 
know  where  this  beautiful  contrivance  is  described." 

He  wrote  also  to  Dr.  Gray,  June  8,  i860  : — 

"  Talking  of  adaptation,  I  have  lately  been  looking  at  our 
common  orchids,  and  I  dare  say  the  facts  are  as  old  and  well- 
known  as  the  hills,  but  I  have  been  so  struck  with  admiration 
at  the  contrivances,  that  I  have  sent  a  notice  to  the  Garden- 
ers' Chronicle.  The  Ophrys  apifera,  offers,  as  you  will  see,  a 
curious  contradiction  in  structure.', 

Besides  attending  to  the  fertilisation  of  the  flowers  he  was 
already,  in  i860,  busy  with  the  homologies  of  the  parts,  a 
subject  of  which  he  made  good  use  in  the  Orchid  book.  He 
wrote  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  (July)  : — 

"  It  is  a  real  good  joke  my  discussing  homologies  of  Or- 
chids with  you,  after  examining  only  three  or  four  genera; 
and  this  very  fact  makes  me  feel  positive  I  am  right !  I  do 
not  quite  understand  some  of  your  terms ;  but  sometime  I 
must  get  you  to  explain  the  homologies  ;  for  I  am  intensely 
interested  on  the  subject,  just  as  at  a  game  of  chess." 

This  work  was  valuable  from  a  systematic  point  of  view. 
In  1880  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Bentham  : — 

"  It  was  very  kind  in  you  to  write  to  me  about  the  Or- 
chidese,  for  it  has  pleased  me  to  an  extreme  degree  that  I 
could  have  been  of  the  least  use  to  you  about  the  nature  of 
the  parts." 

The  pleasure  which  his  early  observations  on  Orchids  gave 


*  June  9,  i860.  This  seems  to  have  attracted  some  attention,  espe- 
cially among  entomologists,  as  it  was  reprinted  in  the  Entomologists  Weekly 
Intelligencer,  i860. 


i86i.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  439 

him  is  shown  in  such  extracts  as  the  following  from  a  letter 
to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (July  27,  1861)  :— 

"You  cannot  conceive  how  the  Orchids  have  delighted 
me.  They  came  safe,  but  box  rather  smashed  ;  cylindrical 
old  cocoa-  or  snuff-canister  much  safer.  I  enclose  postage. 
As  an  account  of  the  movement,  I  shall  allude  to  what  I  sup- 
pose is  Oncidium,  to  make  certain, — is  the  enclosed  flower 
with  crumpled  petals  this  genus  ?  Also  I  most  specially  want 
to  know  what  the  enclosed  little  globular  brown  Orchid  is. 
I  have  only  seen  pollen  of  a  Cattleya  on  a  bee,  but  surely 
have  you  not  unintentionally  sent  me  what  I  wanted  most 
(after  Catasetum  or  Mormodes),  viz.  one  of  the  Epidendreae  ? ! 
1  particularly  want  (and  will  presently  tell  you  why)  another 
spike  of  this  little  Orchid,  with  older  flowers,  some  even  al- 
most withered. " 

His  delight  in  observation  is  again  shown  in  a  letter  to 
Dr.  Gray  (1863).  Referring  to  Cruger's  letters  from  Trini- 
dad, he  wrote  : — "  Happy  man,  he  has  actually  seen  crowds  of 
bees  flying  round  Catasetum,  with  the  pollinia  sticking  to 
their  backs  !  " 

The  following  extracts  of  letters  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  illus- 
trate further  the  interest  which  his  work  excited  in  him  : — 

"  Veitch  sent  me  a  grand  lot  this  morning.  What  wonder- 
ful structures  ! 

"  I  have  now  seen  enough,  and  you  must  not  send  me  more, 
for  though  I  enjoy  looking  at  them  much,  and  it  has  been 
very  useful  to  me,  seeing  so  many  different  forms,  it  is  idle- 
ness. For  my  object  each  species  requires  studying  for 
days.  I  wish  you  had  time  to  take  up  the  group.  I  would 
give  a  good  deal  to  know  what  the  rostellum  is,  of  which  I 
have  traced  so  many  curious  modifications.  I  suppose  it 
cannot  be  one  of  the  stigmas,*  there  seems  a  great  tendency 
for  two  lateral  stigmas  to  appear.  My  paper,  though  touch- 
ing on  only  subordinate  points  will  run,  I  fear,  to  100  MS. 
folio  pages  !     The  beauty  of  the  adaptation  of  parts  seems 

*  It  is  a  modification  of  the  upper  stigma. 


440  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1861, 

co  me  unparalleled.  I  should  think  or  guess  waxy  pollen 
was  most  differentiated.  In  Cypripedium  which  seems  least 
modified,  and  a  much  exterminated  group,  the  grains  are 
single.  In  all  others,  as  far  as  I  have  seen,  they  are  in  packets 
of  four ;  and  these  packets  cohere  into  many  wedge-formed 
masses  in  Orchis  ;  into  eight,  four,  and  finally  two.  It  seems 
curious  that  a  flower  should  exist,  which  could  at  most  fertil- 
ise only  two  other  flowers,  seeing  how  abundant  pollen  gen- 
erally is  ;  this  fact  I  look  at  as  explaining  the  perfection  of 
the  contrivance  by  which  the  pollen,  so  important  from  its 
fewness,  is  carried  from  flower  to  flower"  (1861). 

"  I  was  thinking  of  writing  to  you  to-day,  when  your  note 
with  the  Orchids  came.  What  frightful  trouble  you  have 
taken  about  Vanilla  ;  you  really  must  not  take  an  atom 
more  ;  for  the  Orchids  are  more  play  than  real  work.  I  have 
been  much  interested  by  Epidendrum,  and  have  worked  all 
morning  at  them  ;  for  heaven's  sake,  do  not  corrupt  me  by 
any  more  "  (August  30,  1861). 

He  originally  intended  to  publish  his  notes  on  Orchids 
as  a  paper  in  the  Linnean  Society's  Journal,  but  it  soon  be- 
came evident  that  a  separate  volume  would  be  a  more  suitable 
form  of  publication.  In  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker,  Sept. 
24,  1861,  he  writes  : — 

"  I  have  been  acting,  I  fear  that  you  will  think,  like  a 
goose  ;  and  perhaps  in  truth  I  have.  When  I  finished  a  few 
days  ago  my  Orchis  paper,  which  turns  out  140  folio  pages!  ! 
and  thought  of  the  expense  of  woodcuts,  I  said  to  myself,  I 
will  offer  the  Linnean  Society  to  withdraw  it,  and  publish  it 
in  a  pamphlet.  It  then  flashed  on  me  that  perhaps  Murray 
would  publish  it,  so  I  gave  him  a  cautious  description,  and 
offered  to  share  risks  and  profits.  This  morning  he  writes 
that  he  will  publish  and  take  all  risks,  and  share  profits  and  pay 
for  all  illustrations.  It  is  a  risk,  and  heaven  knows  whether 
it  will  not  be  a  dead  failure,  but  I  have  not  deceived  Murray, 
and  [have]  told  him  that  it  would  interest  those  alone  who 
cared  much  for  natural  history.  I  hope  I  do  not  exaggerate 
the  curiosity  of  the  many  special  contrivances.,, 


i86i,]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  441 

He  wrote  the  two  following  letters  to  Mr.  Murray  about 
the  publication  of*the  book  :] 

Down,  Sept.  21  [1861]. 

My  dear  Sir, — Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  give  me 
your  opinion,  which  I  shall  implicitly  follow.  I  have  just 
finished  a  very  long  paper  intended  for  Linnean  Society 
(the  title  is  enclosed),  and  yesterday  for  the  first  time  it 
occurred  to  me  that  possibly  it  might  be  worth  publishing 
separately  which  would  save  me  trouble  and  delay.  The 
facts  are  new,  and  have  been  collected  during  twenty  years 
and  strike  me  as  curious.  Like  a  Bridgewater  treatise,  the 
chief  object  is  to  show  the  perfection  of  the  many  contrivances 
in  Orchids.  The  subject  of  propagation  is  interesting  to 
most  people,  and  is  treated  in  my  paper  so  that  any  woman 
could  read  it.  Parts  are  dry  and  purely  scientific  ;  but  I 
think  my  paper  would  interest  a  good  many  of  such  persons 
who  care  for  Natural  History,  but  no  others. 

...  It  would  be  a  very  little  book,  and  I  believe  you  think 
very  little  books  objectionable.  I  have  myself  great  doubts 
on  the  subject.  I  am  very  apt  to  think  that  my  geese  are 
swans  ;  but  the  subject  seems  to  me  curious  and  interesting. 

I  beg  you  not  to  be  guided  in  the  least  in  order  to  oblige 
me,  but  as  far  as  you  can  judge,  please  give  me  your  opinion. 
If  I  were  to  publish  separately,  I  would  agree  to  any  terms, 
such  as  half  risk  and  half  profit,  or  what  you  liked ;  but  I 
would  not  publish  on  my  sole  risk,  for  to  be  frank,  I  have 
been  told  that  no  publisher  whatever,  under  such  circum- 
stances, cares  for  the  success  of  a  book. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  Murray. 

Down,  Sept.  24  [1861]. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  am  very  much  obliged  for  your  note  and 
very  liberal  offer.  I  have  had  some  qualms  and  fears.  All 
that  I  can  feel  sure  of  is  that  the  MS.  contains  many  new  and 
curious  facts,  and  I  am  sure  the  Essay  would  have  interested 
me,  and  will  interest  those  who  feel  lively  interest  in  the 


442  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [i86i0 

wonders  of  nature  ;  but  how  far  the  public  will  care  for  such 
minute  details,  I  cannot  at  all  tell.  It  is  a  bold  experiment ; 
and  at  worst,  cannot  entail  much  loss  ;  as  a  certain  amount 
of  sale  will,  I  think,  be  pretty  certain.  A  large  sale  is  out  of 
the  question.  As  far  as  I  can  judge,  generally  the  points 
which  interest  me  I  find  interest  others  ;  but  I  make  the 
experiment  with  fear  and  trembling, — not  for  my  own  sake, 
but  for  yours.  ...  , 

[On  Sept.  28th  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker : — 

"  What  a  good  soul  you  are  not  to  sneer  at  me,  but  to  pat 
me  on  the  back.  I  have  the  greatest  doubt  whether  I  am  not 
going  to  do,  in  publishing  my  paper,  a  most  ridiculous  thing. 
It  would  annoy  me  much,  but  only  for  Murray's  sake,  if  the 
publication  were  a  dead  failure/' 

There  was  still  much  work  to  be  done,  and  in  October 
he  was  still  receiving  Orchids  from  Kew,  and  wrote  to 
Hooker  : — 

"  It  is  impossible  to  thank  you  enough.  I  was  almost  mad 
at  the  wealth  of  Orchids. "     And  again — 

"  Mr.  Veitch  most  generously  has  sent  me  two  splendid 
buds  of  Mormodes,  which  will  be  capital  for  dissection,  but 
I  fear  will  never  be  irritable  ;  so  for  the  sake  of  charity  and 
love  of  heaven  do,  I  beseech  you,  observe  what  movement 
takes  place  in  Cychnoches,  and  what  part  must  be  touched. 
Mr.  V.  has  also  sent  me  one  splendid  flower  of  Catasetum, 
the  most  wonderful  Orchid  I  have  seen." 

On  Oct.  13th  he  wrote  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  : — 

"  It  seems  that  I  cannot  exhaust  your  good  nature.  I 
have  had  the  hardest  day's  work  at  Catasetum  and  buds  of 
Mormodes,  and  believe  I  understand  at  last  the  mechanism  of 
movements  and  the  functions.  Catasetum  is  a  beautiful  case 
of  slight  modification  of  structure  leading  to  new  functions. 
I  never  was  more  interested  in  any  subject  in  my  life  than  in 
this  of  Orchids.     I  owe  very  much  to  you." 

Again  to  the  same  friend,  Nov.  1,  1861  : — 


i86i.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  443 

"If  you  really  can  spare  another  Catasetum,  when  nearly 
ready,  I  shall  be  most  grateful  ;  had  I  not  better  send  for  it  ? 
The  case  is  truly  marvellous  ;  the  (so-called)  sensation,  or 
stimulus  from  a  light  touch  is  certainly  transmitted  through 
the  antennae  for  more  than  one  inch  instantaneously.  ...  A 
cursed  insect  or  something  let  my  last  flower  off  last  night." 

Professor  de  Candolle  has  remarked*  of  my  father,  "  Ce 
n'est  pas  lui  qui  aurait  demande  de  construire  des  palais  pour 
y  loger  des  laboratoires."  This  was  singularly  true  of  his 
orchid  work,  or  rather  it  would  be  nearer  the  truth  to  say 
that  he  had  no  laboratory,  for  it  was  only  after  the  publication 
of  the  '  Fertilisation  of  Orchids/  that  he  built  himself  a  green- 
house.    He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (Dec.  24th,  1862)  : — 

"  And  now  I  am  going  to  tell  you  a  most  important  piece 
of  news ! !  I  have  almost  resolved  to  build  a  small  hot-house ; 
my  neighbour's  really  first-rate  gardener  has  suggested  it, 
and  offered  to  make  me  plans,  and  see  that  it  is  well  done, 
and  he  is  really  a  clever  fellow,  who  wins  lots  of  prizes,  and 
is  very  observant.  He  believes  that  we  should  succeed  with 
a  little  patience;  it  will  be  a  grand  amusement  for  me  to 
experiment  with  plants." 

Again  he  wrote  (Feb.  15  th,  1863) : — 

"  I  write  now  because  the  new  hot-house  is  ready,  and  I 
long  to  stock  it,  just  like  a  schoolboy.  Could  you  tell  me 
pretty  soon  what  plants  you  can  give  me  ;  and  then  I  shall 
know  what  to  order  ?  And  do  advise  me  how  I  had  better 
get  such  plants  as  you  can  spare.  Would  it  do  to  send  my 
tax-cart  early  in  the  morning,  on  a  day  that  was  not  frosty, 
lining  the  cart  with  mats,  and  arriving  here  before  night  ? 
I  have  no  idea  whether  this  degree  of  exposure  (and  of  course 
the  cart  would  be  cold)  could  injure  stove-plants  ;  they  would 
be  about  five  hours  (with  bait)  on  the  journey  home." 

A  week  later  he  wrote  : — 

"  You  cannot  imagine  what  pleasure  your  plants  give  me 

*  *  Darwin  considere,  &c.,'  '  Archives  des  Sciences  Physiques  et  Natu- 
relles/  3eme  periode.     Tome  vii.  481,  1882  (May). 
65 


444  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1861. 

(far  more  than  your  dead  Wedgwood  ware  can  give  you) ; 
and  I  go  and  gloat  over  them,  but  we  privately  confessed  to 
each  other,  that  if  they  were  not  our  own,  perhaps  we  should 
not  see  such  transcendent  beauty  in  each  leaf." 

And  in  March,  when  he  was  extremely  unwell  he  wrote : — 

"A  few  words  about  the  Stove-plants;  they  do  so  amuse 
me.  I  have  crawled  to  see  them  two  or  three  times.  Will 
you  correct  and  answer,  and  return  enclosed.  I  have  hunted 
in  all  my  books  and  cannot  find  these  names,*  and  I  like 
much  to  know  the  family." 

The  book  was  published  May  15th,  1862.  Of  its  reception 
he  writes  to  Murray,  June  13th  and  18th  : — 

"  The  Botanists  praise  my  Orchid-book  to  the  skies.  Some 
one  sent  me  (perhaps  you)  the  '  Parthenon/  with  a  good  re- 
view. The  Athenceum  f  treats  me  with  very  kind  pity  and 
contempt ;  but  the  reviewer  knew  nothing  of  his  subject." 

"  There  is  a  superb,  but  I  fear  exaggerated,  review  in  the 
'  London  Review.'  J  But  I  have  not  been  a  fool,  as  I  thought 
I  was,  to  publish  ; #  for  Asa  Gray,  about  the  most  competent 
judge  in  the  world,  thinks  almost  as  highly  of  the  book  as 
does  the  '  London  Review/  The  Athenczurn  will  hinder  the 
sale  greatly." 

The  Rev.  M.  J.  Berkeley  was  the  author  of  the  notice  in 
the  '  London  Review/  as  my  father  learned  from  Sir  J.  D. 

*  His  difficulty  with  regard  to  the  names  of  plants  is  illustrated,  with 
regard  to  a  Lupine  on  which  he  was  at  work,  in  an  extract  from  a  letter 
(July  21,  1866)  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker :  "  I  sent  to  the  nursery  garden,  whence 
I  bought  the  seed,  and  could  only  hear  that  it  was  *  the  common  blue  Lu- 
pine,' the  man  saying  'he  was  no  scholard,  and  did  not  know  Latin,  and 
that  parties  who  make  experiments  ought  to  find  out  the  names.' " 

f  May  24,  1862. 
%  June  14,  1862. 

#  Doubts  on  this  point  still,  however,  occurred  to  him  about  this  time. 
He  wrote  to  Prof.  Oliver  (June  8):  "I  am  glad  that  you  have  read  my 
Orchis-book  and  seem  to  approve  of  it  ;  for  I  never  published  anything 
which  I  so  much  doubted  whether  it  was  worth  publishing,  and  indeed  I 
still  doubt.  The  subject  interested  me  beyond  what,  I  suppose,  it  is 
worth." 


i862.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  445 

Hooker,  who  added,  "  I  thought  it  very  well  done  indeed.  I 
have  read  a  good  deal  of  the  Orchid-book,  and  echo  all  he 
says/' 

To  this  my  father  replied  (June  30th,  1862)  : — 
"  My  dear  Old  Friend, — You  speak  of  my  warming  the 
cockles  of  your  heart,  but  you  will  never  know  how  often  you 
have  warmed  mine.  It  is  not  your  approbation  of  my  scien- 
tific work  (though  I  care  for  that  more  than  for  any  one's) :  it 
is  something  deeper.  To  this  day  I  remember  keenly  a  letter 
you  wrote  to  me  from  Oxford,  when  I  was  at  the  Water-cure, 
and  how  it  cheered  me  when  I  was  utterly  weary  of  life. 
Well,  my  Orchis-book  is  a  success  (but  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  sells). " 

In  another  letter  to  the  same  friend,  he  wrote : — 
"  You  have  pleased  me  much  by  what  you  say  in  regard  to 
Bentham  and  Oliver  approving  of  my  book ;  for  I  had  got  a 
sort  of  nervousness,  and  doubted  whether  I  had  not  made  an 
egregious  fool  of  myself,  and  concocted  pleasant  little  stinging 
remarks  for  reviews,  such  as  'Mr.  Darwin's  head  seems  to 
have  been  turned  by  a  certain  degree  of  success,  and  he 
thinks  that  the  most  trifling  observations  are  worth  publica- 
tion/ " 

Mr.  Bentham's  approval  was  given  in  his  Presidential 
Address  to  the  Linnean  Society,  May  24,  1862,  and  was  all 
the  more  valuable  because  it  came  from  one  who  was  by 
no  means  supposed  to  be  favourable  to  evolutionary  doc- 
trines.] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  June  10  [1862]. 
My  dear  Gray, — Your  generous  sympathy  makes  you 
overestimate  what  you  have  read  of  my  Orchid-book.  But 
your  letter  of  May  i8th  and  26th  has  given  me  an  almost 
foolish  amount  of  satisfaction.  The  subject  interested  me,  I 
knew,  beyond  its  real  value  ;  but  I  had  lately  got  to  think 
that  I  had  made  myself  a  complete  fool  by  publishing  in  a 
semi-popular  form.     Now  I  shall  confidently  defy  the  world 


446  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1862. 

I  have  heard  that  Bentham  and  Oliver  approve  of  it ;  but  I 
have  heard  the  opinion  of  no  one  else  whose  opinion  is  worth 
a  farthing.  .  .  .  No  doubt  my  volume  contains  much  error : 
how  curiously  difficult  it  is  to  be  accurate,  though  I  try  my 
utmost.  Your  notes  have  interested  me  beyond  measure.  I 
can  now  afford  to  d —  my  critics  with  ineffable  complacency 
of  mind.  Cordial  thanks  for  this  benefit.  It  is  surprising  to 
me  that  you  should  have  strength  of  mind  to  care  for  science, 
amidst  the  awful  events  daily  occurring  in  your  country.  I 
daily  look  at  the  Times  with  almost  as  much  interest  as  an 
American  could  do.  When  will  peace  come  ?  it  is  dreadful 
to  think  of  the  desolation  of  large  parts  of  your  magnificent 
country  ;  and  all  the  speechless  misery  suffered  by  many.  I 
hope  and  think  it  not  unlikely  that  we  English  are  wrong  in 
concluding  that  it  will  take  a  long  time  for  prosperity  to  re- 
turn to  you.     It  is  an  awful  subject  to  reflect  on.  .   ,  . 

[Dr.  Asa  Gray  reviewed  the  book  in  'Silliman's  Journal/* 
where  he  speaks,  in  strong  terms,  of  the  fascination  which  it 
must  have  for  even  slightly  instructed  readers.  He  made,  too, 
some  original  observations  on  an  American  orchid,  and  these 
first-fruits  of  the  subject,  sent  in  MS.  or  proof  sheet  to  my 
father,  were  welcomed  by  him  in  a  letter  (July  23rd) : — 

"  Last  night,  after  writing  the  above,  I  read  the  great 
bundle  of  notes.  Little  did  I  think  what  I  had  to  read. 
What  admirable  observations  !  You  have  distanced  me  on 
my  own  hobby-horse  !  I  have  not  had  for  weeks  such  a  glow 
of  pleasure  as  your  observations  gave  me." 

The  next  letter  refers  to  the  publication  of  the  review:] 

*  '  Silliman's  Journal,'  vol.  xxiv.  p.  138.  Here  is  given  an  account  of 
the  fertilisation  of  Platanthera  Hookeri.  P.  hyperborea  is  discussed  in  Dr. 
Gray's  *  Enumeration '  in  the  same  volume,  p.  259  ;  also,  with  other 
species,  in  a  second  notice  of  the  Orchid-book  at  p.  420. 


i862.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  447 

C  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  July  28  [1862]. 

My  dear  Gray, — I  hardly  know  what  to  thank  for  first. 
Your  stamps  gave  infinite  satisfaction.  I  took  him  *  first  one 
lot,  and  then  an  hour  afterwards  another  lot.  He  actually- 
raised  himself  on  one  elbow  to  look  at  them.  It  was  the  first 
animation  he  showed.  He  said  only  :  "  You  must  thank  Pro- 
fessor Gray  awfully. "  In  the  evening  after  a  long  silence, 
there  came  out  the  oracular  sentence  :  u  He  is  awfully  kind." 
And  indeed  you  are,  overworked  as  you  are,  to  take  so  much 
trouble  for  our  poor  dear  little  man. — And  now  I  must  begin 
the  "awfullys"  on  my  own  account:  what  a  capital  notice 
you  have  published  on  the  orchids  !  It  could  not  have  been 
better ;  but  I  fear  that  you  overrate  it.  I  am  very  sure  that  I 
had  not  the  least  idea  that  you  or  any  one  would  approve  of  it 
so  much.  I  return  your  last  note  for  the  chance  of  your  pub- 
lishing any  notice  on  the  subject ;  but  after  all  perhaps  you 
may  not  think  it  worth  while  ;  yet  in  my  judgment  several  of 
your  facts,  especially  Platanthera  hyperborea,  are  much  too 
good  to  be  merged  in  a  reyiew.  But  I  have  always  noticed 
that  you  are  prodigal  in  originality  in  your  reviews.  .  .  . 

[Sir  Joseph  Hooker  reviewed  the  book  in  the  Gardeners' 
Chronicle,  writing  in  a  successful  imitation  of  the  style  of 
Lindley,  the  Editor.  My  father  wrote  to  Sir  Joseph  (Nov. 
12,  1862)  : — 

"  So  you  did  write  the  review  in  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle. 
Once  or  twice  I  doubted  whether  it  was  Lindley  ;  but  when 
I  came  to  a  little  slap  at  R.  Brown,  I  doubted  no  longer. 
You  arch-rogue  !  I  do  not  wonder  you  have  deceived  others 
also.  Perhaps  I  am  a  conceited  dog ;  but  if  so,  you  have 
much  to  answer  for  ;  I  never  received  so  much  praise,  and 
coming  from  you  I  value  it  much  more  than  from  any  other." 

With  regard  to  botanical  opinion  generally,  he  wrote  to 

*  One  of  his  boys  who  was  ill. 


4^8  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1862. 

Dr.  Gray,  "  I  am  fairly  astonished  at  the  success  of  my  book 
with  botanists."  Among  naturalists  who  were  not  botanists, 
Lyell  was  pre-eminent  in  his  appreciation  of  the  book.  I 
have  no  means  of  knowing  when  he  read  it,  but  in  later  life, 
as  I  learn  from  Professor  Judd,  he  was  enthusiastic  in  praise 
of  the  i  Fertilisation  of  Orchids/  which  he  considered  "  next 
to  the  '  Origin/  as  the  most  valuable  of  all  Darwin's  works." 
Among  the  general  public  the  author  did  not  at  first  hear  of 
many  disciples,  thus  he  wrote  to  his  cousin  Fox  in  September 
1862:  "  Hardly  any  one  not  a  botanist,  except  yourself,  as 
far  as  I  know,  has  cared  for  it." 

A  favourable  notice  appeared  in  the  Saturday  Review, 
October  18th,  1862  ;  the  reviewer  points  out  that  the  book 
would  escape  the  angry  polemics  aroused  by  the  i  Origin.'  * 
This  is  illustrated  by  a  review  in  the  Literary  Churchman,  in 
which  only  one  fault  found,  namely,  that  Mr.  Darwin's  ex- 
pression of  admiration  at  the  contrivances  in  orchids  is  too 
indirect  a  way  of  saying,  "  O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  Thy 
works  !  " 

A  somewhat  similar  criticism  occurs  in  the  '  Edinburgh 
Review'  (October  1862).  The  writer  points  out  that  Mr. 
Darwin  constantly  uses  phrases,  *such  as  "  beautiful  contri- 
vance," "the  labellum  is  .  .  .  in  order  to  attract,"  "the 
nectar  is  purposely  lodged."  The  Reviewer  concludes  his 
discussion  thus:  "We  know,  too,  that  these  purposes 
and  ideas  are  not  our  own,  but  the  ideas  and  purposes  of 
Another." 

The  '  Edinburgh  '  reviewer's  treatment  of  this  subject  was 
criticised  in  the  Saturday  Reviezvy  November  15th,  1862  : 
With  reference  to  this  article  my  father  wrote  to  Sir  Joseph 
Hooker  (December  29th,  1862)  : — 

"  Here  is  an  odd  chance  ;  my  nephew  Henry  Parker,  an 
Oxford  Classic,  and  Fellow  of  Oriel,  came  here  this  evening  ; 

*  Dr.  Gray  pointed  out  that  if  the  Orchid-book  (with  a  few  trifling 
omissions)  had  appeared  before  the  '  Origin,'  the  author  would  have  been 
canonised  rather  than  anathematised  by  the  natural  theologians. 


1862.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  449 

and  I  asked  him  whether  he  knew  who  had  written  the  little 
article  in  the  Saturday,  smashing  the  [Edinburgh  reviewer], 
which  we  liked  ;  and  after  a  little  hesitation  he  owned  he  had. 
I  never  knew  that  he  wrote  in  the  Saturday  ;  and  was  it  not 
an  odd  chance  ?  " 

The  '  Edinburgh '  article  was  written  by  the  Duke  of 
Argyll,  and  has  since  been  made  use  of  in  his  '  Reign  of  Law/ 
1867.  Mr.  Wallace  replied  *  to  the  Duke's  criticisms,  making 
some  specially  good  remarks  on  those  which  refer  to  orchids. 
He  shows  how,  by  a  u  beautiful  self-acting  adjustment,"  the 
nectary  of  the  orchid  Angraecum  (from  10  to  14  inches  in 
length),  and  the  proboscis  of  a  moth  sufficiently  long  to  reach 
the  nectar,  might  be  developed  by  natural  selection.  He  goes 
on  to  point  out  that  on  any  other  theory  we  must  suppose 
that  the  flower  was  created  with  an  enormously  long  nectary, 
and  that  then  by  a  special  act,  an  insect  was  created  fitted  to 
visit  the  flower,  which  would  otherwise  remain  sterile.  With 
regard   to  this  point   my   father  wrote  (October  12    or  13, 

1867):- 

"  I  forgot  to  remark  how  capitally  you  turn  the  tables  on 
the  Duke,  when  you  make  him  create  the  Angraecum  and 
Moth  by  special  creation.,, 

If  we  examine  the  literature  relating  to  the  fertilisation  of 
flowers,  we  do  not  find  that  this  new  branch  of  study  showed 
any  great  activity  immediately  after  the  publication  of  the 
Orchid-book,  There  are  a  few  papers  by  Asa  Gray,  in  1862 
and  1863,  by  Hildebrand  in  1864,  and  by  Moggridge  in  1865, 
but  the  great  mass  of  work  by  Axell,  Delpino,  Hildebrand, 
and  the  Mtillers,  did  not  begin  to  appear  until  about  1867. 
The  period  during  which  the  new  views  were  being  assimi- 
lated, and  before  they  became  thoroughly  fruitful,  was,  how- 
ever, surprisingly  short.  The  later  activity  in  this  department 
may  be  roughly  gauged  by  the  fact  that  the  valuable  '  Biblio- 
graphy,' given  by  Prof.  D'Arcy  Thompson  in  his  translation 

*  *  Quarterly  Journal   of  Science,'    October    1867.      Republished    in 
4  Natural  Selection,'  1871. 


450  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1862. 

of  Miiller's  '  Befruchtung '  (1883),  contains  references  to  814 
papers. 

Besides  the  book  on  Orchids,  my  father  wrote  two  or 
three  papers  on  the  subject,  which  will  be  found  mentioned 
in  the  Appendix.  The  earliest  of  these,  on  the  three  sexual 
forms  of  Catasetum,  was  published  in  1862  ;  it  is  an  antici- 
pation of  part  of  the  Orchid-book,  and  was  merely  published 
in  the  Linnean  Society's  Journal,  in  acknowledgment  of  the 
use  made  of  a  specimen  in  the  Society's  possession.  The 
possibility  of  apparently  distinct  species  being  merely  sex- 
ual forms  of  a  single  species,  suggested  a  characteristic  ex- 
periment, which  is  alluded  to  in  the  following  letter  to  one 
of  his  earliest  disciples  in  the  study  of  the  fertilisation  of 
flowers  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  Traherne  Moggridge* 

Down,  October  13  [1865]. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  am  especially  obliged  to  you  for  your 
beautiful  plates  and  letter-press  ;  for  no  single  point  in  natu- 
ral history  interests  and  perplexes  me  so  much  as  the  self- 
fertilisation  f  of  the  Bee-orchis.  You  have  already  thrown 
some  light  on  the  subject,  and  your  present  observations 
promise  to  throw  more. 

I  formed  two  conjectures :  first,  that  some  insect  during 
certain  seasons  might  cross  the  plants,  but  I  have  almost  given 
up  this ;  nevertheless,  pray  have  a  look  at  the  flowers  next 
season.  Secondly,  I  conjectured  that  the  Spider  and  Bee- 
orchids  might  be  a  crossing  and  self-fertile  form  of  the  same 
species.  Accordingly  I  wrote  some  years  ago  to  an  acquaint- 
ance, asking  him  to  mark  some  Spider-orchids,  and  observe 

*  The  late  Mr.  Moggridge,  author  of '  Harvesting  Ants  and  Trap-door 
Spiders,'  '  Flora  of  Men  tone,'  &c. 

f  He  once  remarked  to  Dr.  Norman  Moore  that  one  of  the  things  that 
made  him  wish  to  live  a  few  thousand  years,  was  his  desire  to  see  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  Bee-orchis, — an  end  to  which  he  believed  its  self-fertilising 
habit  was  leading. 


1868.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  45! 

whether  they  retained  the  same  character  ;  but  he  evidently- 
thought  the  request  as  foolish  as  if  I  had  asked  him  to  mark 
one  of  his  cows  with  a  ribbon,  to  see  if  it  would  turn  next 
spring  into  a  horse.  Now  will  you  be  so  kind  as  to  tie  a  string 
round  the  stem  of  a  half-a-dozen  Spider-orchids,  and  when 
you  leave  Mentone  dig  them  up,  and  I  would  try  and  culti- 
vate them  and  see  if  they  kept  constant  ;  but  I  should  require 
to  know  in  what  sort  of  soil  and  situations  they  grow.  It 
would  be  indispensable  to  mark  the  plant  so  that  there  could 
be  no  mistake  about  the  individual.  It  is  also  just  possible 
that  the  same  plant  would  throw  up,  at  different  seasons  dif- 
ferent flower-scapes,  and  the  marked  plants  would  serve  as 
evidence. 

With  many  thanks,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  send  by  this  post  my  paper  on  climbing  plants, 
parts  of  which  you  might  like  to  read. 

[Sir  Thomas  Farrer  and  Dr.  W.  Ogle  were  also  guided  and 
encouraged  by  my  father  in  their  observations.  The  follow- 
ing refers  to  a  paper  by  Sir  Thomas  Farrer,  in  the  '  Annals 
and  Magazine  of  Natural  History/  1868,  on  the  fertilisation 
of  the  Scarlet  Runner  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  T.  H.  Farrer. 

Down,  Sept.  15,  1868. 
My  dear  Mr.  Farrer,— I  grieve  to  say  that  the  main 
features  of  your  case  are  known.  I  am  the  sinner  and  de- 
scribed them  some  ten  years  ago.  But  I  overlooked  many 
details,  as  the  appendage  to  the  single  stamen,  and  several 
other  points.  I  send  my  notes,  but  I  must  beg  for  their  re- 
turn, as  I  have  no  other  copy.  I  quite  agree,  the  facts  are 
most  striking,  especially  as  you  put  them.  Are  you  sure  that 
the  Hive-bee  is  the  cutter  ?  it  is  against  my  experience.  If 
sure,  make  the  point  more  prominent,  or  if  not  sure,  erase  it. 
I  do  not  think  the  subject  is  quite  new  enough  for  the  Lin- 


452  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1868. 

nean  Society ;  but  I  dare  say  the  '  Annals  and  Magazine  of 
Natural  History/  or  Gardeners''  Chronicle  would  gladly  pub- 
lish your  observations,  and  it  is  a  great  pity  they  should  be 
lost.  If  you  like  I  would  send  your  paper  to  either  quarter 
with  a  note.  In  this  case  you  must  give  a  title,  and  your 
name,  and  perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  premise  your  remarks 
with  a  line  of  reference  to  my  paper  stating  that  you  had  ob- 
served independently  and  more  fully. 

I  have  read  my  own  paper  over  after  an  interval  of  sev- 
eral years,  and  am  amused  at  the  caution  with  which  I  put 
the  case  that  the  final  end  was  for  crossing  distinct  individ- 
uals, of  which  I  was  then  as  fully  convinced  as  now,  but  I 
knew  that  the  doctrine  would  shock  all  botanists.  Now  the 
opinion  is  becoming  familiar. 

To  see  penetration  of  pollen-tubes  is  not  difficult,  but  in 
most  cases  requires  some  practice  with  dissecting  under  a 
one-tenth  of  an  inch  focal  distance  single  lens  ;  and  just  at 
first  this  will  seem  to  you  extremely  difficult. 

What  a  capital  observer  you  are — a  first-rate  Naturalist 
has  been  sacrificed,  or  partly  sacrificed  to  Public  life. 
Believe  me,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.S. — If  you  come  across  any  large  Salvia,  look  at  it — the 
contrivance  is  admirable.  It  went  to  my  heart  to  tell  a  man 
who  came  here  a  few  weeks  ago  with  splendid  drawings  and 
MS.  on  Salvia,  that  the  work  had  been  all  done  in  Germany.* 

[The  following  extract  is  from  a  letter,  November  26th, 
1868,  to  Sir  Thomas  Farrer,  written  as  I  learn  from  him,  "in 
answer  to  a  request  for  some  advice  as  to  the  best  modes  of 
observation. " 

*  Dr.  W.  Ogle,  the  observer  of  the  fertilisation  of  Salvia  here  alluded 
to,  published  his  results  in  the  '  Pop.  Science  Review,'  1869. 

He  refers  both  gracefully  and  gratefully  to  his  relationship  with  my 
father  in  the  introduction  to  his  translation  of  Kerner's  '  Flowers  and  their 
Unbidden  Guests/ 


i868.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  453 

"  In  my  opinion  the  best  plan  is  to  go  on  working  and 
making  copious  notes,  without  much  thought  of  publication, 
and  then  if  the  results  tarn  out  striking  publish  them.  It 
is  my  impression,  but  I  do  not  feel  sure  that  I  am  right,  that 
the  best  and  most  novel  plan  would  be,  instead  of  describing 
the  means  of  fertilisation  in  particular  plants,  to  investigate 
the  part  which  certain  structures  play  with  all  plants  or 
throughout  certain  orders ;  for  instance,  the  brush  of  hairs 
on  the  style,  or  the  diadelphous  condition  of  the  stamens,  in 
the  Leguminosae,  or  the  hairs  within  the  corolla,  &c.  &c. 
Looking  to  your  note,  I  think  that  this  is  perhaps  the  plan 
which  you  suggest. 

"It  is  well  to  remember  that  Naturalists  value  observations 
far  more  than  reasoning  ;  therefore  your  conclusions  should 
be  as  often  as  possible  fortified  by  noticing  how  insects  actu- 
ally do  the  work." 

In  1869,  Sir  Thomas  Farrer  corresponded  with  my  father 
on  the  fertilisation  of  Passiflora  and  of  Tacsonia.  He  has 
given  me  his  impressions  of  the  correspondence  :— 

"  I  had  suggested  that  the  elaborate  series  of  chevaux-de- 
frise,  by  which  the  nectary  of  the  common  Passiflora  is 
guarded,  were  specially  calculated  to  protect  the  flower  from 
the  stiff-beaked  humming  birds  which  would  not  fertilise  it, 
and  to  facilitate  the  access  of  the  little  proboscis  of  the  hum- 
ble bee,  which  would  do  so  ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
long  pendent  tube  and  flexible  valve-like  corona  which  re- 
tains the  nectar  of  Tacsonia  would  shut  out  the  bee,  which 
would  not,  and  admit  the  humming  bird  which  would,  fertil- 
ise that  flower.  The  suggestion  is  very  possibly  worthless, 
and  could  only  be  verified  or  refuted  by  examination  of  flow- 
ers in  the  countries  where  they  grow  naturally.  .  .  .  What 
interested  me  was  to  see  that  on  this  as  on  almost  any  other 
point  of  detailed  observation,  Mr.  Darwin  could  always  say, 
'  Yes ;  but  at  one  time  I  made  some  observations  myself  on 
this  particular  point  ;  and  I  think  you  will  find,  &c.  &c.' 
That  he  should  after  years  of  interval  remember  that  he  had 
noticed  the  peculiar  structure  to  which  I  was  referring  in  the 


454  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1866. 

Passiflora  princeps  struck  me  at  the  time  as  very  remark- 
able." 

With  regard  to  the  spread  of  a  belief  in  the  adaptation  of 
flowers  for  cross-fertilisation,  my  father  wrote  to  Mr.  Ben- 
tham  April  22,  1868  : 

"  Most  of  the  criticisms  which  I  sometimes  meet  with  in 
French  works  against  the  frequency  of  crossing,  I  am  certain 
are  the  result  of  mere  ignorance.  I  have  never  hitherto 
found  the  rule  to  fail  that  when  an  author  describes  the 
structure  of  a  flower  as  specially  adapted  for  self-fertilisation, 
it  is  really  adapted  for  crossing.  The  Fumariaceae  offer  a 
good  instance  of  this,  and  Treviranus  threw  this  order  in  my 
teeth  ;  but  in  Corydalis,  Hildebrand  shows  how  utterly  false 
the  idea  of  self-fertilisation  is.  This  author's  paper  on  Salvia 
is  really  worth  reading,  and  I  have  observed  some  species, 
and  know  that  he  is  accurate.,, 

The  next  letter  refers  to  Professor  Hildebrand's  paper  on 
Corydalis,  published  in  the  '  Proc.  Internat.  Hort.  Congress,' 
London,  1866,  and  in  Pringsheim's  '  Jahrbiicher/  vol.  v.  The 
memoir  on  Salvia  alluded  to  is  contained  in  the  previous  vol- 
ume of  the  same  Journal :] 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  Hildebrand* 

Down,  May  16  [1866]. 
My  dear  Sir, — The  state  of  my  health  prevents  my  at- 
tending the  Hort.  Congress ;  but  I  forwarded  yesterday  your 
paper  to  the  secretary,  and  if  they  are  not  overwhelmed  with 
papers,  yours  will  be  gladly  received.  I  have  made  many 
observations  on  the  Fumariaceae,  and  convinced  myself  that 
they  were  adapted  for  insect  agency  ;  but  I  never  observed 
anything  nearly  so  curious  as  your  most  interesting  facts.  I 
hope  you  will  repeat  your  experiments  on  the  Corydalis  on  a 
larger  scale,  and  especially  on  several  distinct  plants  ;  for  your 
plant  might  have  been  individually  peculiar,  like  certain  indi- 

*  Professor  of  Botany  at  Freiburg. 


1873.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  455 

vidual  plants  of  Lobelia,  &c,  described  by  Gartner,  and  of 
Passiflora  and  Orchids  described  by  Mr.  Scott.  .  .  . 

Since  writing  to  you  before,  I  have  read  your  admirable 
memoir  on  Salvia,  and  it  has  interested  me  almost  as  much 
as  when  I  first  investigated  the  structure  of  Orchids.  Your 
paper  illustrates  several  points  in  my  '  Origin  of  Species/ 
especially  the  transition  of  organs.  Knowing  only  two  or 
three  species  in  the  genus,  I  had  often  marvelled  how  one 
cell  of  the  anther  could  have  been  transformed  into  the  mov- 
able plate  or  spoon  ;  and  how  well  you  show  the  gradations  ; 
but  I  am  surprised  that  you  did  not  more  strongly  insist  on 
this  point. 

I  shall  be  still  more  surprised  if  you  do  not  ultimately 
come  to  the  same  belief  with  me,  as  shown  by  so  many  beau- 
tiful contrivances,  that  all  plants  require,  from  some  unknown 
cause,  to  be  occasionally  fertilized  by  pollen  from  a  distinct 
individual.     With  sincere  respect,  believe  me,  my  dear  Sir, 

Yours  very  faithfully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  the  late  Hermann  MuTler's 
'Befruchtung  der  Blumen,'  by  far  the  most  valuable  of  the 
mass  of  literature  originating  in  the  '  Fertilisation  of  Orchids.' 
An  English  translation,  by  Prof.  D'Arcy  Thompson  was 
published  in  1883.  My  father's  "  Prefatory  Notice"  to  this 
work  is  dated  February  6,  1882,  and  is  therefore  almost  the 
last  of  his  writings  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  Miiller. 

Down,  May  5,  1873. 
My  dear  Sir, — Owing  to  all  sorts  of  interruptions  and 
to  my  reading  German  so  slowly,  I  have  read  only  to  p.  %%  of 
your  book ;  but  I  must  have  the  pleasure  of  telling  you  how 
very  valuable  a  work  it  appears  to  me.  Independently  of  the 
many  original  observations,  which  of  course  form  the  most 
important  part,  the  work  will  be  of  the  highest  use  as  a  means 
of  reference  to  all  that  has  been  done  on  the  subject.     I  am 


456  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1878. 

fairly  astonished  at  the  number  of  species  of  insects,  the  visits 
of  which  to  different  flowers  you  have  recorded.  You  must 
have  worked  in  the  most  indefatigable  manner.  About  half 
a  year  ago  the  editor  of  '  Nature '  suggested  that  it  would  be 
a  grand  undertaking  if  a  number  of  naturalists  were  to  do 
what  you  have  already  done  on  so  large  a  scale  with  respect 
to  the  visits  of  insects.  I  have  been  particularly  glad  to  read 
your  historical  sketch,  for  I  had  never  before  seen  all  the 
references  put  together.  I  have  sometimes  feared  that  I  was 
in  error  when  I  said  that  C.  K.  Sprengel  did  not  fully  per- 
ceive that  cross-fertilisation  was  the  final  end  of  the  structure 
of  flowers  ;  but  now  this  fear  is  relieved,  and  it  is  a  great 
satisfaction  to  me  to  believe  that  I  have  aided  in  making  his 
excellent  book  more  generally  known.  Nothing  has  surprised 
me  more  than  to  see  in  your  historical  sketch  how  much  I 
myself  have  done  on  the  subject,  as  it  never  before  occurred 
to  me  to  think  of  all  my  papers  as  a  whole.  But  I  do  not 
doubt  that  your  generous  appreciation  of  the  labours  of  others 
has  led  you  to  over-estimate  what  I  have  done.  With  very 
sincere  thanks  and  respect,  believe  me, 

Yours  faithfully, 
Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — I  have  mentioned  your  book  to  almost  every  one 
who,  as  far  as  I  know,  cares  for  the  subject  in  England  ;  and 
I  have  ordered  a  copy  to  be  sent  to  our  Royal  Society. 

[The  next  letter,  to  Dr.  Behrens,  refers  to  the  same  sub- 
ject as  the  last :] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Behrens. 

Down,  August  29  [1878]. 
Dear  Sir, — I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  having 
sent  me  your  'Geschichte  der  Bestaubungs-Theorie,'*  and 
which  has  interested  me  much.     It  has  put  some  things  in  a 

*  Progr.  der  K.  Gewerbschule  zu  Elberfeld,  1877,  1878. 


I874-]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  457 

new  light,  and  has  told  me  other  things  which  I  did  not 
know.  I  heartily  agree  with  you  in  your  high  appreciation  of 
poor  old  C.  Sprengel's  work  ;  and  one  regrets  bitterly  that  he 
did  not  live  to  see  his  labours  thus  valued.  It  rejoices  me 
also  to  notice  how  highly  you  appreciate  H.  Miiller,  who  has 
always  seemed  to  me  an  admirable  observer  and  reasoner.  I 
am  at  present  endeavoring  to  persuade  an  English  publisher 
to  bring  out  a  translation  of  his  '  Befruchtung.' 

Lastly,  permit  me  to  thank  you  for  your  very  generous 
remarks  on  my  works.  By  placing  what  I  have  been  able  to 
do  on  this  subject  in  systematic  order,  you  have  made  me 
think  more  highly  of  my  own  work  than  I  ever  did  before  ! 
Nevertheless,,  I  fear  that  you  have  done  me  more  than  justice. 

I  remain,  dear  Sir,  yours  faithfully  and  obliged, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  letter  which  follows  was  called  forth  by  Dr.  Gray's 
article  in  *  Nature/  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made, 
and  which  appeared  June  4,  1874  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  June  3  [1874]. 
My  dear  Gray, — I  was  rejoiced  to  see  your  hand-writ- 
ing again  in  your  note  of  the  4th,  of  which  more  anon.  I  was 
astonished  to  see  announced  about  a  week  ago  that  you  were 
going  to  write  in  '  Nature '  an  article  on  me,  and  this  morning 
I  received  an  advance  copy.  It  is  the  grandest  thing  ever 
written  about  me,  especially  as  coming  from  a  man  like  your- 
self. It  has  deeply  pleased  me,  particularly  some  of  your 
side  remarks.  It  is  a  wonderful  thing  to  me  to  live  to  see 
my  name  coupled  in  any  fashion  with  that  of  Robert  Brown. 
But  you  are  a  bold  man,  for  I  am  sure  that  you  will  be 
sneered  at  by  not  a  few  botanists.  I  have  never  been  so 
honoured  before,  and  I  hope  it  will  do  me  good  and  make 
me  try  to  be  as  careful  as  possible  ;  and  good  heavens,  how 
difficult  accuracy  is !  I  feel  a  very  proud  man,  but  I  hope 
this  won't  last.  .  .  . 


458  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1877. 

[Fritz  Mullerhas  observed  that  the  flowers  of  Hedychium 
are  so  arranged  that  the  pollen  is  removed  by  the  wings  of 
hovering  butterflies.  My  father's  prediction  of  this  observa- 
tion is  given  in  the  following  letter :] 

C.  Darwin  to  H.  Milller. 

Down,  August  7,  1876. 
.  ;  .  .  I  was  much  interested  by  your  brothers  article  on 
Hedychium  ;  about  two  years  ago  I  was  so  convinced  that 
the  flowers  were  fertilized  by  the  tips  of  the  wings  of  large 
moths,  that  I  wrote  to  India  to  ask  a  man  to  observe  the  flow- 
ers and  catch  the  moths  at  work,  and  he  sent  me  20  to  30 
Sphinx-moths,  but  so  badly  packed  that  they  all  arrived  in 
fragments  ;  and  I  could  make  out  nothing.  .  .  . 

Yours  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[The  following  extract  from  a  letter  (Feb.  25,  1864),  to 
Dr.  Gray  refers  to  another  prediction  fulfilled  : — 

"  I  have  of  course  seen  no  one,  and  except  good  dear 
Hooker,  I  hear  from  no  one.  He,  like  a  good  and  true  friend, 
though  so  overworked,  often  writes  to  me. 

"  I  have  had  one  letter  which  has  interested  me  greatly, 
with  a  paper,  which  will  appear  in  the  Linnean  Journal,  by 
Dr.  Criiger  of  Trinidad,  which  shows  that  I  am  all  right  about 
Catasetum,  even  to  the  spot  where  the  pollinia  adhere  to  the 
bees,  which  visit  the  flower,  as  I  said,  to  gnaw  the  labellum. 
Criiger's  account  of  Coryanthes  and  the  use  of  the  bucket- 
like labellum  full  of  water  beats  everything  :  I  suspect  that 
the  bees  being  well  wetted  flattens  their  hairs,  and  allows  the 
viscid  disc  to  adhere."] 

C.  Darwin  to  the  Marquis  de  Saporta. 

Down,  December  24,  1877. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  thank  you  sincerely  for  your  long  and 
most  interesting  letter,  which  I  should  have  answered  sooner 


1877]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  459 

had  it  not  been  delayed  in  London.  I  had  not  heard  before 
that  I  was  to  be  proposed  as  a  Corresponding  Member  of  the 
Institute.  Living  so  retired  a  life  as  I  do,  such  honours 
affect  me  very  little,  and  I  can  say  with  entire  truth  that  your 
kind  expression  of  sympathy  has  given  and  will  give  me  much 
more  pleasure  than  the  election  itself,  should  I  be  elected. 

Your  idea  that  dicotyledonous  plants  were  not  developed 
in  force  until  sucking  insects  had  been  evolved  seems  to  me 
a  splendid  one.  I  am  surprised  that  the  idea  never  occurred 
to  me,  but  this  is  always  the  case  when  one  first  hears  a  new 
and  simple  explanation  of  some  mysterious  phenomenon.  ,  .  . 
I  formerly  showed  that  we  might  fairly  assume  that  the 
beauty  of  flowers,  their  sweet  odour  and  copious  nectar,  may 
be  attributed  to  the  existence  of  flower-haunting  insects,  but 
your  idea,  which  I  hope  you  will  publish,  goes  much  further 
and  is  much  more  important.  With  respect  to  the  great 
development  of  mammifers  in  the  later  Geological  periods 
following  from  the  development  of  dicotyledons,  I  think  it 
ought  to  be  proved  that  such  animals  as  deer,  cows,  horses, 
&c.  could  not  flourish  if  fed  exclusively  on  the  gramineae  and 
other  anemophilous  monocotyledons  ;  and  I  do  not  suppose 
that  any  evidence  on  this  head  exists. 

Your  suggestion  of  studying  the  manner  of  fertilisation  of 
the  surviving  members  of  the  most  ancient  forms  of  the 
dicotyledons  is  a  very  good  one,  and  I  hope  that  you  will 
keep  it  in  mind  yourself,  for  I  have  turned  my  attention  to 
other  subjects.  Delpino  I  think  says  that  Magnolia  is  fer- 
tilised by  insects  which  gnaw  the  petals,  and  I  should  not  be 
surprised  if  the  same  fact  holds  good  with  Nymphaea. 
Whenever  I  have  looked  at  the  flowers  of  these  latter  plants 
I  have  felt  inclined  to  admit  the  view  that  petals  are  modified 
stamens,  and  not  modified  leaves ;  though  Poinsettia  seems 
to  show  that  true  leaves  might  be  converted  into  coloured 
petals.  I  grieve  to  say  that  I  have  never  been  properly 
grounded  in  Botany  and  have  studied  only  special  points— 
therefore  I  cannot  pretend  to  express  any  opinion  on  your 

remarks  on  the  origin  of  the  flowers  of  the  Comferae,  Gneta- 
66 


46o  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1878. 

ceae,  &c. ;  but  I  have  been  delighted  with  what  you  say  on  the 
conversion  of  a  monoecious  species  into  a  hermaphrodite  one 
by  the  condensations  of  the  verticils  on  a  branch  bearing 
female  flowers  near  the  summit,  and  male  flowers  below. 

I  expect  Hooker  to  come  here  before  long,  and  I  will  then 
show  him  your  drawing,  and  if  he  makes  any  important  re- 
marks I  will  communicate  with  you.  He  is  very  busy  at 
present  in  clearing  off  arrears  after  his  American  Expedition, 
so  that  I  do  not  like  to  trouble  him,  even  with  the  briefest 
note.  I  am  at  present  working  with  my  son  at  some  Physio- 
logical subjects,  and  we  are  arriving  at  very  curious  results, 
but  they  are  not  as  yet  sufficiently  certain  to  be  worth  com- 
municating to  you.  .  .  . 

[In  1877  a  second  edition  of  the  ' Fertilisation  of  Orchids' 
was  published,  the  first  edition  having  been  for  some  time  out 
of  print.  The  new  edition  was  remodelled  and  almost  re- 
written, and  a  large  amount  of  new  matter  added,  much  of 
which  the  author  owed  to  his  friend  Fritz  M  tiller. 

With  regard  to  this  edition  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Gray : — 

"  I  do  not  suppose  I  shall  ever  again  touch  the  book. 
After  much  doubt  I  have  resolved  to  act  in  this  way  with  all 
my  books  for  the  future  ;  that  is  to  correct  them  once  and 
never  touch  them  again,  so  as  to  use  the  small  quantity  of 
work  left  in  me  for  new  matter." 

He  may  have  felt  a  diminution  of  his  powers  of  reviewing 
large  bodies  of  facts,  such  as  would  be  needed  in  the  prepa- 
ration of  new  editions,  but  his  powers  of  observation  were 
certainly  not  diminished.     He  wrote  to  Mr.  Dyer  on  July  14, 

i878:] 

My  dear  Dyer, —  Thalia  dealbata  was  sent  me  from  Kew  : 
it  has  flowered  and  after  looking  casually  at  the  flowers,  they 
have  driven  me  almost  mad,  and  I  have  worked  at  them  for 
a  week :  it  is  as  grand  a  case  as  that  of  Catasetum. 

Pistil  vigorously  motile  (so  that  whole  flower  shakes  when 
pistil  suddenly  coils  up) ;  when  excited  by  a  touch  the  two 


1878.]  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  461 

filaments  [are]  produced  laterally  and  transversely  across  the 
flower  (just  over  the  nectar)  from  one  of  the  petals  or  modi- 
fied stamens.  It  is  splendid  to  watch  the  phenomenon  under 
a  weak  power  when  a  bristle  is  inserted  into  a  young  flower 
which  no  insect  has  visited.  As  far  as  I  know  Stylidium  is  the 
sole  case  of  sensitive  pistil  and  here  it  is  the  pistil+stamens. 
In  Thalia*  cross-fertilisation  is  ensured  by  the  wonderful 
movement,  if  bees  visit  several  flowers. 

I  have  now  relieved  my  mind  and  will  tell  the  purport  of 
this  note — viz.  if  any  other  species  of  Thalia  besides  T.  deal- 
bata  should  flower  with  you,  for  the  love  of  heaven  and  all 
the  saints,  send  me  a  few  in  tin  box  with  damp  moss. 

Your  insane  friend, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[In  1878  Dr.  Ogle's  translation  of  Kerner's  interesting 
book,  '  Flowers  and  their  Unbidden  Guests,'  was  published. 
My  father,  who  felt  much  interest  in  the  translation  (as 
appears  in  the  following  letter),  contributed  some  prefatory 
words  of  approval :] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Ogle, 

Down,  December  16  [1878]. 
....  I  have  now  read  Kerner's  book,  which  is  better 
even  than  I  anticipated.  The  translation  seems  to  me  as 
clear  as  daylight,  and  written  in  forcible  and  good  familiar 
English.  I  am  rather  afraid  that  it  is  too  good  for  the 
English  public,  which  seems  to  like  very  washy  food,  unless 
it  be  administered  by  some  one  whose  name  is  well  known, 
and  then  I  suspect  a  good  deal  of  the  unintelligible  is  very 
pleasing  to  them.  I  hope  to  heaven  that  I  may  be  wrong. 
Anyhow,  you  and  Mrs.  Ogle  have  done  a  right  good  service 
for  Botanical  Science.     Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 


*  Hildebrand  has  described  an  explosive  arrangement  in  some  of  the 
Maranteae— the  tribe  to  which  Thalia  belongs. 


4g2  FERTILISATION  OF  FLOWERS.  [1880. 

P.S. — You  have  done  me  much  honour  in  your  prefatory 
remarks. 

[One  of  the  latest  references  to  his  Orchid-work  occurs  in 
a  letter  to  Mr.  Bentham,  February  16,  1880.  It  shows  the 
amount  of  pleasure  which  this  subject  gave  to  my  father,  and 
(what  is  characteristic  of  him)  that  his  reminiscence  of  the 
work  was  one  of  delight  in  the  observations  which  preceded 
its  publication,  not  to  the  applause  which  followed  it : — 

"  They  are  wonderful  creatures,  these  Orchids,  and  I 
sometimes  think  with  a  glow  of  pleasure,  when  I  remember 
making  out  some  little  point  in  their  method  of  fertilisation/'] 


CHAPTER   XL 

THE    'EFFECTS    OF    CROSS-    AND    SELF-FERTILISATION    IN    THE 
VEGETABLE    KINGDOM.'      1876. 

[This  book,  as  pointed  out  in  the  '  Autobiography,'  is  a 
complement  to  the  ■  Fertilisation  of  Orchids,'  because  it  shows 
how  important  are  the  results  of  cross-fertilisation  which  are 
ensured  by  the  mechanisms  described  in  that  book.  By 
proving  that  the  offspring  of  cross-fertilisation  are  more 
vigorous  than  the  offspring  of  self- fertilisation,  he  showed  that 
one  circumstance  which  influences  the  fate  of  young  plants  in 
the  struggle  for  life  is  the  degree  to  which  their  parents  are 
fitted  for  cross-fertilisation.  He  thus  convinced  himself  that 
the  intensity  of  the  struggle  (which  he  had  elsewhere  shown 
to  exist  among  young  plants)  is  a  measure  of  the  strength 
of  a  selective  agency  perpetually  sifting  out  every  modifica- 
tion in  the  structure  of  flowers  which  can  effect  its  capabili- 
ties for  cross-fertilisation. 

The  book  is  also  valuable  in  another  respect,  because  it 
throws  light  on  the  difficult  problems  of  the  origin  of  sexuality. 
The  increased  vigour  resulting  from  cross-fertilisation  is  allied 
in  the  closest  manner  to  the  advantage  gained  by  change  of 
conditions.  So  strongly  is  this  the  case,  that  in  some  instances 
cross-fertilisation  gives  no  advantage  to  the  offspring,  unless 
the  parents  have  lived  under  slightly  different  conditions. 
So  that  the  really  important  thing  is  not  that  two  individuals 
of  different  blood  shall  unite,  but  two  individuals  which  have 
been  subjected  to  different  conditions.  We  are  thus  led  to 
believe  that  sexuality  is  a  means  for  infusing  vigour  into  the 
offspring  by  the  coalescence  of  differentiated  elements,  an 


464  THE  'EFFECTS  OF  CROSS-  [1876. 

advantage  which  could  not  follow  if  reproductions  were  en- 
tirely asexual. 

It  is  remarkable  that  this  book,  the  result  of  eleven  years 
of  experimental  work,  owed  its  origin  to  a  chance  observa- 
tion. My  father  had  raised  two  beds  of  Linaria  vulgaris — 
one  set  being  the  offspring  of  cross-  and  the  other  of  self-fertili- 
sation. These  plants  were  grown  for  the  sake  of  some  obser- 
vations on  inheritance,  and  not  with  any  view  to  cross-breed- 
ing, and  he  was  astonished  to  observe  that  the  offspring  of 
self-fertilisation  were  clearly  less  vigorous  than  the  others. 
It  seemed  incredible  to  him  that  this  result  could  be  due  to 
a  single  act  of  self-fertilisation,  and  it  was  only  in  the  following 
year  when  precisely  the  same  result  occurred  in  the  case  of 
a  similar  experiment  on  inheritance  in  Carnations,  that  his 
attention  was  "  thoroughly  aroused  "  and  that  he  determined 
to  make  a  series  of  experiments  specially  directed  to  the 
question.  The  following  letters  give  some  account  of  the 
work  in  question  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

September  10,  [1866?] 
.  .  .  .  I  have  just  begun  a  large  course  of  experiments  on 
the  germination  of  the  seed,  and  on  the  growth  of  the  young 
plants  when  raised  from  a  pistil  fertilised  by  pollen  from  the 
same  flower,  and  from  pollen  from  a  distinct  plant  of  the 
same,  or  of  some  other  variety.  I  have  not  made  sufficient 
experiments  to  judge  certainly,  but  in  some  cases  the  differ- 
ence in  the  growth  of  the  young  plants  is  highly  remarkable. 
I  have  taken  every  kind  of  precaution  in  getting  seed  from  the 
same  plant,  in  germinating  the  seed  on  my  own  chimney- 
piece,  in  planting  the  seedlings  in  the  same  flower-pot,  and 
under  this  similar  treatment  I  have  seen  the  young  seedlings 
from  the  crossed  seed  exactly  twice  as  tall  as  the  seedlings 
from  the  self-fertilised  seed  ;  both  seeds  having  germinated 
on  same  day.  If,  I  can  establish  this  fact  (but  perhaps  it  will 
all  go  to  the  dogs),  in  some  fifty  cases,  with  plants  of  different 


1876.]  AND  SELF-FERTILISATION/  465 

orders,  I  think  it  will  be  very  important,  for  then  we  shall 
positively  know  why  the  structure  of  every  flower  permits,  or 
favours,  or  necessitates  an  occasional  cross  with  a  distinct 
individual.  But  all  this  is  rather  cooking  my  hare  before  I 
have  caught  it.  But  somehow  it  is  a  great  pleasure  to  me  to 
tell  you  what  I  am  about.     Believe  me,  my  dear  Gray, 

,    Ever  yours  most  truly,  and  with  cordial  thanks, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  G.  Benthani. 

April  22,  1868. 
....  I  am  experimenting  on  a  very  large  scale  on  the 
difference  in  power  of  growth  between  plants  raised  from 
self-fertilised  and  crossed  seeds ;  and  it  is  no  exaggeration  to 
say  that  the  difference  in  growth  and  vigour  is  sometimes 
truly  wonderful.  Lyell,  Huxley  and  Hooker  have  seen 
some  of  my  plants,  and  been  astonished ;  and  I  should  much 
like  to  show  them  to  you.  I  always  supposed  until  lately 
that  no  evil  effects  would  be  visible  until  after  several  genera- 
tions of  self-fertilisation  ;  but  now  I  see  that  one  generation 
sometimes  suffices;  and  the  existence  of  dimorphic  plants 
and  all  the  wonderful  contrivances  of  orchids  are  quite  in-, 
telligible  to  me. 

With  cordial  thanks  for  your  letter,  which  has  pleased  me 
greatly, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[An  extract  from  a  letter  to  Dr.  Gray  (March  11,  1873) 
mentions  the  progress  of  the  work  : — 

"  I  worked  last  summer  hard  at  Drosera,  but  could  not 
finish  till  I  got  fresh  plants,  and  consequently  took  up  the 
effects  of  crossing  and  self-fertilising  plants,  and  am  got  so 
interested  that  Drosera  must  go  to  the  dogs  till  I  finish  with 
this,  and  get  it  published  ;  but  then  I  will  resume  my  beloved 
Drosera,  and  I  heartily  apologise  for  having  sent  the  precious 
little  things  even  for  a  moment  to  the  dogs." 


466  THE  '  EFFECTS  OF  CROSS-  [1868. 

The  following  letters  give  the  author's  impression  of  his 
own  book.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  Murray. 

Down,  September  16,  1876. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  have  just  received  proofs  in  sheet  of 
five  sheets,  so  you  will  have  to  decide  soon  how  many  copies 
will  have  to  be  struck  off.  I  do  not  know  what  to  advise. 
The  greater  part  of  the  book  is  extremely  dry,  and  the  whole 
on  a  special  subject.  Nevertheless,  I  am  convinced  that  the 
book  is  of  value,  and  I  am  convinced  that  for  many  years 
copies  will  be  occasionally  sold.  Judging  from  the  sale  of 
my  former  books,  and  from  supposing  that  some  persons  will 
purchase  it  to  complete  the  set  of  my  works,  I  would  suggest 
1500.  But  you  must  be  guided  by  your  larger  experience. 
I  will  only  repeat  that  I  am  convinced  the  book  is  of  some 
permanent  value.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  Victor  Carus. 

Down,  September  27,  1876. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  sent  by  this  morning's  post  the  four 
first  perfect  sheets  of  my  new  book,  the  title  of  which  you 
will  see  on  the  first  page,  and  which  will  be  published  early 
in  November. 

I  am  sorry  to  say  that  it  is  only  shorter  by  a  few  pages 
than  my  4  Insectivorous  Plants.'  The  whole  is  now  in  type, 
though  I  have  corrected  finally  only  half  the  volume.  You 
will,  therefore,  rapidly  receive  the  remainder.  The  book  is 
very  dull.  Chapters  II.  to  VI.,  inclusive,  are  simply  a  record 
of  experiments.  Nevertheless,  I  believe  (though  a  man  can 
never  judge  his  own  books)  that  the  book  is  valuable.  You 
will  have  to  decide  whether  it  is  worth  translating.  I  hope 
so.  It  has  cost  me  very  great  labour,  and  the  results  seem 
to  me  remarkable  and  well  established. 

If  you  translate  it,  you  could  easily  get  aid  for  Chapters 
II.   to  VI.,  as  there   is   here   endless,  but    I   have   thought 


I868J  AND  SELF-FERTILISATION.'  467 

necessary  repetition.     I  shall  be  anxious  to  hear  what  you 

decide 

I  most  sincerely  hope  that  your  health  has  been  fairly 
good  this  summer. 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  very  truly, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  October  28,  1876. 

My  dear  Gray, — I  send  by  this  post  all  the  clean  sheets 
as  yet  printed,  and  I  hope  to  send  the  remainder  within  a 
fortnight.  Please  observe  that  the  first  six  chapters  are  not 
readable,  and  the  six  last  very  dull.  Still  I  believe  that  the 
results  are  valuable.  If  you  review  the  book,  I  shall  be  very 
curious  to  see  what  you  think  of  it,  for  I  care  more  for  your 
judgment  than  for  that  of  almost  any  one  else.  I  know  also 
that  you  will  speak  the  truth,  whether  you  approve  or  dis- 
approve. Very  few  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the  book, 
and  I  do  not  expect  you  to  read  the  whole,  but  I  hope  you 
will  read  the  latter  chapters. 

...  I  am  so  sick  of  correcting  the  press  and  licking  my 
horrid  bad  style  into  intelligible  English. 

[The  *  Effects  of  Cross  and  Self-fertilisation  '  was  published 
on  November  10,  1876,  and  1500  copies  were  sold  before  the 
end  of  the  year.  The  following  letter  refers  to  a  review  in 
'  Nature  : '  *] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Thiselton  Dyer. 

Down,  February  16,  1877. 

Dear  Dyer, — I  must  tell  you  how  greatly  I  am  pleased 

and  honoured  by  your  article  in  '  Nature/  which  I  have  just 

read.    You  are  an  adept  in  saying  what  will  please  an  author, 

not  that  I  suppose  you  wrote  with  this  express  intention. 

*  February  15,  1877. 


468  CROSS-  AND  SELF-FERTILISATION.  [1877. 

I  should  be  very  well  contented  to  deserve  a  fraction  of  your 
praise.  I  have  also  been  much  interested,  and  this  is  better 
than  mere  pleasure,  by  your  argument  about  the  separation 
of  the  sexes.  I  dare  say  that  I  am  wrong,  and  will  hereafter 
consider  what  you  say  more  carefully  :  but  at  present  I  can- 
not drive  out  of  my  head  that  the  sexes  must  have  originated 
from  two  individuals,  slightly  different,  which  conjugated. 
But  I  am  aware  that  some  cases  of  conjugation  are  opposed 
to  any  such  views. 

With  hearty  thanks, 

Yours  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin, 


CHAPTER   XII. 

*  different  forms  of  flowers  on  plants  of  the  same 

species/     1877. 

[The  volume  bearing  the  above  title  was  published  in  1877, 
and  was  dedicated  by  the  author  to  Professor  Asa  Gray,  "as 
a  small  tribute  of  respect  and  affection. "  It  consists  of  cer- 
tain earlier  papers  re-edited,  with  the  addition  of  a  quantity 
of  new  matter.     The  subjects  treated  in  the  book  are  : — 

(i.)  Heterostyled  Plants. 

(ii.)  Polygamous,  Dioecious,  and  Gynodicecious  Plants. 

(iii.)  Cleistogamic  Flowers. 

The  nature  of  heterostyled  plants  may  be  illustrated  in  the 
primrose,  one  of  the  best  known  examples  of  the  class.  If  a 
number  of  primroses  be  gathered,  it  will  be  found  that  some 
plants  yield  nothing  but  "  pin-eyed  "  flowers,  in  which  the 
style  (or  organ  for  the.  transmission  of  the  pollen  to  the  ovule) 
is  long,  while  the  others  yield  only  "  thrum-eyed  "  flowers  with 
short  styles.  Thus  primroses  are  divided  into  two  sets  or 
castes  differing  structurally  from  "each  other.  My  father 
showed  that  they  also  differ  sexually,  and  that  in  fact  the  bond 
between  the  two  castes  more  nearly  resembles  that  between 
separate  sexes  than  any  other  known  relationship.  Thus  for 
example  a  long-styled  primrose,  though  it  can  be  fertilised  by 
its  own  pollen,  is  not  fully  fertile  unless  it  is  impregnated  by 
the  pollen  of  a  short-styled  flower.  Heterostyled  plants  are 
comparable  to  hermaphrodite  animals,  such  as  snails,  which 
require  the  concourse  of  two  individuals,  although  each  pos- 
sesses both  the  sexual  elements.  The  difference  is  that  in 
the  case  of  the  primrose  it  is  perfect  fertility,  and  not  simply 


470  'DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  FLOWERS  [1862. 

fertility,  that  depends  on  the  mutual  action  of  the  two  sets  of 
individuals. 

The  work  on  heterostyled  plants  has  a  special  bearing,  to 
which  the  author  attached  much  importance,  on  the  problem 
of  origin  of  species.* 

He  found  that  a  wonderfully  close  parallelism  exists  be- 
tween hybridisation  and  certain  forms  of  fertilisation  among 
heterostyled  plants.  So  that  it  is  hardly  an  exaggeration  to 
say  that  the  "illegitimately"  reared  seedlings  are  hybrids, 
although  both  their  parents  belong  to  identically  the  same 
species.  In  a  letter  to  Professor  Huxley,  given  in  the  second 
volume  (p.  176),  my  father  writes  as  if  his  researches  on 
heterostyled  plants  tended  to  make  him  believe  that  sterility 
is  a  selected  or  acquired  quality.  But  in  his  later  publica- 
tions, e.g.  in  the  sixth  edition  of  the  '  Origin/  he  adheres  to 
the  belief  that  sterility  is  an  incidental  rather  than  a  selected 
quality.  The  result  of  his  work  on  heterostyled  plants  is  of 
importance  as  showing  that  sterility  is  no  test  of  specific  dis- 
tinctness, and  that  it  depends  on  differentiation  of  the  sexual 
elements  which  is  independent  of  any  racial  difference.  I 
imagine  that  it  was  his  instinctive  love  of  making  out  a  diffi- 
culty which  to  a  great  extent  kept  him  at  work  so  patiently 
on  the  heterostyled  plants.  But  it  was  the  fact  that  general 
conclusions  of  the  above  character  could  be  drawn  from  his 
results  which  made  him  think  his  results  worthy  of  publica- 
tion.f 

The  papers  which  on  this  subject  preceded  and  contribu- 
ted to  '  Forms  of  Flowers  '  were  the  following  : — 

"  On  the  two  Forms  or  Dimorphic  Condition  in  the  Spe- 
cies of  Primula,  and  on  their  remarkable  Sexual  Relations.'' 
Linn.  Soc.  Journal,  1862. 

"  On  the  Existence  of  Two  Forms,  and  on  their  Reciprocal 
Sexual  Relations,  in  several  Species  of  the  Genus  Linum." 
Linn.  Soc.  Journal,  1863. 

*  See  ■  Autobiography,'  vol.  i.  p.  97. 
f  See  '  Forms  of  Flowers,'  p.  243. 


i860.]  ON  PLANTS  OF  THE  SAME  SPECIES.'  471 

M  On  the  Sexual  Relations  of  the  Three  Forms  of  Ly thrum 
salicaria"  Ibid.  1864. 

"  On  the  Character  and  Hybrid-like  Nature  of  the  Off- 
spring from  the  Illegitimate  Unions  of  Dimorphic  and  Tri- 
morphic  Plants."     Ibid.  1869. 

"  On  the  Specific  Differences  between  Primula  verts,  Brit. 
Fl.  (var.  officinalis  y  Linn.),  P.  vulgaris,  Brit.  Fl.  (var.  acaulis, 
Linn.),  and  P.  elatior,  Jacq.  ;  and  on  the  Hybrid  Nature  of 
the  Common  Oxlip.  With  Supplementary  Remarks  on  Nat- 
urally Produced  Hybrids  in  the  Genus  Verbascum."  Ibid. 
1869. 

The  following  letter  shows  that  he  began  the  work  on 
heterostyled  plants  with  an  erroneous  view  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  facts.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J,  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  May  7  [i860]. 
....  I  have  this  morning  been  looking  at  my  experi- 
mental cowslips,  and  I  find  some  plants  have  all  flowers  with 
long  stamens  and  short  pistils,  which  I  will  call  "  male  plants/* 
others  with  short  stamens  and  long  pistils,  which  I  will  call 
"female  plants."  This  I  have  somewhere  seen  noticed,  I 
think  by  Henslow  ;  but  I  find  (after  looking  at  my  two  sets 
of  plants)  that  the  stigmas  of  the  male  and  female  are  of 
slightly  different  shape,  and  certainly  different  degree  of 
roughness,  and  what  has  astonished  me,  the  pollen  of  the 
so-called  female  plant,  though  very  abundant,  is  more  trans- 
parent, and  each  granule  is  exactly  only  §  of  the  size  of  the 
pollen  of  the  so-called  male  plant.  Has  this  been  observed  ? 
I  cannot  help  suspecting  [that]  the  cowslip  is  in  fact  dioecious, 
but  it  may  turn  out  all  a  blunder,  but  anyhow  I  will  mark  with 
sticks  the  so-called  male  and  female  plants  and  watch  their 
seeding.  It  would  be  a  fine  case  of  gradation  between  an 
hermaphrodite  and  unisexual  condition.  Likewise  a  sort  of 
case  of  balancement  of  long  and  short  pistils  and  stamens. 
Likewise  perhaps  throws  light  on  oxlips.  .  .  . 


472  '  DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  FLOWERS  [i860. 

I  have  now  examined  primroses  and  find  exactly  the  same 
difference  in  the  size  of  the  pollen,  correlated  with  the  same 
difference  in  the  length  of  the  style  and  roughness  of  the 
stigmas. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray, 

June  8  [i860]. 

....  I  have  been  making  some  little  trifling  observations 
which  have  interested  and  perplexed  me  much.  I  find  with 
primroses  and  cowslips,  that  about  an  equal  number  of  plants 
are  thus  characterised. 

So-called  (by  me)  male  plant.  Pistil  much  shorter  than 
stamens  ;  stigma  rather  smooth,— pollen  grains  large,  throat 
of  corolla  short. 

So-called  female  plant.  Pistil  much  longer  than  stamens, 
stigma  rougher,  pollen-grains  smaller, — throat  of  corolla  long. 

I  have  marked  a  lot  of  plants,  and  expected  to  find  the  so- 
called  male  plant  barren  ;  but  judging  from  the  feel  of  the 
capsules,  this  is  not  the  case,  and  I  am  very  much  surprised  at 
the  difference  in  the  size  of  the  pollen.  ...  If  it  should 
prove  that  the  so-called  male  plants  produce  less  seed  than 
the  so-called  females,  what  a  beautiful  case  of  gradation  from 
hermaphrodite  to  unisexual  condition  it  will  be  !  If  they  pro- 
duce about  equal  number  of  seed,  how  perplexing  it  will  be. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  December  17,  [1863?] 

....  I  have  just  been  ordering  a  photograph  of  myself  for 
a  friend  ;  and  have  ordered  one  for  you,  and  for  heaven's  sake 
oblige  me,  and  burn  that  now  hanging  up  in  your  room. — It 
makes  me  look  atrociously  wicked. 

....  In  the  spring  I  must  get  you  to  look  for  long  pistils 
and  short  pistils  in  the  rarer  species  of  Primula  and  in  some 
allied  Genera.  It  holds  with  P.  Sinensis.  You  remember 
all  the  fuss  I  made  on  this  subject  last  spring  ;  well,  the  other 
day  at  last  I  had  time  to  weigh  the  seeds,  and  by  Jove  the 
plants  of  primroses  and  cowslip  with  short  pistils  and  large 


i860.]  ON  PLANTS  OF  THE  SAME  SPECIES/  473 

grained  pollen  *  are  rather  more  fertile  than  those  with  long 
pistils,  and  small-grained  pollen.  I  find  that  they  require  the 
action  of  insects  to  set  them,  and  I  never  will  believe  that 
these  differences  are  without  some  meaning. 

Some  of  my  experiments  lead  me  to  suspect  that  the  large- 
grained  pollen  suits  the  long  pistils  and  the  small-grained 
pollen  suits  the  short  pistils  ;  but  I  am  determined  to  see  if  I 
cannot  make  out  the  mystery  next  spring. 

How  does  your  book  on  plants  brew  in  your  mind  ?  Have 
you  begun  it  ?  .  .  .  . 

Remember  me  most  kindly  to  Oliver.  He  must  be 
astonished  at  not  having  a  string  of  questions,  I  fear  he  will 
get  out  of  practice  ! 

[The  Primula-work  was  finished  in  the  autumn  of  1861, 
and  on  Nov.  8th  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D,  Hooker  : — 

"I  have  sent  my  paper  on  dimorphism  in  Primula  to  the 
Linn.  Soc.  I  shall  go  up  and  read  it  whenever  it  comes  on  ; 
I  hope  you  may  be  able  to  attend,  for  I  do  not  suppose  many 
will  care  a  penny  for  the  subject.,, 

With  regard  to  the  reading  of  the  paper  (on  Nov.  21st),  he 
wrote  to  the  same  friend  : — 

"I  by  no  means  thought  that  I  produced  a  " tremendous 
effect"  in  the  Linn.  Soc,  but  by  Jove  the  Linn.  Soc.  pro- 
duced a  tremendous  effect  on  me,  for  I  could  not  get  out  of 
bed  till  late  next  evening,  so  that  I  just  crawled  home.  I 
fear  I  must  give  up  trying  to  read  any  paper  or  speak  ;  ft  is 
a  horrid  bore,  I  can  do  nothing  like  other  people." 

To  Dr.  Gray  he  wrote,  (Dec.  1861)  : — 

'  You  may  rely  on  it,  I  will  send  you  a  copy  of  my  Primula 
paper  as  soon  as  I  can  get  one  ;  but  I  believe  it  will  not  be 
printed  till  April  ist,and  therefore  after  my  Orchid  Book.  I 
care  more  for  your  and  Hooker's  opinion  than  for  that  of  all 
the  rest  of  the  world,  and  for  Lyell's  on  geological  points. 
Bentham  and  Hooker  thought  well  of  my  paper  when  read  ; 


*  Thus  the  plants  which  he  imagined  to  be  tending  towards  a  male 
condition  were  more  productive  than  the  supposed  females. 


474  'DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  FLOWERS  [1861. 

but  no  one  can  judge  of  evidence  by  merely  hearing  a 
paper.'* 

The  work  on  Primula  was  the  means  of  bringing  my 
father  in  contact  with  the  late  Mr.  John  Scott,  then  working 
as  a  gardener  in  the  Botanic  Gardens  at  Edinburgh, — an 
employment  which  he  seems  to  have  chosen  in  order  to 
gratify  his  passion  for  natural  history.  He  wrote  one  or  two 
excellent  botanical  papers,  and  ultimately  obtained  a  post  in 
India.*     He  died  in  1880. 

A  few  phrases  may  be  quoted  from  letters  to  Sir  J.  D. 
Hooker,  showing  my  father's  estimate  of  Scott  : — 

"  If  you  know,  do  please  tell  me  who  is  John  Scott  of  the 
Botanical  Gardens  of  Edinburgh  ;  I  have  been  correspond- 
ing largely  with  him ;  he  is  no  common  man." 

"  If  he  had  leisure  he  would  make  a  wonderful  observer ; 
to  my  judgment  I  have  come  across  no  one  like  him.,, 

"  He  has  interested  me  strangely,  and  I  have  formed  a 
very  high  opinion  of  his  intellect.  I  hope  he  will  accept 
pecuniary  assistance  from  me  ;  but  he  has  hitherto  refused." 
(He  ultimately  succeeded  in  being  allowed  to  pay  for  Mr. 
Scott's  passage  to  India.) 

"  I  know  nothing  of  him  excepting  from  his  letters  ;  these 
show  remarkable  talent,  astonishing  perseverance,  much 
modesty,  and  what  I  admire,  determined  difference  from  me 
on  many  points/' 

So  highly  did  he  estimate  Scott's  abilities  that  he  formed 
a  plan  (which  however  never  went  beyond  an  early  stage  of 
discussion)  of  employing  him  to  work  out  certain  problems 
connected  with  intercrossing. 

The  following  letter  refers  to  my  father's  investigations 
on  Lythrum,f  a  plant  which  reveals  even  a  more  wonderful 

*  While  in  India  he  made  some  admirable  observations  on  expression 
for  my  father. 

f  He  was  led  to  this,  his  first  case  of  trimorphism  by  Lecoq's  *  Geo- 
graphic Botanique,'  and  this  must  have  consoled  him  for  the  trick  this 
work  played  him  in  turning  out  to  be  so  much  larger  than  he  expected. 
He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  :  M  Here  is  a  good  joke  :  I  saw  an  extract 


1862.]  ON  PLANTS  OF  THE  SAME  SPECIES.'  475 

condition  of  sexual  complexity  than  that  of  Primula.  For 
in  Lythrum  there  are  not  merely  two,  but  three  castes,  differ- 
ing structurally  and  physiologically  from  each  other  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  August  9  [1862]. 

My  dear  Gray, — It  is  late  at  night,  and  I  am  going  to 
write  briefly,  and  of  course  to  beg  a  favour. 

The  Mitchella  very  good,  but  pollen  apparently  equal- 
sized.  I  have  just  examined  Hottonia,  grand  difference  in 
pollen.  Echium  vulgare,  a  humbug,  merely  a  case  like  Thy- 
mus. But  I  am  almost  stark  staring  mad  over  Lythrum  ;  * 
if  I  can  prove  what  I  fully  believe,  it  is  a  grand  case  of 
Trimorphism,  with  three  different  pollens  and  three  stigmas; 
I  have  castrated  and  fertilised  above  ninety  flowers,  trying  all 
the  eighteen  distinct  crosses  which  are  possible  within  the 
limits  of  this  one  species  !  I  cannot  explain,  but  I  feel  sure 
you  would  think  it  a  grand  case.  I  have  been  writing  to 
Botanists  to  see  if  I  can  possibly  get  L.  hyssopifolia,  and  it  has 
just  flashed  on  me  that  you  might  have  Lythrum  in  North 
America,  and  I  have  looked  to  your  Manual.  For  the  love 
of  heaven  have  a  look  at  some  of  your  species,  and  if  you 
can  get  me  seed,  do  ;  I  want  much  to  try  species  with  few 
stamens,  if  they  are  dimorphic  ;  JVescea  verticillata  I  should 
expect  to  be  trimorphic.  Seed  !  Seed  !  Seed  !  I  should  rather 
like  seed  of  Mitchella.     But  oh,  Lythrum  ! 

Your  utterly  mad  friend, 

C.  Darwin. 

P.S. — There  is  reason  in  my  madness,  for  I  can  see  that  to 
those  who  already  believe  in  change  of  species,  these  facts 

from  Lecoq,  'Geograph.  Bot.,'  and  ordered  it  and  hoped  that  it  was  a  good 
sized  pamphlet,  and  nine  thick  volumes  have  arrived  !  " 

*  On  another  occasion  he  wrote  (to  Dr.  Gray)  with  regard  to  Lyth- 
rum :  "  I  must  hold  hard,  otherwise  I  shall  spend  my  life  over  dimor- 
phism." 

67 


476  '  DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  FLOWERS  [1862. 

will  modify  to  a  certain  extent  the  whole  view  of  Hy- 
bridity.* 

[On  the  same  subject  he  wrote  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  in 
August  1862  : — 

"  Is  Oliver  at  Kew  ?  When  I  am  established  at  Bourne- 
mouth I  am  completely  mad  to  examine  any  fresh  flowers  of 
any  Lythraceous  plant,  and  I  would  write  and  ask  him  if  any 
are  in  bloom." 

Again  he  wrote  to  the  same  friend  in  October  : — 

"  If  you  ask  Oliver,  I  think  he  will  tell  you  I  have  got  a 
real  odd  case  in  Lythrum,  it  interests  me  extremely,  and 
seems  to  me  the  strangest  case  of  propagation  recorded 
amongst  plants  or  animals,  viz.  a  necessary  triple  alliance 
between  three  hermaphrodites.  I  feel  sure  I  can  now  prove 
the  truth  of  the  case  from  a  multitude  of  crosses  made  this 
summer." 

In  an  article,  '  Dimorphism  in  the  Genitalia  of  Plants  ' 
('Silliman's  Journal/  1862,  vol.  xxxiv.  p.  419),  Dr.  Gray 
pointed  out  that  the  structural  difference  between  the  two 
forms  of  Primula  had  already  been  denned  in  the  '  Flora  of 
N.  America,'  as  dioecio- dimorphism.  The  use  of  this  term 
called  forth  the  following  remarks  from  my  father.  The 
letter  also  alludes  to  a  review  of  the  '  Fertilisation  of  Orchids ' 
in  the  same  volume  of  *  Silliman's  Journal/] 

*  A  letter  to  Dr.  Gray  (July,  1862)  bears  on  this  point :  "  A  few  days 
ago  I  made  an  observation  which  has  surprised  me  more  than  it  ought  to 
do— it  will  have  to  be  repeated  several  times,  but  I  have  scarcely  a  doubt 
of  its  accuracy.  I  stated  in  my  Primula  paper  that  the  long-styled  form 
of  Linum  grandiflorum  was  utterly  sterile  with  its  own  pollen  ;  I  have 
lately  been  putting  the  pollen  of  the  two  forms  on  the  stigma  of  the  same 
flower  ;  and  it  strikes  me  as  truly  wonderful,  that  the  stigma  distinguishes 
the  pollen  ;  and  is  penetrated  by  the  tubes  of  the  one  and  not  by  those  of 
the  other  ;  nor  are  the  tubes  exserted.  Or  (which  is  the  same  thing)  the 
stigma  of  the  one  form  acts  on  and  is  acted  on  by  pollen,  which  produces 
not  the  least  effect  on  the  stigma  of  the  other  form.  Taking  sexual  power 
as  the  criterion  of  difference,  the  two  forms  of  this  one  species  may  be  said 
to  be  generically  distinct." 


i862.]  ON  PLANTS  OF  THE  SAME  SPECIES.1  477 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray, 

Down,  November  26  [1862]. 

My  dear  Gray, — The  very  day  after  my  last  letter,  yours 
of  November  10th,  and  the  review  in  '  Silliman/  which  I 
feared  might  have  been  lost,  reached  me.  We  were  all  very 
much  interested  by  the  political  part  of  your  letter ;  and  in 
some  odd  way  one  never  feels  that  information  and  opinions 
painted  in  a  newspaper  come  from  a  living  source  ;  they  seem 
dead,  whereas  all  that  you  write  is  full  of  life.  The  reviews 
interested  me  profoundly  ;  you  rashly  ask  for  my  opinion, 
and  you  must  consequently  endure  a  long  letter.  First  for 
Dimorphism  ;  I  do  not  at  present  like  the  term  u  Dioecio- 
dimorphism  ;  "  for  I  think  it  gives  quite  a  false  notion,  that 
the  phenomena  are  connected  with  a  separation  of  the  sexes. 
Certainly  in  Primula  there  is  unequal  fertility  in  the  two 
forms,  and  I  suspect  this  is  the  case  with  Linum  ;  and,  there- 
fore I  felt  bound  in  the  Primula  paper  to  state  that  it  might 
be  a  step  towards  a  dioecious  condition ;  though  I  believe 
there  are  no  dioecious  forms  in  Primulaceae  or  Linaceae. 
But  the  three  forms  in  Lythrum  convince  me  that  the  phe- 
nomenon is  in  no  way  necessarily  connected  with  any  ten- 
dency to  separation  of  sexes.  The  case  seems  to  me  in  re- 
sult or  function  to  be  almost  identical  with  what  old  C.  K. 
Sprengel  called  "  dichogamy,"  and  which  is  so  frequent  in 
truly  hermaphrodite  groups ;  namely,  the  pollen  and  stigma 
of  each  flower  being  mature  at  different  periods.  If  I 
am  right,  it  is  very  advisable  not  to  use  the  term  "dioe- 
cious," as  this  at  once  brings  notions  of  separation  of 
sexes. 

...  I  was  much  perplexed  by  Oliver's  remarks  in  the 
i  Natural  History  Review  '  on  the  Primula  case,  on  the  lower 
plants  having  sexes  more  often  separated  than  in  the  high- 
er plants, — so  exactly  the  reverse  of  what  takes  place  in 
animals.  Hooker  in  his  review  of  the  *  Orchids '  repeats 
this  remark.     There  seems  to  be  much  truth  in  what  you 


478  'DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  FLOWERS  [1862. 

say,*  and  it  did  not  occur  to  me,  about  no  improbability  of 
specialisation  in  certain  lines  in  lowly  organised  beings.  I 
could  hardly  doubt  that  the  hermaphrodite  state  is  the 
aboriginal  one.  But  how  is  it  in  the  conjugation  of  Con- 
fervse — is  not  one  of  the  two  individuals  here  in  fact  male, 
and  the  other  female  ?  I  have  been  much  puzzled  by  this 
contrast  in  sexual  arrangements  between  plants  and  animals. 
Can  there  be  anything  in  the  following  consideration  :  By 
roughest  calculation  about  one-third  of  the  British  genera  of 
aquatic  plants  belong  to  the  Linnean  classes  of  Mono  and 
Dicecia;  whilst  of  terrestrial  plants  (the  aquatic  genera  being 
subtracted)  only  one-thirteenth  of  the  genera  belong  to  these 
two  classes.  Is  there  any  truth  in  this  fact  generally  ?  Can 
aquatic  plants,  being  confined  to  a  small  area  or  small  com- 
munity of  individuals,  require  more  free  crossing,  and  there- 
fore have  separate  sexes  ?  But  to  return  to  our  point,  does 
not  Alph.  de  Candoile  say  that  aquatic  plants  taken  as  a 
whole  are  lowly  organised,  compared  with  terrestrial  ;  and 
may  not  Oliver's  remark  on  the  separation  of  the  sexes  in 
lowly  organised  plants  stand  in  some  relation  to  their  being 
frequently  aquatic  ?     Or  is  this  all  rubbish  ? 

....  What  a  magnificent  compliment  you  end  your  re- 
view with  !  You  and  Hooker  seem  determined  to  turn  my 
head  with  conceit  and  vanity  (if  not  already  turned)  and  make 
me  an  unbearable  wretch. 

With  most  cordial  thanks,  my  good  and  kind  friend, 

Farewell, 

C.  Darwin. 

[The  following  passage  from  a  letter  (July  28,  1863),  to 
Prof.  Hildebrand,  contains  a  reference  to  the  reception  of  the 
dimorphic  work  in  France  : — 

"  I  am  extremely  much  pleased  to  hear  that  you  have  been 


*  "  Forms  which  are  low  in  the  scale  as  respects  morphological  com- 
pleteness may  be  high  in  the  scale  of  rank  founded  on  specialisation  of 
structure  and  function." — Dr.  Gray,  in  '  Silliman's  Journal.' 


1864.]  ON  PLANTS  OF  THE  SAME  SPECIES/  479 

looking  at  the  manner  of  fertilisation  of  your  native  Orchids, 
and  still  more  pleased  to  hear  that  you  have  been  experi- 
menting on  Linum.  I  much  hope  that  you  may  publish  the 
result  of  these  experiments  ;  because  I  was  told  that  the  most 
eminent  French  botanists  of  Paris  said  that  my  paper  on 
Primula  was  the  work  of  imagination,  and  that  the  case  was 
so  improbable  they  did  not  believe  in  my  results."] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

April  19  [1864]. 

....  I  received  a  little  time  ago  a  paper  with  a  good 
account  of  your  Herbarium  and  Library,  and  a  long  time 
previously  your  excellent  review  of  Scott's  '  Primulaceae/  and 
I  forwarded  it  to  him  in  India,  as  it  would  much  please  him. 
I  was  very  glad  to  see  in  it  a  new  case  of  Dimorphism  (I  for- 
get just  now  the  name  of  the  plant)  ;  I  shall  be  grateful  to 
hear  of  any  other  cases,  as  I  still  feel  an  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject. I  should  be  very  glad  to  get  some  seed  of  your  dimor- 
phic Plantagos  ;  for  I  cannot  banish  the  suspicion  that  they 
must  belong  to  a  very  different  class  like  that  of  the  common 
Thyme.*  How  could  the  wind,  which  is  the  agent  of  fertilisa- 
tion, with  Plantago,  fertilise  "  reciprocally  dimorphic  "  flowers 
like  Primula  ?  Theory  says  this  cannot  be,  and  in  such  cases 
of  one's  own  theories  I  follow  Agassiz  and  declare,  ■'  that  na- 
ture never  lies."  I  should  even  be  very  glad  to  examine  the 
two  dried  forms  of  Plantago.  Indeed,  any  dried  dimorphic 
plants  would  be  gratefully  received.  .  .  . 

Did  my  Lythrum  paper  interest  you  ?  I  crawl  on  at  the 
rate  of  two  hours  per  diem,  with  '  Variation  under  Domestic- 
ation/ 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  November  26  [1864]. 
....  You  do  not  know  how  pleased  I  am  that  you  have 
read  my  Lythrum  paper ;  I  thought  you  would  not  have  time, 

*  In  this  prediction  he  was  right.     See  '  Forms  of  Flowers,'  p.  307. 


480  'DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  FLOWERS  [1868. 

and  I  have  for  long  years  looked  at  you  as  my  Public,  and 
care  more  for  your  opinion  than  that  of  all  the  rest  of  the 
world.  I  have  done  nothing  which  has  interested  me  so 
much  as  Ly thrum,  since  making  out  the  complemental  males 
of  Cirripedes.  I  fear  that  I  have  dragged  in  too  much  mis- 
cellaneous matter  into  the  paper. 

...  I  get  letters  occasionally,  which  show  me  that  Nat- 
ural Selection  is  making  great  progress  in  Germany,  and 
some  amongst  the  young  in  France.  I  have  just  received  a 
pamphlet  from  Germany,  with  the  complimentary  title  of 
"  Darwinische  Arten-Enstehung-Humbug  "  ! 

Farewell,  my  best  of  old  friends, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

September  10,  [1867?] 
....  The  only  point  which  I  have  made  out  this  sum- 
mer, which  could  possibly  interest  you,  is  that  the  common 
Oxlip  found  everywhere,  more  or  less  commonly  in  England, 
is  certainly  a  hybrid  between  the  primrose  and  cowslip  ; 
whilst  the  P.  elatior  (Jacq.),  found  only  in  the  Eastern  Coun- 
ties, is  a  perfectly  distinct  and  good  species  ;  hardly  distin- 
guishable from  the  common  oxlip,  except  by  the  length  of  the 
seed-capsule  relatively  to  the  calyx.  This  seems  to  me 
rather  a  horrid  fact  for  all  systematic  botanists.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  Hildebrand. 

Down,  November  16,  1868. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  wrote  my  last  note  in  such  a  hurry 
from  London,  that  I  quite  forgot  what  I  chiefly  wished  to 
say,  namely  to  thank  you  for  your  excellent  notices  in  the 
\  Bot.  Zeitung'  of  my  paper  on  the  offspring  of  dimorphic 
plants.  The  subject  is  so  obscure  that  I  did  not  expect  that 
any  one  would  have  noticed  my  paper,  and  I  am  accordingly 
very  much  pleased  that  you  should  have  brought  the  subject 
before  the  many  excellent  naturalists  of  Germany. 


1862.]  ON  PLANTS  OF  THE  SAME  SPECIES/  481 

Of  all  the  German  authors  (but  they  are  not  many)  whose 
works  I  have  read,  you  write  by  far  the  clearest  style,  but 
whether  this  is  a  compliment  to  a  German  writer  I  do  not 
know. 

[The  two  following  letters  refer  to  the  small  bud-like 
"  Cleistogamic  "  flowers  found  in  the  violet  and  many  other 
plants.    They  do  not  open  and  are  necessarily  self-fertilised  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  May  30  [1862]. 

....  What  will  become  of  my  book  on  Variation  ?  I  am 
involved  in  a  multiplicity  of  experiments.  I  have  been 
amusing  myself  by  looking  at  the  small  flowers  of  Viola. 
If  Oliver*  has  had  time  to  study  them,  he  will  have  seen  the 
curious  case  (as  it  seems  to  me)  which  I  have  just  made 
clearly  out,  viz.  that  in  these  flowers,  the  few  pollen  grains 
are  never  shed,  or  never  leave  the  anther-cells,  but  emit  long 
pollen  tubes,  which  penetrate  the  stigma.  To-day  I  got  the 
anther  with  the  included  pollen  grain  (now  empty)  at  one 
end,  and  a  bundle  of  tubes  penetrating  the  stigmatic  tissue 
at  the  other  end  ;  I  got  the  whole  under  a  microscope  with- 
out breaking  the  tubes ;  I  wonder  whether  the  stigma  pours 
some  fluid  into  the  anther  so  as  to  excite  the  included  grains. 
It  is  a  rather  odd  case  of  correlation,  that  in  the  double  sweet 
violet  the  little  flowers  are  double ;  i.  e.y  have  a  multitude  of 
minute  scales  representing  the  petals.  What  queer  little  flow- 
ers they  are. 

Have  you  had  time  to  read  poor  dear  Henslow's  life  ? 
it  has  interested  me  for  the  man's  sake,  and,  what  I  did 
not  think  possible,  has  even  exalted  his  character  in  my 
estimation 


*  Shortly  afterwards  he  wrote  :  "  Oliver,  the  omniscient,  has  sent  me  a 
paper  in  the  *  Bot.  Zeitung,'  with  most  accurate  description  of  all  that  I 
saw  in  Viola." 


482  'DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  FLOWERS  [1862. 

[The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  letter  given  in 
part  at  p.  477,  and  refers  to  Dr.  Gray's  article  on  the  sexual 
differences  of  plants  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray, 

November  26  [1862]. 
....  You  will  think  that  I  am  in  the  most  unpleasant, 
contradictory,  fractious  humour,  when  I  tell  you  that  I  do 
not  like  your  term  of  "precocious  fertilisation "  for  your 
second  class  of  dimorphism  [/.  e.  for  cleistogamic  fertilisa- 
tion]. If  I  can  trust  my  memory,  the  state  of  the  corolla,  of 
the  stigma,  and  the  pollen-grains  is  different  from  the  state 
of  the  parts  in  the  bud  ;  that  they  are  in  a  condition  of  spe- 
cial modification.  But  upon  my  life  I  am  ashamed  of  myself 
to  differ  so  much  from  my  betters  on  this  head.  The  tempo- 
rary theory  *  which  I  have  formed  on  this  class  of  dimorphism, 
just  to  guide  experiment,  is  that  the  perfect  flowers  can  only 
be  perfectly  fertilised  by  insects,  and  are  in  this  case  abun- 
dantly crossed  ;  but  that  the  flowers  are  not  always,  especially 
in  early  spring,  visited  enough  by  insects,  and  therefore  the 
little  imperfect  self-fertilising  flowers  are  developed  to  ensure 
a  sufficiency  of  seed  for  present  generations.  Viola  canina 
is  sterile,  when  not  visited  by  insects,  but  when  so  visited 
forms  plenty  of  seed.  I  infer  from  the  structure  of  three 
or  four  forms  of  Balsaminece,  that  these  require  insects  ;  at 
least  there  is  almost  as  plain  adaptation  to  insects  as  in  the 
Orchids.  I  have  Oxalis  acetosella  ready  in  pots  for  experi- 
ment next  spring ;  and  I  fear  this  will  upset  my  little  theory. 
.  .  .  Campanula  carpathica,  as  I  found  this  summer,  is  abso- 
lutely sterile  if  insects  are  excluded.  Specularia  speculum  is 
fairly  fertile  when  enclosed  ;  and  this  seemed  to  me  to  be 
partially  effected  by  the  frequent  closing  of  the  flower  ;  the 
inward  angular  folds  of  the  corolla  corresponding  with  the 
clefts  of  the  open  stigma,  and   in  this  action  pushing  pollen 

*  This  view  is  now  generally  accepted. 


1878.]  ON  PLANTS  OF  THE  SAME  SPECIES/  483 

from  the  outside  of  the  stigma  on  to  its  surface.  Now  can 
you  tell  me,  does  S.  perfoliata  close  its  flower  like  S.  specu- 
lum, with  angular  inward  folds  ?  if  so,  I  am  smashed  without 
some  fearful  "  wriggling.'*  Are  the  imperfect  flowers  of  your 
Specularia  the  early  or  the  later  ones  ?  very  early  or  very 
late  ?  It  is  rather  pretty  to  see  the  importance  of  the  closing 
of  flowers  of  S.  speculum. 

['  Forms  of  Flowers  '  was  published  in  July  ;  in  June, 
1877,  he  wrote  to  Professor  Carus  with  regard  to  the  trans- 
lation : — 

"  My  new  book  is  not  a  long  one,  viz.  350  pages,  chiefly 
of  the  larger  type,  with  fifteen  simple  woodcuts.  All  the 
proofs  are  corrected  except  the  Index,  so  that  it  will  soon  be 
published. 

".  .  .  .  I  do  not  suppose  that  I  shall  publish  anymore 
books,  though  perhaps  a  few  more  papers.  I  cannot  endure 
being  idle,  but  heaven  knows  whether  I  am  capable  of  any 
more  good  work." 

The  review  alluded  to  in  the  next  letter  is  at  p.  445  of  the 
volume  of  '  Nature  '  for  1878  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Thiselton  Dyer. 

Down,  April  5,  1878. 
My  dear  Dyer, — I  have  just  read  in  '  Nature '  the  re- 
view of  '  Forms  of  Flowers/  and  I  am  sure  that  it  is  by  you. 
I  wish  with  all  my  heart  that  it  deserved  one  quarter  of  the 
praises  which  you  give  it.  Some  of  your  remarks  have  in- 
terested me  greatly.  .  .  .  Hearty  thanks  for  your  generous 
and  most  kind  sympathy,  which  does  a  man  real  good,  when 
he  is  as  dog-tired  as  I  am  at  this  minute  with  working  all  day, 
so  gDod-bye. 

C.  Darwin. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

CLIMBING    AND    INSECTIVOROUS    PLANTS. 

[My  father  mentions  in  his  '  Autobiography '  (vol.  i.  p.  75) 
that  he  was  led  to  take  up  the  subject  of  climbing  plants 
by  reading  Dr.  Gray's  paper,  "  Note  on  the  Coiling  of  the 
Tendrils  of  Plants.''  *  This  essay  seems  to  have  been  read 
in  1862,  but  I  am  only  able  to  guess  at  the  date  of  the  letter 
in  which  he  asks  for  a  reference  to  it,  so  that  the  precise 
date  of  his  beginning  this  work  cannot  be  determined. 

In  June  1863  he  was  certainly  at  work,  and  wrote  to  Sir.  J. 
D.  Hooker  for  information  as  to  previous  publications  on  the 
subject,  being  then  in  ignorance  of  Palm's  and  H.  v.  Mohl's 
works  on  climbing  plants,  both  of  which  were  published  in 

1827.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Down  [June]  25  [1863]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — I  have  been  observing  pretty  care- 
fully a  little  fact  which  has  surprised  me  ;  and  I  want  to  know 
from  you  and  Oliver  whether  it  seems  new  or  odd  to  you,  so 
just  tell  me  whenever  you  write  ;  it  is  a  very  trifling  fact,  so  do 
not  answer  on  purpose. 

I  have  got  a  plant  of  Echinocystis  lobata  to  observe  the 
irritability  of  the  tendrils  described  by  Asa  Gray,  and  which 
of  course,  is  plain  enough.  Having  the  plant  in  my  study, 
I  have  been  surprised  to  find  that  the  uppermost  part  of  each 
branch  (/.  e.  the  stem  between  the  two  uppermost  leaves  ex- 

*  'Proc.  Amer.  Acad,  of  Arts  and  Sciences,'  1858. 


1863.]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  485 

eluding  the  growing  tip)  is  constantly  and  slowly  twisting  round 
making  a  circle  in  from  one-half  to  two  hours  ;  it  will  some- 
times go  round  two  or  three  times,  and  then  at  the  same  rate 
untwists  and  twists  in  opposite  directions.  It  generally  rests 
half  an  hour  before  it  retrogrades.  The  stem  does  not  become 
permanently  twisted.  The  stem  beneath  the  twisting  portion 
does  not  move  in  the  least,  though  not  tied.  The  movement 
goes  on  all  day  and  all  early  night.  It  has  no  relation  to  light 
for  the  plant  stands  in  my  window  and  twists  from  the  light 
just  as  quickly  as  towards  it.  This  may  be  a  common 
phenomenon  for  what  I  know,  but  it  confounded  me  quite, 
when  I  began  to  observe  the  irritability  of  the  tendrils.  I  do 
not  say  it  is  the  final  cause,  but  the  result  is  pretty,  for  the 
plant  every  one  and  a  half  or  two  hours  sweeps  a  circle  (ac- 
cording to  the  length  of  the  bending  shoot  and  the  length  of 
the  tendril)  of  from  one  foot  to  twenty  inches  in  diameter, 
and  immediately  that  the  tendril  touches  any  object  its  sensi- 
tiveness causes  it  immediately  to  seize  it ;  a  clever  gardener, 
my  neighbour,  who  saw  the  plant  on  my  table  last  night,  said  : 
"  I  believe,  Sir,  the  tendrils  can  see,  for  wherever  I  put  a 
plant  it  finds  out  any  stick  near  enough."  I  believe  the 
above  is  the  explanation,  viz.  that  it  sweeps  slowly  round  and 
round.  The  tendrils  have  some  sense,  for  they  do  not  grasp 
each  other  when  young. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Down,  July  14  [1863]. 
My  dear  Hooker, — I  am  getting  very  much  amused  by 
my  tendrils,  it  is  just  the  sort  of  niggling  work  which  suits 
me,  and  takes  up  no  time  and  rather  rests  me  whilst  writing. 
So  will  you  just  think  whether  you  know  any  plant,  which 
you  could  give  or  lend  me,  or  I  could  buy,  with  tendrils,  re- 
markable in  any  way  for  development,  for  odd  or  peculiar 
structure,  or  even  for  an  odd  place  in  natural  arrangement.  I 
have  seen  or  can  see  Cucurbitaceae,  Passion-flower,  Virginian- 


486  CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.        [1863. 

creeper,  Cissus  discolor,  Common-pea  and  Everlasting-pea.  It 
is  really  curious  the  diversification  of  irritability  (I  do  not 
mean  the  spontaneous  movement,  about  which  I  wrote  be- 
fore and  correctly,  as  further  observation  shows)  :  for  in- 
stance, I  find  a  slight  pinch  between  the  thumb  and  finger  at 
the  end  of  the  tendril  of  the  Cucurbitaceae  causes  prompt 
movement,  but  a  pinch  excites  no  movement  in  Cissus.  The 
cause  is  that  one  side  alone  (the  concave)  is  irritable  in  the 
former ;  whereas  both  sides  are  irritable  in  Cissus,  so  if  you 
excite  at  the  same  time  both  opposite  sides  there  is  no  move- 
ment, but  by  touching  with  a  pencil  the  two  branches  of  the 
tendril,  in  any  part  whatever,  you  cause  movement  towards 
that  point;  so  that  I  can  mould,  by  a  mere  touch,  the  two 
branches  into  any  shape  I  like.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  August  4  [1863]. 
My  present  hobby-horse  I  owe  to  you,  viz.  the  tendrils : 
their  irritability  is  beautiful,  as  beautiful  in  all  its  modifica- 
tions as  anything  in  Orchids.  About  the  spontaneous  move- 
ment (independent  of  touch)  of  the  tendrils  and  upper  inter- 
nodes,  I  am  rather  taken  aback  by  your  saying,  "is  it  not 
well  known  ?  M  I  can  find  nothing  in  any  book  which  I  have. 
.  .  .  The  spontaneous  movement  of  the  tendrils  is  independ- 
ent of  the  movement  of  the  upper  internodes,  but  both  work 
harmoniously  together  in  sweeping  a  circle  for  the  tendrils  to 
grasp  a  stick.  So  with  all  climbing  plants  (without  tendrils) 
as  yet  examined,  the  upper  internodes  go  on  night  and  day 
sweeping  a  circle  in  one  fixed  direction.  It  is  surprising  to 
watch  the  Apocyneae  with  shoots  18  inches  long  (beyond  the 
supporting  stick),  steadily  searching  for  something  to  climb 
up.  When  the  shoot  meets  a  stick,  the  motion  at  that  point 
is  arrested,  JDut  in  the  upper  part  is  continued ;  so  that  the 
climbing  of  all  plants  yet  examined  is  the  simple  result  of  the 
spontaneous  circulatory  movement  of  the  upper  internodes. 
Pray  tell  me  whether  anything  has  been  published  on  this 


1864.]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  487 

subject  ?      I  hate. publishing  what  is  old  ;  but  I  shall  hardly 
regret  my  work  if  it  is  old,  as  it  has  much  amused  me.  .  .  . 


C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

May  28,  1864. 
....  An  Irish  nobleman  on  his  death-bed  declared  that 
he  could  conscientiously  say  that  he  had  never  throughout 
life  denied  himself  any  pleasure  ;  and  I  can  conscientiously 
say  that  I  have  never  scrupled  to  trouble  you  ;  so  here  goes. 
— Have  you  travelled  South,  and  can  you  tell  me  whether 
the  trees,  which  Bignonia  capreolata  climbs,  are  covered  with 
moss  or  filamentous  lichen  or  Tillandsia  ?*  I  ask  because  its 
tendrils  abhor  a  simple  stick,  do  not  much  relish  rough  bark, 
but  delight  in  wool  or  moss.  They  adhere  in  a  curious  man- 
ner by  making  little  disks,  like  the  Ampelopsis.  ...  By  the 
way,  I  will  enclose  some  specimens,  and  if  you  think  it  worth 
while,  you  can  put  them  under  the  simple  microscope.  It  is 
remarkable  how  specially  adapted  some  tendrils  are ;  those 
of  Eccremocarpus  scaber  do  not  like  a  stick,  will  have  nothing 
to  say  to  wool ;  but  give  them  a  bundle  of  culms  of  grass,  or 
a  bundle  of  bristles  and  they  seize  them  well. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  June  10  [1864]. 
...  I  have  now  read  two  German  books,  and  all  I  be- 
lieve that  has  been  written  on  climbers,  and  it  has  stirred  me 
up  to  find  that  I  have  a  good  deal  of  new  matter.  It  is 
strange,  but  I  really  think  no  one  has  explained  simple  twin- 
ing plants.  These  books  have  stirred  me  up,  and  made  me 
wish  for  plants  specified  in  them.  I  shall  be  very  glad  of 
those  you  mention.  I  have  written  to  Veitch  for  young 
Nepenthes  and  Vanilla  (which  I  believe  will  turn  out  a  grand 

*  He  subsequently  learned  from  Dr.  Gray  that  Polypodium  incanum 
abounds  on  the  trees  in  the  districts  where  this  species  of  Bignonia  grows. 
See  '  Climbing  Plants,'  p.  103. 


488  CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.        [1864. 

case,  though  a  root  creeper),  and  if  I  cannot  buy  young 
Vanilla  I  will  ask  you.  I  have  ordered  a  leaf-climbing  fern, 
Lygodium.  All  this  work  about  climbers  would  hurt  my 
conscience,  did  I  think  I  could  do  harder  work.* 

[He  continued  his  observations  on  climbing  plants  during 
the  prolonged  illness  from  which  he  suffered  in  the  autumn 
of  1863,  and  in  the  following  spring.  He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D. 
Hooker,  apparently  in  March  1864  : — 

"  For  several  days  I  have  been  decidedly  better,  and  what 
I  lay  much  stress  on  (whatever  doctors  say),  my  brain  feels 
far  stronger,  and  I  have  lost  many  dreadful  sensations.  The 
hot-house  is  such  an  amusement  to  me,  and  my  amusement 
I  owe  to  you,  as  my  delight  is  to  look  at  the  many  odd 
leaves  and  plants  from  Kew.  .  .  .  The  only  approach  to 
work  which  I  can  do  is  to  look  at  tendrils  and  climbers,  this 
does  not  distress  my  weakened  brain.  Ask  Oliver  to  look 
over  the  enclosed  queries  (and  do  you  look)  and  amuse  a 
broken-down  brother  naturalist  by  answering  any  which  he 
can.  If  you  ever  lounge  through  your  houses,  remember  me 
and  climbing  plants/' 

On  October  29,  1864,  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Gray  : — 

"  I  have  not  been  able  to  resist  doing  a  little  more  at  your 
godchild,  my  climbing  paper,  or  rather  in  size  little  book, 
which  by  Jove  I  will  have  copied  out,  else  I  shall  never  stop. 
This  has  been  new  sort  of  work  for  me,  and  I  have  been 
pleased  to  find  what  a  capital  guide  for  observations  a  full 
conviction  of  the  change  of  species  is." 

On  Jan.  19,  1865,  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  : — 

"  It  is  working  hours,  but  I  am  trying  to  take  a  day's 
holiday,  for  I  finished  and  despatched  yesterday  my  climbing 
paper.  For  the  last  ten  days  I  have  done  nothing  but  correct 
refractory  sentences,  and  I  loathe  the  whole  subject." 

A  letter  to  Dr.  Gray,  April  9,  1865,  has  a  word  or  two  on 
the  subject : — 

"  I  have  begun  correcting  proofs  of  my  paper  on  '  Climb- 

*  He  was  much  out  of  health  at  this  time. 


1865.]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  489 

ing  Plants/  I  suppose.  I  shall  be  able  to  send  you  a  copy  in 
four  or  five  weeks.  ■  I  think  it  contains  a  good  deal  new  and 
some  curious  points,  but  it  is  so  fearfully  long,  that  no  one 
will  ever  read  it.  If,  however,  you  do  not  skim  through  it, 
you  will  be  an  unnatural  parent,  for  it  is  your  child. " 

Dr.  Gray  not  only  read  it  but  approved  of  it,  to  my  father's 
great  satisfaction,  as  the  following  extracts  show : — 

"I  was  much  pleased  to  get  your  letter  of  July  24th. 
Now  that  I  can  do  nothing,  I  maunder  over  old  subjects, 
and  your  approbation  of  my  climbing  paper  gives  me  very 
great  satisfaction.  I  made  my  observations  when  I  could 
do  nothing  else  and  much  enjoyed  it,  but  always  doubted 
whether  they  were  worth  publishing.  I  demur  to  its  not  be- 
ing necessary  to  explain  in  detail  about  the  spires  in  caught 
tendrils  running  in  opposite  directions ;  for  the  fact  for  a  long 
time  confounded  me,  and  I  have  found  it  difficult  enough  to 
explain  the  cause  to  two  or  three  persons."     (Aug.  15,  1865.) 

"  I  received  yesterday  your  article  *  on  climbers,  and  it 
has  pleased  me  in  an  extraordinary  and  even  silly  manner. 
You  pay  me  a  superb  compliment,  and  as  I  have  just  said  to 
my  wife,  I  think  my  friends  must  perceive  that  I  like  praise, 
they  give  me  such  hearty  doses.  I  always  admire  your  skill 
in  reviews  or  abstracts,  and  you  have  done  this  article  ex- 
cellently and  given  the  whole  essence  of  my  paper I 

have  had  a  letter  from  a  good  Zoologist  in  S.  Brazil,  F. 
Mliller,  who  has  been  stirred  up  to  observe  climbers  and  gives 
me  some  curious  cases  of  branch-c\\mhtrsy  in  which  branches 
are  converted  into  tendrils,  and  then  continue  to  grow  and 
throw  out  leaves  and  new  branches,  and  then  lose  their  ten- 
dril character."     (October  1865.) 

The  paper  on  Climbing  Plants  was  republished  in  1875,  as 
a  separate  book.  The  author  had  been  unable  to  give  his 
customary  amount  of  care  to  the  style  of  the  original  essay, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  it  was  written  during  a  period  of  con- 


*  In  the  September  number  of  *  Silliman's  Journal,'  concluded  in  the 
January  number,  1866. 


490  CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.        [i860. 

tinued  ill-health,  and  it  was  now  found  to  require  a  great 
deal  of  alteration.  He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (March  3, 
1875) :  "  It  is  lucky  for  authors  in  general  that  they  do  not 
require  such  dreadful  work  in  merely  licking  what  they  write 
into  shape."  And  to  Mr.  Murray  in  September  he  wrote ; 
"The  corrections  are  heavy  in  '  Climbing  Plants/  and  yet  I 
deliberately  went  over  the  MS.  and  old  sheets  three  times.,, 
The  book  was  published  in  September  1875,  an  edition  of 
1500  copies  was  struck  off;  the  edition  sold  fairly  well,  and 
500  additional  copies  were  printed  in  June  of  the  following 
year.] 

INSECTIVOROUS    PLANTS. 

[In  the  summer  of  i860  he  was  staying  at  the  house  of  his 
sister-in-law,  Miss  Wedgwood,  in  Ashdown  Forest,  whence  he 
wrote  (July  29,  i860),  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  : — 

"  Latterly  I  have  done  nothing  here ;  but  at  first  I 
amused  myself  with  a  few  observations  on  the  insect-catch- 
ing power  of  Drosera  ;  and  I  must  consult  you  some  time 
whether  my  i  twaddle '  is  worth  communicating  to  the  Lin- 
nean  Society." 

In  August  he  wrote  to  the  same  friend  : — 

"  I  will  gratefully  send  my  notes  on  Drosera  when  copied 
by  my  copier :  the  subject  amused  me  when  I  had  nothing 
to  do." 

He  has  described  in  the  '  Autobiography '  (vol.  i.  p.  77), 
the  general  nature  of  these  early  experiments.  He  noticed 
insects  sticking  to  the  leaves,  and  finding  that  flies,  &c, 
placed  on  the  adhesive  glands  were  held  fast  and  embraced, 
he  suspected  that  the  leaves  were  adapted  to  supply  nitro- 
genous food  to  the  plant.  He  therefore  tried  the  effect  on 
the  leaves  of  various  nitrogenous  fluids — with  results  which, 
as  far  as  they  went,  verified  his  surmise.  In  September, 
i860,  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Gray  : — 

"  I  have  been  infinitely  amused  by  working  at  Drosera : 
the  movements  are  really  curious  ;  and  the  manner  in  which 
the  leaves  detect  certain  nitrogenous  compounds  is  marvel- 


i860.]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  491 

lous.  You  will  laugh ;  but  it  is,  at  present,  my  full  belief 
(after  endless  experiments)  that  they  detect  (and  move  in 
consequence  of)  the  -g-gVo  Part  of  a  single  grain  of  nitrate  of 
ammonia ;  but  the  muriate  and  sulphate  of  ammonia  bother 
their  chemical  skill,  and  they  cannot  make  anything  of  the 
nitrogen  in  these  salts  !  I  began  this  work  on  Drosera  in  re- 
lation to  gradation  as  throwing  light  on  Dionaea." 

Later  in  the  autumn  he  was  again  obliged  to  leave  home 
for  Eastbourne,  where  he  continued  his  work  on  Drosera. 
The  work  was  so  new  to  him  that  he  found  himself  in  diffi- 
culties in  the  preparation  of  solutions,  and  became  puzzled 
over  fluid  and  solid  ounces,  &c.  &c.  To  a  friend,  the  late 
Mr.  E.  Cresy,  who  came  to  his  help  in  the  matter  of  weights 
and  measures,  he  wrote  giving  an  account  of  the  experiments. 
The  extract  (November  2,  i860)  which  follows  illustrates 
the  almost  superstitious  precautions  he  often  applied  to  his 
researches  : — 

"  Generally  I  have  scrutinised  every  gland  and  hair  on  the 
leaf  before  experimenting  ;  but  it  occurred  to  me  that  I  might 
in  some  way  affect  the  leaf  ;  though  this  is  almost  impossible, 
as  I  scrutinised  with  equal  care  those  that  I  put  into  distilled 
water  (the  same  water  being  used  for  dissolving  the  carbonate 
of  ammonia).  I  then  cut  off  four  leaves  (not  touching  them 
with  my  fingers),  and  put  them  in  plain  water,  and  four  other 
leaves  into  the  weak  solution,  and  after  leaving  them  for  an 
hour  and  a  half,  I  examined  every  hair  on  all  eight  leaves  ; 
no  change  on  the  four  in  water  ;  every  gland  and  hair  affected 
in  those  in  ammonia. 

"  I  had  measured  the  quantity  of  weak  solution,  and  I 

counted  the  glands  which  had  absorbed  the  ammonia,  and 

were  plainly  affected  ;    the  result  convinced  me  that  each 

gland  could  not  have  absorbed  more  than  64ooo  or  6g^00  of 

a   grain.     I    have   tried   numbers   of  other  experiments  all 

pointing  to  the  same  result.     Some   experiments  lead  me  to 

believe  that  very  sensitive   leaves   are   acted   on   by  much 

smaller  doses.     Reflect  how  little  ammonia  a  plant  can  get 

growing  on  poor  soil — yet  it  is  nourished.     The  really  sur- 
68 


492  CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.        [i860. 

prising  part  seems  to  me  that  the  effect  should  be  visible, 
and  not  under  very  high  power  ;  for  after  trying  a  high  pow- 
er, I  thought  it  would  be  safer  not  to  consider  any  effect 
which  was  not  plainly  visible  under  a  two-thirds  object  glass 
and  middle  eye-piece.  The  effect  which  the  carbonate  of 
ammonia  produces  is  the  segregation  of  the  homogeneous 
fluid  in  the  cells  into  a  cloud  of  granules  and  colourless  fluid ; 
and  subsequently  the  granules  coalesce  into  larger  masses, 
and  for  hours  have  the  oddest  movements — coalescing,  divid- 
ing, coalescing  ad  infinitum.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  will 
care  for  these  ill-written  details  ;  but,  as  you  asked,  I  am 
sure  I  am  bound  to  comply,  after  all  the  very  kind  and  great 
trouble  which  you  have  taken." 

On  his  return  home  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (No- 
vember 21,  i860) : — 

"I  have  been  working  like  a  madman  at  Drosera.  Here 
is  a  fact  for  you  which  is  certain  as  you  stand  where  you  are, 
though  you  won't  believe  it,  that  a  bit  of  hair  ts  o"or  °f  one 
grain  in  weight  placed  on  gland,  will  cause  one  of  the  gland- 
bearing  hairs  of  Drosera  to  curve  inwards,  and  will  alter  the 
condition  of  the  contents  of  every  cell  in  the  foot-stalk  of 
the  gland/' 

And  a  few  days  later  to  Lyell : — 

"  I  will  and  must  finish  my  Drosera  MS.,  which  will  take 
me  a  week,  for,  at  the  present  moment,  I  care  more  about 
Drosera  than  the  origin  of  all  the  species  in  the  world.  But 
I  will  not  publish  on  Drosera  till  next  year,  for  I  am  fright- 
ened and  astounded  at  my  results.  I  declare  it  is  a  certain 
fact,  that  one  organ  is  so  sensitive  to  touch,  that  a  weight 
seventy-eight  times  less  than  that,  viz.,  toVo"  of  a  grain,  which 
will  move  the  best  chemical  balance,  suffices  to  cause  a  con- 
spicuous movement.  Is  it  not  curious  that  a  plant  should  be 
far  more  sensitive  to  the  touch  than  any  nerve  in  the  human 
body  ?  Yet  I  am  perfectly  sure  that  this  is  true.  When  I 
am  on  my  hobby-horse,  I  never  can  resist  telling  my  friends 
how  well  my  hobby  goes,  so  you  must  forgive  the  rider.,, 

The  work  was  continued,  as  a  holiday  task,  at  Bourne- 


i862.]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  493 

mouth,  where  he  s-tayed  during  the  autumn  of  1862.  The 
discussion  in  the  following  letter  on  u  nervous  matter "  in 
Drosera  is  of  interest  in  relation  to  recent  researches  on  the 
continuity  of  protoplasm  from  cell  to  cell :] 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Cliff  Cottage,  Bournemouth. 
September  26  [1862]. 

My  dear  Hooker, — Do  not  read  this  till  you  have  leis- 
ure. If  that  blessed  moment  ever  comes,  I  should  be  very 
glad  to  have  your  opinion  on  the  subject  of  this  letter.  I 
am  led  to  the  opinion  that  Drosera  must  have  diffused  matter 
in  organic  connection,  closely  analogous  to  the  nervous  mat- 
ter of  animals.  When  the  glands  of  one  of  the  papillae  or 
tentacles,  in  its  natural  position  is  supplied  with  nitrogenised 
fluid  and  certain  other  stimulants,  or  when  loaded  with  an 
extremely  slight  weight,  or  when  struck  several  times  with  a 
needle,  the  pedicel  bends  near  its  base  in  under  one  minute. 
These  varied  stimulants  are  conveyed  down  the  pedicel  by 
some  means  ;  it  cannot  be  vibration,  for  drops  of  fluid  put  on 
quite  quietly  cause  the  movement  ;  it  cannot  be  absorption 
of  the  fluid  from  cell  to  cell,  for  I  can  see  the  rate  of  absorp- 
tion, which  though  quick,  is  far  slower,  and  in  Dionaea  the 
transmission  is  instantaneous  ;  analogy  from  animals  would 
point  to  transmission  through  nervous  matter.  Reflecting  on 
the  rapid  power  of  absorption  in  the  glands,  the  extreme 
sensibility  of  the  whole  organ,  and  the  conspicuous  move- 
ment caused  by  varied  stimulants,  I  have  tried  a  number  of 

substances  which  are  not  caustic  or  corrosive, 

but  most  of  which  are  known  to  have  a  remarkable  action  on 
the  nervous  matter  of  animals.  You  will  see  the  results  in 
the  enclosed  paper.  As  the  nervous  matter  of  different  ani- 
mals are  differently  acted  on  by  the  same  poisons,  one  would 
not  expect  the  same  action  on  plants  and  animals  ;  only,  if 
plants  have  diffused  nervous  matter,  some  degree  of  analo- 
gous action.     And  this  is  partially  the  case.     Considering 


494  CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.        [1862. 

these  experiments,  together  with  the  previously  made  remarks 
on  the  functions  of  the  parts,  I  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion, 
that  Drosera  possesses  matter  at  least  in  some  degree  analo- 
gous in  constitution  and  function  to  nervous  matter.  Now 
do  tell  me  what  you  think,  as  far  as  you  can  judge  from  my 
abstract;  of  course  many  more  experiments  would  have  to  be 
tried ;  but  in  former  years  I  tried  on  the  whole  leaf,  instead 
of  on  separate  glands,  a  number  of  innocuous*  substances, 
such  as  sugar,  gum,  starch,  &c,  and  they  produced  no  effect. 
Your  opinion  will  aid  me  in  deciding  some  future  year  in 
going  on  with  this  subject.  I  should  not  have  thought  it 
worth  attempting,  but  I  had  nothing  on  earth  to  do. 

My  dear  Hooker,  Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

P.S. — We  return  home  on  Monday  28th.     Thank  Heaven  ! 

[A  long  break  now  ensued  in  his  work  on  insectivorous 
plants,  and  it  was  not  till  1872  that  the  subject  seriously  oc- 
cupied him  again.  A  passage  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray, 
written  in  1863  or  1864,  shows,  however,  that  the  question 
was  not  altogether  absent  from  his  mind  in  the  interim  : — 

"  Depend  on  it  you  are  unjust  on  the  merits  of  my  beloved 
Drosera ;  it  is  a  wonderful  plant,  or  rather  a  most  sagacious 
animal.  I  will  stick  up  for  Drosera  to  the  day  of  my  death. 
Heaven  knows  whether  I  shall  ever  publish  my  pile  of  experi- 
ments on  it." 

He  notes  in  his  diary  that  the  last  proof  of  the  '  Expres- 
sion of  the  Emotions'  was  finished  on  August  22,  1872,  and 
that  he  began  to  work  on  Drosera  on  the  following  day.] 

*  This  line  of  investigation  made  him  wish  for  information  on  the  ac- 
tion of  poisons  on  plants  ;  as  in  many  other  cases  he  applied  to  Professor 
Oliver,  and  in  reference  to  the  result  wrote  to  Hooker  :  "  Pray  thank  Oli- 
ver heartily  for  his  heap  of  references  on  poisons." 


1872.]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  495 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

[Sevenoaks],  October  22  [1872]. 
...  I  have  worked  pretty  hard  for  four  or  five  weeks  on 
Drosera,  and  then  broke  down  ;  so  that  we  took  a  house  near 
Sevenoaks  for  three  weeks  (where  I  now  am)  to  get  complete 
rest.  I  have  very  little  power  of  working  now,  and  must  put 
off  the  rest  of  the  work  on  Drosera  till  next  spring,  as  my 
plants  are  dying.  It  is  an  endless  subject,  and  I  must  cut  it 
short,  and  for  this  reason  shall  not  do  much  on  Dionaea. 
The  point  which  has  interested  me  most  is  tracing  the  nerves  ! 
which  follow  the  vascular  bundles.  By  a  prick  with  a  sharp 
lancet  at  a  certain  point,  I  can  paralyse  one-half  the  leaf,  so 
that  a  stimulus  to  the  other  half  causes  no  movement.  It  is 
just  like  dividing  the  spinal  marrow  of  a  frog  : — no  stimulus 
can  be  sent  from  the  brain  or  anterior  part  of  the  spine  to  the 
hind  legs ;  but  if  these  latter  are  stimulated,  they  move  by 
reflex  action.  I  find  my  old  results  about  the  astonishing 
sensitiveness  of  the  nervous  system  (!  ?)  of  Drosera  to  various 
stimulants  fully  confirmed  and  extended.  .  .  . 

[His  work  on  digestion  in  Drosera  and  other  points  in 
the  physiology  of  the  plant  soon  led  him  into  regions  where 
his  knowledge  was  defective,  and  here  the  advice  and  assistance 
which  he  received  from  Dr.  Burdon  Sanderson  was  of  much 
value  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  Burdon  Sanderson. 

Down,  July  25,  1873. 

My  dear  Dr.  Sanderson, — I  should  like  to  tell  you  a  little 
about  my  recent  work  with  Drosera,  to  show  that  I  have 
profited  by  your  suggestions,  and  to  ask  a  question  or  two. 

1.  It  is  really  beautiful  how  quickly  and  well  Drosera  and 
Dionsea  dissolve  little  cubes  of  albumen  and  gelatine.  I  kept 
the  same  sized  cubes  on  wet  moss  for  comparison.  When 
you  were  here  I  forgot  that  I  had  tried  gelatine,  but  albumen 
is  far  better  for  watching  its  dissolution  and  absorption. 
Frankland  has  told  me  how  to  test  in  a  rough  way  for  pep- 


4g6  CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.        [1873. 

sin ;  and  in  the  autumn  he  will  discover  what  acid  the  digest- 
ive juice  contains. 

2.  A  decoction  of  cabbage-leaves  and  green  peas  causes 
as  much  inflection  as  an  infusion  of  raw  meat  ;  a  decoction 
of  grass  is  less  powerful.  Though  I  hear  that  the  chemists 
try  to  precipitate  all  albumen  from  the  extract  of  belladonna, 
I  think  they  must  fail,  as  the  extract  causes  inflection,  whereas 
a  new  lot  of  atropine,  as  well  as  the  valerianate  [of  atropine], 
produce  no  effect. 

3.  I  have  been  trying  a  good  many  experiments  with 
heated  water.  .  .  .  Should  you  not  call  the  following  case 
one  of  heat  rigor  ?  Two  leaves  were  heated  to  1300,  and  had 
every  tentacle  closely  inflected  ;  one  was  taken  out  and  placed 
in  cold  water,  and  it  re-expanded  ;  the  other  was  heated  to 
145°,  and  had  not  the  least  power  of  re-expansion.  Is  not 
this  latter  case  heat  rigor?  If  you  can  inform  me,  I  should 
very  much  like  to  hear  at  what  temperature  cold-blooded  and 
invertebrate  animals  are  killed. 

4.  I  must  tell  you  my  final  result,  of  which  I  am  sure,  [as 
to]  the  sensitiveness  of  Drosera.  I  made  a  solution  of  one 
part  of  phosphate  of  ammonia  by  weight  to  218,750  of  water; 
of  this  solution  I  gave  so  much  that  a  leaf  got  80\0  of  a  grain 
of  the  phosphate.  I  then  counted  the  glands,  and  each  could 
have  got  only  ttswoo"  °f  a  grain  ;  this  being  absorbed  by  the 
glands,  sufficed  to  cause  the  tentacles  bearing  these  glands  to 
bend  through  an  angle  of  1800.  Such  sensitiveness  requires 
hot  weather,  and  carefully  selected  young  yet  mature  leaves. 
It  strikes  me  as  a  wonderful  fact.  I  must  add  that  I  took 
every  precaution,  by  trying  numerous  leaves  at  the  same  time 
in  the  solution  and  in  the  same  water  which  was  used  for 
making  the  solution. 

5.  If  you  can  persuade  your  friend  to  try  the  effects  of 
carbonate  of  ammonia  on  the  aggregation  of  the  white  blood 
corpuscles,  I  should  very  much  like  to  hear  the  result. 

I  hope  this  letter  will  not  have  wearied  you. 

Believe  me,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 


1874.]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  497 

C.  Darwin  to    W.  Thiselton  Dyer. 

Down,  24  [December  1873  ?] 
My  dear  Mr.  Dyer, — I  fear  that  you  will  think  me  a 
great  bore,  but  I  cannot  resist  telling  you  that  I  have  just 
found  out  that  the  leaves  of  Pinguicula  possess  a  beautifully 
adapted  power  of  movement.  Last  night  I  put  on  a  row  of 
little  flies  near  one  edge  of  two  youngish  leaves  ;  and  after  14 
hours  these  edges  are  beautifully  folded  over  so  as  to  clasp 
the  flies,  thus  bringing  the  glands  into  contact  with  the  upper 
surfaces  of  the  flies,  and  they  are  now  secreting  copiously 
above  and  below  the  flies  and  no  doubt  absorbing.  The  acid 
secretion  has  run  down  the  channelled  edge  and  has  collected 
in  the  spoon-shaped  extremity,  where  no  doubt  the  glands 
are  absorbing  the  delicious  soup.  The  leaf  on  one  side  looks 
just  like  the  helix  of  a  human  ear,  if  you  were  to  stuff  flies 

within  the  fold.     Yours  most  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  June  3  [1874]. 

....  I  am  now  hard  at  work  getting  my  book  on  Dro- 
sera  &  Co.  ready  for  the  printers,  but  it  will  take  some  time, 
for  I  am  always  finding  out  new  points  to  observe.  I  think 
you  will  be  interested  by  my  observations  on  the  digestive 
process  in  Drosera  ;  the  secretion  contains  an  acid  of  the 
acetic  series,  and  some  ferment  closely  analogous  to,  but  not 
identical  with,  pepsin  ;  for  I  have  been  making  a  long  series 
of  comparative  trials.  No  human  being  will  believe  what  I 
shall  publish  about  the  smallness  of  the  doses  of  phosphate 
of  ammonia  which  act. 

....  I  began  reading  the  Madagascar  squib  *  quite 
gravely,  and  when  I  found  it  stated  that  Felis  and  Bos  in- 
habited Madagascar,  I  thought  it  was  a  false  story,  and  did 
not  perceive  it  was  a  hoax  till  I  came  to  the  woman.  .  .  . 

*  A  description  of  a  carnivorous  plant  supposed  to  subsist  on  human 
beings. 


498  CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.        [1874. 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  C.  Donders* 

Down,  July  7,  1874. 

My  deaji  Professor  Bonders, — My  son  George  writes 
to  me  that  he  has  seen  you,  and  that  you  have  been  very 
kind  to  him,  for  which  I  return  to  you  my  cordial  thanks. 
He  tells  me  on  your  authority,  of  a  fact  which  interests  me 
in  the  highest  degree,  and  which  I  much  wish  to  be  allowed 
to  quote.  It  relates  to  the  action  of  one  millionth  of  a  grain 
of  atropine  on  the  eye.  Now  will  you  be  so  kind,  whenever 
you  can  find  a  little  leisure,  to  tell  me  whether  you  yourself 
have  observed  this  fact,  or  believe  it  on  good  authority.  I 
also  wish  to  know  what  proportion  by  weight  the  atropine 
bore  to  the  water  solution,  and  how  much  of  the  solution  was 
applied  to  the  eye.  The  reason  why  I  am  so  anxious  on 
this  head  is  that  it  gives  some  support  to  certain  facts  repeat- 
edly observed  by  me  with  respect  to  the  action  of  phosphate 
of  ammonia  on  Drosera.  The  40ooofo  of  a  gram  absorbed 
by  a  gland  clearly  makes  the  tentacle  which  bears  this  gland 
become  inflected ;  and  I  am  fully  convinced  that  -g~o  0  oVomor  of 
a  grain  of  the  crystallised  salt  (i.e.  containing  about  one-third 
of  its  weight  of  water  of  crystallisation)  does  the  same.  Now 
I  am  quite  unhappy  at  the  thought  of  having  to  publish  such 
a  statement.  It  will  be  of  great  value  to  me  to  be  able  to 
give  any  analogous  facts  in  support.  The  case  of  Drosera  is 
all  the  more  interesting  as  the  absorption  of  the  salt  or  any 
other  stimulant  applied  to  the  gland  causes  it  to  transmit  a 
motor  influence  to  the  base  of  the  tentacle  which  bears  the 
gland. 

Pray  forgive  me  for  troubling  you,  and  do  not  trouble 
yourself  to  answer  this  until  your  health  is  fully  re-estab- 
lished. 

Pray  believe  me, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 
Charles  Darwin. 


*  Professor  Donders,  the  well-known  physiologist  of  Utrecht. 


I874-]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  499 

[During  the  summer  of  1874  he  was  at  work  on  the  genus 
Utricularia,  and  he  wrote  (July  16th)  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker 
giving  some  account  of  the  progress  of  his  work  : — 

"  I  am  rather  glad  you  have  not  been  able  to  send  Utricu- 
laria, for  the  common  species  has  driven  F.  and  me  almost 
mad.  The  structure  is  most  complex.  The  bladders  catch 
a  multitude  of  Entomostraca,  and  larvae  of  insects.  The 
mechanism  for  capture  is  excellent.  But  there  is  much  that 
we  cannot  understand.  From  what  I  have  seen  to-day,  I 
strongly  suspect  that  it  is  necrophagous,  i.e.  that  it  cannot 
digest,  but  absorbs  decaying  matter." 

He  was  indebted  to  Lady  Dorothy  Nevill  for  specimens  of 
the  curious  Utricularia  montana,  which  is  not  aquatic  like  the 
European  species,  but  grows  among  the  moss  and  debris  on 
the  branches  of  trees.  To  this  species  the  following  letter 
refers  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Lady  Dorothy  Nevill. 

Down  September  18  [1874]. 

Dear  Lady  Dorothy  Nevill, — I  am  so  much  obliged 
to  you.  I  was  so  convinced  that  the  bladders  were  with  the 
leaves  that  I  never  thought  of  removing  the  moss,  and  this 
was  very  stupid  of  me.  The  great  solid  bladder-like  swell- 
ings almost  on  the  surface  are  wonderful  objects,  but  are  not 
the  true  bladders.  These  I  found  on  the  roots  near  the  sur- 
face, and  down  to  a  depth  of  two  inches  in  the  sand.  They 
are  as  transparent  as  glass,  from  -^  to  y^-  of  an  inch  in  size, 
and  hollow.  They  have  all  the  important  points  of  structure 
of  the  bladders  of  the  floating  English  species,  and  I  felt 
confident  I  should  find  captured  prey.  And  so  I  have  to  my 
delight  in  two  bladders,  with  clear  proof  that  they  had  ab- 
sorbed food  from  the  decaying  mass.  For  Utricularia  is  a 
carrion-feeder,  and  not  strictly  carnivorous  like  Drosera. 

The  great  solid  bladder-like  bodies,  I  believe,  are  reser- 
voirs of  water  like  a  earners  stomach.  As  soon  as  I  have 
made  a  few  more  observations,  I  mean  to  be  so  cruel  as  to 
give  your  plant  no  water,   and  observe  whether  the  great 


5oo 


CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.        [1875. 


bladders  shrink  and  contain  air  instead  of  water  ;  I  shall 
then  also  wash  all  earth  from  all  roots,  and  see  whether  there 
are  true  bladders  for  capturing  subterranean  insects  down  to 
the  very  bottom  of  the  pot.  Now  shall  you  think  me  very 
greedy,  if  I  say  that  supposing  the  species  is  not  very  pre- 
cious, and  you  have  several,  will  you  give  me  one  more  plant, 
and  if  so,  please  to  send  it  to  "Orpington  Station,  S.  E.  R., 
to  be  forwarded  by  foot  messenger/' 

I  have  hardly  ever  enjoyed  a  day  more  in  my  life  than  I 
have  this  day's  work  ;  and  this  I  owe  to  your  Ladyship's 
great  kindness. 

The  seeds  are  very  curious  monsters ;  I  fancy  of  some 

plant  allied    to    Medicago,  but   I  will  show   them   to   Dr. 

Hooker. 

Your  Ladyship's  very  gratefully, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Down,  September  30,  1874. 
My  dear  H., — Your  magnificent  present  of  Aldrovanda 
has  arrived  quite  safe.  I  have  enjoyed  greatly  a  good  look 
at  the  shut  leaves,  one  of  which  I  cut  open.  It  is  an  aquatic 
Dionsea,  which  has  acquired  some  structures  identical  with 
those  of  Utricularia  ! 

If  the  leaves  open  and  I  can  transfer  them  open  under 
the  microscope,  I  will  try  some  experiments,  for  mortal 
man  cannot  resist  the  temptation.  If  I  cannot  transfer,  I 
will  do  nothing,  for  otherwise  it  would  require  hundreds  of 
leaves. 

You  are  a  good  man  to  give  me  such  pleasure. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

[The  manuscript  of  'Insectivorous  Plants'  was  finished 
in  March  1875.  He  seems  t0  nave  been  more  than  usually 
oppressed  by  the  writing  of  this  book,  thus  he  wrote  to  Sir 
J.  D.  Hooker  in  February  : — 


I875-]        CLIMBING  AND  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  501 

u  You  ask  about  my  book,  and  all  that  I  can  say  is  that 
I  am  ready  to  commit  suicide  ;  I  thought  it  was  decently 
written,  but  find  so  much  wants  rewriting,  that  it  will  not  be 
ready  to  go  to  printers  for  two  months,  and  will  then  make 
a  confoundedly  big  book.  Murray  will  say  that  it  is  no  use 
publishing  in  the  middle  of  summer,  so  I  do  not  know  what 
will  be  the  upshot ;  but  I  begin  to  think  that  every  one  who 
publishes  a  book  is  a  fool.,, 

The  book  was  published  on  July  2nd,  1875,  and  27°° 
copies  were  sold  out  of  the  edition  of  3000.] 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

THE    'POWER    OF    MOVEMENT    IN    PLANTS,'       lb8o. 

[The  few  sentences  in  the  autobiographical  chapter  give 
with  sufficient  clearness  the  connection  between  the  '  Power 
of  Movement/  and  one  of  the  author's  earlier  books,  that  on 
1  Climbing  Plants/  The  central  idea  of  the  book  is  that  the 
movements  of  plants  in  relation  to  light,  gravitation,  &c,  are 
modifications  of  a  spontaneous  tendency  to  revolve  or  cir- 
cumnutate,  which  is  widely  inherent  in  the  growing  parts  of 
plants.  This  conception  has  not  been  generally  adopted,  and 
has  not  taken  a  place  among  the  canons  of  orthodox  physi- 
ology. The  book  has  been  treated  by  Professor  Sachs  with 
a  few  words  of  professorial  contempt ;  and  by  Professor 
Wiesner  it  has  been  honoured  by  careful  and  generously  ex- 
pressed criticism. 

Mr.  Thiselton  Dyer*  has  well  said:  " Whether  this  mas- 
terly conception  of  the  unity  of  what  has  hitherto  seemed  a 
chaos  of  unrelated  phenomena  will  be  sustained,  time  alone 
will  show.  But  no  one  can  doubt  the  importance  of  what 
Mr.  Darwin  has  done,  in  showing  that  for  the  future  the  phe- 
nomena of  plant  movement  can  and  indeed  must  be  stud- 
ied from  a  single  point  of  view." 

The  work  was  begun  in  the  summer  of  1877,  after  the 
publication  of  i  Different  Forms  of  Flowers/  and  by  the 
autumn  his  enthusiasm  for  the  subject  was  thoroughly  estab- 
lished, and  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Dyer  :  "  I  am  all  on  fire  at  the 
work."     At   this  time  he  was  studying  the  movements  of 


*  i 


Charles  Darwin  '  ('  Nature '  Series),  p.  41. 


1878.]  'POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS/  503 

cotyledons,  in  which  the  sleep  of  plants  is  to  be  observed  in 
its  simplest  form  ;  in  the  following  spring  he  was  trying  to 
discover  what  useful  purpose  these  sleep-movements  could 
serve,  and  wrote  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  (March  25th,  1878)  : — 

11  I  think  we  have  proved  that  the  sleep  of  plants  is  to 
lessen  the  injury  to  the  leaves  from  radiation.  This  has  in- 
terested me  much,  and  has  cost  us  great  labor,  as  it  has  been 
a  problem  since  the  time  of  Linnaeus.  But  we  have  killed  or 
badly  injured  a  multitude  of  plants  :  N.  B. — Oxalis  carnosa 
was  most  valuable,  but  last  night  was  killed.,> 

His  letters  of  this  period  do  not  give  any  connected  ac- 
count of  the  progress  of  the  work.  The  two  following  are 
given  as  being  characteristic  of  the  author  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Thiselton  Dyer. 

Down,  June  2,  1878. 

My  dear  Dyer, — I  remember  saying  that  I  should  die  a 
disgraced  man  if  I  did  not  observe  a  seedling  Cactus  and 
Cycas,  and  you  have  saved  me  from  this  horrible  fate,  as  they 
move  splendidly  and  normally.  But  I  have  two  questions  to 
ask  :  the  Cycas  observed  was  a  huge  seed  in  a  broad  and  very 
shallow  pot  with  cocoa-nut  fibre  as  I  suppose.  It  was  named 
only  Cycas.  Was  it  Cycas  pectinata  ?  I  suppose  that  I  can- 
not be  wrong  in  believing  that  what  first  appears  above  ground 
is  a  true  leaf,  for  I  can  see  no  stem  or  axis.  Lastly,  you  may 
remember  that  I  said  that  we  could  not  raise  Opuntia  nigri- 
cans ;  now  I  must  confess  to  a  piece  of  stupidity  ;  one  did 
come  up,  but  my  gardener  and  self  stared  at  it,  and  concluded 
that  it  could  not  be  a  seedling  Opuntia,  but  now  that  I  have 
seen  one  of  O.  basilaris,  I  am  sure  it  was ;  I  observed  it  only 
casually,  and  saw  movements,  which  makes  me  wish  to  ob- 
serve carefully  another.  If  you  have  any  fruit,  will  Mr. 
Lynch  *  be  so  kind  as  to  send  one  more  ? 

I  am  working  away  like  a  slave  at  radicles  [roots]  and  at 

*  Mr.  R.  I.  Lynch,  now  Curator  of  the  Botanic  Garden  at  Cambridge, 
was  at  this  time  in  the  Royal  Gardens,  Kew. 


504  'POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS.'  [1878. 

movements  of  true  leaves,  for  I  have  pretty  well,  done  with 
cotyledons.  .  .  . 

That  was  an  excellent  letter  about  the  Gardens  :  *  I  had 
hoped  that  the  agitation  was  over.  Politicians  are  a  poor 
truckling  lot,  for  [they]  must  see  the  wretched  effects  of  keep- 
ing the  gardens  open  all  day  long. 

Your  ever  troublesome  friend, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Thiselton  Dyer. 

m  4  Bryanston  St.,  Portman  Square, 

November  21  [1878]. 

My  dear  Dyer, — I  must  thank  you  for  all  the  wonderful 
trouble  which  you  have  taken  about  the  seeds  of  fmpatiens, 
and  on  scores  of  other  occasions.  It  in  truth  makes  me  feel 
ashamed  of  myself,  and  I  cannot  help  thinking  :  "  Oh  Lord, 
when  he  sees  our  book  he  will  cry  out,  is  this  all  for  which  I 
have  helped  so  much !  "  In  seriousness,  I  hope  that  we  have 
made  out  some  points,  but  I  fear  that  we  have  done  very  little 
for  the  labour  which  we  have  expended  on  our  worl^  We  are 
here  for  a  week  for  a  little  rest,  which  I  needed. 

If  I  remember  right,  November  30th,  is  the  anniversary  at 
the  Royal,  and  I  fear  Sir  Joseph  must  be  almost  at  the  last 
gasp.     I  shall  be  glad  when  he  is  no  longer  President. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

[In  the  spring  of  the  following  year,  1879,  when  he  was 
engaged  in  putting  his  results  together,  he  wrote  somewhat 
despondingly  to  Mr.  Dyer  :  "  I  am  overwhelmed  with  my 
notes,  and  almost  too  old  to  undertake  the  job  which  I  have 
in  hand — />.,  movements  of  all  kinds.  Yet  it  is  worse  to  be 
idle." 

Later  on  in  the  year,  when  the  work  was  approaching 

*  This  refers  to  an  attempt  to  induce  the  Government  to  open  the 
Royal  Gardens  at  Kew  in  the  morning. 


i88o.]  'POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS/  505 

completion,  he  wrote  to  Prof.  Carus  (July  17,  1879),  with  re- 
spect to  a  translation  : — 

"  Together  with  my  son  Francis,  I  am  preparing  a  rather 
large  volume  on  the  general  movements  of  Plants,  and  I  think 
that  we  have  made  out  a  good  many  new  points  and  views. 

"  I  fear  that  our  views  will  meet  a  good  deal  of  opposition 
in  Germany  ;  but  we  have  been  working  very  hard  for  some 
years  at  the  subject. 

"  I  shall  be  much  pleased  if  you  think  the  book  worth 
translating,  and  proof-sheets  shall  be  sent  you,  whenever  they 
are  ready/' 

In  the  autumn  he  was  hard  at  work  on  the  manuscript, 
and  wrote  to  Dr.  Gray  (October  24,  1879)  : — 

"  I  have  written  a  rather  big  book — more  is  the  pity — on 
the  movements  of  plants,  and  I  am  now  just  beginning  to  go 
over  the  MS.  for  the  second  time,  which  is  a  horrid  bore." 

Only  the  concluding  part  of  the  next  letter  refers  to  the 
i  Power  of  Movements  ' :] 


C.  Darwin  to  A.  JDe  Candolle. 

May  28,  1880. 
My  dear  Sir, — I  am  particularly  obliged  to  you  for  hav- 
ing so  kindly  sent  me  your  '  Phytographie  ;'  *  for  if  I  had 
merely  seen  it  advertised,  I  should  not  have  supposed  that  it 
could  have  concerned  me.  As  it  is,  I  have  read  with  very 
great  interest  about  a  quarter,  but  will  not  delay  longer 
thanking  you.  AH  that  you  say  seems  to  me  very  clear  and 
convincing,  and  as  in  all  your  writings  I  find  a  large  number 
of  philosophical  remarks  new  to  me,  and  no  doubt  shall  find 
many  more.  They  have  recalled  many  a  puzzle  through 
which  I  passed  when  monographing  the  Cirripedia ;  and  your 
book  in  those  days  would  have  been  quite  invaluable  to  me. 
It  has  pleased  me  to  find  that  I  have  always  followed  your 

*  A  book  on  the  methods  of  botanical  research,  more  especially  of  sys- 
tematic work. 


jo6  'POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS/  [1880. 

plan  of  making  notes  on  separate  pieces  of  paper ;  I  keep 
several  scores  of  large  portfolios,  arranged  on  very  thin  shelves 
about  two  inches  apart,  fastened  to  the  walls  of  my  study, 
and  each  shelf  has  its  proper  name  or  title ;  and  I  can  thus 
put  at  once  every  memorandum  into  its  proper  place.  Your 
book  will,  I  am  sure,  be  very  useful  to  many  young  students, 
and  I  shall  beg  my  son  Francis  (who  intends  to  devote  him- 
self to  the  physiology  of  plants)  to  read  it  carefully. 

As  for  myself  I  am  taking  a  fortnight's  rest,  after  sending 
a  pile  of  MS.  to  the  printers,  and  it  was  a  piece  of  good 
fortune  that  your  book  arrived  as  I  was  getting  into  my 
carriage,  for  I  wanted  something  to  read  whilst  away  from 
home.  My  MS.  relates  to  the  movements  of  plants,  and  I 
think  that  I  have  succeeded  in  showing  that  all  the  more 
important  great  classes  of  movements  are  due  to  the  modifi- 
cation of  a  kind  of  movement  common  to  all  parts  of  all 
plants  from  their  earliest  youth. 

Pray  give  my  kind  remembrances  to  your  son,  and  with 
my  highest  respect  and  best  thanks, 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Sir,  yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

P.S. — It  always  pleases  me  to  exalt  plants  in  the  organic 
scale,  and  if  you  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  my  last  chapter 
when  my  book  (which  will  be  sadly  too  big)  is  published  and 
sent  to  you,  I  hope  and  think  that  you  also  will  admire  some 
of  the  beautiful  adaptations  by  which  seedling  plants  are 
enabled  to  perform  their  proper  functions. 

[The  book  was  published  on  November  6,  1880,  and  1500 
copies  were  disposed  of  at  Mr.  Murray's  sale.  With  regard 
to  it  he  wrote  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (November  23)  : — 

"  Your  note  has  pleased  me  much — for  I  did  not  expect 
that  you  would  have  had  time  to  read  any  of  it.  Read  the 
last  chapter,  and  you  will  know  the  whole  result,  but  without 
the  evidence.  The  case,  however,  of  radicles  bending  after 
exposure  for  an  hour  to  geotropism,  with  their  tips  (or  brains) 


i88o.]  'POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS/  507 

cut  off  is,  I  think,  worth  your  reading  (bottom  of  p.  525) ;  it 
astounded  me.  The  next  most  remarkable  fact,  as  it  ap- 
peared to  me  (p.  148),  is  the  discrimination  of  the  tip  of  the 
radicle  between  a  slightly  harder  and  softer  object  affixed 
on  opposite  sides  of  tip.  But  I  will  bother  you  no  more 
about  my  book.  The  sensitiveness  of  seedlings  to  light  is 
marvellous." 

To  another  friend,  Mr.  Thiselton  Dyer,  he  wrote  (Novem- 
ber 28,  1880)  :— 

"  Very  many  thanks  for  your  most  kind  note,  but  you 
think  too  highly  of  our  work,  not  but  what  this  is  very 
pleasant Many  of  the  Germans  are  very  contempt- 
uous about  making  out  the  use  of  organs ;  but  they  may 
sneer  the  souls  out  of  their  bodies,  and  I  for  one  shall  think 
it  the  most  interesting  part  of  Natural  History.  Indeed  you 
are  greatly  mistaken  if  you  doubt  for  one  moment  on  the  very 
great  value  of  your  constant  and  most  kind  assistance  to  us." 

The  book  was  widely  reviewed,  and  excited  much  interest 
among  the  general  public.  The  following  letter  refers  to  a 
leading  article  in  the  Times,  November  20,  1880  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Mrs.  Haliburton* 

Down,  November  22,  1880. 
My  dear  Sarah, — You  see  how  audaciously  I  begin; 
but  I  have  always  loved  and  shall  ever  love  this  name.  Your 
letter  has  done  more  than  please  me,  for  its  kindness  has 
touched  my  heart.  I  often  think  of  old  days  and  of  the 
delight  of  my  visits  to  Woodhouse,  and  of  the  deep  debt  of 
gratitude  which  I  owe  to  your  father.  It  was  very  good  of 
you  to  write.  I  had  quite  forgotten  my  old  ambition  about 
the   Shrewsbury   newspaper ;  f    but   I    remember   the   pride 

*  Mrs.  Haliburton  was  a  daughter  of  my  father's  early  friend,  the  late 
Mr.  Owen,  of  Woodhouse. 

f  Mrs.  Haliburton  had  reminded  him  of  his  saying  as  a  boy  that  if 
Eddowes'  newspaper  ever  alluded  to  him  as  "  our  deserving  fellow-towns- 
man," his  ambition  would  be  amply  gratified. 

69 


jo8  '  POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS.'  [1881. 

which  I  felt  when  I  saw  in  a  book  about  beetles  the  impres- 
sive words  "  captured  by  C.  Darwin."  Captured  sounded  so 
grand  compared  with  caught.  This  seemed  to  me  glory 
enough  for  any  man  !  I  do  not  know  in  the  least  what  made 
the  Times  glorify  me,*  for  it  has  sometimes  pitched  into  me 
ferociously. 

I  should  very  much  like  to  see  you  again,  but  you  would 
find  a  visit  here  very  dull,  for  we  feel  very  old  and  have  no 
amusement,  and  lead  a  solitary  life.  But  we  intend  in  a  few 
weeks  to  spend  a  few  days  in  London,  and  then  if  you  have 
anything  else  to  do  in  London,  you  would  perhaps  come  and 
lunch  with  us.  \ 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Sarah, 

Yours  gratefully  and  affectionately, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  following  letter  was  called  forth  by  the  publication 
of  a  volume  devoted  to  the  criticism  of  the  '  Power  of 
Movement  in  Plants '  by  an  accomplished  botanist,  Dr.  Julius 
Wiesner,  Professor  of  Botany  in  the  University  of  Vienna  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Julius  Wiesner. 

Down,  October  25th,  1881. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  have  now  finished  your  book,  J  and  have 
understood  the  whole  except  a  very  few  passages.  In  the 
first  place,  let  me  thank  you  cordially  for  the  manner  in  which 
you  have  everywhere  treated  me.  You  have  shown  how  a 
man  may  differ  from  another  in  the  most  decided  manner, 
and  yet  express  his  difference  with  the  most  perfect  courtesy. 
Not  a  few  English  and  German  naturalists  might  learn  a 
useful  lesson  from  your  example;    for  the  coarse  language 

*  The  following  is  the  opening  sentence  of  the  leading  article : — "  Of 
all  our  living  men  of  science  none  have  laboured  longer  and  to  more  splen- 
did purpose  than  Mr.  Darwin." 

f  My  father  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  Mrs.  Haliburton  at  his  brother's 
house  in  Queen  Anne  Street. 

%  '  Das  Bewegungsvermogen  der  Pflanzen/     Vienna,  188 1. 


i88i.]  -  POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS.'        ~     509 

often  used  by  scientific  men  towards  each  other  does  no  good, 
and  only  degrades  science. 

I  have  been  profoundly  interested  by  your  book,  and  some 
of  your  experiments  are  so  beautiful,  that  I  actually  felt 
pleasure  while  being  vivisected.  It  would  take  up  too  much 
space  to  discuss  all  the  important  topics  in  your  book.  I  fear 
that  you  have  quite  upset  the  interpretation  which  I  have 
given  of  the  effects  of  cutting  off  the  tips  of  horizontally 
extended  roots,  and  of  those  laterally  exposed  to  moisture  ; 
but  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  the  horizontal  position  of 
lateral  branches  and  roots  is  due  simply  to  their  lessened 
power  of  growth.  Nor  when  I  think  of  my  experiments  with 
the  cotyledons  of  Phalaris,  can  I  give  up  the  belief  of  the 
transmission  of  some  stimulus  due  to  light  from  the  upper 
to  the  lower  part.  At  p.  60  you  have  misunderstood  my 
meaning,  when  you  say  that  I  believe  that  the  effects  from 
light  are  transmitted  to  a  part  which  is  not  itself  heliotropic. 
I  never  considered  whether  or  not  the  short  part  beneath  the 
ground  was  heliotropic  ;  but  I  believe  that  with  young  seed- 
lings the  part  which  bends  near,  but  above  the  ground  is 
heliotropic,  and  I  believe  so  from  this  part  bending  only 
moderately  when  the  light  is  oblique,  and  bending  rectan- 
gularly when  the  light  is  horizontal.  Nevertheless  the  bend- 
ing of  this  lower  part,  as  I  conclude  from  my  experiments 
with  opaque  caps,  is  influenced  by  the  action  of  light  on  the 
upper  part.  My  opinion,  however,  on  the  above  and  many 
other  points,  signifies  very  little,  for  I  have  no  doubt  that 
your  book  will  convince  most  botanists  that  I  am  wrong  in  all 
the  points  on  which  we  differ. 

Independently  of  the  question  of  transmission,  my  mind  is 
so  full  of  facts  leading  me  to  believe  that  light,  gravity,  &c., 
act  not  in  a  direct  manner  on  growth,  but  as  stimuli,  that  I 
am  quite  unable  to  modify  my  judgment  on  this  head.  I 
could  not  understand  the  passage  at  p.  78,  until  I  consulted 
my  son  George,  who  is  a  mathematician.  He  supposes  that 
your  objection  is  founded  on  the  diffused  light  from  the  lamp 
illuminating  both  sides  of  the  object,  and  not  being  reduced, 


jio  'POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS.'  [1881. 

with  increasing  distance  in  the  same  ratio  as  the  direct  light ; 
but  he  doubts  whether  this  necessary  correction  will  account 
for  the  very  little  difference  in  the  heliotropic  curvature  of 
the  plants  in  the  successive  pots. 

With  respect  to  the  sensitiveness  of  the  tips  of  roots  to 
contact,  I  cannot  admit  your  view  until  it  is  proved  that  I  am 
in  error  about  bits  of  card  attached  by  liquid  gum  causing 
movement ;  whereas  no  movement  was  caused  if  the  card 
remained  separated  from  the  tip  by  a  layer  of  the  liquid  gum. 
The  fact  also  of  thicker  and  thinner  bits  of  card  attached  on 
opposite  sides  of  the  same  root  by  shellac,  causing  movement 
in  one  direction,  has  to  be  explained.  You  often  speak  of 
the  tip  having  been  injured ;  but  externally  there  was  no  sign 
of  injury  :  and  when  the  tip  was  plainly  injured,  the  extreme 
part  became  curved  towards  the  injured  side.  I  can  no  more 
believe  that  the  tip  was  injured  by  the  bits  of  card,  at  least 
when  attached  by  gum- water,  than  that  the  glands  of  Drosera 
are  injured  by  a  particle  of  thread  or  hair  placed  on  it,  or  that 
the  human  tongue  [is  so]  when  it  feels  any  such  object. 

About  the  most  important  subject  in  my  book,  namely 
circumnutation,  I  can  only  say  that  I  feel  utterly  bewildered 
at  the  difference  in  our  conclusions  ;  but  I  could  not  fully 
understand  some  parts  which  my  son  Francis  will  be  able  to 
translate  to  me  when  he  returns  home.  The  greater  part  of 
your  book  is  beautifully  clear. 

Finally,  I  wish  that  I  had  enough  strength  and  spirit  to 
commence  a  fresh  set  of  experiments,  and  publish  the  results, 
with  a  full  recantation  of  my  errors  when  convinced  of  them ; 
but  I  am  too  old  for  such  an  undertaking,  nor  do  I  suppose 
that  I  shall  be  able  to  do  much,  or  any  more,  original  work. 
I  imagine  that  I  see  one  possible  source  of  error  in  your 
beautiful  experiment  of  a  plant  rotating  and  exposed  to  a 
lateral  light. 

With  high  respect  and  with  sincere  thanks  for  the  kind 
manner  in  which  you  have  treated  me  and  my  mistakes,  I 
remain,  my  dear  Sir,  yours  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

MISCELLANEOUS   BOTANICAL    LETTERS. 

1873-1882. 

[The  present  chapter  contains  a  series  of  miscellaneous  let- 
ters on  botanical  subjects.  Some  of  them  show  my  father's 
varied  interests  in  botanical  science,  and  others  give  account 
of  researches  which  never  reached  completion.] 

BLOOM    ON    LEAVES   AND    FRUIT. 

[His  researches  into  the  meaning  of  the  "bloom,"  or 
waxy  coating  found  on  many  leaves,  was  one  of  those  in- 
quiries which  remained  unfinished  at  the  time  of  his  death. 
He  amassed  a  quantity  of  notes  on  the  subject,  part  of  which 
I  hope  to  publish  at  no  distant  date.* 

One  of  his  earliest  letters  on  this  subject  was  addressed  in 
August,  1873,  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  : — 

"  I  want  a  little  information  from  you,  and  if  you  do  not 
yourself  know,  please  to  enquire  of  some  of  the  wise  men  of 
Kew. 

"  Why  are  the  leaves  and  fruit  of  so  many  plants  protected 
by  a  thin  layer  of  waxy  matter  (like  the  common  cabbage), 
or  with  fine  hair,  so  that  when  such  leaves  or  fruit  are  im- 


*  A  small  instalment  on  the  relation  between  bloom  and  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  stomata  on  leaves  has  appeared  in  the  *  Journal  of  the  Linnean 
Society,'  1886.  Tschirsch  {Linncea,  1881)  has  published  results  identical 
with  some  which  my  father  and  myself  obtained,  viz.  that  bloom  dimin- 
ishes transpiration.  The  same  fact  was  previously  published  by  Garreau 
in  1850. 


jI2  MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.         [1873. 

mersed  in  water  they  appear  as  if  encased  in  thin  glass  ?  It 
is  really  a  pretty  sight  to  put  a  pod  of  the  common  pea,  or  a 
raspberry  into  water.  I  find  several  leaves  are  thus  pro- 
tected on  the  under  surface  and  not  on  the  upper. 

"  How  can  water  injure  the  leaves  if  indeed  this  is  at  all 
the  case  ? " 

On  this  latter  point  he  wrote  to  Sir  Thomas  Farrer  : — 

"I  am  now  become  mad  about  drops  of  water  injuring 
leaves.  Please  ask  Mr.  Paine  *  whether  he  believes,  from  his 
own  experience,  that  drops  of  water  injure  leaves  or  fruit  in  his 
conservatories.  It  is  said  that  the  drops  act  as  burning- 
glasses  ;  if  this  is  true,  they  would  not  be  at  all  injurious  on 
cloudy  days.  As  he  is  so  acute  a  man,  I  should  very  much 
like  to  hear  his  opinion.  I  remember  when  I  grew  hot-house 
orchids  I  was  cautioned  not  to  wet  their  leaves ;  but  I  never 
then  thought  on  the  subject. 

"  I  enjoyed  my  visit  greatly  with  you,  and  I  am  very  sure 
that  all  England  could  not  afford  a  kinder  and  pleasanter 
host." 

Some  years  later  he  took  up  the  subject  again,  and  wrote 
to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  (May  25,  1877) : — 

"I  have  been  looking  over  my  old  notes  about  the 
"  bloom "  on  plants,  and  I  think  that  the  subject  is  well 
worth  pursuing,  though  I  am  very  doubtful  of  any  success. 
Are  you  inclined  to  aid  me  on  the  mere  chance  of  success, 
for  without  your  aid  I  could  do  hardly  anything  ? "] 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  June  4  [1877]. 
....  I  am  now  trying  to  make  out  the  use  or  function  of 
"bloom,"  or  the  waxy  secretion  on  the  leaves  and  fruit  of 
plants,  but  am  very  doubtful  whether  I  shall  succeed.  Can 
you  give  me  any  light?  Are  such  plants  commoner  in  warm 
than  in  colder  climates  ?     I  ask  because  I  often  walk  out  in 


*  Sir  Thomas  Farrer's  gardener. 


I877-]         MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  513 

heavy  rain,  and  the  leaves  of  very  few  wild  dicotyledons  can 
be  here  seen  with  drops  of  water  rolling  off  them  like  quick- 
silver. Whereas  in  my  flower  garden,  greenhouse,  and  hot- 
houses there  are  several.  Again,  are  bloom-protected  plants 
common  on  your  dry  western  plains  ?  Hooker  thinks  that  they 
are  common  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  It  is  a  puzzle  to  me 
if  they  are  common  under  very  dry  climates,  and  I  find  bloom 
very  common  on  the  Acacias  and  Eucalypti  of  Australia. 
Some  of  the  Eucalypti  which  do  not  appear  to  be  covered 
with  bloom  have  the  epidermis  protected  by  a  layer  of  some 
substance  which  is  dissolved  in  boiling  alcohol.  Are  there 
any  bloom-protected  leaves  or  fruit  in  the  Arctic  regions  ? 
If  you  can  illuminate  me,  as  you  so  often  have  done,  pray  do 
so  ;  but  otherwise  do  not  bother  yourself  by  answering. 

Yours  affectionately, 

C.  Darwin. 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Thiselton  Dyer. 

Down,  September  5  [1877]. 
My  dear  Dyer, — One  word  to  thank  you.  I  declare 
had  it  not  been  for  your  kindness,  we  should  have  broken 
down.  As  it  is  we  have  made  out  clearly  that  with  some 
plants  (chiefly  succulent)  the  bJoom  checks  evaporation — 
with  some  certainly  prevents  attacks  of  insects;  with  some 
sea-shore  plants  prevents  injury  from  salt-water,  and,  I  be- 
lieve, with  a  few  prevents  injury  from  pure  water  resting  on 
the  leaves.  This  latter  is  as  yet  the  most  doubtful  and  the 
most  interesting  point  in  relation  to  the  movements  of 
plants.  .  .  . 

C.  Darwin  to  F.  Miiller. 

Down,  July  4  [1881]. 
My  dear  Sir, — Your  kindness  is  unbounded,  and  I  can- 
not tell  you  how  much  your  last  letter  (May  31)  has  inter- 
ested me.  I  have  piles  of  notes  about  the  effect  of  water 
resting  on  leaves,  and  their  movements  (as  I  supposed)  to 
shake  off  the  drops.     But  I  have  not  looked  over  these  notes 


514  MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  [1876. 

for  a  long  time,  and  had  come  to  think  that  perhaps  my  no- 
tion was  mere  fancy,  but  I  had  intended  to  begin  experiment- 
ing as  soon  as  I  returned  home  ;  and  now  with  your  invaluable 
letter  about  the  position  of  the  leaves  of  various  plants  dur- 
ing rain  (I  have  one  analogous  case  with  Acacia  from  South 
Africa),  I  shall  be  stimulated  to  work  in  earnest. 

Variability. 

[The  following  letter  refers  to  a  subject  on  which  my 
father  felt  the  strongest  interest : — the  experimental  investi- 
gation of  the  causes  of  variability.  The  experiments  alluded 
to  were  to  some  extent  planned  out,  and  some  preliminary 
work  was  begun  in  the  direction  indicated  below,  but  the  re- 
search was  ultimately  abandoned.] 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  H.  Gilbert* 

Down,  February  16,  1876. 
My  dear  Sir, — When  I  met  you  at  the  Linnean  Society, 
you  were  so  kind  as  to  say  that  you  would  aid  me  with  ad- 
vice, and  this  will  be  of  the  utmost  value  to  me  and  my  son. 
I  will  first  state  my  object,  and  hope  that  you  will  excuse  a 
long  letter.  It  is  admitted  by  all  naturalists  that  no  problem 
is  so  perplexing  as  what  causes  almost  every  cultivated  plant 
to  vary,  and  no  experiments  as  yet  tried  have  thrown  any 
light  on  the  subject.  Now  for  the  last  ten  years  I  have  been 
experimenting  in  crossing  and  self-fertilising  plants ;  and  one 
indirect  result  has  surprised  me  much ;  namely,  that  by  tak- 
ing pains  to  cultivate  plants  in  pots  under  glass  during  several 
successive  generations,  under  nearly  similar  conditions,  and 
by  self-fertilising  them  in  each  generation,  the  color  of  the 
flowers  often  changes,  and,  what  is  very  remarkable,  they  be- 
came in  some  of  the  most  variable  species,  such  as  Mimulus, 
Carnation,  &c,  quite  constant,  like  those  of  a  wild  species. 

*  Dr.  Gilbert,  F.R.S.,  joint  author  with  Sir  John  Bennett  Lawes  of  a 
long  series  of  valuable  researches  in  Scientific  Agriculture. 


1876.]         MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  515 

This  fact  and  several  others  have  led  me  to  the  suspicion 
that  the  cause  of  variation  must  be  in  different  substances 
absorbed  from  the  soil  by  these  plants  when  their  powers  of 
absorption  are  not  interfered  with  by  other  plants  with  which 
they  grow  mingled  in  a  state  of  nature.  Therefore  my  son 
and  I  wish  to  grow  plants  in  pots  in  soil  entirely,  or  as  nearly 
entirely  as  is  possible,  destitute  of  all  matter  which  plants 
absorb,  and  then  to  give  during  several  successive  generations 
to  several  plants  of  the  same  species  as  different  solutions  as 
may  be  compatible  with  their  life  and  health.  And  now,  can 
you  advise  me  how  to  make  soil  approximately  free  of  all  the 
substances  which  plants  naturally  absorb  ?  I  suppose  white 
silver  sand,  sold  for  cleaning  harness,  &c,  is  nearly  pure  sili- 
ca, but  what  am  I  to  do  for  alumina  ?  Without  some  alumina 
I  imagine  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  keep  the  soil  damp 
and  fit  for  the  growth  of  plants.  I  presume  that  clay  washed 
over  and  over  again  in  water  would  still  yield  mineral  matter 
to  the  carbonic  acid  secreted  by  the  roots.  I  should  want  a 
good  deal  of  soil,  for  it  would  be  useless  to  experimentise 
unless  we  could  fill  from  twenty  to  thirty  moderately  sized 
flower-pots  every  year.  Can  you  suggest  any  plan  ?  for  un- 
less you  can  it  would,  I  fear,  be  useless  for  us  to  commence 
an  attempt  to  discover  whether  variability  depends  at  all  on 
matter  absorbed  from  the  soil.  After  obtaining  the  requisite 
kind  of  soil,  my  notion  is  to  water  one  set  of  plants  with 
nitrate  of  potassium,  another  set  with  nitrate  of  sodium,  and 
another  with  nitrate  of  lime,  giving  all  as  much  phosphate  of 
ammonia  as  they  seemed  to  support,  for  I  wish  the  plants  to 
grow  as  luxuriantly  as  possible.  The  plants  watered  with 
nitrate  of  Na  and  of  Ca  would  require,  I  suppose,  some  K  ;  but 
perhaps  they  would  get  what  is  absolutely  necessary  from  such 
soil  as  I  should  be  forced  to  employ,  and  from  the  rain-water 
collected  in  tanks.  I  could  use  hard  wTater  from  a  deep  well 
in  the  chalk,  but  then  all  the  plants  would  get  lime.  If  the 
plants  to  which  I  give  Nitrate  of  Na  and  of  Ca  would  not 
grow  I  might  give  them  a  little  alum. 

I  am  well  aware  how  very  ignorant  I  am,  and  how  crude 


Ji6  MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.         [1881. 

my  notions  are  ;  and  if  you  could  suggest  any  other  solutions 
by  which  plants  would  be  likely  to  be  affected  it  would  be  a 
very  great  kindness.  I  suppose  that  there  are  no  organic 
fluids  which  plants  would  absorb,  and  which  I  could  pro- 
cure ? 

I  must  trust  to  your  kindness  to  excuse  me  for  troubling 
you  at  such  length,  and, 

I  remain,  dear  Sir,  yours  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[The  next  letter  to  Professor  Semper  *  bears  on  the  same 
subject :] 

From  C.  Darwin  to  K.  Semper. 

Down,  July  19,  1881. 

My  dear  Professor  Semper, — I  have  been  much  pleased 
to  receive  your  letter,  but  I  did  not  expect  you  to  answer  my 

former  one I  cannot  remember  what  I  wrote  to  you, 

but  I  am  sure  that  it  must  have  expressed  the  interest  which 
I  felt  in  reading  your  book.f  I  thought  that  you  attributed 
too  much  weight  to  the  direct  action  of  the  environment ;  but 
whether  I  said  so  I  know  not,  for  without  being  asked  I 
should  have  thought  it  presumptuous  to  have  criticised  your 
book,  nor  should  I  now  say  so  had  I  not  during  the  last  few 
days  been  struck  with  Professor  Hoffmann's  review  of  his 
own  work  in  the  '  Botanische  Zeitung,'  on  the  variability  of 
plants  ;  and  it  is  really  surprising  how  little  effect  he  pro- 
duced by  cultivating  certain  plants  under  unnatural  condi- 
tions, as  the  presence  of  salt,  lime,  zinc,  &c,  &c,  during 
several  generations.  Plants,  moreover,  were  selected  which 
were  the  most  likely  to  vary  under  such  conditions,  judging 
from  the  existence  of  closely-allied  forms  adapted  for  these 
conditions.     No  doubt  I  originally  attributed  too  little  weight 

*  Professor  of  Zoology  at  Wurzburg. 

f  Published  in  the  '  International  Scientific  Series/  in  1881,  under  the 
title,  *  The  Natural  Conditions  of  Existence  as  thoy  affect  Animal  Life.' 


i88i.]         MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  517 

to  the  direct  action  of  conditions,  but  Hoffmann's  paper  has 
staggered  me.  Perhaps  hundreds  of  generations  of  exposure 
are  necessary.  It  is  a  most  perplexing  subject.  I  wish  I 
was  not  so  old,  and  had  more  strength,  for  I  see  lines  of  re- 
search to  follow.  Hoffmann  even  doubts  whether  plants 
vary  more  under  cultivation  than  in  their  native  home  and 
under  their  natural  conditions.  If  so,  the  astonishing  varia- 
tions of  almost  all  cultivated  plants  must  be  due  to  selection 
and  breeding  from  the  varying  individuals.  This  idea  crossed 
my  mind  many  years  ago,  but  I  was  afraid  to  publish  it,  as  I 
thought  that  people  would  say,  "  how  he  does  exaggerate  the 
importance  of  selection.,, 

I  still  must  believe  that  changed  conditions  give  the  im- 
pulse to  variability,  but  that  they  act  in  most  cases  in  a  very 
indirect  manner.  But,  as  I  said,  it  is  a  most  perplexing  prob- 
lem. Pray  forgive  me  for  writing  at  such  length  ;  I  had  no 
intention  of  doing  so  when  I  sat  down  to  write. 

I  am  extremely  sorry  to  hear,  for  your  own  sake  and  for 
that  of  Science,  that  you  are  so  hard  worked,  and  that  so 
much  of  your  time  is  consumed  in  official  labour. 
Pray  believe  me,  dear  Professor  Semper, 

Yours  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

Galls. 

[Shortly  before  his  death,  my  father  began  to  experiment- 
ise  on  the  possibility  of  producing  galls  artificially.  A  letter 
to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  (Nov.  3,  1880)  shows  the  interest  which 
he  felt  in  the  question  : — 

"  I  was  delighted  with  Paget's  Essay  ;  *  I  hear  that  he  has 
occasionally  attended  to  this  subject  from  his  youth  .... 
I  am  very  glad  he  has  called  attention  to-  galls  :  this  has 
always  seemed  to  me  a  profoundly  interesting  subject  ;  and  if 
I  had  been  younger  would  take  it  up." 

His  interest  in  this  subject  was  connected  with  his  ever- 

*  *  Disease  in  Plants,'  by  Sir  James  Paget. — See  Gardeners'  Chronicle, 
1880. 


5 18  MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.         [1881. 

present  wish  to  learn  something  of  the  causes  of  variation. 
He  imagined  to  himself  wonderful  galls  caused  to  appear  on 
the  ovaries  of  plants,  and  by  these  means  he  thought  it  pos- 
sible that  the  seed  might  be  influenced,  and  thus  new  varieties 
arise.  He  made  a  considerable  number  of  experiments  by 
injecting  various  reagents  into  the  tissues  of  leaves,  and  with 
some  slight  indications  of  success.] 

Aggregation. 

[The  following  letter  gives  an  idea  of  the  subject  of  the 
last  of  his  published  papers.*  The  appearances  which  he 
observed  in  leaves  and  roots  attracted  him,  on  account  of 
their  relation  to  the  phenomena  of  aggregation  which  had  so 
deeply  interested  him  when  he  was  at  work  on  Drosera  :] 

C.  Darwin  to  S.  If.    Vines,  f 

Down,  November  1,  1881. 
My  dear  Mr.  Vines, — As  I  know  how  busy  you  are,  it 
is  a  great  shame  to  trouble  you.  But  you  are  so  rich  in 
chemical  knowledge  about  plants,  and  I  am  so  poor,  that  I 
appeal  to  your  charity  as  a  pauper.  My  question  is — Do  you 
know  of  any  solid  substance  in  the  cells  of  plants  which 
glycerine  and  water  dissolves  ?  But  you  will  understand  my 
perplexity  better  if  I  give  you  the  facts  :  I  mentioned  to  you 
that  if  a  plant  of  Euphorbia  peplus  is  gently  dug  up  and  the 
roots  placed  for  a  short  time  in  a  weak  solution  (1  to  10,000 
of  water,  suffices  in  24  hours)  of  carbonate  of  ammonia  the 
(generally)  alternate  longitudinal  rows  of  cells  in  every  root- 
let, from  the  root-cap  up  to  the  very  top  of  the  root  (but  not 
as  far  as  I  have  yet  seen  in  the  green  stem)  become  filled 
with  translucent,  brownish  grains  of  matter.  These  rounded 
grains  often  cohere  and  even  become  confluent.  Pure  phos- 
phate and  nitrate  of  ammonia  produce  (though  more  slowly) 
the  same  effect,  as  does  pure  carbonate  of  soda. 


*  *  Journal  of  the  Linnean  Society.'     Vol.  xix.,  1882,  pp.  239  arid  262. 
f  Reader  in  Botany  in  the  University  of  Cambridge. 


1878.]         MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  519 

Now,  if  slices  of  root  uncter  a  cover-glass  are  irrigated 
with  glycerine  and  water,  every  one  of  the  innumerable  grains 
in  the  cells  disappear  after  some  hours.  What  am  I  to  think 
of  this  ?  .  .  .  . 

Forgive  me  for  bothering  you  to  such  an  extent ;  but  I 
must  mention  that  if  the  roots  are  dipped  in  boiling  water 
there  is  no  deposition  of  matter,  and  carbonate  of  ammonia 
afterwards  produces  no  effect.  I  should  state  that  I  now  find 
that  the  granular  matter  is  formed  in  the  cells  immediately 
beneath  the  thin  epidermis,  and  a  few  other  cells  near  the 
vascular  tissue.  If  the  granules  consisted  of  living  proto- 
plasm (but  I  can  see  no  traces  of  movement  in  them),  then  I 
should  infer  that  the  glycerine  killed  them  and  aggregation 
ceased  with  the  diffusion  of  invisibly  minute  particles,  for  I 
have  seen  an  analogous  phenomenon  in  Drosera. 

If  you  can  aid  me,  pray  do  so,  and  anyhow  forgive  me. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Ch.  Darwin. 

Mr.  Torbitt's  Experiments  on  the  Potato-Disease. 

[Mr.  James  Torbitt,  of  Belfast,  has  been  engaged  for  the 
last  twelve  years  in  the  difficult  undertaking,  in  which  he 
has  been  to  a  large  extent  successful,  of  raising  fungus-proof 
varieties  of  the  potato.  My  father  felt  great  interest  in  Mr. 
Torbitt's  work,  and  corresponded  with  him  from  1876  on- 
wards. The  following  letter,  giving  a  clear  account  of  Mr. 
Torbitt's  method  and  of  my  father's  opinion  of  the  proba- 
bility of  its  success,  was  written  with  the  idea  that  Govern- 
ment aid  for  the  work  might  possibly  be  obtainable  :] 


C.  Darwin  to  T.  If.  Farrer. 

Down,  March  2,  1878. 
My  dear  Farrer, — Mr.  Torbitt's  plan  of  overcoming  the 
potato-disease  seems  to  me  by  far  the  best  which  has  ever 
been  suggested.     It  consists,  as  you  know  from  his  printed 


J20  MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.         [1878. 

letter,  of  rearing  a  vast  number  of  seedlings  from  cross-fer- 
tilised parents,  exposing  them  to  infection,  ruthlessly  destroy- 
ing all  that  suffer,  saving  those  which  resist  best,  and  re- 
peating the  process  in  successive  seminal  generations.  My 
belief  in  the  probability  of  good  results  from  this  process 
rests  on  the  fact  of  all  characters  whatever  occasionally  va- 
rying. It  is  known,  for  instance,  that  certain  species  and 
varieties  of  the  vine  resist  phylloxera  better  than  others. 
Andrew  Knight  found  in  one  variety  or  species  of  the  ap- 
ple which  was  not  in  the  least  attacked  by  coccus,  and 
another  variety  has  been  observed  in  South  Australia.  Cer- 
tain varieties  of  the  peach  resist  mildew,  and  several  other 
such  cases  could  be  given.  Therefore  there  is  no  great 
improbability  in  a  new  variety  of  potato  arising  which  would 
resist  the  fungus  completely,  or  at  least  much  better  than 
any  existing  variety.  With  respect  to  the  cross-fertilisation 
of  two  distinct  seedling  plants,  it  has  been  ascertained  that 
the  offspring  thus  raised  inherit  much  more  vigorous  con- 
stitutions and  generally  are  more  prolific  than  seedlings 
from  self-fertilised  parents.  It  is  also  probable  that  cross- 
fertilisation  would  be  especially  valuable  in  the  case  of  the 
potato,  as  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  flowers  are 
seldom  crossed  by  our  native  insects  ;  and  some  varieties 
are  absolutely  sterile  unless  fertilised  with  pollen  from  a  dis- 
tinct variety.  There  is  some  evidence  that  the  good  effects 
from  a  cross  are  transmitted  for  several  generations  ;  it 
would  not,  therefore  be  necessary  to  cross-fertilise  the  seed- 
lings in  each  generation,  though  this  would  be  desirable,  as 
it  is  almost  certain  that  a  greater  number  of  seeds  would 
thus  be  obtained.  It  should  be  remembered  that  a  cross 
between  plants  raised  from  the  tubers  of  the  same  plant, 
though  growing  on  distinct  roots,  does  no  more  good  than 
a  cross  between  flowers  on  the  same  individual.  Consid- 
ering the  whole  subject,  it  appears  to  me  that  it  would 
be  a  national  misfortune  if  the  cross-fertilised  seeds  in 
Mr.  Torbitt's  possession  produced  by  parents  which  have 
already   shown    some   power   of  resisting   the    disease,    are 


1878.J         MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  52 1 

not  utilised  by  the  Government,  or  some  public  body, 
and  the  process  of  selection  continued  during  several  more 
generations. 

Should  the  Agricultural  Society  undertake  the  work,  Mr. 
Torbitt's  knowledge  gained  by  experience  would  be  especially 
valuable  ;  and  an  outline  of  the  plan  is  given  in  his  printed 
letter.  It  would  be  necessary  that  all  the  tubers  produced 
by  each  plant  should  be  collected  separately,  and  carefully 
examined  in  each  succeeding  generation. 

It  would  be  advisable  that  some  kind  of  potato  eminently 
liable  to  the  disease  should  be  planted  in  considerable  num- 
bers near  the  seedlings  so  as  to  infect  them. 

Altogether  the  trial  would  be  one  requiring  much  care  and 
extreme  patience,  as  I  know  from  experience  with  analogous 
work,  and  it  may  be  feared  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find 
any  one  who  would  pursue  the  experiment  with  sufficient 
energy.  It  seems,  therefore,  to  me  highly  desirable  that 
Mr.  Torbitt  should  be  aided  with  some  small  grant  so  as  to 
continue  the  work  himself. 

Judging  from  his  reports,  his  efforts  have  already  been 
crowned  in  so  short  a  time  with  more  success  than  could 
have  been  anticipated  ;  and  I  think  you  will  agree  with  me, 
that  any  one  who  raises  a  fungus-proof  potato  will  be  a  public 
benefactor  of  no  common  kind. 

My  dear  Farrer,  yours  sincerely, 

Charles  Darwin. 

[After  further  consultation  with  Sir  Thomas  Farrer  and 
with  Mr.  Caird,  my  father  became  convinced  that  it  was 
hopeless  to  attempt  to  obtain  Government  aid.  He  wrote  to 
Mr.  Torbitt  to  this  effect,  adding,  "  it  would  be  less  trouble 
to  get  up  a  subscription  from  a  few  rich  leading  agriculturists 
than  from  Government.  This  plan  I  think  you  cannot  object 
to,  as  you  have  asked  nothing,  and  will  have  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  subscription.  In  fact,  the  affair  is,  in  my 
opinion,  a  compliment  to  you."  The  idea  here  broached  was 
carried  out,  and  Mr.  Torbitt  was  enabled  to  continue  his  work 


522  MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.        [1881-2. 

by  the  aid  of  a  sum  to  which  Sir  T.  Farrer,  Mr.  Caird,  my 
father,  and  a  few  friends,  subscribed. 

My  father's  sympathy  and  encouragement  were  highly 
valued  by  Mr.  Torbitt,  who  tells  me  that  without  them  he 
should  long  ago  have  given  up  his  attempt.  A  few  extracts 
will  illustrate  my  father's  fellow  feeling  with  Mr.  Torbitt's 
energy  and  perseverance  : — 

"I  admire  your  indomitable  spirit.  If  any  one  ever 
deserved  success,  you  do  so,  and  I  keep  to  my  original 
opinion  that  you  have  a  very  good  chance  of  raising  a  fungus- 
proof  variety  of  the  potato. 

"  A  pioneer  in  a  new  undertaking  is  sure  to  meet  with 
many  disappointments,  so  I  hope  that  you  will  keep  up  your 
courage,  though  we  have  done  so  very  little  for  you." 

Mr.  Torbitt  tells  me  that  he  still  (1887)  succeeds  in  raising 
varieties  possessing  well-marked  powers  of  resisting  disease; 
but  this  immunity  is  not  permanent,  and,  after  some  years, 
the  varieties  become  liable  to  the  attacks  of  the  fungus.] 

The   Kew   Index   of   Plant-Names,  or   '  Nomenclator 

Darwinianus  \ 

[Some  account  of  my  father's  connection  with  the  Index  of 
Plant-names  now  (1887)  in  course  of  preparation  at  Kew  will 
be  found  in  Mr.  B.  Daydon  Jackson's  paper  in  the  '  Journal 
of  Botany,'  1887,  p.  151.  Mr.  Jackson  quotes  the  following 
statement  by  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  : — 

"  Shortly  before  his  death,  Mr.  Charles  Darwin  informed 
Sir  Joseph  Hooker  that  it  was  his  intention  to  devote  a  con- 
siderable sum  of  money  annually  for  some  years  in  aid  or 
furtherance  of  some  work  or  works  of  practical  utility  to  bio- 
logical science,  and  to  make  provisions  in  his  will  in  the 
event  of  these  not  being  completed  during  his  lifetime. 

"Amongst  other  objects  connected  with  botanical  science, 
Mr.  Darwin  regarded  with  especial  interest  the  importance  of 
a  complete  index  to  the  names  and  authors  of  the  genera  and 


1882.]         MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  523 

species  of  plants  known  to  botanists,  together  with  their 
native  countries.  Steudel's  '  Nomenclator '  is  the  only  exist- 
ing work  of  this  nature,  and  although  now  nearly  half  a  cen- 
tury old,  Mr.  Darwin  had  found  it  of  great  aid  in  his  own 
researches.  It  has  been  indispensable  to  every  botanical  insti- 
tution, whether  as  a  list  of  all  known  flowering  plants,  as  an 
indication  of  their  authors,  or  as  a  digest  of  botanical  geo- 
graphy/' 

Since  1840,  when  the  '  Nomenclator '  was  published,  the 
number  of  described  plants  may  be  said  to  have  doubled,  so 
that  the  '  Nomenclator  '  is  now  seriously  below  the  require- 
ments of  botanical  work.  To  remedy  this  want,  the  '  Nomen- 
clator '  has  been  from  time  to  time  posted  up  in  an  inter- 
leaved copy  in  the  Herbarium  at  Kew,  by  the  help  of  u  funds 
supplied  by  private  liberality."  * 

My  father,  like  other  botanists,  had  as  Sir  Joseph  Hooker 
points  out,  experienced  the  value  of  Steudel's  work.  He 
obtained  plants  from  all  sorts  of  sources,  which  were  often 
incorrectly  named,  and  he  felt  the  necessity  of  adhering  to 
the  accepted  nomenclature,  so  that  he  might  convey  to  other 
workers  precise  indications  as  to  the  plants  which  he  had 
studied.  It  was  also  frequently  a  matter  of  importance  to 
him  to  know  the  native  country  of  his  experimental  plants. 
Thus  it  was  natural  that  he  should  recognize  the  desirability 
of  completing  and  publishing  the  interleaved  volume  at  Kew. 
The  wish  to  help  in  this  object  was  heightened  by  the  admi- 
ration he  felt  for  the  results  for  which  the  world  has  to  thank 
the  Royal  Gardens  at  Kew,  and  by  his  gratitude  for  the  in- 
valuable aid  which  for  so  many  years  he  received  from  its 
Director  and  his  staff.  He  expressly  stated  that  it  was  his 
wish  "  to  aid  in  some  way  the  scientific  work  carried  on  at 
the  Royal  Gardens  "  \ — which  induced  him  to  offer  to  supply 
funds  for  the  completion  of  the  Kew  '  Nomenclator.' 


*  Kew  Gardens  Report,  1881,  p.  62. 

f  See  '  Nature,'  January  5,  1882. 
70 


524  MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.         [1882. 

The  following  passage,  for  which  I  am  indebted  to  Pro- 
fessor Judd,  is  of  much  interest,  as  illustrating  the  motives 
that  actuated  my  father  in  this  matter.  Professor  Judd 
writes  : — 

"  On  the  occasion  of  my  last  visit  to  him,  he  told  me  that 
his  income  having  recently  greatly  increased,  while  his  wants 
remained  the  same,  he  was  most  anxious  to  devote  what  he 
could  spare  to  the  advancement  of  Geology  or  Biology.  He 
dwelt  in  the  most  touching  manner  on  the  fact  that  he  owed 
so  much  happiness  and  fame  to  the  natural-history  sciences, 
which  had  been  the  solace  of  what  might  have  been  a  painful 
existence  ; — and  he  begged  me,  if  I  knew  of  any  research 
which  could  be  aided  by  a  grant  of  a  few  hundreds  of  pounds, 
to  let  him  know,  as  it  would  be  a  delight  to  him  to  feel  that 
he  was  helping  in  promoting  the  progress  of  science.  He 
informed  me  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  making  the  same 
suggestion  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  and  Professor  Huxley  with 
respect  to  Botany  and  Zoology  respectively.  I  was  much 
impressed  by  the  earnestness,  and,  indeed,  deep  emotion,  with 
which  he  spoke  of  his  indebtedness  to  Science,  and  his  desire 
to  promote  its  interests." 

Sir  Joseph  Hooker  was  asked  by  my  father  "  to  take  into 
consideration,  with  the  aid  of  the  botanical  staff  at  Kew  and 
the  late  Mr.  Bentham,  the  extent  and  scope  of  the  proposed 
work,  and  to  suggest  the  best  means  of  having  it  executed. 
In  doing  this,  Sir  Joseph  had  further  the  advantage  of  the 
great  knowledge  and  experience  of  Professor  Asa  Gray,  of 
Cambridge,  U.S.A., *and  of  Mr.  John  Ball,  F.R.S."* 

The  plan  of  the  proposed  work  having  been  carefully 
considered,  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  was  able  to  confide  its  elabor- 
ation in  detail  to  Mr.  B.  Daydon  Jackson,  Secretary  of  the 
Linnean  Society,  whose  extensive  knowledge  of  botanical 
literature  qualifies  him  for  the  task.  My  father's  original 
idea  of  producing  a  modern  edition  of  Steudel's  '  Nomencla- 
tor  '  has  been  practically  abandoned,  the  aim  now  kept  in 


*  '  Journal  of  Botany,'  loc,  cit 


i887.]         MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  525 

view  is  rather  to  construct  a  list  of  genera  and  species  (with 
references)  founded  on  Bentham  and  Hooker's  '  Genera 
Plantarum.'  The  colossal  nature  of  the  work  in  progress  at 
Kew  may  be  estimated  by  the  fact  that  the  manuscript  of  the 
' Index*  is  at  the  present  time  (1887)  believed  to  weigh  more 
than  a  ton.  Under  Sir  Joseph  Hooker's  supervision  the 
work  goes  steadily  forward,  being  carried  out  with  admirable 
zeal  by  Mr.  Jackson,  who  devotes  himself  unsparingly  to  the 
enterprise,  in  which,  too,  he  has  the  advantage  of  the  active 
interest  in  the  work  felt  by  Professor  Oliver  and  Mr.  Thisel- 
ton  Dyer. 

The  Kew  '  Index,'  which  will,  in  all  probability,  be  ready 
to  go  to  press  in  four  or  five  years,  will  be  a  fitting  memorial 
of  my  father:  and  his  share  in  its  completion  illustrates  a 
part  of  his  character — his  ready  sympathy  with  work  outside 
his  own  lines  of  investigation — and  his  respect  for  minute 
and  patient  labour  in  all  branches  of  science.] 


CHAPTER   XVI. 

CONCLUSION. 

Some  idea  of  the  general  course  of  my  father's  health  may- 
have  been  gathered  from  the  letters  given  in  the  preceding 
pages.  The  subject  of  health  appears  more  prominently 
than  is  often  necessary  in  a  Biography,  because  it  was,  un- 
fortunately, so  real  an  element  in  determining  the  outward 
form  of  his  life. 

During  the  last  ten  years  of  his  life  the  condition  of  his 
health  was  a  cause  of  satisfaction  and  hope  to  his  family. 
His  condition  showed  signs  of  amendment  in  several  particu- 
lars. He  suffered  less  distress  and  discomfort,  and  was  able 
to  work  more  steadily.  Something  has  been  already  said  of 
Dr.  Bence  Jones's  treatment,  from  which  my  father  certainly 
derived  benefit.  In  later  years  he  became  a  patient  of 
Sir  Andrew  Clark,  under  whose  care  he  improved  greatly 
in  general  health.  It  was  not  only  for  his  generously  ren- 
dered service  that  my  father  felt  a  debt  of  gratitude  towards 
Sir  Andrew  Clark.  He  owed  to  his  cheering  personal  influ- 
ence an  often-repeated  encouragement,  which  latterly  added 
something  real  to  his  happiness,  and  he  found  sincere  pleas- 
ure in  Sir  Andrew's  friendship  and  kindness  towards  himself 
and  his  children. 

Scattered  through  the  past  pages  are  one  or  two  refer- 
ences to  pain  or  uneasiness  felt  in  the  region  of  the  heart. 
How  far  these  indicate  that  the  heart  was  affected  early  in 
life,  I  cannot  pretend  to  say ;  in  any  case  it  is  certain  that 
he  had  no  serious  or  permanent  trouble  of  this  nature  until 


i88i.]  CONCLUSION.  527 

shortly  before  his  death.  In  spite  of  the  general  improve- 
ment in  his  health,  which  has  been  above  alluded  to,  there 
was  a  certain  loss  of  physical  vigour  occasionally  apparent 
during  the  last  few  years  of  his  life.  This  is  illustrated  by 
a  sentence  in  a  letter  to  his  old  friend  Sir  James  Sullivan, 
written  on  January  10,  1879  :  "  My  scientific  work  tires  me 
more  than  it  used  to  do,  but  I  have  nothing  else  to  do,  and 
whether  one  is  worn  out  a  year  or  two  sooner  or  later  signi- 
fies but  little." 

A  similar  feeling  is  shown  in  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker 
of  June  15,  1881.  My  father  was  staying  at  Patterdale,  and 
wrote  :  "  I  am  rather  despondent  about  myself  ....  I  have 
not  the  heart  or  strength  to  begin  any  investigation  lasting 
years,  which  is  the  only  thing  which  I  enjoy,  and  I  have  no 
little  jobs  which  I  can  do." 

In  July,  1881,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Wallace,  "We  have  just 
returned  home  after  spending  five  weeks  on  Ullswater  ;  the 
scenery  is  quite  charming,  but  I  cannot  walk,  and  everything 
tires  me,  even  seeing  scenery  ....  What  I  shall  do  with  my 
few  remaining  years  of  life  I  can  hardly  tell.  I  have  every- 
thing to  make  me  happy  and  contented,  but  life  has  become 
very  wearisome  to  me."  He  was,  however,  able  to  do  a  good 
deal  of  work,  and  that  of  a  trying  sort,*  during  the  autumn 
of  1 88 1,  but  towards  the  end  of  the  year  he  was  clearly  in 
need  of  rest ;  and  during  the  winter  was  in  a  lower  condition 
than  was  usual  with  him. 

On  December  13  he  went  for  a  week  to  his  daughter's 
house  in  Bryanston  Street.  During  his  stay  in  London  he 
went  to  call  on  Mr.  Romanes,  and  was  seized  when  on  the 
door-step  with  an  attack  apparently  of  the  same  kind  as 
those  which  afterwards  became  so  frequent.  The  rest 
of  the  incident,  which  I  give  in  Mr.  Romanes'  words,  is 
interesting  too  from  a  different  point  of  view,  as  giving  one 
more  illustration  of  my  father's  scrupulous  consideration  for 
others  : — 

*  On  the  action  of  carbonate  of  ammonia  on  roots  and  leaves. 


528  CONCLUSION.  [1881. 

"  I  happened  to  be  out,  but  my  butler,  observing  that  Mr. 
Darwin  was  ill,  asked  him  to  come  in.  He  said  he  would 
prefer  going  home,  and  although  the  butler  urged  him  to 
wait  at  least  until  a  cab  could  be  fetched,  he  said  he  would 
rather  not  give  so  much  trouble.  For  the  same  reason  he 
refused  to  allow  the  butler  to  accompany  him.  Accordingly 
he  watched  him  walking  with  difficulty  towards  the  direction 
in  which  cabs  were  to  be  met  with,  and  saw  that,  when  he 
had  got  about  three  hundred  yards  from  the  house,  he  stag- 
gered and  caught  hold  of  the  park-railings  as  if  to  prevent 
himself  from  falling.  The  butler  therefore  hastened  to  his 
assistance,  but  after  a  few  seconds  saw  him  turn  round  with 
the  evident  purpose  of  retracing  his  steps  to  my  house.  How- 
ever, after  he  had  returned  part  of  the  way  he  seems  to  have 
felt  better,  for  he  again  changed  his  mind,  and  proceeded  to 
find  a  cab.,, 

During  the  last  week  of  February  and  in  the  beginning  of 
March,  attacks  of  pain  in  the  region  of  the  heart,  with  irre- 
gularity of  the  pulse,  became  frequent,  coming  on  indeed 
nearly  every  afternoon.  A  seizure  of  this  sort  occurred  about 
March  7,  when  he  was  walking  alone  at  a  short  distance  from 
the  house ;  he  got  home  with  difficulty,  and  this  was  the  last 
time  that  he  was  able  to  reach  his  favourite  '  Sand- walk.' 
Shortly  after  this,  his  illness  became  obviously  more  serious 
and  alarming,  and  he  was  seen  by  Sir  Andrew  Clark,  whose 
treatment  was  continued  by  Dr.  Norman  Moore,  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew's Hospital,  and  Mr.  Alfrey,  of  St.  Mary  Cray.  He 
suffered  from  distressing  sensations  of  exhaustion  and  faint- 
ness,  and  seemed  to  recognise  with  deep  depression  the  fact 
that  his  working  days  were  over.  He  gradually  recovered 
from  this  condition,  and  became  more  cheerful  and  hopeful, 
as  is  shown  in  the  following  letter  to  Mr.  Huxley,  who  was 
anxious  that  my  father  should  have  closer  medical  super- 
vision than  the  existing  arrangements  allowed  : 


i882.]  CONCLUSION.  529 

Down,  March  27,  1882. 
lt  My  dear  Huxley, — Your  most  kind  letter  has  been  a 
real  cordial  to  me.  I  have  felt  better  to-day  than  for  three 
weeks,  and  have  felt  as  yet  no  pain.  Your  plan  seems  an  ex- 
cellent one,  and  I  will  probably  act  upon  it,  unless  I  get  very 
much  better.  Dr.  Clark's  kindness  is  unbounded  to  me,  but 
he  is  too  busy  to  come  here.  Once  again,  accept  my  cordial 
thanks,  my  dear  old  friend.  I  wish  to  God  there  were  more 
automata  *  in  the  world  like  you. 

Ever  yours, 

Ch.  Darwin." 

The  allusion  to  Sir  Andrew  Clark  requires  a  word  of  ex- 
planation. Sir  Andrew  Clark  himself  was  ever  ready  to 
devote  himself  to  my  father,  who,  however,  could  not  endure 
the  thought  of  sending  for  him,  knowing  how  severely  his 
great  practice  taxed  his  strength. 

No  especial  change  occurred  during  the  beginning  of 
April,  but  on  Saturday  15th  he  was  seized  with  giddiness 
while  sitting  at  dinner  in  the  evening,  and  fainted  in  an  at- 
tempt to  reach  his  sofa.  On  the  17  th  he  was  again  better, 
and  in  my  temporary  absence  recorded  for  me  the  progress  of 
an  experiment  in  which  I  was  engaged.  During  the  night  of 
April  1 8th,  about  a  quarter  to  twelve,  he  had  a  severe  attack 
and  passed  into  a  faint,  from  which  he  was  brought  back  to 
consciousness  with  great  difficulty.  He  seemed  to  recognise 
the  approach  of  death,  and  said,  "I  am  not  the  least  afraid 
to  die."  All  the  next  morning  he  suffered  from  terrible 
nausea  and  faintness,  and  hardly  rallied  before  the  end 
came. 

He  died  at  about  four  o'clock  on  Wednesday,  April  19th, 
1882,  in  the  seventy-fourth  year  of  his  age. 

I  close  the  record  of  my  father's  life  with  a  few  words  of 

*  The  allusion  is  to  Mr.  Huxley's  address  4  On  the  Hypothesis  that  Ani- 
mals are  Automata,  and  its  History,'  given  at  the  Belfast  meeting  of  the 
British  Association  in  1874,  and  republished  in  '  Science  and  Culture/ 


530  CONCLUSION.  [1881. 

retrospect  added  to  the  manuscript  of  his  '  Autobiography ' 
in  1879  : — 

"As  for  myself,  I  believe  that  I  have  acted  rightly  in 
steadily  following,  and  devoting  my  life  to  Science.  I  feel  no 
remorse  from  having  committed  any  great  sin,  but  have  often 
and  often  regretted  that  I  have  not  done  more  direct  good  to 
my  fellow  creatures." 


APPENDIX  I. 


The  Funeral  in  Westminster  Abbey. 

On  the  Friday  succeeding  my  father's  death,  the  following  letter, 
signed  by  twenty  members  of  Parliament,  was  addressed  to  Dr.  Brad- 
ley, Dean  of  Westminster : — 

House  of  Commons,  April  21,  1882. 

Very  Rev.  Sir, — We  hope  you  will  not  think  we  are  taking  a 

liberty  if  we  venture  to  suggest  that  it  would  be  acceptable  to  a  very 

large  number  of  our  fellow-countrymen  of  all  classes  and  opinions 

that  our  illustrious  countryman,  Mr.  Darwin,  should  be  buried  in 

Westminster  Abbey. 

We  remain,  your  obedient  servants, 


John  Lubbock, 
Nevil  Storey  Maskelyne, 
a.  j.  mundella,   < 
G.  O.  Trevelyan, 
Lyon  Playfair, 
Charles  W.  Dilke, 
David  Wedderburn, 
Arthur  Russel, 
Horace  Davey, 
Benjamin  Armitage, 


Richard  B.  Martin, 

Francis  W.  Buxton, 

E.  L.  Stanley, 

Henry  Broadhurst, 

John  Barran, 

J.  F.  Cheetham, 

H.  S.  Holland, 

H.  Campbell-Bannerman, 

Charles  Bruce, 

Richard  Fort. 


The  Dean  was  abroad  at  the  time,  and  telegraphed  his  cordial 
acquiescence. 

The  family  had  desired  that  my  father  should  be  buried  at  Down : 
with  regard  to  their  wishes,  Sir  John  Lubbock  wrote  : — 


532 


APPENDIX  I. 


House  of  Commons,  April  25,  1882. 
My  dear  Darwin, — I  quite  sympathise  with  your  feeling,  and 
personally  I  should  greatly  have  preferred  that  your  father  should 
have  rested  in  Down  amongst  us  all.  It  is,  I  am  sure,  quite  under- 
stood that  the  initiative  was  not  taken  by  you.  Still,  from  a  national 
point  of  view,  it  is  clearly  right  that  he  should  be  buried  in  the  Abbey. 
I  esteem  it  a  great  privilege  to  be  allowed  to  accompany  my  dear 

master  to  the  grave. 

Believe  me,  yours  most  sincerely, 

John  Lubbock. 
W.  E.  Darwin,  Esq. 

The  family  gave  up  their  first-formed  plans,  and  the  funeral  took 
place  in  Westminster  Abbey  on  April  26th.     The  pall-bearers  were : — 

Sir  John  Lubbock,  Canon  Farrar, 

Mr.  Huxley,  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker, 

Mr.  James  Russell  Lowell  Mr.  Wm.  Spottiswoode 
(American  Minister),  (President  of  the  Royal 

Society), 

Mr.  A.  R.  Wallace,  The  Earl  of  Derby, 
The  Duke  of  Devonshire,  The  Duke  of  Argyll. 

The  funeral  was  attended  by  the  representatives  of  France,  Ger- 
many, Italy,  Spain,  Russia,  and  by  those  of  the  Universities,  and 
learned  Societies,  as  well  as  by  large  numbers  of  personal  friends  and 
distinguished  men. 

The  grave  is  in  the  North  aisle  of  the  Nave,  close  to  the  angle  of 
the  choir-screen,  and  a  few  feet  from  the  grave  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton. 
The  stone  bears  the  inscription — 

CHARLES  ROBERT  DARWIN. 

Born  12  February,  1809. 

Died  19  April,  1882. 


APPENDIX   II 


L— List  of  Works  by  C.  Darwin. 

Narrative  of  the  Surveying  Voyages  of  Her  Majesty's  Ships  '  Adven- 
ture '  and  '  Beagle  '  between  the  years  1 826  and  1 836,  describing 
their  examination  of  the  Southern  shores  of  South  America,  and 
the  '  Beagle's '  circumnavigation  of  the  globe.  Vol.  iii.  Journal 
and  Remarks,   1 832-1 836.     By  Charles  Darwin.     8vo.    London, 

1839. 
Journal  of  Researches  into  the  Natural  History  and  Geology  of  the 

countries  visited  during  the  Voyage  of  H.M.S. '  Beagle '  round  the 

world,  under  the  command  of  Capt.  Fitz-Roy,  R.N.     2nd  edition, 

corrected,  with  additions.     8vo.    London,    1845.     (Colonial  and 

Home  Library.) 

A  Naturalist's  Voyage.  Journal  of  Researches,  &c.  8vo.  London, 
i860.     [Contains  a  postscript  dated  Feb.  1,  i860.] 

Zoology  of  the  Voyage  of  H.M.S.  'Beagle.'  Edited  and  superin- 
tended by  Charles  Darwin.  Part  I.  Fossil  Mammalia,  by  Rich- 
ard Owen.  With  a  Geological  Introduction,  by  Charles  Darwin. 
4to.  London,  1840. 

Part  II.  Mammalia,  by  George  R.  Waterhouse.     With  a  notice 

of  their  habits  and  ranges,  by  Charles  Darwin.     4to.  London, 

1839. 
Part  III.  Birds,  by  John  Gould.     An  "Advertisement"  (2  pp.) 

states  that  in  consequence  of  Mr.  Gould's  having  left  England  for 

Australia,  many  descriptions  were  supplied  by  Mr.  G.  R.  Gray  of 

the  British  Museum.     4to.  London,  1841. 

Part  IV.  Fish,  by  Rev.  Leonard  Jenyns.     4to.  London,  1842. 

Part  V.  Reptiles,  by  Thomas  Bell.     4to.  London,  1843. 


534 


APPENDIX  II. 


The  Structure  and  Distribution  of  Coral  Reefs.  Being  the  First 
Part  of  the  Geology  of  the  Voyage  of  the  ■  Beagle.'  8vo.  Lon- 
don, 1842. 

The  Structure  and  Distribution  of  Coral  Reefs.  2nd  edition.  8vo. 
London,  1874. 

Geological  Observations  on  the  Volcanic  Islands,  visited  during  the 
Voyage  of  H.M.S.  '  Beagle.'  Being  the  Second  Part  of  the  Geol- 
ogy of  the  Voyage  of  the  '  Beagle.'     8vo.  London,  1844. 

Geological  Observations  on  South  America.  Being  the  Third  Part 
of  the  Geology  of  the  Voyage  of  the  'Beagle.'  8vo.  London, 
1846. 

Geological  Observations  on  the  Volcanic  Islands  and  parts  of  South 
America  visited  during  the  Voyage  of  H.M.S.  '  Beagle.'  2nd  edi- 
tion.    8vo.  London,  1876. 

A  Monograph  of  the  Fossil  Lepadidae ;  or,  Pedunculated  Cirripedes 
of  Great  Britain.  4to.  London,  1851.  (Palasontographical  So- 
ciety.) 

A  Monograph  of  the  Sub-class  Cirripedia,  with  Figures  of  all  the 
Species.  The  Lepadidae;  or,  Pedunculated  Cirripedes.  8vo. 
London,  185 1.     (Ray  Society.) 

The  Balanidas  (or  Sessile  Cirripedes)  ;  the  Verrucidae,  &c.     8vo. 

London,  1854.     (Ray  Society.) 

A  Monograph  of  the  Fossil  Balanidas  and  Verrucidas  of  Great  Brit- 
ain.    4to.  London,  1854.     (Palaeontographical  Society.) 

On  the  Origin  of  Species  by  means  of  Natural  Selection,  or  the 
Preservation  of  Favoured  Races  in  the  Struggle  for  Life.  8vo. 
London,  1859.  (Dated  Oct.  1st,  1859,  published  Nov.  24, 
1859.) 

Fifth  thousand.     8vo.  London,  i860. 

Third  edition,  with  additions  and  corrections.  (Seventh  thou- 
sand.)    8vo.  London,  1861.     (Dated  March,  1861.) 

Fourth  edition,  with  additions  and  corrections.  (Eighth  thou- 
sand.)    8vo.  London,  1866.     (Dated  June,  1866.) 

Fifth  edition,  with  additions  and  corrections.  (Tenth  thou- 
sand.)    8vo.  London,  1869.     (Dated  May,  1869.) 

Sixth  edition,  with  additions  and  corrections  to  1872.     (Twenty- 


fourth  thousand.)     8vo.  London,  1882.     (Dated  Jan.,  1872.) 
On  the  various  contrivances  by  which  Orchids  are  fertilised  by  In- 
sects.    8vo.  London,  1862. 

Second  edition.     8vo.  London,  1877.     [In  the  second  edition  the 

word  "On  "  is  omitted  from  the  title.] 


APPENDIX  II. 


535 


The  Movements  and  Habits  of  Climbing  Plants.     Second  edition. 

8vo.  London,  1875.     [First  appeared  in  the  ninth  volume  of  the 

*  Journal  of  the  Linnean  Society.'] 
The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication.     2  vols. 

8vo.  London,  1868. 

Second  edition,  revised.     2  vols.     8vo.  London,  1875. 

The  Descent  of  Man,  and  Selection  in  Relation  to  Sex.     2  vols.     8vo. 

London,  1871. 

Second  edition.     8vo.  London,  1874.     (In  1  vol.) 

The  Expression  of  the  Emotions  in  Man  and  Animals.     8vo.  Lon- 
don, 1872. 
Insectivorous  Plants.     8vo.  London,  1875. 
The  Effects  of  Cross  and  Self  Fertilisation  in  the  Vegetable  Kingdom. 

8vo.  London,  1876. 

Second  edition.     8vo.  London,  1878. 

The  different  Forms  of  Flowers  on  Plants  of  the  same  Species.     8vo. 

London,  1877. 

Second  edition.     8vo.  London,  1880. 

The  Power  of  Movement  in  Plants.     By  Charles  Darwin,  assisted  by 

Francis  Darwin.     8vo.  London,  1880. 
The  Formation  of  Vegetable  Mould,  through  the  Action  of  Worms, 

with  Observations  on  their  Habits.     8vo.  London,  1881. 

II.— List  of  Books  containing  Contributions  by  C.  Dar- 
win. 

A  Manual  of  scientific  enquiry;  prepared  for  the  use  of  Her  Majes- 
ty's Navy:  and  adapted  for  travellers  in  general.  Ed.  by  Sir 
John  F.  W.  Herschel,  Bart.  8vo.  London,  1849.  (Section  VI. 
Geology.     By  Charles  Darwin.) 

Memoir  of  the  Rev.  John  Stevens  Henslow.  By  the  Rev.  Leonard 
Jenyns,  8vo.  London,  1862.  [In  Chapter  III.,  Recollections  by 
C.  Darwin.] 

A  letter  (1876)  on  the  'Drift'  near  Southampton,  published  in  Prof. 
J.  Geikie's  '  Prehistoric  Europe.' 

Flowers  and  their  unbidden  guests.  By  A.  Kerner.  With  a  Prefatory 
Letter  by  Charles  Darwin.  The  translation  revised  and  edited  by 
W.  Ogle.     8vo.  London,  1878. 

Erasmus  Darwin.  By  Ernst  Krause.  Translated  from  the  German 
by  W.  S.  Dallas.  With  a  preliminary  notice  by  Charles  Darwin. 
8vo.  London,  1879. 

Studies  in  the  Theory  of  Descent.     By  Aug.  Weismann.     Translated 


536 


APPENDIX  II. 


and  edited  by  Raphael  Meldola.  With  a  Prefatory  Notice  by 
Charles  Darwin.     8vo.  London,  1880 — . 

The  Fertilisation  of  Flowers.  By  Hermann  Miiller.  Translated  and 
edited  by  D'Arcy  W.  Thompson.  With  a  Preface  by  Charles 
Darwin.     8vo.  London,  1883. 

Mental  Evolution  in  Animals.  By  G.  J.  Romanes.  With  a  posthu- 
mous essay  on  instinct  by  Charles  Darwin,  1883.  [Also  published 
in  the  Journal  of  the  Linnean  Society.] 

Some  Notes  on  a  curious  habit  of  male  humble  bees  were  sent  to 
Prof.  Hermann  Miiller,  of  Lippstadt,  who  had  permission  from 
Mr.  Darwin  to  make  what  use  he  pleased  of  them.  After  Midler's 
death  the  Notes  were  given  by  his  son  to  Dr.  E.  Krause,  who 
published  them  under  the  title,  "  Ueber  die  Wege  der  Hummel- 
Mannchen "  in  his  book,  '  Gesammelte  kleinere  Schriften  von 
Charles  Darwin'  (1886). 

III.— List  of  Scientific  Papers,  including  a  selection  of 
Letters  and  Short  Communications  to  Scientific 
Journals. 

Letters  to  Professor  Henslow,  read  by  him  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Cambridge  Philosophical  Society,  held  Nov.  16,  1835.  31  pp. 
8vo.  Privately  printed  for  distribution  among  the  members  of  the 
Society. 

Geological  Notes  made  during  a  survey  of  the  East  and  West 
Coasts  of  South  America  in  the  years  1832,  1833,  1834,  and  1835 ; 
with  an  account  of  a  transverse  section  of  the  Cordilleras  of  the 
Andes  between  Valparaiso  and  Mendoza.  [Read  Nov.  18,  1835.] 
Geol.  Soc.  Proc.  ii.  1838,  pp.  210-212.  [This  Paper  is  incorrectly 
described  in  Geol.  Soc.  Proc.  ii.,  p.  210  as  follows  : — "  Geological 
notes,  &c,  by  F.  Darwin,  Esq.,  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge : 
communicated  by  Prof.  Sedgwick."  It  is  Indexed  under  C. 
Darwin.] 

Notes  upon  the  Rhea  Americana.     Zool.  Soc.  Proc.;  Part  v.  1837, 

PP.  35-36. 

Observations  of  proofs  of  recent  elevation  on  the  coast  of  Chili, 
made  during  the  survey  of  H.M.S.  "  Beagle,"  commanded  by  Capt 
FitzRoy.     [1837.]     Geol.  Soc.  Proc.  ii.  1838,  pp.  446-449. 

A  sketch  of  the  deposits  containing  extinct  Mammalia  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  Plata.  [1837.]  Geol.  Soc.  Proc.  ii.  1838,  pp. 
542-544. 

On  certain  areas  of  elevation  and  subsidence  in  the  Pacific  and  In- 


APPENDIX  II, 


537 


dian  oceans,  as  deduced  from  the'study  of  coral  formations.  [1837.] 
Geol.  Soc.  Proc.  ii.  1838,  pp.  552-554. 

On  the  Formation  of  Mould.  [Read  Nov.  1,  1837.]  Geol.  Soc. 
Proc.  ii.  1838,  pp.  574-576  ;  Geol.  Soc.  Trans,  v.  1840,  pp.  505-510. 

On  the  Connexion  of  certain  Volcanic  Phenomena  and  on  the  forma- 
tion of  mountain-chains  and  the  effects  of  continental  elevations. 
[Read  March  7,  1838.]  Geol.  Soc.  Proc.  ii.  1838,  pp.  654-660; 
Geol.  Soc.  Trans,  v.  1840,  pp.  601-632.  [In  the  Society's  Trans- 
actions the  wording  of  the  title  is  slightly  different.] 

Origin  of  saliferous  deposits.  Salt  Lakes  of  Patagonia  and  La  Plata. 
Geol.  Soc.  Journ.  ii.  (Part  ii.),  1838,  pp.  127-128. 

Note  on  a  Rock  seen  on  an  Iceberg  in  160  South  Latitude.  Geogr. 
Soc.  Journ.  ix.  1839,  PP-  528-529. 

Observations  on  the  Parallel  Roads  of  Glen  Roy,  and  of  other  parts 
of  Lochaber  in  Scotland,  with  an  attempt  to  prove  that  they  are  of 
marine  origin.     Phil.  Trans.  1839,  PP-  39~82. 

On  a  remarkable  Bar  of  Sandstone  off  Pernambuco,  on  the  Coast  of 
Brazil.     Phil.  Mag.  xix.  1841,  pp.  257-260. 

On  the  Distribution  of  the  Erratic  Boulders  and  on  the  Contem- 
poraneous Unstratified  Deposits  of  South  America.  [1841.]  Geol. 
Soc.  Proc.  iii.  1842,  pp.  425-430;  Geol.  Soc.  Trans,  vi.  1842,  pp. 
415-432. 

Notes  on  the  Effects  produced  by  the  Ancient  Glaciers  of  Caernar- 
vonshire, and  on  the  Boulders  transported  by  Floating  Ice.  Lon- 
don Philosoph.  Mag.  vol.  xxi.  p.  180.     1842. 

Remarks  on  the  preceding  paper,  in  a  Letter  from  Charles  Darwin, 
Esq.,  to  Mr.  Maclaren.  Edinb.  New  Phil.  Journ.  xxxiv.  1843, 
pp.  47-50.  [The  "  preceding  "  paper  is  :  "  On  Coral  Islands  and 
Reefs  as  described  by  Mr.  Darwin.  By  Charles  Maclaren,  Esq., 
F.R.S.E."] 

Observations  on  the  Structure  and  Propagation  of  the  genus  Sagitta. 
Ann.  and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.  xiii.  1844,  pp.  1-6. 

Brief  Descriptions  of  several  Terrestrial  Planar  ice,  and  of  some  re- 
markable Marine  Species,  with  an  Account  of  their  Habits.  Ann. 
and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.  xiv.  1844,  pp.  241-251. 

An  account  of  the  Fine  Dust  which  often  falls  on  Vessels  in  the  At- 
lantic Ocean.     Geol.  Soc.  Journ.  ii.  1846,  pp.  26-30. 

On  the  Geology  of  the  Falkland  Islands.  Geol.  Soc.  Journ.  ii.  1846, 
pp.  267-274. 

A  review  of  Waterhouse's  '  Natural  History  of  the  Mammalia.'  [Not 
signed.]     Ann.  and  Mag.  of  Nat.  Hist.     1847.     Vol.  xix.  p.  530 


538 


APPENDIX  II. 


On  the  Transportal  of  Erratic  Boulders  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  level. 
Geol.  Soc.  Journ.  iv.  1848,  pp.  315-323. 

On  British  fossil  Lepadidae.  Geol.  Soc.  Journ.  vi.  1850,  pp.  439-440. 
[The  G.  S.  J.  says,  "  This  paper  was  withdrawn  by  the  author  with 
the  permission  of  the  Council."] 

Analogy  of  the  Structure  of  some  Volcanic  Rocks  with  that  of 
Glaciers.     Edinb.  Roy.  Soc.  Proc.  ii.  1851,  pp.  17-18. 

On  the  power  of  Icebergs  to  make  rectilinear,  uniformly-directed 
Grooves  across  a  Submarine  Undulatory  Surface.  Phil.  Mag.  x. 
1855,  pp.  96-98. 

Vitality  of  Seeds.     Gardeners'  Chronicle,  Nov.  17,  1855,  p.  758. 

On  the  action  of  Sea- water  on  the  Germination  of  Seeds.  [1856.] 
Linn.  Soc.  Journ.  i.  1857  {Botany),  pp.  130-140. 

On  the  Agency  of  Bees  in  the  Fertilisation  of  Papilionaceous  Flowers. 
Gardeners  Chronicle,  p.  725,  1857. 

On  the  Tendency  of  Species  to  form  Varieties ;  and  on  the  Per- 
petuation of  Varieties  and  Species  by  Natural  Means  of  Selection. 
By  Charles  Darwin,  Esq.,  F.R.S.,  F.L.S.,  and  F.G.S.,  and  Alfred 
Wallace,  Esq.  [Read  July  1st,  1858.]  Journ.  Linn.  Soc.  1859, 
vol.  iii.  {Zoology),  p.  45. 

Special  titles  of  C.  Darwin's  contributions  to  the  foregoing : — 
(i)  Extract  from  an  unpublished  work  on  Species  by  C.  Dar- 
win, Esq.,  consisting  of  a  portion  of  a  chapter  entitled,  "  On 
the  Variation  of  Organic  Beings  in  a  State  of  Nature  ;  on  the 
Natural  Means  of  Selection ;  on  the  Comparison  of  Domestic 
Races  and  true  Species."  (ii)  Abstract  of  a  Letter  from  C. 
Darwin,  Esq.,  to  Professor  Asa  Gray,  of  Boston,  U.  S.,  dated 
Sept.  5,  1857. 

On  the  Agency  of  Bees  in  the  Fertilisation  of  Papilionaceous  Flow- 
ers, and  on  the  Crossing  of  Kidney  Beans.  Gardeners  Chronicle, 
1858,  p.  828  and  Ann.  Nat.  Hist.  3rd  series  ii.  1858,  pp.  459-465. 

Do  the  Tineina  or  other  small  Moths  suck  Flowers,  and  if  so  what 
Flowers?    Entom.  Weekly  Int ell.  vol.  viii.  i860,  p.  103. 

Note  on  the  achenia  of  Pumilio  Argyrolepis.  Gardeners  Chronicle, 
Jan.  5,  1861,  p.  4. 

Fertilisation  of  Vincas.  Gardeners  Chronicle,  pp.  552,  831,  832. 
1861. 

On  the  Two  Forms,  or  Dimorphic  Condition,  in  the  species  of  Pri- 
mula, and  on  their  remarkable  Sexual  Relations.  Linn.  Soc.  Journ. 
vi.  1862  {Botany),  pp.  77-96. 

On  the  Three  remarkable  Sexual  Forms  of  Catasetum  tridentatum, 


APPENDIX  II. 


539 


an  Orchid  in  the  possession  of  the  Linnean  Society.     Linn.  Soc. 

Journ.  vi.  1862  {Botany),  pp.  1 51-157. 
Yellow  Rain.     Gardeners  Chronicle,  July  18,  1863,  p.  675. 
On  the  thickness   of  the  Pampean  formation   near  Buenos  Ayres. 

Geol.  Soc.  Journ.  xix.  1863,  pp.  68-71. 
On  the  so-called  "  Auditory-sac  "  of  Cirripedes.     Nat.  Hist.  Review, 

1863,  pp.  1 1 5-1 16. 
A  review  of  Mr.  Bates'  paper  on  '  Mimetic  Butterflies.'     Nat.  Hist. 

Review,  1863,  p.  221  —  .     [Not  signed.] 
On  the  existence  of  two  forms,  and  on  their  reciprocal  sexual  rela- 
tion, in  several  species  of  the  genus  Linum.     Linn.  Soc.  Journ.  vii. 

1864  {Botany),  pp.  69  83. 
On  the  Sexual  Relations  of  the  Three  Forms  of  Lythrum  salicaria. 

[1864.]     Linn.  Soc.  Journ.  viii.  1865  {Botany),  pp.  169-196. 
On  the  Movement  and  Habits  of  Climbing  Plants.     [1865.]     Linn. 

Soc.  Journ.  ix.  1867  {Botany),  pp.  1-118. 
Note  on  the  Common  Broom  {Cytisus  scoparius).      [1866.]     Linn. 

Soc.  Journ.  ix.  1867  {Botany),  p.  358. 
Notes  on  the  Fertilization  of  Orchids.     Ann.  and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.  4th 

series,  iv.  1869,  pp.  141-159. 
On  the  Character  and  Hybrid-like  Nature  of  the  Offspring  from  the 

Illegitimate  Unions  of  Dimorphic  and  Trimorphic  Plants.    [1868.] 

Linn.  Soc.  Jour.  x.  1869  {Botany),  pp.  393-437. 
On  the  Specific   Difference  between  Primula  veris,  Brit.  Fl.  (var. 

officinalis,  of  Linn.),  P.  vulgaris,  Brit.  Fl.  (var.  acaulis,  Linn.), 

and  P.  elatior,  Jacq.  ;  and  on  the  Hybrid  Nature  of  the  common 

Oxslip.     With  Supplementary  Remarks   on   naturally   produced 

Hybrids  in  the  genus  Verbascum.     [1868.]     Linn.  Soc.  Journ.  x. 

1869  {Botany),  pp.  437-454. 
Note  on  the  Habits  of  the  Pampas  Woodpecker  {Colaptes  campes- 

tris).     Zool.  Soc.  Proc.  Nov.  1,  1870,  pp.  705-706. 
Fertilisation  of  Leschenaultia.     Gardeners  Chronicle,  p.  11 66,  1871. 
The  Fertilisation  of  Winter-flowering   Plants.     '  Nature,'  Nov.    18, 

1869,  vol.  i.  p.  85. 
Pangenesis.     '  Nature,'  April  27,  1871,  vol.  iii.  p.  502. 
A  new  view  of  Darwinism.     '  Nature,'  July  6,  1871,  vol.  iv.  p.  180. 
Bree  on  Darwinism.     '  Nature,'  Aug.  8,  1872,  vol.  vi.  p.  279. 
Inherited  Instinct.     '  Nature,'  Feb.  13,  1873,  vol.  vii.  p.  281. 
Perception  in  the  Lower  Animals.     'Nature,'  March  13,  1873,  v°l« 

vii.  p.  360. 
Origin  of  certain  instincts.     ■  Nature,'  April  3,  1873,  v°l-  vii.  p.  417. 
7i 


S40 


APPENDIX  II. 


Habits  of  Ants.     '  Nature,'  July  24,  1873,  vol.  viii.  p.  244. 
On  the  Males  and  Complemental  Males  of  Certain  Cirripedes,  and  on 
Rudimentary  Structures.     'Nature,'  Sept.   25,   1873,  vol.  viii.  p. 

43i- 
Recent  researches  on  Termites  and  Honey-bees.     'Nature,'  Feb.  19, 

1874,  vol.  ix.  p.  308. 
Fertilisation  of  the  Fumariaceas.     '  Nature,'  April  16,  1874,  vol.  ix- 

p.  460. 
Flowers  of  the  Primrose  destroyed  by  Birds.     '  Nature,'  April  23, 

1874,  vol.  ix.  p.  482 ;  May  14,  1874,  vol.  x.  p.  24. 
Cherry  Blossoms.     '  Nature,'  May  11,  1876,  vol.  xiv.  p.  28. 
Sexual  Selection  in  relation  to  Monkeys.  '  Nature,'  Nov.  2,  1876,  vol.  xv. 

p.  18.     Reprinted  as  a  supplement  to  the  '  Descent  of  Man,'  18. . 
Fritz  Miiller  on  Flowers  and  Insects.     'Nature,'  Nov.  29,  1877,  vol. 

xvii.  p.  78. 
The   Scarcity   of   Holly  Berries  and   Bees.     Gardeners    Chronicle, 

Jan.  20,  1877,  p.  83. 
Note  on  Fertilization  of  Plants.     Gardeners  Chronicle,  vol.  vii.  p. 

246,  1877. 
A  biographical  sketch  of  an  infant.     '  Mind,'  No.  7,  July,  1877. 
Transplantation  of  Shells.     '  Nature,'  May  30,  1878,  vol.  xviii.  p.  120. 
Fritz  Miiller  on  a  Frog  having  Eggs  on  its  back — on  the  abortion  of 

the  hairs  on  the  legs  of  certain  Caddis-Flies,  &c.     '  Nature,'  March 

20,  1879,  vol.  xix.  p.  462. 
Rats  and  Water-Casks.     '  Nature,'  March  27,  1879,  vol.  xix.  p.  481. 
Fertility  of  Hybrids  from  the  common  and  Chinese  Goose.    '  Nature/ 

Jan.  1,  1880,  vol.  xxi.  p.  207. 
The  Sexual  Colours  of  certain  Butterflies.     '  Nature/ Jan.  8,  1880, 

vol.  xxi.  p.  237. 
The  Omori  Shell  Mounds.     '  Nature,'  April  15,  1880,  vol.  xxi.  p.  561. 
Sir  Wyville  Thomson  and  Natural   Selection.     'Nature,'  Nov.   11, 

1880,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  32. 
Black  Sheep.     'Nature,'  Dec.  30,  1880,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  193. 
Movements  of  Plants.     '  Nature,'  March  3,  1881,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  409. 
The  Movements  of  Leaves.     'Nature,'  April  28,  1881,  vol  xxiii.  p. 

603. 
Inheritance.     '  Nature/  July  21,  1881,  vol.  xxiv.  p.  257. 
Leaves  injured  at  Night  by  Free  Radiation.    '  Nature,'  Sept.  15,  1881. 

vol.  xxiv.  p.  459. 
The  Parasitic  Habits  of  Molothrus.     '  Nature,' Nov.  17,  1881,  vol. 

xxv.  p.  51. 


APPENDIX  II. 


541 


On  the  Dispersal  of  Freshwater  Bivalves.     '  Nature/  April  6,  1882, 

vol.  xxv.  p.  529. 
The  Action  of  Carbonate  of  Ammonia  on  the  Roots  of  certain  Plants. 

[Read  March  16,  1882.]     Linn.  Soc.  Journ.     {Botany),  vol.  xix. 

1882,  pp.  239-261. 
The  Action  of  Carbonate  of  Ammonia  on  Chlorophyll-bodies.    [Read 

March  6,  1882.]     Linn.  Soc.  Journ.  {Botany),  vol.  xix.  1882,  pp. 

262-284. 
On  the  modification  of  a  Race  of  Syrian  Street-Dogs  by  means  of 

Sexual  Selection.     By  W.  Van  Dyck.     With  a  preliminary  notice 

by  Charles  Darwin.     [Rxad  April  18,  1882.]     Proc.  Zoolog.  Soc. 

1882,  pp.  367-370. 


APPENDIX   III. 


Portraits. 

Date. 

Description. 

Artist. 

In  the  Possession  of 

1838 

Water-colour 

G.  Richmond 

The  Family. 

1851 

Lithograph      .     . 

Ipswich  British  Assn. 
Series. 

1853 

Chalk  Drawing  . 

Samuel  Lawrence 

The  Family. 

1853? 

Chalk  Drawing* 

Samuel  Lawrence 

Prof.  Hughes,  Cam- 
bridge. 

1869 

Bust,  marble 

T.  Woolner,  R.  A. 

The  Family. 

1875 

Oil  Paintingf      . 

W.  Ouless,  R.  A. 

The  Family. 

Etched  by 

P.  Rajon. 

1879 

Oil  Painting 

W.  B.  Richmond. 

The  University  of 
Cambridge. 

l88l 

Oil  Painting  %     . 

Hon.  John  Collier 

The  Linnaean  So- 
ciety. 

Etched  by 

Leopold  Flameng 

Chief  Portraits  a 

nd  Memorials  not  t 

AKEN  FROM   LlFE. 

Statue    .... 

Joseph  Boehm,  R.  A. 

Museum,  South  Ken- 
sington. 

Bust       .... 

Chr.  Lehr,  Junr. 

Plaque   .... 

T.    Woolner,     R.  A., 

Christ's     College,     in 

and    Josiah   Wedg- 

Charles      Darwin's 

wood  and  Sons. 

Room. 

Deep  Medallion . 

J.  Boehm,  R.  A. 

To  be  placed  in  West- 
minster Abbey. 

*  Probably  a  sketch  made  at  one  of  the  sittings  for  the  last-mentioned. 

f  A  replica  by  the  artist  is  in  the  possession  of  Christ's  College,  Cam- 
bridge. 

%  A  replica  by  the  artist  is  in  the  possession  of  W.  E.  Darwin,  Esq., 
Southampton. 


APPENDIX  III. 


Chief  Engravings  from  Photographs. 


543 


*  1854?  By  Messrs.  Maull  and  Fox,  engraved  on  wood  for  '  Harper's 

Magazine'  (Oct.  1884). 
*i87o?  By  O.  J.  Rejlander,  engraved  on  steel  by  C.  H.  Jeens  for 
1  Nature  '  (June  4,  1874). 

*  1874?  By  Capt.  Darwin,  R.  E.,  engraved  on  wood  for  the  '  Century- 

Magazine  '  (Jan.  1883).     Frontispiece,  vol.  i. 
1 88 1     By  Messrs.  Elliott  and  Fry,  engraved  on  wood  by  G.  Kru- 
ells,  for  vol.  ii.  of  the  present  work. 

*  The  dates  of  these  photographs  must,  from  various  causes,  remain 
uncertain.  Owing  to  a  loss  of  books  by  fire,  Messrs.  Maull  and  Fox  can 
give  only  an  approximate  date.  Mr.  Rejlander  died  some  years  ago,  and 
his  business  was  broken  up.  My  brother,  Captain  Darwin,  has  no  record 
of  the  date  at  which  his  photograph  was  taken. 


APPENDIX  IV* 


HONOURS,   DEGREES,   SOCIETIES,   &C. 


Order, — Prussian  Order,  '  Pour  le  Merite.' 
Office.— County  Magistrate.     1857. 

c  B.A.     1831  [i832].t 
Degrees. — Cambridge  <  M.  A.     1837. 

(  Hon.  LL.D.     1877. 


1867. 


Breslau 
Bonn     . 
Leyden 
Societies. — London 


Hon.  Doctor  in  Medicine  and  Surgery.    1862. 

Hon.  Doctor  in  Medicine  and  Surgery.    1868. 

Hon.  M.D.     1875. 

Zoological.     Corresp.  Member.     18314 

Entomological.     1833,  Orig.  Member. 

Geological.      1836.     Wollaston  Medal,  1859. 

Royal  Geographical.     1838. 

Royal.  1839.  Royal  Medal,  1853.  Copley 
Medal,  1864. 

Linnean.     1854. 

Ethnological.     1861. 

Medico-Chirurgical.     Hon.  Member.      1868. 

Baly  Medal  of  the  Royal  College  of  Physi- 
cians, 1879. 


*  The  list  has  been  compiled  from  the  diplomas  and  letters  in  my 
father's  possession,  and  is  no  doubt  incomplete,  as  he  seems  to  have  lost 
or  mislaid  some  of  the  papers  received  from  foreign  Societies.  Where  the 
name  of  a  foreign  Society  (excluding  those  in  the  United  States)  is  given 
in  English,  it  is  a  translation  of  the  Latin  (or  in  one  case  Russian)  of  the 
original  Diploma. 

\  See  vol.  i.  p.  139. 

%  He  afterwards  became  a  Fellow  of  the  Society. 


APPENDIX  IV. 


Societies. — Provincial,  Colonial  and  Indian. 


545 


Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh,  1865. 

Royal  Medical  Society  of  Edinburgh,  1826.     Hon.  Member,  1861. 

Royal  Irish  Academy.     Hon.  Member,  1866. 

Literary  and  Philosophical  Society  of  Manchester.     Hon.  Member, 

1868. 
Watford  Nat.  Hist.  Society.     Hon.  Member,  1877. 
Asiatic  Society  of  Bengal.     Hon.  Member,  1871, 
Royal  Society  of  New  South  Wales.     Hon.  Member,  1879. 
Philosophical  Institute  of  Canterbury,  New  Zealand.     Hon.  Member, 

1863. 
New  Zealand  Institute.     Hon.  Member,  1872. 

Foreign  Societies, 

America. 

Sociedad  Cientifica  Argentina.     Hon.  Member  1877. 

Academia  Nacional  de  Ciencias,  Argentine  Republic.     Hon.  Member, 

1878. 
Sociedad  Zoolojica  Arjentina.     Hon.  Member,  1874. 
Boston  Society  of  Natural  History.     Hon.  Member,  1873. 
American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences  (Boston).     Foreign  Hon. 

Member,  1874. 
California  Academy  of  Sciences.     Hon.  Member,  1872. 
California  State  Geological  Society.     Corresp.  Member,  1877. 
Franklin  Literary  Society,  Indiana.     Hon.  Member,  1878. 
Sociedad  de  Naturalistas  Neo-Granadinos.     Hon.  Member,  i860. 
New  York  Academy  of  Sciences.     Hon.  Member,  1879. 
Gabinete  Portuguez  de  Leitura  em  Pernambuco.     Corresp.  Member, 

1879. 
Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia.     Correspondent,  i860. 
American  Philosophical  Society,  Philadelphia.     Member,  1869. 

Austria-Hungary. 

Imperial  Academy  of  Sciences  of  Vienna.     Foreign  Corresponding 

Member,  1871;  Hon.  Foreign  Member,  1875. 
Anthropologische  Gesellschaft  in  Wien.     Hon.  Member,  1872. 
K.  k.  Zoologisch-  botanische  Gesellschaft  in  Wien.     Member,  1867. 
Magyar  Tudomanyos  Akademia,  Pest,  1872. 


546  APPENDIX  IV. 


Belgium. 

Societe  Royale  des  Sciences  Medicales  et  Naturelles  de  Bruxelles. 

Hon.  Member,  1878. 
Societe  Royale  de  Botanique  de  Belgique.     '  Membre  Associe,'  1881. 
Academie  Royale  des  Sciences,  &c,  de  Belgique.     'Associe  de  la 

Classe  des  Sciences.'     1870. 

Denmark. 
Royal  Society  of  Copenhagen.     Fellow,  1879. 

France. 

Societe  d 'Anthropologic  de  Paris.     Foreign  Member,  1871. 
Societe  Entomologique  de  France.     Hon.  Member,  1874. 
Societe  Geologique  de  France  (Life  Member),  1837. 
Institut  de  France.     '  Correspondant '  Section  of  Botany,  1878. 

Germany. 

Royal    Prussian    Academy  of    Sciences    (Berlin).      Corresponding 

Member,  1863;  Fellow,  1878. 
Berliner     Gesellschaft     fur     Anthropologie,     &c.       Corresponding 

Member,  1877. 
Schlesische  Gesellschaft  fur  Vaterlandische  Cultur  (Breslau).     Hon. 

Member,  1878. 
Caesarea  Leopoldino-Carolina  Academia  Naturae  Curiosorum  (Dres- 
den).*    1857. 
Senkenbergische  Naturforschende  Gesellschaft  zu  Frankfurt  am  Main. 

Corresponding  Member,  1873. 
Naturforschende  Gesellschaft  zu  Halle.     Member  1 879. 
Siebenbiirgische  Verein  ftir  Naturwissenschaften   (Hermannstadt). 

Hon.  Member,  1877. 
Medicinisch  -  naturwissenschaftliche    Gesellschaft    zu   Jena.      Hon. 

Member,  1878. 

*  The  diploma  contains  the  words  "  accipe  ...  ex  antiqua  nostra 
consuetudine  cognomen  Forster."  It  was  formerly  the  custom  in  the 
Ccesarea  Leopoldino-Carolina  Academia,  that  each  new  member  should  re- 
ceive as  a  *  cognomen,'  a  name  celebrated  in  that  branch  of  science  to 
which  he  belonged.  Thus  a  physician  might  be  christened  Boerhave,  or 
an  astronomer,  Kepler.  My  father  seems  to  have  been  named  after  the 
traveler  John  Reinhold  Forster. 


APPENDIX  IV. 


547 


Royal    Bavarian    Academy    of    Literature   and    Science    (Munich). 
Foreign  Member,  1878. 

Holland. 
Koninklijke    Natuurkundige    Vereeniging    in    Nederlandsch  -  Indie 

(Batavia).     Corresponding  Member,  1880. 
Societe  Hollandaise  des  Sciences  a  Harlem.     Foreign  Member,  1877. 
Zeeuwsch  Genootschap  der  Wetenschappen  te  Middleburg.     Foreign 

Member,  1877. 

Italy. 

Societa  Geografica  Italiana  (Florence).      1870. 

Societa  Italiana  di  Antropologia  e  di  Etnologia  (Florence).      Hon. 

Member,  1872. 
Societa  dei  Naturalisti  in  Modena.     Hon.  Member,  1875. 
Academia  de'  Lincei  di  Roma.     Foreign  Member,  1875. 
La   Scuola   Italica,    Academia    Pitagorica,    Reale   ed    Imp.    Societa 

(Rome).     "Presidente  Onoraria  degli  Anziani  Pitagonci,"  1880. 
Royal  Academy  of  Turin.     1873.     Bressa  Prize,  1879. 

Portugal. 

Sociedade  de  Geographia  de  Lisboa  (Lisbon).     Corresponding  Mem- 
ber, 1877. 

Russia. 

Society  of  Naturalists  of  the   Imperial   Kazan   University.      Hon. 

Member,  1875. 
Societas  Caesarea  Naturae  Curiosorum  (Moscow).      Hon.  Member, 

1870. 
Imperial   Academy  of   Sciences   (St.   Petersburg).      Corresponding 

Member,  1867. 

Spain. 
Institucion  Libre  de  Ensenanza  (Madrid).     Hon.  Professor,  1877. 

Sweden. 

Royal  Swedish  Acad,  of  Sciences  (Stockholm).     Foreign  Member, 

1865. 
Royal  Society  of  Sciences  (Upsala).     Fellow,  i860. 

Switzerland. 

Societe    des   Sciences   Naturelles     de    Neuchatel.      Corresponding 
Member,  1863. 


INDEX. 


Abbot,   F.  E.,  letter  to,  i.  275. 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  (Phila- 
delphia) elects  Darwin  a  member, 
ii.  100. 

Agassiz,  Alexander,  letter  to,  ii.  421. 

Agassiz,  Louis,  Darwin's  estimate 
of,  i.  403  ;  letters  to,  ii0  11,  281, 
361  ;  his  attitude  toward  the  '  Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  63,  64  note,  80, 
103,  123,  152;  reviews  the  *  Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  123. 

Aggregation,  studied  by  Darwin,  ii. 

518. 

'  Almanack,  The  Naturalists'  Pock- 
et,' mentioned,  i.  321. 

Andes,  Darwin  crosses  the,  i.  231. 

'Annals  and  Magazine  of  Natural 
History,'  mentioned,  ii.  78. 

Anticipation  of  Darwin's  views,  ii. 
40-42,  95,  103,  113,  225,  289. 

Ants,  observations  on,  i.  485  ;  ii. 
158,  369- 

Appleton,  D.,  &  Co.,  publish  '  Ori- 
gin of  Species  '  in  America,  ii.  65. 

Argyll,  Duke  of,  criticises  the  '  Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  ii.  216  ;  Darwin's 
comments  on  his  criticisms,  216- 
218;  Darwin  on  his  'Reign  of 
Law/  244,  248  ;  reviews  the  '  Fer- 
tilisation of  Orchids,'  449. 

Aristotle,  Darwin's  estimate  of,  ii. 
427. 

Arrangement  of  leaves  on  the  stems 
of  plants,  ii.  234-236. 

'Athenaeum,'  Darwin  on  its  review 
of  the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  19, 
24 ;  reports  British  Association 
discussion,  113  ;  Darwin's  letters 
to,  in  his  own  defence,  204,  206  ; 
criticises  Darwin,  206. 


Australia,  development  of  animals 

in,  ii.  132. 
Australian  flora,  i.  500,  527. 
Austrian  expedition,  i.  451. 
Autobiography,   i.   25-86 ;    extracts 

from,  277,  287,  314. 
Aveling,  Dr.,  on  Darwin's  religious 

views,  i.  286  note. 

Bain,  Alexander,  letter  to,  ii.  350. 

Balfour,  Francis  M.,  Darwin's  esti- 
mate of,  ii.  426. 

Baly  medal  presented  to  Darwin,  ii. 
401. 

Bar,  K.  E.  von,  agrees  with  Dar- 
win, ii.  122. 

Bastian,  H.  C,  Darwin  on  his  '  Be- 
ginnings of  Life,'  ii.  346-348. 

Bates,  H.  W.,  Darwin  on  his  insect 
fauna  of  the  Amazon  valley,  ii. 
154;  letters  to,  170,  173,  183; 
Darwin  on  his  mimetic  variations 
of  butterflies,  183-185. 

Bats,  ii.  128. 

Beagle,  voyage  of,  i.  49-57 ;  Darwin 
offered  an  appointment  to  the, 
165  ;  her  equipments,  188  ;  object 
of  her  voyage,  191 ;  her  crew,  194. 

Beetles,  collecting,  i.  496. 

Behrens,  W.,  letter  to,  ii.  456. 

Bell,  T.,  describes  Darwin's  rep- 
tiles, i.  246. 

Bell-stone  of  Shrewsbury  men- 
tioned, i.  36. 

Belt,  Thomas,  Darwin  on  his  •  Natu- 
ralist in  Nicaragua,'  ii.  365. 

Bemmelen,  A.  van,  letter  to,  ii.  403. 

Bentham,  George,  his  silence  on 
natural  selection,  ii.  86  ;  letter  to 
Francis  Darwin  on  his  adoption 


55o 


INDEX. 


of  Darwin's  views,  87  ;  his  view 
of  natural  selection,  208  ;  letters 
to,  209,  210,  267,  454,  465. 

Berkeley,  Rev.  M.  J.,  reviews  the 
1  Fertilisation  of  Orchids,'  ii.  444. 

Berlin  Academy  of  Sciences  elects 
Darwin  corresponding  member, 
ii.  401. 

Bet  made  by  Darwin,  i.  249. 

Blomefield,  Rev.  Leonard,  Darwin 
becomes  acquainted  with,  i.  46  ; 
letters  to,  161,  163,  252,  321,  392, 
393,  395  J  ii-  I5>  57,  3%%  \  Darwin 
on  his  '  Observations  in  Natural 
History,'  i.  392,  395. 

Bloom  on  leaves  and  fruit,  Darwin's 
work  on,  ii.  511. 

Blyth,  Edward,  mentioned,  ii.  109. 

Boole,  Mrs.,  her  letter  on  natural 
selection  and  religion,  ii.  245-247; 
letter  to,  247. 

Boott,  Francis,  mentioned,  i.  264. 

Botany,  Darwin's  work  on,  and  its 
relation  to  natural  selection,  ii. 
429. 

Bowen,  Francis,  reviews  the  Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  ii.  98. 

Brace,  C.  L.,  and  wife,  Darwin  on 
their  philanthropic  work,  ii.  343. 

Brazil,  Emperor  of,  wishes  to  meet 
Darwin,  ii.  402. 

Bree,  C.  R.,  his  work  '  Species  not 
Transmutable,'  ii.  151  ;  accuses 
Wallace  of  blundering,  and  is  an- 
swered by  Darwin,  345. 

Breeding,  sources  of  information  on, 

ii-  75- 
Bressa  prize  presented   to  Darwin, 

ii.  401. 
British     Association    discusses    the 

'Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  113-116  ; 

Oxford    meeting   of,    allegorized, 

231  ;  Belfast  meeting,  1874,  367. 
Bronn,  H.  G.,  edits  the  '  Origin  of 

Species'   in   German,  ii.   31,   71, 

232  ;  letters  to,  71,  72,  73  ;  criti- 
cisms on  the  '  Origin  of  Species, 

139. 
Brown,   Robert,    mentioned,    i.    57, 

60. 

Brunton,    T.   Lauder,  letter   to,  ii. 

387. 
Buckle,  his  system  of  collecting  facts, 
i.  61  ;  Darwin  on  his  '  History  of 
Civilisation,'  ii.  178. 


Buckley,  Miss  A.  B.,  letters  to,  ii 

373,  405. 
Buffon,  Darwin  on,  ii.  228. 
Bunbury,  Sir  C,  mentioned,  i.  327. 
Butler,  Samuel,  charges  Darwin  of 

falsehood,  ii.  396. 
Butler,   Dr.,  his  school  at  Shrews 

bury,  i.  28. 
Button,  Jemmy,  a  visit  to,  i.  223. 

Cairns,  J.  E.,  his  lecture  on  '  The 

Slave  Power,'  ii.  195. 
Cambridge,     University    of,   makes 

Darwin  LL.  D.,  ii.  399  ;  obtains 

memorial  portrait  of  him,  399. 
Cameron,  Mrs.,  makes  a  photograph 

of  Darwin,  ii.  274. 
Canary  Islands,  projected  trip  to,  i. 

165. 
Candolle,  Alphonse  de,  letters  to,  ii. 

11,  279,  348,  505  ;  his  view  of  the 

1  Origin  of  Species,'  201  ;  Darwin 

on  his  '  Histoire  des  Sciences  et 

des  Savants,'  348. 
Carlyle,    Thomas,    on   Erasmus   A. 

Darwin,  i.  21 ;  his  interesting  talk, 

63. 

Carpenter,  W.  B.,  letters  to,  ii.  17, 
18,  34,  57,  93;  reviews  the  'Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  93  ;  his  work  on 
'  Foraminifera,'  202. 

Cams,  J.  Victor,  letters  to,  ii.  232, 
249,  265,  290,  466,  505. 

Caton,  John  D.,  letter  to,  ii.  284. 

Chambers,  R.,  Darwin  on  his  geo- 
logical views,  i.  329,  330. 

Chance,  not  implied  in  evolution,  i. 

Chimney-sweeps,  Darwin  s  efforts 
for,  i.  350. 

Cirripedia,  monograph  of  the,  i. 
314-318  ;  nomenclature  of,  337 ; 
work  on,  345  ;  the  so-called  auti- 
tory  sac  of,  ii.  187. 

Civil  war  in  the  United  States, 
Darwin  on,  ii.  166,  169,  174,  177, 
179,  195,  446. 

Clark,  William,  mentioned,  ii.  102. 

Clark,  Sir  Andrew,  is  Darwin's  phy- 
sician, ii.  526,  528. 

Climate  and  migration,  i.  491. 

4  Climbing  Plants,'  written  and  pub- 
lished, i.  74  ;  work  on,  ii.  484- 
490  ;  republished  in  book-form, 
489. 


INDEX. 


551 


Coal,   discussion   on   submarine,    i. 

324-327. 

Cohn,  Prof.,  describes  a  visit  to 
Darwin,  ii.  400. 

Colenso,  Bishop,  his  '  Pentateuch 
and  the  Book  of  Joshua,'  ii.  181. 

Collecting,  Darwin  on,  ii.  189;  but- 
terflies, 295. 

Collier,  John,  paints  Darwin's  por- 
trait, ii.  399. 

Colors  of  insects,  ii.  275,  276,  317. 

Continental  extension,  i.  431-436  ; 
Darwin's  reasons  against,  467. 

Continents,  permanence  of,  ii.  422. 

Cope,  E.  D.,  Darwin  on  his  theory 
of  acceleration,  ii.  333. 

Copley  medal  presented  to  Darwin, 
ii.  212. 

*  Coral  Reefs,'  at  work  upon,  i.  270  ; 

opinions  on,  292  ;  criticised  by 
Semper,  ii.  359  ;  Darwin's  answer 
to  Semper,  360  ;  Darwin  on  Mur- 
ray's criticisms  of,  361  ;  second 
edition,  359. 

Crawford,  John,  reviews  the  *  Origin 
of  Species,'  ii.  32. 

Creative  power,  ii.  6. 

*  Creed  of  Science,'  read  by  Darwin, 

i.  284. 

Cresy,  E.,  letter  to,  ii.  491. 

Crick,  W.  D.,  communicates  to  Dar- 
win a  mode  of  dispersal  of  bivalve 
shells,  ii.  427. 

Cutting  edges  of  books,  Darwin  on, 
ii.  220. 

Dana,  Prof. ,  sends  Darwin  '  Geology 
of  U.  S.  Expedition,'  i.  342. 

Dareste,  Camille,  letter  to,  ii.  192. 

Darwin  family,  i.  1-24. 

Darwin,  Annie,  Darwin's  account  of, 
i.  109  ;  death  of,  348. 

Darwin,  Miss  C,  letter  to,  i.  217. 

Darwin,  Catherine,  letters  to,  i.  223, 
228. 

Darwin,  Charles  (1758-1778),  stud- 
ies medicine  at  Edinburgh,  i.  7  ; 
young  man  of  great  promise,  7. 

Darwin,  Charles  Robert  (1809-1882), 
table  of  relationship,  i.  5  ;  ances- 
tors, 1-24  ;  personal  characteris- 
tics as  traced  from  his  forefathers, 
4  ;  love  and  respect  for  his  father's 
memory,  10  ;  his  affection  for  his 
brother  Erasmus,    20 ;    autobiog-  i 


raphy,  25-86  ;  mother  dies,  26  ; 
taste  for  natural  history,  26 ; 
school-boy  experiences,  27  ;  hu- 
mane disposition  toward  animals, 

28,  142  ;  ii.  377  ;  goes  to  Dr.  But- 
ler's school  at  Shrewsbury,  1818, 
i.  28  ;  taste  for  long,  solitary  walks, 
29  ;  inability  to  master  a  language, 

29,  103  ;  leaves  school  with  strong 
and  diversified  tastes,  30 ;  fond- 
ness for  poetry  in  early  life,  30  ; 
a  wish  to  travel  first  roused  by 
reading  '  Wonders  of  the  World/ 
31  ;  fondness  for  shooting,  31,  37, 
53  ;  collects  minerals  and  becomes 
interested  in  insects  and  birds,  31  ; 
studies  chemistry,  32  ;  goes  to  Ed- 
inburgh University,  1825,  and  at- 
tends medical  lectures,  32  ;  col- 
lects and  dissects  marine  animals, 
34 ;  attends  meetings  of  the  Plin- 
ian  Royal  Medical  and  Wernerian 
societies,  35  ;  attends  lectures  on 
geology  and  zoology,  36  ;  meets 
Sir  J.  Mackintosh,  38  ;  spends 
three  years  at  Cambridge  study- 
ing for  the  ministry,  39  ;  phren- 
ological characteristics,  39  ;  reads 
Paley  with  delight,  41  ;  attends 
Henslow's  lectures  on  botany, 
41  ;  his  taste  for  pictures  and 
music,  42,  81,  101,  146  ;  his  inter- 
est in  entomology,  43,  148-157  ; 
friendship  of  Prof.  Henslow  and 
its  influence  upon  his  career,  44 ; 
meets  Dr.  Whewell,  46  ;  reads 
Humboldt's  *  Personal  Narrative ' 
and  Herschel's  '  Introduction  to 
the  Study  of  Natural  History,' 
47  ;  begins  the  study  of  geology, 
47  ;  field-work  in  North  Wales, 
48,  58,  272  ;  voyage  of  the  Beagle, 
49-56  ;  receives  a  proposal  to  sail 
in  the  Beagle,  49  ;  starts  for  Cam- 
bridge and  thence  to  London,  50  ; 
1  voyage  of  the  Beagle  the  most 
important  event  in  my  life,'  51  ; 
sails  in  the  Beagle,  53  ;  his  letters 
read  before  the  Philosophical  So- 
ciety of  Cambridge,  55 ;  returns 
to  England,  56  ;  begins  his  '  Jour- 
nal of  Travels,'  56  ;  takes  lodg- 
ings in  London,  56  ;  begins  pre- 
paring MS.  for  his  '  Geological 
Observations,'    56 ;    arranges    for 


552 


INDEX. 


publication  of  4  Zoology  of  the 
Voyage  of  the  Beagle]  56  :  opens 
first  note-book  of '  Origin  of  Spe- 
cies,' 56  ;  meets  Lyell  and  Robert 
Brown,  56;  marries,  57,  269;  works 
on  his  'Coral  Reefs,'  58  ;  reads 
papers  before  Geological  Society, 
58  ,  acts  as  secretary  of  the  Geo- 
logical Society,  64 ;  residence  at 
Down,  64-86  ;  his  absorption  in 
science,  65  ;  ii.  273,  352  ;  his  pub- 
lications, i.  65  ;  '  Geological  Ob- 
servations '  published,  65  ;  success 
of  the  '  Journal   of  Researches,' 

65  ;  begins  work  on  *  Cirripedia,' 

66  ;  visits  to  water-cure  establish- 
ments, 66,  108,  340.,  449  ;  work 
on  the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  67,  70  ; 
reads  *  Malthus  on  Population,' 
68  ;  begins  notes  on  '  Variation 
of  Animals  and  Plants  under  Do- 
mestication,' 73  ;  becomes  inter- 
ested in  cross-fertilisation  of  flow- 
ers, 73  ;  publishes  papers  on  di- 
morphic  and    trimorphic    plants, 

74  ;  publishes  '  Descent  of  Man,' 

75  ;  first  child  born,  76,  270  ;  pub- 
lishes translation  and  sketch  of 
*  Life  of  Erasmus  Darwin,'  78 ; 
methods  of  work,  80,  121,  129- 
131 ;  ii.  491  ;  mental  qualities,  i. 
81-86  ;  fond  of  novel  reading,  81, 
102  ;  a  good  observer,  83  ;  habits 
and  personal  appearance,  87-102  ; 
ill  health,  89,  105,  135,  243, 
318;  ii.  186,  211,  215,  526-529; 
fondness  for  dogs,  i.  91;  cor- 
respondence, 97  ;  business  hab- 
its, 98  ;  scientific  reading,  103  ; 
wide  interest  in  science,  104  ; 
journals  of  daily  events,  106  ;  holi- 
days, 106  ;  relation  to  his  family 
and  friends,  109,  119  ;  his  account 
of  his  little  daughter  Annie,  109- 
iii  ;  how  he  brought  up  his  chil- 
dren, in;  manner  towards  serv- 
ants, 115  ;  as  a  host,  115;  modesty, 
117  ;  not  quick  at  argument,  117  ; 
intercourse  with  strangers,  120 ; 
use  of  simple  methods  and  few 
instruments,  122  ;  perseverance, 
125  ;  theorizing  power,  126  ;  books 
used  only  as  tools,  127  ;  use  of 
note-books  and  portfolios,  128  ; 
courteous  tone  toward  his  reader,  i 


132;  illustration  of  his  books, 
132  ;  consideration  for  other  au- 
thors, 133  ;  his  wife's  tender  care, 
135  ;  Cambridge  life,  I39-J59 ; 
his      character,      143,     195  ;     ii. 

236  ;  intention  of  going  into  the 
church,  i.  146;  appointment  to 
the  Beagle,  160-190  ;  the  voyage, 
191-242  ;  life  at  sea,  194-199, 
205  ;  views  on  slavery,  218,  220  ; 
excursion  across  the  Andes,  231  ; 
meets  Sir  J.  Herschel,  239  ;  reach- 
es home,  240  ;  life  at  London 
and  Cambridge,  1836-1842,  243-  ' 
273  ;  residence  at  Cambridge,  249  ; 
works  on  his '  Journal  of  Research- 
es,' 250  ;  appointed  secretary  of 
Geological  Society,  258  ;  visits 
Glen  Roy,  260,  263  ;  admiration 
for  Lyell's  '  Elements,'  262  ;  in- 
creasing ill-health,  270  ;  at  work 
on  '  Coral  Reefs,'  270 ;  his  re- 
ligious views,  274-286 ;  life  at 
Down,  1842-1854,  287-362  ;  rea- 
sons for  leaving  London,  288  ; 
early  impressions  of  Down,  290  ; 
theory  of  coral  islands,  292  ;  time 
spent  on  geological  books,  1842- 
1854,  296  ;  purchases  farm  in  Lin- 
colnshire, 311 ;  dines  with  Lord 
Mahon,  344  ;  daughter  Annie  dies, 
348  ;  his  children,  348  ;  growth 
of  views  on  '  Origin  of  Species/ 
363-425  ;     plan    for    publishing 

*  Sketch  of  1844,'  in  case  of  his 
sudden  death,  377  ;  pigeon  fancy- 
ing enterprise,  411  ;  collecting 
plants,  411  ;  general  acceptance 
of  his  work,  533  ;  publishes  *  Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  ii,  1 ;  elected  corre- 
spondent of  the  Academy  of  Nat- 
ural Sciences  (Philadelphia),  100 ; 
his  views  on  the  civil  war  in  the 
United  States,  166,  169,  174,  I77» 
179,  195  ;  at  Bournemouth,  175  ; 
his  view  of  Lyell's  '  Antiquity  of 
Man,'  193,  196,  198  ;  receives  the 
Copley  medal,  212 ;  elected  to 
Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh,  218  ; 
his  conscientiousness  in  argument, 

237  ;  his  intercourse  with  horti- 
culturists and  stock-raisers,  240 ; 
elected  to  the  Royal  Society  of 
Holland,  342  ;  made  a  knight  of 
the  Prussian  order  Pour  le  Merite, 


INDEX. 


553 


243  ;  sits  for  a  bust,  287  ;  declines 
a  nomination  for  the  degree  of 
D.  C.  L.  because  of  ill-health,  306  ; 
his  connection  with  the  South 
American  Missionary  Society, 
307 ;  his  answers  to  Galton's 
questions  on  nature  and  nurture, 
355-357  J  Slts  f°r  portrait  to  W. 
Ouless,  373  ;  elected  to  Physiologi- 
cal Society,  382  ;  replies  to  Miss 
Cobbe  on  vivisection  in  the 
Times,  384 ;  publishes  the  *  Life 
of  Erasmus  Darwin,'  396  ;  sits 
for  memorial  portraits,  399  ;  re- 
ceives various  honors,  399-404  ; 
makes  a  present  to  the  Naples 
Zoological  Station,  402  ;  his  an- 
swers to  Galton's  questions  on  the 
faculty  of  visualising,  415  ;  offers 
aid  to  Fritz  Miiller,  418  ;  replies 
to  Sir  W.  Thomson  on  abyssal 
fauna,  418  ;  his  botanical  work, 
429-525  ;  builds  a  greenhouse, 
443  ;  publishes  work  on  the  ferti- 
lisation of  orchids,  444  ;  studies 
the  bloom  on  leaves  and  fruit, 
5 1 1-5 14;  studies  the  causes  of 
variability,  514-517  ;  studies  the 
production  of  galls,  517  ;  studies 
aggregation,  518  ;  encourages 
Torbitt's  work  on  the  potato  dis- 
ease, 519-522  ;  aids  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  Kew  *  Index  of  Plant- 
names,'  522-525  ;  death,  529  ; 
burial  in  Westminster  Abbey, 
531  ;  list  of  works,  533. 

Darwin  &  Wallace's  joint  paper  on 
variation,  i.  472. 

Darwin,  Edward,  author  of  '  Game- 
keeper's Manual,'  i.  4. 

Darwin,  Mrs.  Emma  (Wedgwood) 
letter  to,  i.  377,  471. 

Darwin,  Erasmus  (b.  1731),  poet 
and  philosopher,  i.  4  ;  character 
of,  6  ;  life  published  in  English, 
ii.  396. 

Darwin,  Erasmus  (b.  1759),  *•  7- 

Darwin,  Erasmus  Alvey  (1804-1881), 
educated  as  a  physician,  i.  20  ; 
character  of,  21  ;  Carlyle's  sketch 
of  his  character,  21  ;  Miss  Wedg- 
wood's letter  on  his  character,  22  ; 
letter  from,  ii.  28  ;  his  death,  404. 

Darwin,  Robert,  of  Elston  Hall, 
Charles  Darwin's  estimate  of,  i.  3. 


Darwin,  Robert  Waring  (b.  1724), 
publishes  *  Principia  Botanica,' 
i.  4. 

Darwin,  Robert  Waring  (b.  1767), 
studies  medicine  at  Leyden,  i.  8  ; 
settles  in  Shrewsbury,  8  ;  marries 
Susannah  Wedgwood,  9 ;  his  son 
Charles's  description  of  him,  11- 
19  ;  his  six  children,  20  ;  letters 
to,  170,  172,  200. 

Darwin,  Susan,  letters  to,  i.  174, 
175,  180,  181,  231,  236. 

Darwin,  William,  of  Marton,  first 
known  ancestor  of  Charles,  i.  1. 

Darwin,  William,  son  of  Richard, 
i.  1  ;  appointed  yeoman  of  the 
Royal  Armoury,  2. 

Darwin,  William  (1655),  i.  2. 

Darwyn,  Richard,  of  Marton,  men- 
tioned, i.  1. 

Davidson,  Thomas,  letter  to,  asking 
him  to  investigate  brachiopod's, 
ii.  158  ;  letter  to,  160  ;  on  British 
brachiopoda,  162. 

De  Candolle,  A.  See  Candolle,  A. 
De. 

Descent,  doctrine  of,  ii.  163. 

Descent  of  animals,  ii.  128. 

'Descent  of  Man,'  published,  i.  75  ; 
ii.  311;  workon,  271,  273,  274,  280, 
300;  reviews  of,  313,  317, 318,319, 
326,  362  ;  reception  in  Germany, 
313  ;  Wallace's  views  on,  314 
note  ;  second  edition,  353  ;  con- 
nected with  socialism,  412. 

Design  in  nature,  doctrine  of,  i.  278, 
283  ;  ii.  146,  169,  174,  245. 

Diagrams  of  descent  of  mammals, 
ii.  135. 

1  Different  Forms  of  Flowers,'  pub- 
lished, i.  78  ;  ii.  469  ;  reviewed  in 
'Nature,'  483. 

Digestion  of  plants,  Darwin's  work 
on,  ii.  495-499- 

Distribution  of  animals,  ii.  406. 

Divergence  of  character,  principle 
of,  i.  376. 

Dogs,  multiple  origin  of,  ii.  25,  125, 

138. 

Dohrn,  Anton,  letter  to,  ii.  375. 
Donders,  F.  C,  letters  to,  ii.  342, 

498. 
Down,  description  of,  i.  288. 
Drift     near     Southampton,     stones 

standing  on  end  in,  ii.  390. 


554 


INDEX. 


Du  Bois-Reymond  agrees  with  Dar- 
win, ii.  146. 

Dyck,  W.  T.  van,  letter  to,  ii.  428. 

Dyer,  W.  Thiselton,  on  Darwin's 
botanical  work,  ii.  430,  502  ;  let- 
ters to,  460,  467,  483,  497,  503, 
504,  507,  513- 

Ear,  human,  infolded  point  of,  ii. 

319. 
Earthquakes,  paper  read  on,  i.  58. 
Eaton,  J.,  extract  from  his  book  on 

4  Pigeons,'  i.  411. 

*  Edinburgh  Review,'  Darwin's  criti- 

cisms on,  ii.  106. 

Education,  Darwin  on,  i.  353,  354. 

4  Effects  of  Cross  and  Self-Fertilisa- 
tion,' published,  i.  78  ;  ii.  467 ; 
work  on,  463-468. 

Electrical  organs  in  fish,  ii.  145. 

Erratic  boulders  of  South  America, 
paper  on,  read,  i.  58. 

Evolution,  doctrine  of,  objections  to, 
answered,  i.  553-557 ;  not  a  doc- 
trine of  chance,  553  ;  and  tele- 
ology, 554  ;  neither  anti-theistic 
nor  theistic,  555  ;  mental,  ii.  272. 

Expression,  facial,  origin  of,  ii.  276- 
278. 

4  Expression  of  the  Emotions,'  pub- 
lished, i.  76  ;  ii.  349  ;  work  on, 
313,  320 ;  reviews  of,  350,  351. 

Eyre,  Gov.,  Darwin's  views  on  the 
prosecution  of,  ii.  236. 

Fabre,  J.  H.,  letter  to,  ii.  397. 

Falconer,  Hugh,  letters  to,  i.  134  ; 
ii.  12,  167,  235  ;  mentioned,  i. 
320 ;  letter  to  Darwin,  ii.  166 ; 
views  on  the  origin  of  elephants, 
181  ;  reclamation  from  Lyell's 
*  Antiquity  of  Man,'  203. 

Farrar,  F.  W.,  letter  to,  ii.  225. 

Farrer,  Sir  Thomas  H.,  aids  Dar- 
win's researches  on  earthworms, 
ii.  393;  letters  to,  451,  453,  512, 

519- 
Fawcett,  Henry,  defends  Darwin's 
reasoning,  ii.  92. 

*  Fertilisation  of  Orchids,'  published, 

i.  73. 
Fiske,  John,  letter  to,  ii.  371. 
Fisher,  Mrs.,  letters  to,  ii.  373,  405. 
Fitton,  W.  H.,  mentioned,  i.  264. 
Fitz-Roy,  R.,  captain  of  the  Beagle, 


his  character,  i.  50 ;  meets  Dar- 
win, 176 ;  letters  to,  187,  240, 
243,  287,  299,  300,  303  note,  317  ; 
his  intention  of  resigning,  229. 

Flint  instruments,  i.  515,  522. 

Flourens,  P.,  on  the  '  Origin  of  Spe- 
cies,' ii.  214. 

Flowers,  fertilisation  of,  ii.  429-483. 

Forbes,  David,  praises  Darwin's 
work  on  Chile,  ii.  148. 

Forbes,  Edward,  his  theory  of 
change  of  level,  i.  398. 

Fordyce,  J.,  letter  to,  i.  274. 

Forel,  Aug.,  letter  to,  ii.  369. 

4  Formation  of  Vegetable  Mould,' 
paper  read  on,  i.  58,  255  ;  pub- 
lished, i.  79 ;  ii.  394 ;  work  on, 
392  ;  its  reception,  394. 

Fox,  William  Darwin,  Darwin's 
friendship  with,  i.  4,  43,  147  ;  let- 
ters to,  150,  152,  153,  154,  155, 
156,  157,  158,  179,  185,  206,  233, 
248,  249,  250,  251,  271,  290,  301, 
341,  348,  350,  352,  353,  355,  406, 
408,  409,  410,  413,  430,  442,  467, 
468,  496,  505,  522  ;  ii.  17. 

France,  Institute  of,  elects  Darwin 
corresponding  member,  ii.  400. 

Frauds,  scientific,  i.  84. 

Free-will,  doctrine  of,  ii.  246,  247. 

Freke,  Dr.,  his  'Origin  of  Species 
by  Means  of  Organic  Affinity,'  ii. 
152. 

Fuegians,  Darwin's  impressions  of, 
i.  215,  227. 

Galapagos  animals  and  plants,  ii.  4, 
5,  127-129,  136. 

Galls,  production  of,  studied  by 
Darwin,  ii.  517. 

Galton,  Francis,  mentioned,  i.  4  ;  his 
questions  on  nature  and  nurture, 
and  Darwin's  answers,  ii.  355- 
357  ;  his  questions  on  the  faculty 
of  visualising,  and  Darwin's  an- 
swers, 414. 

4  Gardener's  Chronicle,'  Darwin  an- 
swers Mr.  West  wood  in,  ii.  62. 

Gaudry,  A.,  letter  to,  ii.  269. 

Geikie,  Archibald,  his  opinion  of 
Darwin's  geological  works,  i.  261, 
273,  292,  294,  295,  297. 

Geikie,  James,  letter  to,  ii.  390. 

Genera,  varying  of  large,  i.  461-465. 

Generation,  spontaneous,  ii.  340-348. 


INDEX. 


555 


Geographical  distribution,  i.  437. 

'Geological  Observations,'  MS.  be- 
gun, i.  56. 

1  Geological  Observations  on  Vol- 
canic Islands  '  published,  i.  292  ; 
opinions  on,  292  ;  second  edition, 

ii.  389. 

*  Geological  Observations  on  South 
America,'  opinions  on,  i.  295. 

Geological  record,  imperfection  of, 
ii.  18,  54,  102,  161,  286  ;  succes- 
sion in,  158-160. 

Geological  Society,  Darwin  wishes 
to  become  a  member,  i.  238  ;  pa- 
pers contributed  to,  250,  255,  270. 

Geological  specimens  secured  dur- 
ing voyage,  i.  244  ;  disposed  of, 
247. 

Geology,  importance  of,  i.  52 ;  of 
St.  Jago,  54 ;  article  on,  in  '  Ad- 
miralty Manual,'  297;  Darwin 
on  the  progress  of,  ii.  425. 

Germany,  progress  of  natural  selec- 
tion in,  ii.  120,  150,  250. 

Germination,  experiments  in,  413- 
416. 

Gilbert,  J.  H.,  letter  to,  ii.  514. 

Glacial  period,  its  effect  on  species, 
ii.  154  ;  phenomena  at  Cwm  Id- 
wal,  i.  49. 

Glaciers,  paper  on  ancient,  in  Wales, 
i.  272. 

Glen  Roy,  Darwin  visits,  i.  57,  260; 
1  Observations'  on,  published,  260; 
work  criticised  by  D.  Milne,  329. 

Gourmet  Club  and  its  members,  i. 

145. 
Government  aid   in   publication  of 
1  Zoology  of  Voyage  of  Beagle]  i. 

255. 

Graham,  W.,  letter  to,  i.  284. 

Gray,  Asa,  his  papers  on  natural  se- 
lection and  natural  theology,  ii. 
131, 162-164;  letters  to,  i.  284, 42b, 

437,  446,  463,  476,  491,  5io;  ii. 
13,  39,  63,  67,  80,  90,  98,  104,  119, 
125,  130,  137,  145,  164,  165,  169, 
173,  175,  178,  182,  195,  235,  236, 
256,  266,  367,  400,  434,  435,  436, 

438,  439,  445,  447,  457,  458,  464, 
465,  467,  472,  475,  477,  479,  480, 
482,  486,  487,  488,  489,  490,  495, 
497,  512  ;  letter  to  Hooker  on  the 
1  Origin  of  Species,'  62  ;   on  the 

'  Origin  of  Species,'  64-67  ;    re-  | 
72 


views  the  'Fertilisation  of  Or- 
chids,' 446;  reviews  the  'Varia- 
tion of  Animals  and  Plants,'  256. 

Gray,  J.  E.,  mentioned,  ii.  38,  85. 

Giinther,  A.,  letters  to,  ii.  302,  303. 

Gurney,  E.,  letter  to,  ii.  363. 

Haast,  Sir  Julius  von,  letter  to,  ii. 
190. 

Hackel,  E.,  his  views  on  the  '  Origin 
of  Species,'  ii.  201  ;  Darwin's 
friendship  with,  249  ;  his  work  for 
natural  selection  in  Germany,  250; 
letters  to,  251,  285,  316,  358,  402. 

Haliburton,  Mrs.,  letters  to,  ii.  352, 

353,  507. 

Harvey,  W.  H.,  criticises  the  '  Origin 
of  Species,'  ii.  68-70,  107,  168. 

Haughton,  Rev.  S.,  criticises  Dar- 
win and  Wallace's  joint  paper,  i. 
512. 

Henslow,  J.  S.,  his  friendship  with 
Darwin,  i.  44,  161  ;  his  character, 
45, 157  ;  letter  from,  167  ;  letters  to, 
164,  166,  169,  174,  178,  188,  189, 
208,  215,  221,  235,  238,  240,  244, 
254,  256, 258  ;  ii.  13;  presides  at  the 
Oxford  discussion  on  the  '  Origin 
of  Species,'  114;  his  views  on 
natural  selection,  120 ;  his  death, 
164. 

Herbert,  John  Maurice,  Darwin's 
friendship  with,  i.  42,  140-142  ; 
letters  to,  148,  211,  219,  302. 

Herschel,  Sir  J.,  Darwin's  opinion 
of,  i.  61  ;  ii.  26  ;  meets  Darwin,  i. 

239. 
Heterogeny,  Darwin  on,  ii.  204. 
Higginson,  T.  W.,  letter  to,  ii.  354. 
Hildebrand,    F.,  letters  to,  ii.  454, 

478,  480. 
Hippocrates  anticipates  Darwin  on 

pangenesis,  ii.  265. 
Holmgren,  Frithiof,  letter  to,  ii.  382. 
Holland,    Royal  Society   of,   elects 

Darwin  a  member,  ii.  342. 
Holland,  Sir  Henry,  his  view  of  the 

'  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  28,  45. 
Homoeopathy,  Darwin's  estimate  of, 

i.  341. 
Honors  conferred  on  Darwin,  list  of, 

ii.  544-547. 
Hooker,    Sir  Joseph   D.,    Darwin's 

friendship  for,  i.    119;  letters  to, 

301,  303,  3"f  313,  319,  320,  322, 


556 


INDEX. 


324,  325,  328,  329,  332,  340,  343, 
346,  356,  359,  382,  384,  385,  388, 
389*  39°>  39*>  397.  398,  400,  401, 
402,  404,  413,  414,  415,  417,  4i8, 
419,  424,  427,  428,  431,  438,  440, 
441,  443,  444,  446,  448,  449,  454, 
456,  458,  459,  460,  461,  462,  465, 
468,  469,  476,  482,  484,  486,  488, 
489,  490,  493,  494,  495,  498,  499, 
500,  502,  504,  508,  5 nt  512,  513, 

515, 518, 520, 525,529 ;  »•  19,  20, 

38,  41,  46, 47,  61,  68,  70, 85,  95,  23, 
98,  100,  101,  107,  109,  116,  130, 
147,  151,  154,  168,  189,  192,  199, 
202,  203,  207,  223,  231,  239,  244, 
256,  258,  259,  263,  281,  305,  344, 
374,  381,  404,  422,  430,  437,  438, 
439,  440,  442,  443,  445,  447,  448, 
471,  472,  476,  479,  481,  484,485, 
487,  488,  490,  492,  493,  499,  500, 
506,  511,  517  ;  letter  from^i.315  ; 
his  reminiscences  of  Darwin,  380, 
387 ;  on  the  ■  Origin  of  Species,' 
ii-  23,  35  ;  Darwin  on  his  *  Aus- 
tralian Flora/  51-55 ;  answers 
Harvey,  69 ;  memorial  on  his 
treatment  by  the  First  Commis- 
sioner of  Works,  344 ;  reviews 
the    '  Fertilisation    of    Orchids,' 

447. 

Hooker,  Sir  William,  mentioned,  ii. 
223. 

Hopkins,  William,  reviews  the  '  Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  ii.  108. 

Hudson,  Darwin's  reply  to,  ii.  332. 

Humboldt,  Darwin's  estimate  of,  i. 
61,  387,  403  ;  ii.  422. 

Hutton,  F.  W.,  reviews  the  *  Origin 
of  Species,'  ii.  155. 

Huxley,  Thomas  Henry,  mentioned, 
i.  119  ;  ii.  17  ;  his  opinion  of  Dar- 
win's work  on  *  Cirripedes,'  i,  315  ; 
on  the  *  Vestiges  of  Creation,' 
541  ;  on  the  *  Philosophic  Zoolo- 
gique,'  542  ;  on  the  *  Principles  of 
Geology,'  543  ;  on  the  reception 
of  the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  532- 
558  ;  letters  to,  $26 ;  ii.  27,  45, 
47,  75,  ii7,  123,  143,  147,  176, 
188,  214,  227,  228,  294,  299, 
327,  328,  365,  416,  426,  529; 
on  the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  26,  33, 
47-5°,  76-78  ;  reviews  the  '  Ori- 
gin of  Species  *  in  *  Westminster 
Review,'  94  ;  defends  Darwin  be- 


fore the  British  Association,  113- 
115  ;  contradicts  R.  Owen,  114, 
151  ;  letter  from,  122 ;  lectures  to 
woikingmen  on  natural  selection, 
187  ;  asked  by  Darwin  to  write  a 
text-book  on  zoology,  188  ;  replies 
to  the  *  Quarterly '  reviewer  on  the 
'Descent  of  Man,'  326. 

Hyatt,  Alpheus,  letter  to,  on  his 
theory  of  acceleration,  ii.  333. 

Hybrid  geese,  fertility  of,  ii.  416. 

Hybridism,  ii.  9,  66,  74-76,  176, 
470. 

Immortality,  Darwin's  views  upon, 

i.  282. 
*  Infant,  Biographical  Sketch  of  an,' 

ii.  410. 
Inferiority  inherited  by  the   forms 

which  are  beaten,  ii.  8. 
Innes,  Rev.  J.  Brodie,  on  Darwin's 

interest  in  village  affairs,  i.  120  ; 

on  the   'Origin  of  Species'  and 

the    Bible,   ii.   82  ;    on    Darwin's 

conscientiousness,  237  ;  letter  to, 

320. 
1  Insectivorous  Plants,'  published,  i. 

77  ;  ii.  501  ;  work  on,  354,  359, 

490-501. 
Insects,  instinct  of,  ii.  397  ;  as  car- 
riers of  pollen,  434. 
Instinct,   Darwin  on,  ii.  397,  419- 

421. 
Islands,  animals  of,  ii.  127-129. 
Isolation,  effect  of,  on  the  origin  of 

species,  ii.  334-341. 

Jardine,  Sir  W.,  mentioned,  ii.  41. 

Jeffreys,  Gwyn,  mentioned,  ii.  55. 

Jenkins,  Fleeming,  reviews  the  '  Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  ii.  288  ;  Darwin  on 
his  criticisms,  288. 

Jenyns,  Rev.  Leonard,  mentioned, 
i.  46,  166;  letters  to,  161,  163, 
252,  321,  392,  393,  395  ;  ii- 15,  57, 
388  ;  letter  from,  i.  321  ;  his  ■  Ob- 
servations   in    Natural    History,' 

392,395.  .    ^       .  ,     . 

Jones,  Dr.  Bence,  is  Darwin  s  physi- 
cian, ii.  526. 

'Journal  of  Researches,'  work  on, 
i.  56,  250  ;  Lyell's  opinion  of,  291  ; 
the  German  translation  and  its 
reception,  291  ;  second  edition 
published,    305  ;    dedication    of, 


INDEX. 


557 


306 ;  condemned  in  manuscript, 
ii.  243. 

Judd,  Prof. ,  his  paper  on  '  Volcanoes 
of  the  Hebrides/  ii.  368  ;  on  Dar- 
win's desire  to  promote  the  prog- 
ress of  science,  524. 

Jukes,  Joseph  B.,  mentioned,  ii.  87. 

Kew,  '  Index  of  Plant  Names/  ii. 
522-525. 

Kingsley,  Rev.  C,  letter  from,  on 
the  '  Origin  of  Species/  ii.  81. 

Koch's  researches  on  splenic  fever, 
Darwin  on,  ii.  410. 

Kolliker,  Prof.,  is  reviewed  by  Hux- 
ley, ii.  214. 

Krause,  Ernst,  criticises  Bronn's 
German  edition  of  the  '  Origin  of 
Species/  ii.  71  ;  his  essay  ori  Eras- 
mus Darwin  published,  ii.  395. 

Krohn,  Aug.,  finds  mistakes  in  the 
1  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  138. 

Lamarck's  discussion  of  the  species 
question,  its  insufficiency,  i.  542  ; 
Darwin  on,  ii.  198. 

Lane,  Dr.,  his  recollections  of  Dar- 
win, i.  108. 

Langel  reviews  the  *  Origin  of  Spe- 
cies,' ii.  99. 

Lankaster,  E.  Ray,  letter  to,  ii.  300. 

Lansdowne,  Marquis  of,  anecdote 
of,  i.  14. 

Lee,  Samuel,  mentioned,  i.  260. 

Lesquereux,  Leo,  accepts  the  doc- 
trine of  natural  selection,  ii.  216. 

Lewes,  G.  H.,  reviews  the  'Varia- 
tion of  Animals  and  Plants,'   ii. 

259- 
Lindley,  John,  mentioned,  i.  356. 
Linnean   Society  obtains  memorial 

portrait  of  Darwin,  ii.  399. 
Litchfield,  Mrs.,  on  Darwin's  style, 

i.  130 ;  letter  to,  ii.  379. 
Lizards,  i.  413. 
Lonsdale,   William,    mentioned     i. 

246. 
Lowell,  J.  A.,  reviews  the  '  Origin 

of  Species,' ii.  in,  112. 
Lubbock,  Sir  John,  letters  to,  i.  461, 

496  ;  ii.  14,  37,  220,  309,  425  ;  on 

the  burial  of  Darwin,  532. 
Lyell,   Sir  Charles,   estimate  of  his 

character   as   a  geologist,    i.   59 ; 

letters  to,  263,  266,  271,  296  note, 


306,  307,  309,  311,  330,  331,  342, 
344,  357,  426,  430,  43i,  432,  443, 
470,  473,  474,  475,  485,  506,  508, 
515,  519,  520,  524,  527,  530  ;  ii. 
24,  29,  31,  32,  35,  36,  40,  55,  56, 
59,  60,  74,  78,  83,  85,  88,  91,  93, 
96,  99,  101,  108,  nr,  112,  120, 
124,  127,  131,  133,  138,  139,  141, 
144,  152,  157,  168,  180,  181,  196, 
198,  200,  205,  216,  219,  248,  254, 
255,  297,  368,  492  ;  letters  from, 
i.  291,  293 ;  opinion  of  '  Coral 
Reefs,'  293,  294  ;  his  views  of  the 
'Origin  of  Species,'  520  ;  ii.  2-4  ; 
on  the  origin  of  species  by  natu- 
ral causes,  i.  543-547  ;  admission 
of  the  doctrine  of  natural  selec- 
tion, ii.  24,  103,  213,  295  ;  Dar- 
win on  his  ■  Antiquity  of  Man,' 
193,  196,  198  ;  Falconer's  recla- 
mation from  his  'Antiquity  of 
Man,'  203  ;  Darwin  on  his  '  Ele- 
ments of  Geology,'  219  ;  his  death, 
373  ;  Darwin's  opinion  of,  374. 

Macaulay  and  his  memory,  i.  62. 

McDonnell,  R.,  his  study  of  elec- 
trical organs  in  fish,  ii.  145. 

Mackintosh,  D.,  his  work  on  erratic 
blocks,  ii.  411. 

Macleay,  W.  S.,  mentioned,  i.  252. 

Madeira  and  Bermuda  birds  not  pe- 
culiar, ii.  4,  5. 

Malay  Archipelago/  Wallace's  '  Zoo- 
logical Geography  of,  i.  576. 

Mammals,  descent  of,  from  a  single 
type,  ii.  134. 

Man,  all  races  of,  descended  from 
one  type,  ii.  136 ;  antiquity  of, 
x57  ;  origin  of,  59,  197  ;  relation- 
ship to  apes,  341. 

Marriages,  consanguineous,  ii.  309. 

Marsh,  O.  C,  letter  to,  ii.  417. 

Masters,  Maxwell,  letter  to,  ii.  178. 

Matthew,  Patrick,  anticipates  the 
doctrine  of  natural   selection,  ii. 

95. 

Maw,  George,  reviews  the  *  Origin 
of  Species,'  ii.  168. 

Medal  of  Royal  Society  awarded  to 
Darwin,  i.  355. 

Megatherium  sent  down  from  heav- 
en, i.  328. 

Mesmerism,  Darwin's  estimate  of,  i. 
341. 


558 


INDEX. 


Milne,  D.,  criticises  Glen  Roy  pa- 
per, i.  329. 
Mimetic  modifications  in  plants,  ii. 

253. 

Mivart,  St.  G.,  Darwin  on  his  *  Gene- 
sis of  Species,  ii.  315,  323-329;  his 
4  Genesis  of  Species '  reviewed  by 
Chauncey  Wright,  323,  342  ;  criti- 
cised by  Huxley,  326  ;  his  *  Les- 
sons from  Nature '  reviewed  in 
the  '  Academy,'  362. 

Modification,  ii.  180. 

Modifications,  absence  of,  ii.  209. 

Moggridge,  J.  T.,  letter  to,  ii.  450. 

Mojsisovic,  E.  von,  Darwin  on  his 
4Dolomit  Riffe,'  ii.  411. 

Monads,  persistence  of,  ii.  6. 

Monsters,  ii.  75,  126. 

Monstrosities  are  sterile,  ii.  84. 

Morse,  E.  S.,  letter  to,  ii.  409. 

Moseley,  H.  N.,  letters  to,  ii.  413. 

Muller,  Fritz,  letters  to,  ii.  221,  253, 
266,  269,  278,  292,  329,  513;  his 
1  Fur  Darwin '  translated,  268  ;  re- 
ceives offer  of  aid  from  Darwin, 
418. 

Muller,  Hermann,  letters  to,  ii.  455, 
458. 

Muller,  Max,  his  '  Lectures  on  the 
Science  of  Language,'  ii.  182. 

Murray,  Andrew,  quoted  on  the 
4  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  56,  60. 

Murray,  John,  letters  to,  i.  510,  514, 
516,  532;  ii.  429,441,  466. 

Music  of  insects,  ii.  278,  364. 

Mutability  of  species,  i.  389-393. 

Nageli,  C.,  his  *  Entstehung  und 
Begriff  der  Naturhistorischen  Art,' 
ii.  233,  234 ;  letter  to,  234. 

Naples  Zoological  Station  receives 
a  present  from  Darwin,  ii.  402. 

Natural  history,  Darwin's  passion 
for,  ii.  352. 

Natural  selection.  See  Selection, 
natural. 

Naudin,  Darwin  on,  ii.  41. 

Neumayr,  Melchior,  letter  to,  ii. 
408. 

Nevill,    Lady   Dorothy,    letter   to, 

ii.  499- 

Newton,  A.,  letter  to,  ii.  261  ;  re- 
views the  4  Variation  of  Animals 
and  Plants,'  261. 

New  Zealand,  animals  of,    ii.   128, 


191  ;   plants  of,  i.  401  ;    ii.   191, 

239- 
Nobility,  natural   selection  among, 

ii.  177. 
Nomenclature  of  species,  discussion 

on,  i.  332-340. 
Norman,  E.,  Darwin's  secretary,  i. 

129. 
Novara  expedition,  i.  451. 

4  Observations  on  Parallel  Roads  of 
Glen  Roy,'  published,  i.  260 ;  ex- 
tract from,  261. 

Ogle,  William,  letter  to,  ii.  265,  320, 
321,  322,  427,  461. 

4  Orchids,  Fertilisation  of,'  work  on, 
ii.  437-462 ;  published,  444  ;  re- 
views of,  444-449  ;  second  edition 
published,  460. 

4  Orchis  Bank '  described,  i.  94. 

Organs,  rudimentary,  ii.  9. 

4  Origin  of  Species,'  first  note-book 
of,  opened,  i.  56  ;  growth  of  the, 
°7,  363-425  ;  published,  70 ;  ii. 
1 ;  its  success,  i.  70,  533-558 ; 
second  edition,  73  ;  ii.  1,  51  ; 
Darwin's  change  of  views  upon,  i. 
364 ;  description  of  sketch  of 
1844,  373  ;  Huxley's  view  of 
sketch  of  1844,  375  ;  Prof.  New- 
ton's view  of  same,  376  ;  the  writ- 
ing of,  472-532  ;  abstract  book, 
487  ;  un orthodoxy  of,  507  ;  faults 
of  style,  512,  514,  515,  519  ;  Lyell 
on,  520,  524  ;  ii.  2  ;  Huxley  on, 
i.  533-558  ;  ii.  26,  76-78  ;  Bishop 
Wilberforce  on,  i.  536  ;  Huxley's 
summary  of  reviews  of,  536-539 ; 
answer  to  Lyell  on,  ii.  4-16  ;  H. 
C.  Watson  on,  21  ;  Jos.  D.  Hook- 
er on,  23  ;  French  translation  pro- 
posed, 30 ;  first  German  edition, 
31,  70-74,  120 ;  reviewed  in  the 
Times,  47-50  ;  first  American  edi- 
tion, 51,  64;  Asa  Gray  on,  62; 
Kingsley  on,  81  ;  and  the  Bible, 
Rev.  J.  Brodie  Innes  on,  82  ;  re- 
viewed in  the  4  Edinburgh  Re- 
view,' 94  ;  reviewed  in  the 4  North 
American  Review,'  98  ;  reviewed 
in  the  4  Revue  des  deux  Mondes/ 
99 ;  reviewed  in  the  New  York 
Times,  99  ;  reviewed  in  the  Chris- 
tian Examiner,  ill,  112  ;  dis- 
cussed by  the  British  Association, 


INDEX. 


559 


113-116;  reviewed  in  'Quarterly 
Review,'  117;  reviewed  in  the 
1  London  Review/  T.21  ;  reviewed 
in  the  *  American  Journal  of  Sci- 
ence and  Arts,'  123,  124  ;  Bronn's 
criticisms  of,  139  ;  reviewed  in  the 
1  Memoirs  of  the  American  Acade- 
my of  Arts  and  Sciences,'  141, 
146 ;  answers  to  criticisms  on, 
142  ;  third  edition,  144,  149,  155  ; 

*  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Recent 
Progress  of  Opinion  on  the,'  149  ; 
Dutch  edition,  150 ;  first  French 
edition,  150,  179  ;  reviewed  in  the 

*  Geologist,'  155  ;  reviewed  in  the 
1  Dublin  Hospital  Gazette,'  168  ; 
reviewed  in  the  '  Zoologist,'  168  ; 
De  Candolle's  view  of,  201  ; 
Haeckel's  view  of,  201  ;  Gen.  Sa- 
bine on,  213  ;  Flourens  on,  214; 
second  French  edition,  215,  255  ; 
criticised  by  the  Duke  of  Argyll, 
216  ;  fourth  edition,  226,  227  ; 
third  German  edition,  232,  249  ; 
Russian  editions  of,  256 ;  fifth 
edition,  287,  288  ;  reviewed  in  the 
'  North  British  Review,'  288  ;  re- 
viewed in  the  *  Athenaeum,'  289  ; 
third  and  fourth  French  editions, 
291  ;  sixth  edition,  331  ;  criticised 
by  Pusey,  412  ;  '  Coming  of  age 
of/  416. 

Ostrich,  Darwin  discovers  a  new 
species  of,  i.  221. 

Ouless,  W.,  paints  Darwin's  por- 
trait, ii.  373- 

Owen,  Sir  R.,  criticises  Darwin's 
theory,  ii.  113;  contradicted  by 
Huxley,  114,  151  ;  his  views  on 
variation  by  descent,  180. 

Paley's  argument  of  design  in  na- 
ture no  longer  good,  i.  278  ;  his 
1  Natural  Theology  mentioned, 
ii.  15. 

Pampaean  formation,  Darwin  on,  ii. 
187. 

Pangenesis,  hypothesis  of,  i.  75  ;  ii. 
372  ;  opinions  on,  260,  262,  265, 
266  ;  anticipated  by  Hippocrates, 
265. 

Parker,  Henry,  defends  the  *  Ferti- 
lisation of  Orchids/  ii.  448. 

Parsons,  Theophilus,  reviews  the 
4  Origin  of  Species/  ii.  124,  126. 


I  Peacock,  George,  letter  on  appoint- 
ment of  naturalist  to  Beagle,  i. 
166  ;  letter  from,  appointing  Dar- 
win to  Beagle,  169. 

Pengelly,  William,  mentioned,  ii. 
168. 

Perthes,  Boucher  de,  Darwin  on,  ii. 
198,  200. 

Petrels  as  agents  of  distribution,  i. 
502. 

Phillips,  John,  mentioned,  ii.  102. 

Philosophical  Club,  its  nature,  i. 
402. 

1  Philosophic  Zoologique,'  Huxley 
on,  i.  542. 

Photographs,  albums  of,  presented 
to  Darwin  by  German  and  Dutch 
scientists,  ii.  402. 

Physiological  Society  elects  Darwin 
an  honorary  member,  ii.  382. 

Pictet,  Francois  Jules,  reviews  the 
1  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  90. 
j  Pigeons,  Darwin's  interest  in,  i.  411. 

Plants,  fossil,  ii.  423  ;  sexuality  of, 
a  recent  discovery,  431. 

Piatysma,  contraction  of,  from  shud- 
dering, ii.  321. 

Portraits  of  Darwin,  list  of,  ii.  542. 

Potato  disease,  Torbitt's  experiments 
on,  ii.  519-522. 

Pour  le  Merite,  Darwin  admitted  to 
order,  ii.  243. 

Pouter  pigeon,  variation  in,  ii.  97. 

*  Power   of    Movement    in    Plants/ 

published,    i.    79 ;   ii.   506 ;   work 

on,  502-506. 
Prestwich,  J.,  letter  to,  ii.  89. 
Preyer,  W.,  letter  to,  ii.  270. 
Primogeniture,  law  of,  Darwin  on, 

ii.  177. 

*  Principles  of  Geology,'  Huxley  on, 

i.  543- 
Priority,  nomenclature  of  species  by, 

i.  332-340. 
Progression,  necessary,  ii.  89. 
Protection,  modification  for,  ii.  304, 

330. 
Pusey's  criticisms  of  the  '  Origin  of 

Species,'  ii.  412. 

*  Quarterly  Review,'  recognises  mer- 

its of  '  Journal  of  Researches,'  i. 
291. 
Quatrefages,  J.  L.  A.  de,  letters  to, 
1      ii.  298,  334. 


560 


INDEX. 


Religious  views  of  Darwin,  i.  274- 
286 ;  difficulties  not  created  by 
science,  556. 

Reminiscences  of  Darwin  by  Hook- 
er, i.  380. 

Revelation,  Darwin's  disbelief  in,  i. 

277- 
Reversion,  Darwin  on,  ii.  421. 

Reymond,  Du  Bois-,  letter  to,  ii.  401. 

Richmond,  W.  B.,  paints  Darwin's 
portrait,  ii.  399. 

Ridley,  C,  letter  to,  ii.  411. 

Rivers,  T.,  letter  to,  ii.  240. 

Robertson,  G.  Croom,  letter  to,  ii. 
410. 

Robertson,  John,  reviews  the  '  Ori- 
gin of  Species,'  ii.  289. 

Rodwell,  Rev.  J.  M.,  letter  to,  ii. 
140. 

Rolleston,  George,  his  '  Canons,'  ii. 
156. 

Roman  Catholic  church  on  evolu- 
tion, ii.  326. 

Romanes,  G.  J.,  on  Darwin's  con- 
scientiousness, ii.  237  ;  letters  to, 
385,  386,  402,  419 

Royal  College  of  Physicians  pre- 
sents the  Baly  medal  to  Darwin, 
ii.  401. 

Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh  elects 
Darwin  honorary  member,  ii.  218. 

Royer,  Mile.  Ciemence,  translates 
the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  150, 
179  ;  publishes  third  French  edi- 
tion, 291. 

Rudimentary  organs,  ii.  9. 

Sabine,  Gen.,  on  the  '  Origin  of 
Species,'  ii.  213. 

Salter,  J.  W.,  his  diagram  of  spiri- 
fers,  ii.  159;  'Sand-walk*  de- 
scribed, i.  93. 

Sanderson,  J.  Burdon,  letter  to,  ii. 

495. 

Saporta,  Marquis  de,  letter  to,  ii. 
3ir,  366,458. 

Schaaffhausen,  H.,  claims  to  antici- 
pate Darwin,  ii.  103,  113. 

Scott,  John,  Darwin's  estimate  of, 
ii.  474. 

Sedgwick,  Rev.  Adam,  mentioned, 
i.  47  ;  ii.  305  ;  on  the  '  Origin  of 
Species/  42-45  ;  his  review  of  the 
1  Origin  of  Species,'  91  ;  criticises 
the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  100 ;  on 


the  imperfection  of  the  geological 
record,  161  note. 

Seeds,  vitality  of,  i.  425. 

Selection,  natural,  ii.  6-8,  9,  no, 
in,  138,  206,  209,  210,  217  ;  doc- 
trine of,  clearly  conceived  by  Dar- 
win about  1839,  i.  71  ;  opposed  to 
doctrine  of  design,  278  ;  ii.  97  ; 
effect  of,  on  the  scientific  mind,  i. 
550 ;  and  religion,  ii.  105,.  131, 
162-164,  245-248,  412  ;  small  ef- 
fects of,  in  changing  species, 
128-130,  131-133  ;  among  the  no- 
bility, 177  ;  Huxley's  lectures  to 
workingmen  on,  187  ;  progress  of- 
187,  201,  312,  328,  332,  367  ;  Dar, 
win  anticipated  on,  225  ;  use  of 
the  term,  230  ;  effect  on  sterility, 
263  ;  progress  among  the  clergy, 
291  ;  progress  of,  in  Germany,  270, 
299  ;  progress  of,  in  France,  269, 
299. 

Selection,  sexual,  ii.  272,  274,  275, 
276,  277,  292,  317,  330,  336  ;  in- 
stance of,  in  the  dogs  of  Beyrout, 
428. 

Semper,  K.,  letters  to,  ii.  339,  360, 
516. 

Shelburne,  Lord,  anecdote  of,  i.  14. 

Slavery,  Darwin's  opinion  of,  i,  309 ; 
in  the  United  States,  ii.  166,  169, 
177,  196. 

Smith,  Sydney,  inexplicably  amus- 
ing, i.  62. 

Socialism  and  the  descent  of  man, 
ii.  412. 

Societies,  learned,  DarwTin's  mem- 
bership in,  ii.  218,  544. 

South  American  Missionary  Society, 
Darwin's  connection  with,  ii.  307. 

Species,  mutability  of,  i.  389-393, 
409  ;  origin  of,  effect  of  isolation 
on,  ii.  334-341  ;  specific  centres, 
i.  441. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  letters  to,  i.  497  ; 
ii.  344  ;  Prof.  Huxley's  friendship 
with,  i.  542  ;  Darwin  on,  ii.  84, 
152,  239,  301,  371  ;  originates  the 
term  i  survival  of  the  fittest,'  229  ; 
his  impression  of  '  Pangenesis,' 
260. 

Spiritism,  Darwin  on,  ii.  364. 

Spontaneity,  Bain's  theory  of,  ii.  351. 

Sprengel,  C.  C,  his  work  on  the  fer- 
tilisation of  flowers,  ii.  432. 


INDEX. 


56l 


Stanhope,  Lord,  his  parties  of  his- 
torians, i.  62. 

Stebbing,  Rev.  T.  R.  R.,  letter  to, 
ii.  292. 

Stendel's  '  Nomenclator,'  ii.  523. 

Sterility,  effect  of  natural  selection 
on,  ii.  262  ;  of  moths,  376. 

Stokes,  Admiral,  Lord,  extract  from 
letter  of,  i.  197. 

Stones  standing  on  end  in  the  South- 
ampton drift,  ii.  390. 

Strickland,  Hugh,  letters  to,  i.  333* 
337,  339;  letter  from,  335. 

Striped  horses,  i.  469. 

Struggle  for  life,  i.  393. 

Style  of  Darwin,  i.  129,  131. 

Sublimity,  where  felt  most  by  Dar- 
win, ii.  237-239. 

Suiivan,  B.  J.,  letter  to,  ii.  306. 

Sulivan,  Admiral  Sir  James,  extract 
from  letter  of,  i.  192,  195. 

Survival  of  the  fittest,  use  of  the 
term,  ii.  229. 

Tegetmeier,    W.    B.,   extract    from 

letter  to,  i.  412. 
Teleology,    evolution    and,   i.   554 ; 

Darwin's  revival  of,  ii.  430. 
Teneriffe,  projected  trip  to,  i.  165. 
Thiel,  H.,  letter  to,  ii.  293. 
Thomson,    Thomas,   mentioned,    ii. 

101. 
Thomson,   Sir  Wyville,    on   abyssal 

fauna,  ii.  418. 
Thorley,  Miss,  botanical  work  with, 

i.  418. 
Thwaites,  G.  J.  K.,  mentioned,  ii. 

86,  140. 
Tierra  del  Fuego  Mission,  Darwin's 

connection  with,  ii.  307. 
Times,  its  review  of  the  *  Origin  of 

Species,'    ii.   47-50 ;    Darwin  on, 

196. 
Torbitt,  James,  his  work  on  the  po- 
tato disease,  ii.  519-522. 
Turin,  Royal  Academy  of,  presents 

Darwin  the  Bressa  prize,  ii.  401. 
Tylor,  E.  B.,  letter  to,  ii,  331. 
Tyndail,  John,  praises  the  4  Origin 

of  Species,'  ii.  367. 

Usborne,  A.  B.,  extract  from  a  letter 
of,  i.  198. 

Van  Dyck,  W.  T.,  letter  to,  i    428. 


Variations  in  species,  i.  397,  455— 
460  ;  ii.  180  ;  Wallace's  essay  on, 
i.  472  ;  Darwin  and  Wallace's 
joint  paper  on,  472,  482,  512  ;  sud- 
den, ii.  126  ;  governed  by  design, 
146;  cause  of,  170;  mimetic,  of 
butterflies,  183-185  ;  governed  by 
design,  245 ;  mimetic,  of  plants, 
253  ;  in  colors  of  insects,  275, 
276  ;  transmission  of,  304  ;  ana- 
logical, 408  ;  Darwin  studies  the 
causes  of,  514-517. 

*  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants 
under  Domestication,'  work  on,  i. 
73  ;  ii.  149,  150,  182,  186,  211, 
226,  256  ;  publication  of,  242  ;  re- 
viewed in  the  Nation,  256  ,  Rus- 
sian edition,  256  ;  second  edition, 
258,  280,  372  ;  reviewed  in  the 
Pall  Mall  Gazette,  258;  reviewed 
in  the  Gardener's  Chronicle,  260  ; 
reviewed  in  the  Athenceum,  260; 
reviewed  in  the  *  Zoological  Rec- 
ord,' 261  ;  American  edition,  266. 

Varieties,  production  of,  ii.  132  ;  and 
species,  collecting  facts  about,  i. 
271. 

1  Vestiges  of  Creation  '  read  by  Dar- 
win, i.  301  ;  Huxley  on,  541. 

Vines,  S.  H.,  letter  to,  ii.  518. 

Virchow  connects  the  descent  of 
man  with  socialism,  ii.  412. 

Visualising,  questions  and  answers 
on  the  faculty  of,  ii.  414. 

Vivisection,  ii.  377-387. 

Wagner,  Moritz,  criticised  by  A. 
Weismann,  ii.  334  ;  letters  to,  336, 

337. 

Wagner,  R.,  mentioned,  ii.  123. 

Wallace,  A.  R.,  sends  essay  to  Dar- 
win, i.  69  ;  letters  to,  372,  452, 
405,  501,  516;  ii-  16,  102,  229, 
263,  271,  274,  275,  276,  277,  294, 
296,  301,  303,  317,  323,  325,  345, 
346,  363,  406  ;  essay  on  variation, 
i.  472  ;  his  *  Zoological  Geogra- 
phy,' 516;  ii.  79;  reviews  the 
*  Descent  of  Man,'  317;  reviews 
Mivart's  *  Lessons  from  Nature,' 
362  ;  pension  granted  to,  405 ; 
defends  the  *  Fertilisation  of  Or- 
chids,' 449. 

Watkins,  Archdeacon,  reminiscence 
of  Darwin,  i.  144. 


562 


INDEX. 


Watkins,  Archdeacon,  letter  to,  i. 

213  ;  ii.  121. 
Watson,  H.  C,  mentioned,  i.  320; 

on  the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  21- 

23. 
Wedgwood,    Josiah,   his   character, 

i.  38  ;  mentioned,  170 ;  letter  from, 

172. 
Wedgwood,    Miss    Julia,   on    Eras- 
mus Darwin,  in  Spectator^  i    22  ; 

letter  to,  283. 
Weismann,  August,  letters  to,  ii.  334, 

376,  408. 
Wells,  Dr.,  anticipates  Darwin  on 

natural  selection,  ii.  225. 
Westminster  Abbey,  Darwin  buried 

in,  ii.  531. 
Whewell,  Dr.,  mentioned,  i.  46  ;  ii. 

55  ;  on  the  succession  of  species, 

i.  547- 
Whitley,  C,  letter  to,  i.  226. 
Wiesner,  Julius,  letter  to,  ii.  508. 
Wilberforce,    Bishop,  criticises   the 

*  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  114-116. 


William  IV,  coronation  of,  i.  183. 

Woodpecker,  Pampas,  Darwin  on, 
ii.  332. 

Woolner,  T.,  makes  a  bust  of  Dar- 
win, ii.  287  ;  discovers  infolded 
point  of  the  human  ear,  319. 

Wollaston  medal,  i.  500,  507. 

Wollaston's  *  Insecta  Maderemia,' 
i.  404  ;  his  '  Variation  of  Species  ' 
referred  to,  431. 

Works  by  Darwin,  list  of,  ii.  533- 

541- 
Wright,   Chauncey,   letter  from,  ii. 
323  ;  letters  to,  324,  342  ;  on  his 
visit  to  Darwin  at  Down,  343. 

Yarrell,  William,  mentioned,  i.  182. 

Zoological  Society,  Darwin  visits,  1. 
245  ;  reads  a  paper  at,  250. 

'Zoology  of  the  Voyage  of  H.M.S. 
Beagle  J  arrangement  for  publica- 
tion, i.  56,  251-255. 


THE   END. 


BRIGHAM  YOUNG  UNIVERSITY 


3  1197  0 


031   0487 


DATE  DUE 


m    UMt 


*PR      TJ3J8 


*WR  a  9  i38$ 


APR  1  5  1989 


-«pR-<r^ll 


UEC^L 


m 


jk-m- 


mm 


JAN  0  3 


DEMCO    38-297 


/ . 


• 


1T'« 


ife..' 


■» 


*  J 


>  \* 


3 


■  &* 


/♦•• 


■     ;*£&'. 

■■  ESft 

■ 

:-:>'/•  t  *.y;tJv 

■ 

nSQHG  BSfc? 


■