■

I
■

»•

■

■

'-Mf

■

pi

is ■ ■

.

■

ll

S*i V.-v^-'C

HHHi

■
■

■ fl oil

^M hi'4

■

St: RTv

■ ■

I ■

■

■

■

>„ ¥►•

■

^H

■ ■

■

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

'CENTURY MAGAZINE,' JANUARY 1883.

Frontispiece, Vol. II.

'-^ a.

LIFE AND LETTERS

OF

CHARLES DARWIN,

INCLUDING

AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL CHAPTER

EDITED BY HIS SON,

FRANCIS DARWIN.

IN THREE VOLUMES:— Vol. II.

"• &4

LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

1887.

All Rights Reserved.

LONDON:
PRINTED BV WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Limited,

STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

- n

rV Vi -<-' "V_*»

»

ABLE OF CONTENTS.

-*o»-

ILLUSTRATIONS.

TAGE

VOLUME II.

CHAPTER I. — The Foundations of the ' Origin of

Species ' — 1837-1844 .... . . . 1

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

— 1843-1856 ........ 19

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

1858 ......... 67

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

— June 18, 1858-Nov. 1859 . . . . 115

CHAPTER V. — Professor Huxley on the Reception of

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

CHAPTER VI. — The Publication of the ' Origin of

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

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

i860 ......... 256

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

»o»

Volume II.

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

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

#

ERRATA.

Volume II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIFE AND LETTERS

OF

CHARLES DARWIN.

CHAPTER I.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE ' ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

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

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

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

2 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

A comparison of the two editions of the ' Journal ' is in-
structive, as giving some idea of the development of his
views on evolution. It does not give us a true index of
the mass of conjecture which was taking shape in his mind,
but it shows us that he felt sure enough of the truth of his
belief to allow a stronger tinge of evolution to appear in
the second edition. He has mentioned in the Autobiography
(p. 83), that it was not until he read Malthus that he got a
clear view of the potency of natural selection. This was in
1838 — a year after he finished the first edition (it was not
published until 1839), and seven years before the second edition
was written (1845). Thus the turning-point in the formation
of his theory took place between the writing of the two
editions.

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

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

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

THE 'NATURALIST'S VOYAGE.' 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

B 2

4 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

FROM A NOTE-BOOK OF 1837.

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

to i

•J

I

a tig re

I : oppc:

NOTE-BOOK OF 1 837. 5

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

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

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

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

" We can see why structure is common in certain countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

in which reproduction by gemma- interesting extracts.

6 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE ' ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

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

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

The two following extracts show that he applied the theory
of evolution to the " whole organic kingdom " from plants to
man.

" If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our
fellow brethren in pain, disease, death, suffering and famine —
our slaves in the most laborious works, our companions in
our amusements — they may partake [of?] our origin in one
common ancestor — we may be all melted together."

" The different intellects of man and animals not so great
as between living things without thought (plants), and living
things with thought (animals)."

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE-BOOK OF 1 837. 7

Speaking elsewhere of intermediate forms, he remarks : —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But in the following note we get extinction connected with

8 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

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

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

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

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

The following two extracts have a similar interest ; the

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

NOTE-BOOK OF 1 837. 9

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

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

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

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

The three next extracts are of miscellaneous interest : —

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

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

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

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

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

having been originally breathed beautiful and most wonderful have

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

IO THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

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

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

" 1842. May 18th. Went to Maer.

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

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

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

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

SKETCH OF 1842. II

of Species to form Varieties/ * the essay of 1844 (extracts
from which form part of the paper) is said to have been
"sketched in 1 839, and copied in 1844." This statement is
obviously made on the authority of a note written in my
father's hand across the Table of Contents of the 1844 Essay.
It is to the following effect : "This was sketched in 1839, and
copied out in full, as here written and read by you in 1844."
I conclude that this note was added in 1858, when the MS.
was sent to Sir J. D. Hooker (see Letter of June 29, 1858,
Vol. II. p. 1 19). There is also some further evidence on this side
of the question. Writing to Mr. Wallace (Jan. 25, 1859) my
father says : — " Every one whom I have seen has thought
your paper very well written and interesting. It puts my
extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty years ago !), which
I must say in apology were never for an instant intended for
publication, into the shade." The statement that the earliest
sketch was written in 1839 nas been frequently made in
biographical notices of my father, no doubt on the authority
of the ' Linnean Journal,' but it must, I think, be considered
as erroneous. The error may possibly have arisen in this
way. In writing on the Table of Contents of the 1844 MS.
that it was sketched in 1839, I think my father may have
intended to imply that the framework of the theory was clearly
thought out by him at that date. In the Autobiography
(p. 88) he speaks of the time, "about 1839, when the theory
was clearly conceived," meaning, no doubt, the end of 1838
and beginning of 1839, when the reading of Malthus had
given him the key to the idea of natural selection. But this
explanation does not apply to the letter to Mr. Wallace ; and
with regard to the passage f in the 'Linnean Journal' it is
difficult to understand how it should have been allowed to

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

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

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

12 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

are so wonderful as to justify the rejection prima facie

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

SKETCH OF 1844. 13,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter VI. Rudimentary Organs.

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

Chapter VII. Recapitulation and Conclusion. The final

14 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

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

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

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

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

* ' Origin,' Introduction, p. 5.

PRINCIPLE OF DIVERGENCE. 1 5

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

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

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

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

l6 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

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

C. Darwin to Mrs. Darwin.

Down, July 5, 1844.

... I have just finished my sketch of my species theory.
If, as I believe, my theory in time be accepted even by
one competent judge, it will be a considerable step in science.

I therefore write this in case of my sudden death, as my
most solemn and last request, which I am sure you will con-
sider the same as if legally entered in my will, that you will
devote ^400 to its publication, and further, will yourself, or
through Hensleigh,* take trouble in promoting it. I wish
that my sketch be given to some competent person, with this
sum to induce him to take trouble in its improvement and
enlargement. I give to him all my books on Natural History,
which are either scored or have references at the end to the
pages, begging him carefully to look over and consider such
passages as actually bearing, or by possibility bearing, on
this subject. I wish you to make a list of all such books as
some temptation to an editor. I also request that you will
hand over [to] him all those scraps roughly divided in eight
or ten brown paper portfolios. The scraps, with copied
quotations from various works, are those which may aid my
editor. I also request that you, or some amanuensis, will aid

* Mr. H. Wedgwood.

SKETCH OF 1844. 17

zn deciphering any of the scraps which the editor may think
possibly of use. I leave to the editor's judgment whether to
interpolate these facts in the text, or as notes, or under
appendices. As the looking over the references and scraps
will be a long labour, and as the correcting and enlarging and
altering my sketch will also take considerable time, I leave
this sum of ^400 as some remuneration, and any profits from
the work. I consider that for this the editor is bound to get
the sketch published either at a publisher's or his own risk.
Many of the scraps in the portfolios contain mere rude sugges-
tions and early views, now useless, and many of the facts will
probably turn out as having no bearing on my theory.

With respect to editors, Mr. Lyell would be the best if he
would undertake it ; I believe he would find the work pleasant,
and he would learn some facts new to him. As the editor must
"be a geologist as well as a naturalist, the next best editor would
be Professor Forbes of London. The next best (and quite
best in many respects) would be Professor Henslow. Dr.
Hooker would be very good. The next, Mr. Strickland.* If
none of these would undertake it, I would request you to
consult with Mr. Lyell, or some other capable man for some
editor, a geologist and naturalist. Should one other hundred
pounds make the difference of procuring a good editor, I
request earnestly that you will raise ^500.

My remaining collections in Natural History may be given
to any one or any museum where [they] would be accepted. . . .

[The following note seems to have formed part of the
original letter, but may have been of later date :

" Lyell, especially with the aid of Hooker (and if any good
zoological aid), would be best of all. Without an editor will
pledge himself to give up time to it, it would be of no use
paying such a sum.

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

VOL. II. C

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

" If there should be any difficulty in getting an editor who
would go thoroughly into the subject, and think of the bearing
of the passages marked in the books and copied out of scraps
of paper, then let my sketch be published as it is, stating
that it was done several years ago * and from memory without
consulting any works, and with no intention of publication in
its present form."

The idea that the Sketch of 1844 might remain, in the
event of his death, as the only record of his work, seems to
have been long in his mind, for in August 1854, when he had
finished with the Cirripedes, and was thinking of beginning
his " species work," he added on the back of the above letter,
" Hooker by far best man to edit my species volume. August

1854."]

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

( 19 )

CHAPTER II.

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

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

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

Trafalgar Square. I was walking with an officer who

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

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

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

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

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

a slight stoop, an agreeable and animated expression when

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

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

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

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

from having read various proof-sheets of his then unpublished

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

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

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

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

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

c 2

20 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1843.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [l843-

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

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

dear sir, yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

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

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

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

Again he wrote (1849) : —

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

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

1843.] NATURAL SELECTION. 23

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

[January nth, 1844.]
. . . Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I
have been now ever since my return engaged in a very pre-
sumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would
not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the distri-
bution of the Galapagos organisms, &c. &c, and with the
character of the American fossil mammifers, &c. &c, that I
determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which could
bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of
agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased
collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am
almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started
with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder)
immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of
a " tendency to progression," " adaptations from the slow
willing of animals," &c. ! But the conclusions I am led to are
not widely different from his ; though the means of change
are wholly so. I think I have found out (here's presump-
tion !) the simple way by which species become exquisitely
adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to

24 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1844.

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

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

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

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

1 844.] GALAPAGOS FLORA. 2$

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

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

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

26 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1844.

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

C. Darwin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* See Vol. I. p. 115.

28 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1844.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [1844}.

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

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

1 844.] MUTABILITY OF SPECIES. 29

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

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, 1844.

... I forget my last letter, but it must have been a very
silly one, as it seems I gave my notion of the number of
species being in great degree governed by the degree to
which the area had been often isolated and divided ; I must
have been cracked to have written it, for I have no evidence,
without a person be willing to admit all my views, and then
it does follow ; but in my most sanguine moments, all I
•expect, is that I shall be able to show even to sound Natur-
alists, that there are two sides to the question of the immut-
ability of species ; — that facts can be viewed and grouped
under the notion of allied species having descended from
common stocks. With respect to books on this subject, I
do not know of any systematical ones, except Lamarck's,
which is veritable rubbish ; but there are plenty, as Lyell,
Pritchard, &c, on the view of the immutability. Agassiz
lately has brought the strongest argument in favour of immut-
ability. Isidore G. St. Hilaire has written some good Essays,
tending towards the mutability-side, in the ' Suites a Buffon,'
entitled " Zoolog. Generale." Is it not strange that the author
of such a book as the ' Animaux sans Vertebres ' should
have written that insects, which never see their eggs, should
will (and plants, their seeds) to be of particular forms, so as
to become attached to particular objects. The other common
(specially Germanic) notion is hardly less absurd, viz. that
climate, food, &c., should make a Pediculus formed to climb
hair, or wood-pecker to climb trees. I believe all these
absurd views arise from no one having, as far as I know,
approached the subject on the side of variation under domest-

30 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1845.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, [July, 1844.]

... I am now reading a wonderful book for facts on
variation — Bronn, 'Geschichte der Natur.' It is stiff German :
it forestalls me, sometimes I think delightfully, and some-
times cruelly. You will be ten times hereafter more horrified
at me than at H. Watson. I hate arguments from results,
but on my views of descent, really Natural History becomes
a sublimely grand result-giving subject (now you may quiz
me for so foolish an escape of mouth). ... I must leave this
letter till to-morrow, for I am tired ; but I so enjoy writing
to you, that I must inflict a little more on you.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

* A translation of Humboldt's ' Kosmos.'

1 845.] MUTABILITY OF SPECIES. 3 1

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

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

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

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

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to L. Jenyns (Blomefield).

Down, Oct. 1 2th [1845].
My DEAR JENYNS, — Thanks for your note. I am sorry to
say I have not even the tail-end of a fact in English Zoology
to communicate. I have found that even trifling observations
require, in my case, some leisure and energy, both of which
ingredients I have had none to spare, as writing my Geology
thoroughly expends both. I had always thought that I
would keep a journal and record everything, but in the way
I now live I find I observe nothing to record. Looking after
my garden and trees, and occasionally a very little walk in
an idle frame of my mind, fills up every afternoon in the
same manner. I am surprised that with all your parish
affairs, you have had time to do all that which you have
done. I shall be very glad to see your little work * (and

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

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

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

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

32 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1845.

proud should I have been if I could have added a single fact
to it). My work on the species question has impressed me
very forcibly with the importance of all such works as your
intended one, containing what people are pleased generally
to call trifling facts. These are the facts which make one
understand the working or economy of nature. There is one
subject, on which I am very curious, and which perhaps you
may throw some light on, if you have ever thought on it ;
namely, what are the checks and what the periods of life, —
by which the increase of any given species is limited. Just
calculate the increase of any bird, if you assume that only
half the young are reared, and these breed : within the natural
{i.e. if free from accidents) life of the parents the number of
individuals will become enormous, and I have been much
surprised to think how great destruction miist annually or
occasionally be falling on every species, yet the means and
period of such destruction is scarcely perceived by us.

I have continued steadily reading and collecting facts on
variation of domestic animals and plants, and on the question
of what are species. I have a grand body of facts, and I
think I can draw some sound conclusions. The general con-
clusions at which I have slowly been driven from a directly
opposite conviction, is that species are mutable, and that
allied species are co-descendants from common stocks. I
know how much I open myself to reproach for such a con-
clusion, but I have at least honestly and deliberately come to
it. I shall not publish on this subject for several years. At
present I am on the Geology of South America. I hope to
pick up from your book some facts on slight variations in
structure or instincts in the animals of your acquaintance.

Believe me, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

1845.] STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. 33

C. D arzvii 1 to L. Jenyns*

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

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

34 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1845 ?

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

With respect to my far distant work on species, I must
have expressed myself with singular inaccuracy if I led you
to suppose that I meant to say that my conclusions were
inevitable. They have become so, after years of weighing
puzzles, to myself alone ; but in my wildest day-dream, I
never expect more than to be able to show that there are
two sides to the question of the immutability of species,
i.e. whether species are directly created or by intermediate
laws (as with the life and death of individuals). I did not
approach the subject on the side of the difficulty in deter-
mining what are species and what are varieties, but (though
why I should give you such a history of my doings it would
be hard to say) from such facts as the relationship between
the living and extinct mammifers in South America, and
between those living on the Continent and on adjoining
islands, such as the Galapagos. It occurred to me that
a collection of all such analogous facts would throw light
either for or against the view of related species being co-
descendants from a common stock. A long searching
amongst agricultural and horticultural books and people
makes me believe (I well know how absurdly presumptuous
this must appear) that I see the way in which new varieties
become exquisitely adapted to the external conditions of life
and to other surrounding beings. I am a bold man to lay
myself open to being thought a complete fool, and a most
deliberate one. From the nature of the grounds which make
me believe that species are mutable in form, these grounds
cannot be restricted to the closest-allied species ; but how far
they extend I cannot tell, as my reasons fall away by degrees,
when applied to species more and more remote from each
other. Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see
that there are numerous immense difficulties in my notions,
but they appear to me less than on the common view. I have

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

drawn up a sketch and had it copied (in 200 pages) of my
conclusions ; and if I thought at some future time that you
would think it worth reading, I should, of course, be most
thankful to have the criticism of so competent a critic.
Excuse this very long and egotistical and ill-written letter,
which by your remarks you have led me into, and believe me,

Yours very truly,

C. Darwin,

C. Darwin to L. Jenyns,

Down, Oct. 17th, 1846.

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

D 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

* The meeting of the British Association.

1 849.] VARIABILITY. 37

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

Ever most truly yours,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Malvern, June 13 [1849].

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

38

GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.'

[1849.

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

Your affectionate friend,

C. Darwin.

C. Danvin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

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

imagination.

I853-] LAMARCK, THE ' VESTIGES.' 39

thanks for your attempt to get me a copy of ' L'Espece,' * and
almost equal thanks for your criticisms on him : I rather
misdoubted him, and felt not much inclined to take as gospel
his facts. I find this one of my greatest difficulties with
foreign authors, viz. judging of their credibility. How pain-
fully (to me) true is your remark, that no one has hardly a
right to examine the question of species who has not minutely
described many. I was, however, pleased to hear from Owen
(who is vehemently opposed to any mutability in species),
that he thought it was a very fair subject, and that there
was a mass of facts to be brought to bear on the question,
not hitherto collected. My only comfort is (as I mean to
attempt the subject), that I have dabbled in several branches
of Natural History, and seen good specific men work out my
species, and know something of geology (an indispensable
union) ; and though I shall get more kicks than half-pennies,
I will, life serving, attempt my work. Lamarck is the only
exception, that I can think of, of an accurate describer of
species, at least in the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has dis-
believed in permanent species, but he in his absurd though
clever work has done the subject harm, as has Mr. Vestiges,
and, as (some future loose naturalist attempting the same
speculations will perhaps say) has Mr. D. . . .

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, September 25th [1853].

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

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

40 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1853.

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

In my own Cirripedial work (by the way, thank you for

the dose of soft solder ; it does one — or at least me — a great

deal of good) — in my own work I have not felt conscious

that disbelieving in the mere permanence of species has made

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

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

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

should have affixed names to remarkable varieties. Certainly

I have felt it humiliating, discussing and doubting, and

examining over and over again, when in my own mind the

only doubt has been whether the form varied to-day or

yesterday (not to put too fine a point on it, as Snagsby * would

say). After describing a set of forms as distinct species, tearing

up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that up

and making them separate, and then making them one

again (which has happened to me), I have gnashed my

teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed

to be so punished. But I must confess that perhaps nearly

the same thing would have happened to me on any scheme

of work.

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

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

1 853.] NEW ZEALAND FLORA. 4 1

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

[1853.]

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

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

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

* i

New Zealand Flora,' 1853.

42

GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.'

[1854.

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

Ever yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, March 26th [1854].
My DEAR HOOKER,— I had hoped that you would have
had a little breathing-time after your Journal, but this seems
to be very far from the case ; and I am the more obliged
(and somewhat contrite) for the long letter received this
morning, most juicy with news and most interesting to me in
many ways. I am very glad indeed to hear of the reforms,
&c, in the Royal Society. With respect to the Club,* I am
deeply interested ; only two or three days ago, I was regretting
to my wife, how I was letting drop and being dropped by
nearly all my acquaintances, and that I would endeavour to
go oftener to London ; I was not then thinking of the Club,
which, as far as any one thing goes, would answer my exact
object in keeping up old and making some new acquaintances.
I will therefore come up to London for every (with rare
exceptions) Club-day, and then my head, I think, will allow
me on an average to go to every other meeting. But it is

* The Philosophical Club, to
which my father was elected (as
Professor Bonney is good enough
to inform me) on April 24, 1854. He
resigned his membership in 1864.
The Club was founded in 1847.
The number of members being
limited to 47, it was proposed to
christen it " the Club of 47," but
the name was never adopted. The
nature of the Club may be gathered
from its first rule : " The purpose
of the Club is to promote as much
as possible the scientific objects of
the Royal Society ; to facilitate

intercourse between those Fellows
who are actively engaged in culti-
vating the various branches of
Natural Science, and who have
contributed to its progress ; to in-
crease the attendance at the evening
meetings, and to encourage the
contribution and discussion of
papers." The Club met for dinner
at 6, and the chair was to be
quitted at 8.15, it being expected
that members would go to the
Royal Society. Of late years the
dinner has been at 6 . 30, the Society
meeting in the afternoon.

1 8 54-] HUMBOLDT — AGASSIZ. 43

grievous how often any change knocks me up. I will further
pledge myself, as I told Lyell, to resign after a year, if I did
not attend pretty often, so that I should at worst encumber
the Club temporarily. If you can get me elected, I certainly
shall be very much pleased. Very many thanks for answers
about Glaciers. I am very glad to hear of the second Edit.*
so very soon ; but am not surprised, for I have heard of
several, in our small circle, reading it with very much pleasure.
I shall be curious to hear what Humboldt will say : it will, I
should think, delight him, and meet with more praise from
him than any other book of Travels, for I cannot remember
one, which has so many subjects in common with him. What
a wonderful old fellow he is. ... . By the way, I hope,
when you go to Hitcham,| towards the end of May, you will
be forced to have some rest. I am grieved to hear that all
the bad symptoms have not left Henslow ; it is so strange
and new to feel any uneasiness about his health. I am
particularly obliged to you for sending me Asa Gray's letter ;
how very pleasantly he writes. To see his and your caution
on the species-question ought to overwhelm me in confusion
and shame ; it does make me feel deuced uncomfortable. . . .
It is delightful to hear all that he says on Agassiz : how very
singular it is that so eminently clever a man, with such
immense knowledge on many branches of Natural History,
should write as he does. Lyell told me that he was so
delighted with one of his (Agassiz') lectures on progressive
development, &c. &c, that he went to him afterwards and
told him, " that it was so delightful, that he could not help
all the time wishing it was true." I seldom see a Zoological
paper from North America, without observing the impress of
Agassiz' doctrines, — another proof, by the way, of how great
a man he is. I was pleased and surprised to see A. Gray's
remarks on crossing, obliterating varieties, on which, as you
know, I have been collecting facts for these dozen years.

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

44 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1854.

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

Ever yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Nov. 5th [1854].

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

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

My dear Hooker, your sincere friend,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

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

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

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

I855-]

IXSECTA MADERENSIA.

45

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

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

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

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

46 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1855.

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

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

Most truly yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to W. D. Fox.

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

I855-] FEATHERS — SKELETONS. 47

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

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

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

I know you will help me if you can with information

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

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

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

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

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

48 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1855.

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

My dear Fox, your sincere old friend,

C. Darwin.

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

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

1 85 5.] MUTABILITY OF SPECIES. 49

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

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

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

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

C. Darwin to W. D. Fox.

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

50 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1855.

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

C. Darwin.

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

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

1855.] PIGEON FANCYING. 5 1

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

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

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

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

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

E 2

52 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1855.

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

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

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

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

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

I855-] MR« TEGETMEIER. 53

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

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

C. Darwin to W. D. Fox.

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

C. Darwin.

54 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1855.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

April 13th [1855].
... I have had one experiment some little time in
progress which will, I think, be interesting, namely, seeds
in salt water, immersed in water of 32°-33°, which I have
and shall long have, as I filled a great tank with snow.
When I wrote last I was going to triumph over you, for my
experiment had in a slight degree succeeded ; but this, with
infinite baseness, I did not tell, in hopes that you would
say that you would eat all the plants which I could raise
after immersion. It is very aggravating that I cannot in
the least remember what you did formerly say that made me
think you scoffed at the experiments vastly; for you now
seem to view the experiment like a good Christian. I have
in small bottles out of doors, exposed to variation of tempera-
ture, cress, radish, cabbages, lettuces, carrots, and celery, and
onion seed — four great families. These, after immersion for
exactly one week, have all germinated, which I did not in the
least expect (and thought how you would sneer at me) ; for
the water of nearly all, and of the cress especially, smelt
very badly, and the cress seed emitted a wonderful quantity
of mucus (the ' Vestiges ' would have expected them to turn
into tadpoles), so as to adhere in a mass ; but these seeds
germinated and grew splendidly. The germination of all
(especially cress and lettuces) has been accelerated, except the
cabbages, which have come up very irregularly, and a good
many, I think, dead. One would have thought, from their
native habitat, that the cabbage would have stood well. The
Umbelliferae and onions seem to stand the salt well. I wash
the seed before planting them. I have written to the
Gardeners' Chronicle* though I doubt whether it was worth

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

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

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

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

1855.] GERMINATION EXPERIMENTS. 55

while. If my success seems to make it worth while, I will
send a seed list, to get you to mark some different classes
of seeds. To-day I replant the same seeds as above after
fourteen days' immersion. As many sea-currents go a mile
an hour, even in a week they might be transported 168 miles ;
the Gulf Stream is said to go fifty and sixty miles a day.
So much and too much on this head ; but my geese are
always swans. . . .

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

[April 14th, 1855.]

. . . You are a good man to confess that you expected the
cress would be killed in a week, for this gives me a nice little
triumph. The children at first were tremendously eager, and
asked me often, "whether I should beat Dr. Hooker!" The
cress and lettuce have just vegetated well after twenty-one
days' immersion. But I will write no more, which is a great
virtue in me ; for it is to me a very great pleasure telling you
everything I do.

... If you knew some of the experiments (if they may be
so called) which] I am trying, you would have a good right
to sneer, for they are so absurd even in my opinion that I dare
not tell you.

Have not some men a nice notion of experimentising ?
I have had a letter telling me that seeds must have great
power of resisting salt water, for otherwise how could they
get to islands ? This is the true way to solve a problem !

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, [1855.]

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

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

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

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

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

Everything has been going wrong with me lately ; the fish
at the Zoolog. Soc. ate up lots of soaked seeds, and in
imagination they had in my mind been swallowed, fish and
all, by a heron, had been carried a hundred miles, been
voided on the banks of some other lake and germinated
splendidly, when lo and behold, the fish ejected vehemently,,
and with disgust equal to my own, all the seeds from their
mouths.*

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

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

1855.] SEEDS FLOATING. 57

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, May nth [1855].

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

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

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

58 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1855.

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

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

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

Farewell, Mr. Assistant Director and dear friend,

C. Darwin.

C. Danvin to J. D. Hooker.

June 5th, 1855.

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

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

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

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

1 85 5.] COLLECTING PLANTS. 59

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

more easily than at first in darkness I cannot make

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

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

Adios. I was really consummately impudent to express

6o

GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.'

[1855.

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

I have been very much interested with the Florula. f

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

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.%

Down, April 25th [1855].

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

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

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

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

1855.] SUGGESTIONS AND QUERIES. 6l

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

Dear sir, yours very faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, June 8th [1855].

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

* This suggestion Dr. Gray adopted in subsequent editions.

62 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1855.

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

I855-] SUGGESTIONS AND QUERIES. 63

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

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

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

64 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' [1855.

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

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

3S5-]

VITALITY OF SEEDS.

65

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

Yours very truly and gratefully,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, 1 8th [July, 1855].

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

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

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

VOL. II.

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

F

66 GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN.' Q1855.

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

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

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

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

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

( 6/ )

CHAPTER III.

THE UNFINISHED BOOK.
MAY 1856 TO JUNE 1 858.

[In the Autobiographical chapter (Vol. I. p. 84) my father
wrote :— " Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my
views pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a scale
three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards
followed in my ' Origin of Species ; ' yet it was only an
abstract of the materials which I had collected." The letters
in the present chapter are chiefly concerned with the prepara-
tion of this unfinished book.

The work was begun on May 14th, and steadily continued
up to June 1858, when it was interrupted by the arrival of
Mr. Wallace's MS. During the two years which we are now
considering, he wrote ten chapters (that is about one-haif) of
the projected book. He remained for the most part at home,
but paid several visits to Dr. Lane's Water- Cure Establish-
ment at Moor Park, during one of which he made a pilgrimage
to the shrine of Gilbert White at Selborne.]

LETTERS.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell

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

F 2

68 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

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

Yours,

C. Darwin.

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

May 9th [1856].
... I very much want advice and truthful consolation if
you can give it. I had a good talk with Lyell about my
species work, and he urges me strongly to publish something.
I am fixed against any periodical or Journal, as I positively
will not expose myself to an Editor or a Council, allowing a
publication for which they might be abused. If I publish

1856.] THE UNFINISHED BOOK. 69

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

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

unphilosophical to give a resume, without exact references, of

an unpublished work. But Lyell seemed to think I might

do this, at the suggestion of friends, and on the ground, which

I might state, that I had been at work for eighteen * years, and

yet could not publish for several years, and especially as I

could point out difficulties which seemed to me to require

especial investigation. Now what think you ? I should be

-really grateful for advice. I thought of giving up a couple of

months and writing such a sketch, and trying to keep my

judgment open whether or no to publish it when completed.

It will be simply impossible for me to give exact references ;

anything important I should state on the authority of the

author generally ; and instead of giving all the facts on

which I ground my opinion, I could give by memory only

one or two. In the Preface I would state that the work

could not be considered strictly scientific, but a mere sketch

or outline of a future work in which full references, &c,

should be given. Eheu, eheu, I believe I should sneer at

any one else doing this, and my only comfort is, that I

truly never dreamed of it, till Lyell suggested it, and seems

deliberately to think it advisable.

I am in a peck of troubles, and do pray forgive me for

troubling you.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

TO THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856-

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

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

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

be superfluous.

Yours truly obliged,

Ch. Darwin.

* The meaning of the sentence in parentheses is obscure.

1856.] THE UNFINISHED BOOK. fl

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

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

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

From a Letter to W. D. Fox.

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

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

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

72 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

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

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

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, 1 6th [June, 1856].

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

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

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

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

C. Darwin.

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

1856.] CONTINENTAL EXTENSION. 73

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker,

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

I have enjoyed your note much. Adios,

C. Darwin.

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

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

* i

The Variation of Species,' 1856.

74 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

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

C. Darwin to C, LyelL

Down, June 25th [1856].

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

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

1856.] CONTINENTAL EXTENSION. 75;

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

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

76 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

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

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

1856.] CONTINENTAL EXTENSION. J?

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

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

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

78 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

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

Yours most truly,

Charles Darwin.

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

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

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, July 20th [1856].

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

1856.] GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 79

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

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

So THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, July 30th, 1856.

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

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

* On the continental extensions of Forbes and others.

1856.] CLASSIFICATION. 8 1

Please return Lyell's letters.

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

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

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, August 5th [1856].

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

VOL. II. G

82 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856-

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

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

I thank you most sincerely for all your assistance ; and

1856.] SPECIFIC CENTRES. S$

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G 2

84 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

kind of work which his chapter on Geographical Distribution
entailed :

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

C. Darwin to W. D. Fox,

Oct. 3 [1856].

... I remember you protested against Lyell's advice
of writing a sketch of my species doctrines. Well, when I
began I found it such unsatisfactory work that I have
desisted, and am now drawing up my work as perfect as my
materials of nineteen years' collecting suffice, but do not
intend to stop to perfect any line of investigation beyond
current work. Thus far and no farther I shall follow Lyell's
urgent advice. Your remarks weighed with me considerably.
I find to my sorrow it will run to quite a big book. I have
found my careful work at pigeons really invaluable, as en-
lightening me on many points on variation under domesti-
cation. The copious old literature, by which I can trace the
gradual changes in the breeds of pigeons has been extra-
ordinarily useful to me. I have just had pigeons and fowls
alive from the Gambia ! Rabbits and ducks I am attending
to pretty carefully, but less so than pigeons. I find most re-
markable differences in the skeletons of rabbits. Have you
ever kept any odd breeds of rabbits, and can you give me
any details ? One other question. You used to keep hawks ;
do you at all know, after eating a bird, how soon after they
throw up the pellet ?

1856.] BOTANICAL GEOGRAPHY. 85

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

My dear Fox, yours affectionately,

Ch. Darwin.

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

" I am working very steadily at my big book ; I have
found it quite impossible to publish any preliminary essay or
sketch ; but am doing my work as completely as my present
materials allow without waiting to perfect them. And this
much acceleration I owe to you."]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Sunday [Oct. 1856].

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

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

S6 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

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

Your insane and perverse friend,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

■ C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Nov. 23rd [1856].

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

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

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

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

1856.] NATURAL SELECTION. 87

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

S8 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1856.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Dec. 24th [1856].

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

My dear Hooker, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, Jan. 1st [1857 ?]

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

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

1 857.] TREES AND SHRUBS. 89

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

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

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

90 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857.

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

With hearty thanks, your most troublesome friend,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, April 12th [1857].

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

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

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

1I857-] WATER-CURE. 91

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

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

o o

exogens. . . .

C. Darwin to jf. D. Hooker.

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

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

92 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857.

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

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

1857J NOVARA EXPEDITION. 93

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

Ever, my dear Hooker, yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

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

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

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

«

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

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

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

94 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857..

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

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

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

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

If the expedition sticks to such places as Rio, Cape

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

much.

Ever yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

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

" I am got most deeply interested in my subject ; though I
wish I could set less value on the bauble fame, either present
or posthumous, than I do, but not I think, to any extreme

I857.] ARGUMENT FROM DOMESTICATION. 9$

degree : yet, if I know myself, I would work just as hard,
though with less gusto, if I knew that my book would be
published for ever anonymously."]

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Moor Park, May 1st, 1857.
My DEAR Sir, — I am much obliged for your letter of
October 10th, from Celebes, received a few days ago ; in a
laborious undertaking, sympathy is a valuable and real en-
couragement. By your letter and even still more by your
paper * in the Annals', a year or more ago, I can plainly see
that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent have
come to similar conclusions. In regard to the Paper in the
Annals, I agree to the truth of almost every word of your
paper ; and I dare say that you will agree with me that it is
very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty closely with any
theoretical paper ; for it is lamentable how each man draws
his own different conclusions from the very same facts. This
summer will make the 20th year (!) since I opened my first
note-book, on the question how and in what way do species
and varieties differ from each other. I am now preparing my
work for publication, but I find the subject so very large, that
though I have written many chapters, I do not suppose I
shall go to press for two years. I have never heard how long
you intend staying in the Malay Archipelago ; I wish I might
profit by the publication of your Travels there before my
work appears, for no doubt you will reap a large harvest of
facts. I have acted already in accordance with your advice
of keeping domestic varieties, and those appearing in a state
of nature, distinct ; but I have sometimes doubted of the
wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad to be backed by your
opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt the truth

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

96 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857.

of the now very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic animals
having descended from several wild stocks ; though I do not
doubt that it is so in some cases. I think there is rather
better evidence on the sterility of hybrid animals than you
seem to admit : and in regard to plants the collection of
carefully recorded facts by Kolreuter and Gaertner (and
Herbert) is enormous. I most entirely agree with you on the
little effects of " climatal conditions," which one sees referred
to ad nauseam in all books : I suppose some very little effect
must be attributed to such influences, but I fully believe that
they are very slight. It is really impossible to explain my
views (in the compass of a letter), on the causes and means of
variation in a state of nature ; but I have slowly adopted a
distinct and tangible idea, — whether true or false others must
judge ; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a doctrine by
its author, seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee of
truth ! . . .

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker?

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

1 857.] VARIABILITY. 97

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [May] 16th [1857].

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

VOL. II. H

gS THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857U

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

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

1857.] VARIABILITY. 99

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

H 2

100 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857.

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

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

My dear Hooker, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to jf. D. Hooker.

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

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

* The Royal Society's medals.

1 857.] MEDALS. 101

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

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

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

.102 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857.

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

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

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

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

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

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

genus.

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

friends and philosophers.

Adios,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

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

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

3857.] LARGE GENERA VARYING. IO3

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

varieties and species are so hardly distinguishable, I concluded

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

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

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

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

to at least the possibility or the probability of botanists

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

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

conclusion.

Ever yours, most truly,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

July 14th [1857?]

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

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

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

104 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857.

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

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

and am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and

presumption.

Ever yours, most miserably,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to John Lubbock.

Down, [July] 14th [1857].

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

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

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

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

What a disgraceful blunder you have saved me from. I

heartily thank you.

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

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

1857.] LARGE GENERA VARYING. 105

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Aug. [1857].

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

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

Babington . . . . . "j

Henslow ......> British Flora.

London Catalogue. H. C. Watson . J

Boreau .... France.

Miquel .... Holland.

Asa Gray U. States.

TT , ( N. Zealand.

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

[ Fragment of Indian Flora.

Wollaston .... Madeira insects.

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

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

106 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857.

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

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, Feb. 21st [1859].

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

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

Yours most truly obliged,

Ch. Darwin.

a 857.] LARGE GENERA VARYING. IO7

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, May 6th [1858].

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

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

108 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857.

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

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

a horrid job.

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

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

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

1857.] CONTINENTAL EXTENSION. IO9

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

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

You ask whether I shall discuss " man." I think I shall
avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices ;
though I fully admit that it is the highest and most interesting
problem for the naturalist. My work, on which I have now
been at work more or less for twenty years, will not fix or
settle anything ; but I hope it will aid by giving a large col-
lection of facts, with one definite end. I get on very slowly,
partly from ill-health, partly from being a very slow worker.

IIO THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1858-

I have got about half written ; but I do not suppose I shall
publish under a couple of years. I have now been three
whole months on one chapter on Hybridism !

I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three-
or four years more. What a wonderful deal you will have
seen, and what interesting areas — the grand Malay Archi-
pelago and the richest parts of South America ! I infinitely
admire and honour your zeal and courage in the good cause of
Natural Science; and you have myjvery sincere and cordial
good wishes for success of all kinds, and may all your theories-
succeed, except that on Oceanic Islands, on which subject I
will do battle to the death.

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

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to W. D. Fox.

Feb. 8th [1858].
... I am working very hard at my book, perhaps too-
hard. It will be very big, and I am become most deeply
interested in the way facts fall into groups. I am like
Crcesus overwhelmed with my riches in facts, and I mean
to make my book as perfect as ever I can. I shall not
go to press at soonest for a couple of years. . . .

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Feb. 23rd [1858].

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

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

* ' The History of Civilisation.'

1858.] STRIPED HORSES. II]

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

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

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

Forgive your intolerable but affectionate friend,

C. Darwin..

C. Danvin to W. D. Fox.

Down, April 16th [1858J.

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

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

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

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

112 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1858.

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

C. Darwin.

C. Darzvin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

My dear friend, yours,

C, D.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

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

1858.] FLOATING ICE. 113

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

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

£ Darwin to Mrs. Darwin.

Moor Park, Wednesday, April [1858].
The weather is quite delicious. Yesterday, after writing to
you, I strolled a little beyond the glade for an hour and a half,
VOL. 11. I

114 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1858.

and enjoyed myself — the fresh yet dark-green of the grand
Scotch firs, the brown of the catkins of the old birches, with
their white stems, and a fringe of distant green from the
larches, made an excessively pretty view. At last I fell fast
asleep on the grass, and awoke with a chorus of birds singing
around me, and squirrels running up the trees, and some
woodpeckers laughing, and it was as pleasant and rural a
scene as ever I saw, and I did not care one penny how any of
the beasts or birds had been formed. I sat in the drawing-
room till after eight, and then went and read the Chief
Justice's summing up, and thought Bernard * guilty, and then
read a bit of my novel, which is feminine, virtuous, clerical,
philanthropical, and all that sort of thing, but very decidedly
flat. I say feminine, for the author is ignorant about money
matters, and not much of a lady — for she makes her men say,
" My Lady." I like Miss Craik very much, though we have
some battles, and differ on every subject. I like also the
Hungarian ; a thorough gentleman, formerly attache at Paris,
and then in the Austrian cavalry, and now a pardoned exile,
with broken health. He does not seem to like Kossuth, but
says, he is certain [he is] a sincere patriot, most clever and
eloquent, but weak, with no determination of character. . . .

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

II

CHAPTER IV.

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

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

My father's contribution of the paper consisted of (1) Ex-
tracts from the sketch of 1844; (2) part of a letter addressed
to Dr. Asa Gray, dated September 5, 1857, and which is
given at p. 120. The paper was "communicated" to the
Society by Sir Charles Lyell and Sir Joseph Hooker, in
whose prefatory letter, a clear account of the circumstances
of the case is given.

Referring to Mr. Wallace's Essay, they wrote : —
" So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate the value of the
views therein set forth, that he proposed, in a letter to Sir
Charles Lyell, to obtain Mr. Wallace's consent to allow the
Essay to be published as soon as possible. Of this step we
highly approved, provided Mr. Darwin did not withhold from
the public, as he was strongly inclined to do (in favour of

I 2

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

Mr. Wallace), the memoir which he had himself written on
the same subject, and which, as before stated, one of us had
perused in 1844, and the contents of which we had both of
us been privy to for many years. On representing this to
Mr. Darwin, he gave us permission to make what use we
thought proper of his memoir, &c. ; and in adopting our
present course, of presenting it to the Linnean Society, we
have explained to him that we are not solely considering the
relative claims to priority of himself and his friend, but the
interests of science generally."]

LETTERS.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, 1 8th [June 1858].

MY DEAR Lyell, — Some year or so ago you recommended
me to read a paper by Wallace in the 'Annals,' * which had
interested you, and, as I was writing to him, I knew this
would please him much, so I told him. He has to-day sent
me the enclosed, and asked me to forward it to you.. It seems
to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a
vengeance — that I should be forestalled. You said this, when
I explained to you here very briefly my views of ' Natural
Selection ' depending on the struggle for existence. I never
saw a more striking coincidence ; if Wallace had my MS.
sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better
short abstract ! Even his terms now stand as heads of my
chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say
he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write
and offer to send to any journal. So all my originality, what-
ever it may amount to, will be smashed, though my book,

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

185&] MR. WALLACE'S MANUSCRIPT. II7

if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated ; as all
the labour consists in the application of the theory.

I hope you will approve of Wallace's sketch, that I may
tell him what you say.

My dear Lyell, yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, Friday [June 25, 1858].

My DEAR LYELL, — I am very sorry to trouble you, busy
as you are, in so merely personal an affair ; but if you will
give me your deliberate opinion, you will do me as great a
service as ever man did, for I have entire confidence in your
judgment and honour. . . .

There is nothing in Wallace's sketch which is not written
out much fuller in my sketch, copied out in 1844, and read by
Hooker some dozen years ago. About a year ago I sent a
short sketch, of which I have a copy, of my views (owing to
correspondence on several points) to Asa Gray, so that I could
most truly say and prove that I take nothing from Wallace.
I should be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my
general views in about a dozen pages or so ; but I cannot
persuade myself that I can do so honourably. Wallace says
nothing about publication, and I enclose his letter. But as I
had not intended to publish any sketch, can I do so honourably,
because Wallace has sent me an outline of his doctrine ? I
would far rather burn my whole book, than that he or any
other man should think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit.
Do you not think his having sent me this sketch ties my
hands ? .... If I could honourably publish, I would state
that I was induced now to publish a sketch (and I should be
very glad to be permitted to say, to follow your advice long
ago given) from Wallace having sent me an outline of my
general conclusions. We differ only, [in] that I was led to my

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

views from what artificial selection has done for domestic
animals. I would send Wallace a copy of my letter to Asa
Gray, to show him that I had not stolen his doctrine. But I
cannot tell whether to publish now would not be base and
paltry. This was my first impression, and I should have
certainly acted on it had it not been for your letter.

This is a trumpery affair to trouble you with, but you
cannot tell how much obliged I should be for your advice.

By the way, would you object to send this and your answer
to Hooker to be forwarded to me, for then I shall have the
opinion of my two best and kindest friends. This letter
is miserably written, and I write it now, that I may for
a time banish the whole subject ; and I am worn out with
musing . . .

My good dear friend, forgive me. This is a trumpery letter,
influenced by trumpery feelings.

Yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to C. LyelL

Down, 26th [June 1858].

My DEAR LYELL, — Forgive me for adding a P.S. to make
the case as strong as possible against myself.

Wallace might say, "You did not intend publishing an
abstract of your views till you received my communication.
Is it fair to take advantage of my having freely, though
unasked, communicated to you my ideas, and thus prevent
me forestalling you ? " The advantage which I should take
being that I am induced to publish from privately knowing
that Wallace is in the field. It seems hard on me that I
should be thus compelled to lose my priority of many years'
standing, but I cannot feel at all sure that this alters the

1858.] THE "LINNEAN" PAPER. II9

justice of the case. First impressions are generally right, and

I at first thought it would be dishonourable in me now to

publish.

Yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darzvin to J. D. Hooker,

Down, Tuesday [June 29, 1858].

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

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

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darzvin to J. D. Hooker.

Tuesday night [June 29, 1858].

My DEAR HOOKER, — I have just read your letter, and see
you want the papers at once. I am quite prostrated, and
can do nothing, but I send Wallace, and the abstract f of my
letter to Asa Gray, which gives most imperfectly only the
means of change, and does not touch on reasons for believing
that species do change. I dare say all is too late. I hardly

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

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

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

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

care about it. But you are too generous to sacrifice so much
time and kindness. It is most generous, most kind. I send
my sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own
handwriting that you did read it. I really cannot bear to
look at it. Do not waste much time. It is miserable in me
to care at all about priority.

The table of contents will show what it is.

I would make a similar, but shorter and more accurate
sketch for the ' Linnean Journal.'

I will do anything. God bless you, my dear kind friend.

I can write no more. I send this by my servant to Kew.

Yours,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to Asa Gray,

Down, Sept.* 5th [1857].

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

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

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

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

1858.] THE LETTER TO DR. GRAY. 121

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

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

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

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

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

1858.] THE LETTER TO DR. GRAY. 12

-%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1858.] THE LETTER TO DR. GRAY. 125

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

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

C. D.

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

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

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

present the necessity of giving the most careful consideration
to what they had heard. There was, however, no semblance
of a discussion. Sir Joseph Hooker writes to me : " The
interest excited was intense, but the subject was too novel
and too ominous for the old school to enter the lists, before
armouring. After the meeting it was talked over with bated
breath : Lyell's approval, and perhaps in a small way mine,
as his lieutenant in the affair, rather overawed the Fellows,
who would otherwise have flown out against the doctrine.
We had, too, the vantage ground of being familiar with the
authors and their theme."]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, July 5th [1858].

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

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

1858.] THE PROPOSED BOOK. \2J

idea how many pages of the Journal could probably be spared

me ?

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

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

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

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

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

* The Sketch of 1844.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Miss Wedgwood's, Hartfield, Tunbridge Wells,

[July 13th, 1858].

My dear Hooker, — Your letter to Wallace seems to me
perfect, quite clear and most courteous. I do not think it
could possibly be improved, and I have to-day forwarded it
with a letter of my own. I always thought it very possible
that I might be forestalled, but I fancied that I had a grand
enough soul not to care ; but I found myself mistaken and
punished ; I had, however, quite resigned myself, and had
written half a letter to Wallace to give up all priority to him,
and should certainly not have changed had it not been for
Lyell's and your quite extraordinary kindness. I assure you
I feel it, and shall not forget it. I am more than satisfied at
what took place at the Linnean Society. I had thought
that your letter and mine to Asa Gray were to be only an
appendix to Wallace's paper.

We go from here in a few days to the sea-side, probably
to the Isle of Wight, and on my return (after a battle with
pigeon skeletons) I will set to work at the abstract, though
how on earth I shall make anything of an abstract in thirty
pages of the Journal, I know not, but will try my best. I shall
order Bentham ; is it not a pity that you should waste time
in tabulating varieties ? for I can get the Down schoolmaster
to do it on my return, and can tell you all the results.

I must try and see you before your journey ; but do not
think I am fishing to ask you to come to Down, for you will
have no time for that.

You cannot imagine how pleased I am that the notion of
Natural Selection has acted as a purgative on your bowels of
immutability. Whenever naturalists can look at species
changing as certain, what a magnificent field will be open, —
on all the laws of variation, — on the genealogy of all living
beings, — on their lines of migration, &c. &c. Pray thank

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

Mrs. Hooker for her very kind little note, and pray say how
truly obliged I am, and in truth ashamed to think that she
should have had the trouble of copying my ugly MS. It was
extraordinarily kind in her. Farewell, my dear kind friend.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — I have had some fun here in watching a slave-making
ant ; for I could not help rather doubting the wonderful
stories, but I have now seen a defeated marauding party,
and I have seen a migration from one nest to another of the
slave-makers, carrying their slaves (who are Iwuse, and not
field niggers) in their mouths !

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

C. Darwin to C. LyelL

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

July 1 8th [1858].

. . . We are established here for ten days, and then go on
to Shanklin, which seems more amusing to one, like myself,
who cannot walk. We hope much that the sea may do H.
and L. good. And if it does, our expedition will answer, but
not otherwise.

I have never half thanked you for all the extraordinary
trouble and kindness you showed me about Wallace's affair.
Hooker told me what was done at the Linnean Society, and I
am far more than satisfied, and I do not think that Wallace can
think my conduct unfair in allowing you and Hooker to do
whatever you thought fair. I certainly was a little annoyed
to lose all priority, but had resigned myself to my fate. I am

VOL. II. K

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

going to prepare a longer abstract ; but it is really impossible
to do justice to the subject, except by giving the facts on
which each conclusion is grounded, and that will, of course,
be absolutely impossible. Your name and Hooker's name
appearing as in any way the least interested in my work
will, I am certain, have the most important bearing in leading
people to consider the subject without prejudice. I look at
this as so very important, that I am almost glad of Wallace's
paper for having led to this.

My dear Lyell, yours most gratefully,

Ch. Darwin.

[The following letter refers to the proof-sheets of the
Linnean paper. The ' introduction ' means the prefatory
letter signed by Sir C. Lyell and Sir J. D. Hooker.]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

July 21st [1858].

My DEAR HOOKER, — I received only yesterday the proof-
sheets, which I now return. I think your introduction cannot
be improved.

I am disgusted with my bad writing. I could not improve
it, without rewriting all, which would not be fair or worth
while, as I have begun on a better abstract for the Linnean
Society. My excuse is that it never was intended for publica-
tion. I have made only a few corrections in the style ; but I
cannot make it decent, but I hope moderately intelligible. I
suppose some one will correct the revise. (Shall I ?)

Could I have a clean proof to send to Wallace ?

I have not yet fully considered your remarks on big genera
(but your general concurrence is of the highest possible interest
to me) ; nor shall I be able till I re-read my MS. ; but you
may rely on it that you never make a remark to me which is

1858.] THE 'ABSTRACT.' 131

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

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

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

I am very glad at what you say about my Abstract, but
you may rely on it that I will condense to the utmost. I
would aid in money if it is too long.* In how many way^
you have aided me !

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

[The ' Abstract ' mentioned in the last sentence of the pre-
ceding letter was in fact the ' Origin of Species,' on which he
now set to work. In his 'Autobiography' (p. 85) he speaks
of beginning to write in September, but in his Diary he
wrote, "July 20 to Aug. 12, at Sandown, began Abstract of
Species book." "Sep. 16, Recommenced Abstract" The
book was begun with the idea that it would be published as
a paper, or series of papers, by the Linnean Society, and ii
was only in the late autumn that it became clear that it
must take the form of an independent volume.]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight.

Friday [July] 30th [1858].

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

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

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

requires no answer.

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

K 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

* ' British Flora.'

1858.] THE 'ABSTRACT.' 1 33

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight.

Thursday [Aug. 5, 1858].

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

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

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

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

* The larger book begun in 1856.

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight.

[August 1858.]

My DEAR HOOKER, — I write merely to say that the MS.
came safely two or three days ago. I am much obliged for
the correction of style : I find it unutterably difficult to write
clearly. When we meet I must talk over a few points on the
subject.

You speak of going to the sea-side somewhere ; we think
this the nicest sea-side place which we have ever seen,
and we like Shanklin better than other spots on the south
coast of the island, though many are charming and prettier,
so that I would suggest your thinking of this place. We are
on the actual coast ; but tastes differ so much about places.

If you go to Broadstairs, when there is a strong wind from
the coast of France and in fine, dry, warm weather, look out
and you will probably (!) see thistle-seeds blown across the
Channel. The other day I saw one blown right inland, and
then in a few minutes a second one and then a third ; and I
said to myself, God bless me, how many thistles there must be
in France ; and I wrote a letter in imagination to you. But
I then looked at the low clouds, and noticed that they were
not coming inland, so I feared a screw was loose, I then walked
beyond a headland and found the wind parallel to the coast,
and on this very headland a noble bed of thistles, which by
every wide eddy were blown far out to sea, and then came
right in at right angles to the shore ! One day such a number
of insects were washed up by the tide, and I brought to life
thirteen species of Coleoptera ; not that I suppose these came
from France. But do you watch for thistle-seed as you saunter
along; the coast.

'fc> *-AA<- *-\_/«.OL. . . I

1858.] CLIMATE AND MIGRATION. 1 35

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Aug. nth [1858].

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

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

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

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

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

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

1858.] CLIMATE AND MIGRATION. 1 37

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

[Down,] Oct. 6th, 1858.

... If you have or can make leisure, I should very much
like to hear news of Mrs. Hooker, yourself, and the children.
Where did you go, and what did you do and are doing?
There is a comprehensive text.

You cannot tell how I enjoyed your little visit here. It
did me much good. If Harvey is still with you, pray
remember me very kindly to him.

... I am working most steadily at my Abstract, but it
grows to an inordinate length ; yet fully to make my view
clear (and never giving briefly more than a fact or two, and
slurring over difficulties), I cannot make it shorter. It will
yet take me three or four months ; so slow do I work, though
never idle. You cannot imagine what a service you have

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

done me in making me make this Abstract ; for though I
thought I had got all clear, it has clarified my brains very
much, by making me weigh the relative importance of the
several elements.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Oct. 1 2th, 1858.

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

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

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

What a splendid lot of work you have in hand.

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Oct. 13th, 1858.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My dear Hooker, yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Nov. 1858.

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

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

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

[About this time my father revived his old knowledge of
beetles in helping his boys in their collecting. He sent a
short notice to the ' Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer,' June
25th, 1859, recording the capture of Licimis silphoides, Clytus
mysticus, Pa?iagceus 4-pustulatus. The notice begins with
the words, " We three very young collectors having lately
taken in the parish of Down," &c, and is signed by three
of his boys, but was clearly not written by them. I have
a vivid recollection of the pleasure of turning out my bottle
of dead beetles for my father to name, and the excitement,
in which he fully shared, when any of them proved to
be uncommon ones. The following letters to Mr. Fox
(November 13, 1858), and to Sir John Lubbock, illustrate
this point :]

C. Darwin to W. D. Fox.

Down, Nov. 13th [1858].
. . . W., my son, is now at Christ's College, in the rooms
above yours. My old Gyp, Impey, was astounded to hear
that he was my son, and very simply asked, "Why, has
he been long married ? " What pleasant hours those were
when I used to come and drink coffee with you daily ! I
am reminded of old days by my third boy having just begun
collecting beetles, and he caught the other day Brachinus
crepitans, of immortal Whittlesea Mere memory. My blood
boiled with old ardour when he caught a Licinus — a prize
unknown to me . . .

1858.] ENTOMOLOGY. 141

C. Darwin to John Ltibbock.

Thursday [before 1857].

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

I feel like an old war-horse at the sound of the trumpet,
when I read about the capturing of rare beetles — is not this a
magnanimous simile for a decayed entomologist ? — It really
almost makes me long to begin collecting again. Adios.

" Floreat Entomologia " ! — to which toast at Cambridge I
have drunk many a glass of wine. So again, " Floreat En-
tomologia." N.B. I have not now been drinking any glasses

full of wine.

Yours,

CD.

C. Darwin to Herbert Spencer,

Down, Nov. 25th [1858].

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

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

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

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

Yours truly obliged,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Dec. 24th [1858].

My DEAR HOOKER, — Your news about your unsolicited

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

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

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

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

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

1858.] PLANS FOR PUBLICATION. 143

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Jan. 20th, 1859.

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

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

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

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

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

1 859.] MR. WALLACE. 145

I have heard to my amazement this morning from Phillips

that the Geological Council have given me the Wollaston

Medal ! ! !

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Jan. 23rd, 1859.

... I enclose letters to you and me from Wallace. I ad-
mire extremely the spirit in which they are written. I never felt
very sure what he would say. He must be an amiable man.
Please return that to me, and Lyell ought to be told how
well satisfied he is. These letters have vividly brought before
me how much I owe to your and Lyell's most kind and
generous conduct in all this affair.

. . . How glad I shall be when the Abstract is finished,
and I can rest ! . . .

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, Jan. 25th [1859].

My dear Sir, — I was extremely much pleased at receiving
three days ago your letter to me and that to Dr. Hooker.
Permit me to say how heartily I admire the spirit in which
they are written. Though I had absolutely nothing whatever
to do in leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought a
fair course of action, yet I naturally could not but feel anxious
to hear what your impression would be. I owe indirectly
much to you and them ; for I almost think that Lyell would
have proved right, and I should never have completed my
larger work, for I have found my Abstract hard enough with
my poor health, but now, thank God, I am in my last chapter
but one. My Abstract will make a small volume of 400 or
500 pages. Whenever published, I will, of course, send you a
copy, and then you will see what I mean about the part
which I believe selection has played with domestic produc-

YOL. II. L

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

tions. It is a very different part, as you suppose, from that
played by " Natural Selection." I sent oft^ by the same address
as this note, a copy of the ' Journal of the Linnean Society/
and subsequently I have sent some half-dozen copies of the
paper. I have many other copies at your disposal. . . .

I am glad to hear that you have been attending to birds'
nests. I have done so, though almost exclusively under one
point of view, viz. to show that instincts vary, so that selec-
tion could work on and improve them. Few other instincts,
so to speak, can be preserved in a Museum.

Many thanks for your offer to look after horses' stripes ; if
there are any donkeys, pray add them. I am delighted

to hear that you have collected bees' combs This is

an especial hobby of mine, and I think I can throw a light
on the subject. If you can collect duplicates, at no very
great expense, I should be glad of some specimens for myself
with some bees of each kind. Young, growing, and irregular
combs, and those which have not had pupae, are most valuable
for measurements and examination. Their edges should be
well protected against abrasion.

Every one whom I have seen has thought your paper very
well written and interesting. It puts my extracts (written in
1839, now just twenty years ago !), which I must say in apo-
logy were never for an instant intended for publication, into
the shade.

You ask about Lyell's frame of mind. I think he is some-
what staggered, but does not give in, and speaks with horror,
often to me, of what a thing it would be, and what a job it
would be for the next edition of ' The Principles,' if he were
" perverted." But he is most candid and honest, and I think
will end by being perverted. Dr! Hooker has become almost
as heterodox as you or I, and I look at Hooker as by far the
most capable judge in Europe.

Most cordially do I wish you health and entire success in
all your pursuits, and, God knows, if admirable zeal and
energy deserve success, most amply do you deserve it. I look

1 859.] GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 147

at my own career as nearly run out. If I can publish my
Abstract and perhaps my greater work on the same subject,
I shall look at my course as done.

Believe me, my dear sir, yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, March 2nd [1859].

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

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

L 2

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

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

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, March 5th [1859].

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

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

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

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

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

1 859.] GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 1 49

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

With hearty thanks, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

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

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

I have been much interested in working out the chapter.

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

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

C. Darwin to W. D. Fox.

Down, [March] 24th [1859].

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

We are all pretty well, and our eldest daughter is improving.
I can see daylight through my work, and am now finally
correcting my chapters for the press ; and I hope in a month
or six weeks to have proof-sheets. I am weary of my work.
It is a very odd thing that I have no sensation that I over-
work my brain ; but facts compel me to conclude that my
brain was never formed for much thinking. We are resolved
to go for two or three months, when I have finished, to Ilkley,
or some such place, to see if I can anyhow give my health
a good start, for it certainly has been wretched of late, and
has incapacitated me for everything. You do me injustice
when you think that I work for fame ; I value it to a certain
extent ; but, if I know myself, I work from a sort of instinct
to try to make out truth. How glad I should be if you could
sometime come to Down ; especially when I get a little better,

1 859.] PLANS FOR PUBLICATION. 151

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, March 28th [1859].

My DEAR Lyell, — If I keep decently well, I hope to be
able to go to press with my volume early in May. This being
so, I want much to beg a little advice from you. From an
expression in Lady Lyell's note, I fancy that you have
spoken to Murray. Is it so ? And is he willing to publish
my Abstract ? If you will tell me whether anything, and
what has passed, I will then write to him. Does he know at
all of the subject of the book? Secondly, can you advise me,
whether I had better state what terms of publication I should
prefer, or first ask him to propose terms ? And what do you
think would be fair terms for an edition ? Share profits, or
what ?

Lastly, will you be so very kind as to look at the enclosed
title and give me your opinion and any criticisms ; you must
remember that, if I have health and it appears worth doing, I
have a much larger and full book on the same subject nearly
ready.

My Abstract will be about five hundred pages of the size of
your first edition of the ' Elements of Geology.'

Pray forgive me troubling you with the above queries ; and
you shall have no more trouble on the subject. I hope the
world goes well with you, and that you are getting on with
your various works.

I am working very hard for me, and long to finish and be
free and try to recover some health.

My dear Lyell, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

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

P.S. — Would you advise me to tell Murray that my book
is not more &?z-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable.
That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring
in any discussion about Genesis, &c. &c, and only give facts>
and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.

Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that
he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact
is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs slap
counter to Genesis.

Enclosure.

AN ABSTRACT OF AN ESSAY

ON THE

ORIGIN

OF

SPECIES AND VARIETIES

THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION
BY

Charles Darwin, M.A.

FELLOW OF THE ROYAL, GEOLOGICAL, AND LINNEAN SOCIETIES

LONDON :

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

1859.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, March 30th [1859].

My DEAR LYELL, — You have been uncommonly kind in
all you have done. You not only have saved me much
trouble and some anxiety, but have done all incomparably
better than I could have done it. I am much pleased at
all you say about Murray. I will write either to-day or
to-morrow to him, and will send shortly a large bundle of

1 859.] PLANS FOR PUBLICATION. I 53

MS., but unfortunately I cannot for a week, as the first three
chapters are in the copyists' hands.

I am sorry about Murray objecting to the term Abstract,
as I look at it as the only possible apology for not giving
references and facts in full, but I will defer to him and you.
I am also sorry about the term " natural selection." I hope
to retain it with explanation somewhat as thus : —

" Through natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races."

Why I like the term is that it is constantly used in all
works on breeding, and I am surprised that it is not familiar
to Murray ; but I have so long studied such works that I
have ceased to be a competent judge.

I again most truly and cordially thank you for your
really valuable assistance.

Yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

C. Darivin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, April 2nd [1859].

.... I wrote to him [Mr. Murray] and gave him the
headings of the chapters, and told him he could not have the
MS. for ten days or so ; and this morning I received a letter,
offering me handsome terms, and agreeing to publish with-
out seeing the MS.! So he is eager enough; I think I
should have been cautious, anyhow, but, owing to your letter,
I told him most explicitly that I accept his offer solely on con-
dition that, after he has seen part or all the MS., he has full
power of retracting. You will think me presumptuous, but
I think my book will be popular to a certain extent (enough
to ensure [against] heavy loss) amongst scientific and semi-
scientific men ; why I think so is, because I have found in
conversation so great and surprising an interest amongst such
men, and some O-scientific [non-scientific] men on this subject,

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

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

I shall be delighted to see you the day before Good
Friday ; there would be one advantage for you in any other
day — as I believe both my boys come home on that day —
and it would be almost impossible that I could send the
carriage for you. There will, I believe, be some relations in
the house — but I hope you will not care for that, as we shall
easily get as much talking as my imbecile state allows. I
shall deeply enjoy seeing you.

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

My dear Hooker, your affectionate,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — Please to send, well tied up with strong string, my
Geographical MS., towards the latter half of next week —
i.e. 7th or 8th — that I may send it with more to Murray ;
and God help him if he tries to read it.

.... I cannot help a little doubting whether Lyell would
take much pains to induce Murray to publish my book ; this
was not done at my request, and it rather grates against my
pride.

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

C. Darwi?i to Asa Gray.

April 4th [1859].

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

1859.] DIFFICULTIES. 1 55

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. Murray.

Down, April 5th [1859].

My DEAR Sir, — I send by this post, the Title (with some
remarks on a separate page), and the first three chapters.
If you have patience to read all Chapter I., I honestly think
you will have a fair notion of the interest of the whole book.
It may be conceit, but I believe the subject will interest
the public, and I am sure that the views are original. If you
think otherwise, I must repeat my request that you will freely

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

reject my work ; and though I shall be a little disappointed,
I shall be in no way injured.

If you choose to read Chapters II. and III., you will have
a dull and rather abstruse chapter, and a plain and interesting
one, in my opinion.

As soon as you have done with the MS., please to send it
by car ef til messenger, a?id plainly directed, to Miss G. Tollett,
14, Queen Anne Street, Cavendish Square.

This lady, being an excellent judge of style, is going to
look out for errors for me.

You must take your own time, but the sooner you finish,
the sooner she will, and the sooner I shall get to press, which
I so earnestly wish.

I presume you will wish to see Chapter IV., the key-stone

of my arch, and Chapters X. and XL, but please to inform

me on this head.

My dear Sir, yours sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, April nth [1859].

... I write one line to say that I heard from Murray
yesterday, and he says he has read the first three chapters of
one MS. (and this includes a very dull one, and he abides by
his offer). Hence he does not want more MS., and you can
send my Geographical chapter when it pleases you. . . .

[Part of the MS. seems to have been lost on its way back
to my father, he wrote (April 14) to Sir J. D. Hooker :

" I have the old MS., otherwise, the loss would have killed
me ! The worst is now that it will cause delay in getting to
press, and far worst of all, I lose all advantage of your having
looked over my chapter, except the third part returned. I
am very sorry Mrs. Hooker took the trouble of copying the
two pages."]

1 859.] STYLE. 157

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

[April or May, 1859.]

. . . Please do not say to any one that I thought my
book on Species would be fairly popular, and have a fairly
remunerative sale (which was the height of my ambition),
for if it prove a dead failure, it would make me the more
ridiculous.

I enclose a criticism, a taste of the future —

Rev. S, Haughtoris Address to the Geological Society, Dublin*

"This speculation of Messrs. Darwin and Wallace would
not be worthy of notice were it not for the weight of authority
of the names {i.e. Lyell's and yours), under whose auspices it
has been brought forward. If it means what it says, it is a
truism ; if it means anything more, it is contrary to fact."

Q. E. D.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, May nth [1859].

My DEAR HOOKER, — Thank you for telling me about
obscurity of style. But on my life no nigger with lash over
him could have worked harder at clearness than I have done.
But the very difficulty to me, of itself leads to the probability
that I fail. Yet one lady who has read all my MS. has
found only two or three obscure sentences, but Mrs. Hooker
having so found it, makes me tremble. I will do my best in
proofs. You are a good man to take the trouble to write
about it.

With respect to our mutual muddle, f I never for a moment

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

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

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

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

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

thought we could not make our ideas clear to each other by
talk, or if either of us had time to write in extenso.

I imagine from some expressions (but if you ask me what,
I could not answer) that you look at variability as some
necessary contingency with organisms, and further that there
is some necessary tendency in the variability to go on
diverging in character or degree. If you do, I do not agree.
" Reversion " again (a form of inheritance), I look at as in
no way directly connected with Variation, though of course
inheritance is of fundamental importance to us, for if a
variation be not inherited, it is of no signification to us. It
was on such points as these I fancied that we perhaps started
differently.

I fear that my book will not deserve at all the pleasant
things you say about it ; and Good Lord, how I do long to
have done with it !

Since the above was written, I have received and have
been much interested by A. Gray. I am delighted at his
note about my and Wallace's paper. He will go round, for
it is futile to give up very many species, and stop at an
arbitrary line at others. It is what my grandfather called
Unitarianism, " a feather bed to catch a falling Christian." . . .

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, May 18th [1859].

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

In haste, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

I859-] PROOF SHEETS. 159

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. Mtirray.

Down, June 14th [1859].
My DEAR Sir, — The diagram will do very well, and I
will send it shortly to Mr. West to have a few trifling
corrections made.

I get on very slowly with proofs. I remember writing to
you that I thought there would be not much correction. I
honestly wrote what I thought, but was most grievously
mistaken. I find the style incredibly bad, and most difficult
to make clear and smooth. I am extremely sorry to say, on
account of expense, and loss of time for me, that the cor-
rections are very heavy, as heavy as possible. But from
casual glances, I still hope that later chapters are not so
badly written. How I could have written so badly is quite
inconceivable, but I suppose it was owing to my whole
attention being fixed on the general line of argument, and
not on details. All I can say is, that I am very sorry.

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

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

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

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, June 21st [1859].

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

My dear Lyell, ever yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, 22nd [June, 1859].

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

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

1859J PROOF SHEETS. l6l

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

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

Adios, my dear Hooker, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. ]\Iiirray.

Down, July 25th [1859].

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

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

My dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

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

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

VOL. II. M

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

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

1 859.] HEALTH. 163

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

Believe me, yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Sept. 1st [1859].

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

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

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

M 2

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

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

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

Farewell, my dear Hooker, your affectionate friend,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, Sept. 2nd [1859].

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

* The diagram illustrates descent with divergence.

1859.] FROOF SHEETS FINISHED. 16$

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, [Sept.] nth [1859].

My DEAR HOOKER, — I corrected the last proof yesterday,
and I have now my revises, index, &c, which will take me
near to the end of the month. So that the neck of my
work, thank God, is broken.

I write now to say that I am uneasy in my conscience
about hesitating to look over your proofs, but I was feeling
miserably unwell and shattered when I wrote. I do not
suppose I could be of hardly any use, but if I could, pray
send me any proofs. I should be (and fear I was) the most
ungrateful man to hesitate to do anything for you after some
fifteen or more years' help from you.

As soon as ever I have fairly finished I shall be off to Ilkley,
or some other Hydropathic establishment. But I shall be some
time yet, as my proofs have been so utterly obscured with
corrections, that I have to correct heavily on revises.

Murray proposes to publish the first week in November.
Oh, good heavens, the relief to my head and body to banish
the whole subject from my mind !

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

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

Farewell, yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell,

Down, Sept. 20th [1859].

My dear Lyell. — You once gave me intense pleasure, or
rather delight, by the way you were interested, in a manner
I never expected, in my Coral Reef notions, and now
you have again given me similar pleasure by the manner
you have noticed my species work.* Nothing could be more
satisfactory to me, and I thank . you for myself, and even
more for the subject's sake, as I know well that the sentence
will make many fairly consider the subject, instead of ridiculing
it. Although your previously felt doubts on the immutability
of species, may have more influence in converting you (if you
be converted) than my book ; yet as I regard your verdict
as far more important in my own eyes, and I believe in the
eyes of the world than of any other dozen men, I am
naturally very anxious about it. Therefore let me beg you
to keep your mind open till you receive (in perhaps a
fortnight's time) my latter chapters, which are the most

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

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

1 859-] ENCOURAGEMENT, l6/

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

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

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

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

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to VV. D. Fox.

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

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

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

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

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, Sept. 25th [1859].

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

1S59.] ENCOURAGEMENT. 1 69

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

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

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

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

I do thank you for your eulogy at Aberdeen. I have
been so wearied and exhausted of late that I have for months
doubted whether I have not been throwing away time and
labour for nothing. But now I care not what the universal
world says ; I have always found you right, and certainly on
this occasion I am not going to doubt for the first time.
Whether you go far, or but a very short way with me and others
who believe as I do, I am contented, for my work cannot be
in vain. You would laugh if you knew how often I have read
your paragraph, and it has acted like a little dram. . . .

Farewell,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

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

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

I request you, after you have finished, just to re-run over the
heads in the recapitulation -part of last chapter. I shall be
deeply anxious to hear what you decide (if you are able to
decide) on the balance of the pros and contras given in my
volume, and of such other pros and contras as may occur
to you. I hope that you will think that I have given the
difficulties fairly. I feel an entire conviction that if you
are now staggered to any moderate extent, you will come
more and more round, the longer you keep the subject
at all before your mind. I remember well how many long
years it was before I could look into the face of some of the
difficulties and not feel quite abashed. I fairly struck my
colours before the case of neuter insects.

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

Looking back, I think it was more difficult to see what
the problems were than to solve them, so far as I have suc-
ceeded in doing, and this seems to me rather curious. Well,
good or bad, my work, thank God, is over; and hard work, I
can assure you, I have had, and much work which has never
borne fruit. You can see, by the way I am scribbling, that
I have an idle and rainy afternoon. I was not able to start
for Ilkley yesterday as I was too unwell ; but I hope to get
there on Tuesday or Wednesday. Do, I beg you, when you
have finished my book and thought a little over it, let me
hear from you. Never mind and pitch into me, if you think
it requisite ; some future day, in London possibly, you may
give me a few criticisms in detail, that is, if you have
scribbled any remarks on the margin, for the chance of a
second edition.

1 859.] FINISHED. 171

Murray has printed 1250 copies, which seems to me
rather too large an edition, but I hope he will not lose.

I make as much fuss about my book as if it were my first.
Forgive me, and believe me, my dear Lyell,

Yours most sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

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

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

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Danvin to T. H. Huxley.

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

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

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

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

1 859.] RESTING AT ILKLEY. 1 73

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

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwi?i to C. Lyell.

Ilkley, Yorkshire.

Oct. 20th [1859].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your ever attached disciple,

C. Darwin.

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

1 S 59-] RESTING AT ILKLEY. 1 75

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Ilkley, Yorkshire.

Sunday [Oct. 23rd, 1859].

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

* 1

Australian Flora.'

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

knowledge, and so well accustomed to search for truth, could
err greatly. I have spoken of you here as a convert made
by me ; but I know well how much larger the share has been
of your own self-thought. I am intensely curious to hear
Huxley's opinion of my book. I fear my long discussion
on Classification will disgust him ; for it is much opposed
to what he once said to me.

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

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

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

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

1 859-] NATURAL SELECTION. 1 77

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

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

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

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

VOL. II. N

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

. C. Darwin to J. Murray*

Ilkley, Yorkshire [1859].

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

I quite agree to all you propose about price. But you are
really too generous about the, to me, scandalously heavy
corrections. Are you not acting unfairly towards yourself ?
Would it not be better at least to share the £j2 8s. ? I shall
be fully satisfied, for I had no business to send, though quite
unintentionally and unexpectedly, such badly composed MS.
to the printers.

Thank you for your kind offer to distribute the copies to
my friends and assisters as soon as possible. Do not trouble
yourself much about the foreigners, as Messrs. Williams and
Norgate have most kindly offered to do their best, and they
are accustomed to send to all parts of the world.

I will pay for my copies whenever you like. I am so glad
that you were so good as to undertake the publication of my
book.

My dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

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

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

( i/9 )

CHAPTER V.

BY PROFESSOR HUXLEY

ON THE RECEPTION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

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

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

N 2

180 ON THE RECEPTION OF

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

To any one who studies the signs of the times, the
emergence of the philosophy of Evolution, in the attitude of
claimant to the throne of the world of thought, from the
limbo of hated and, as many hoped, forgotten things, is the
most portentous event of the nineteenth century. But the
most effective weapons of the modern champions of Evolution
were fabricated by Darwin ; and the ' Origin of Species ' has
enlisted a formidable body of combatants, trained in the se-
vere school of Physical Science, whose ears might have long
remained deaf to the speculations of a priori philosophers.

I do not think that any candid or instructed person will
deny the truth of that which has just been asserted. He may
hate the very name of Evolution, and may deny its pretensions
as vehemently as a Jacobite denied those of George the Second.
But there it is — not only as solidly seated as the Hanoverian

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' l8l

dynasty, but happily independent of Parliamentary sanction —
and the dullest antagonists have come to see that thcv have
to deal with an adversary whose bones are to be broken by
no amount of bad words.

Even the theologians have almost ceased to pit the plain
meaning of Genesis against the no less plain meaning of
Nature. Their more candid, or more cautious, representatives
have given up dealing with Evolution as if it were a damnable
heresy, and have taken refuge in one of two courses. Either
they deny that Genesis was meant to teach scientific truth,
and thus save the veracity of the record at the expense of its
authority ; or they expend their energies in devising the cruel
ingenuities of the reconciler, and torture texts in the vain
hope of making them confess the creed of Science. But when
the peine forte et dure is over, the antique sincerity of the vener-
able sufferer always reasserts itself. Genesis is honest to the
core, and professes to be no more than it is, a repository of
venerable traditions of unknown origin, claiming no scientific
authority and possessing none.

As my pen finishes these passages, I can but be
amused to think what a terrible hubbub would have been
made (in truth was made) about any similar expressions of
opinion a quarter of a century ago. In fact, the contrast
between the present condition of public opinion upon the
Darwinian question ; between the estimation in which
Darwin's views are now held in the scientific world ; between
the acquiescence, or at least quiescence, of the theologians of
the self-respecting order at the present day and the out-
burst of antagonism on all sides in 1858-9, when the new
theory respecting the origin of species first became known to
the older generation to which I belong, is so startling that,
except for documentary evidence, I should be sometimes
inclined to think my memories dreams. I have a great
respect for the younger generation myself (they can write our
lives, and ravel out all our follies, if they choose to take the

182

ON THE RECEPTION OF

trouble, by and by), and I should be glad to be assured that
the feeling is reciprocal ; but I am afraid that the story of our
dealings with Darwin may prove a great hindrance to that
veneration for our wisdom which I should like them to dis-
play. We have not even the excuse that, thirty years ago,
Mr. Darwin was an obscure novice, who had no claims on our
attention. On the contrary, his remarkable zoological and
geological investigations had long given him an assured posi-
tion among the most eminent and original investigators of
the day ; while his charming ' Voyage of a Naturalist ' had
justly earned him a wide-spread reputation among the general
public. I doubt if there was any man then living who had a
better right to expect that anything he might choose to say
on such a question as the Origin of Species would be listened
to with profound attention, and discussed with respect ; and
there was certainly no man whose personal character should
have afforded a better safeguard against attacks, instinct with
malignity and spiced with shameless impertinences.

Yet such was the portion of one of the kindest and truest
men that it was ever my good fortune to know ; and years
had to pass away before misrepresentation, ridicule, and
denunciation, ceased to be the most notable constituents of
the majority of the multitudinous criticisms of his work which
poured from the press. I am loth to rake any of these ancient
scandals from their well-deserved oblivion ; but I must make
good a statement which may seem overcharged to the present
generation, and there is no piece justificative more apt for the
purpose, or more worthy of such dishonour, than the article in
the ' Quarterly Review ' for July i860* Since Lord Brougham

* I was not aware when I wrote
these passages that the authorship
of the article had been publicly
acknowledged. Confession unac-
companied by penitence, however,
affords no ground for mitigation of
judgment ; and the kindliness with

which Mr. Darwin speaks of his as-
sailant, Bishop Wilberforce (Vol. II.
PP- 325 1 329, 332) , is so striking an ex-
emplification of his singular gentle-
ness and modesty, that it rather
increases one's indignation against
the presumption of his critic.

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 1 83

assailed Dr. Young, the world has seen no such specimen of
the insolence of a shallow pretender to a Master in Science as
this remarkable production, in which one of the most exact
of observers, most cautious of reasoners, and most candid of
expositors, of this or any other age, is held up to scorn
as a " flighty " person, who endeavours " to prop up his utterly
rotten fabric of guess and speculation," and whose " mode of
dealing with nature " is reprobated as " utterly dishonourable
to Natural Science." And all this high and mighty talk, which
would have been indecent in one of Mr. Darwin's equals,
proceeds from a writer whose want of intelligence, or of con-
science, or of both, is so great, that, by way of an objection to
Mr. Darwin's views, he can ask, " Is it credible that all favour-
able varieties of turnips are tending to become men ; " who is
so ignorant of paleontology, that he can talk of the " flowers
and fruits " of the plants of the carboniferous epoch ; of com-
parative anatomy, that he can gravely affirm the poison appa-
ratus of the venomous snakes to be " entirely separate from
the ordinary laws of animal life, and peculiar to themselves ;"
of the rudiments of physiology, that he can ask, " what
advantage of life could alter the shape of the corpuscles into
which the blood can be evaporated ? " Nor does the reviewer
fail to flavour this outpouring of preposterous incapacity with
a little stimulation of the odium tlieologiatm. Some inkling
of the history of the conflicts between Astronomy, Geology,
and Theology, leads him to keep a retreat open by the
proviso that he cannot " consent to test the truth of Natural
Science by the word of Revelation ; " but, for all that, he
devotes pages to the exposition of his conviction that Mr.
Darwin's theory " contradicts the revealed relation of the
creation to its Creator," and is "inconsistent with the fulness
of his glory."

If I confine my retrospect of the reception of the ' Origin
of Species ' to a twelvemonth, or thereabouts, from the time

1 84 ON THE RECEPTION OF

of its publication, I do not recollect anything quite so foolish
and unmannerly as the ' Quarterly Review ' article, unless,
perhaps, the address of a Reverend Professor to the Dublin
Geological Society might enter into competition with it. But
a large proportion of Mr. Darwin's critics had a lamentable
resemblance to the ' Quarterly ' reviewer, in so far as they
lacked either the will, or the wit, to make themselves masters
of his doctrine ; hardly any possessed the knowledge required
to follow him through the immense range of biological and
geological science which the ' Origin ' covered ; while, too
commonly, they had prejudged the case on theological
grounds, and, as seems to be inevitable when this happens,
eked out lack of reason by superfluity of railing.

But it will be more pleasant and more profitable to consider
those criticisms, which were acknowledged by writers of
scientific authority, or which bore internal evidence of the
greater or less competency and, often, of the good faith, of
their authors. Restricting my survey to a twelvemonth, or
thereabouts, after the publication of the ' Origin,' I find
among such critics Louis Agassiz ; * Murray, an excellent
entomologist ; Harvey, a botanist of considerable repute ;
and the author of an article in the ' Edinburgh Review,' all
strongly adverse to Darwin. Pictet, the distinguished and
widely learned paleontologist of Geneva, treats Mr. Darwin
with a respect which forms a grateful contrast to the tone of
some of the preceding writers, but consents to go with him

* "The arguments presented by from that now generally assigned

Darwin in favor of a universal to them, I shall therefore consider

derivation from one primary form the transmutation theory as a scien-

of all the peculiarities existing now tific mistake, untrue in its facts, un-

among living beings have not made scientific in its method, and mis-

the slightest impression on my mind. chievous in its tendency." — Silli-

" Until the facts of Nature are man's 'Journal,' July i860, pp. 143,

shown to have been mistaken by 154. Extract from the 3rd vol. of

those who have collected them, and ' Contributions to the Natural His-

that they have a different meaning tory of the United States.'

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' l8$

only a very little way.* On the other hand, Lyell, up to
that time a pillar of the anti-transmutationists (who regarded
him, ever afterwards, as Pallas Athene may have looked
at Dian, after the Endymion affair), declared himself a
Darwinian, though not without putting in a serious caveat.
Nevertheless, he was a tower of strength, and his courageous
stand for truth as against consistency, did him infinite
.honour. As evolutionists, sans p/wase, I do not call to mind
among the biologists more than Asa Gray, who fought the
battle splendidly in the United States ; Hooker, who was no
less vigorous here ; the present Sir John Lubbock and my-
self. Wallace was far away in the Malay Archipelago ; but,
apart from his direct share in the promulgation of the
theory of natural selection, no enumeration of the influences
at work, at the time I am speaking of, would be com-
plete without the mention of his powerful essay ' On the
Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species,'
which was published in 1855. On reading it afresh, I have
been astonished to recollect how small was the impression
it made.

In France, the influence of Elie de Beaumont and of Flourens,
— the former of whom is said to have " damned himself to
everlasting fame " by inventing the nickname of " la science
moussante " for Evolutionism,! — to say nothing of the ill-will
of other powerful members of the Institut, produced for a

* "I see no serious objections to tions." — ' Sur l'Origine de l'Espece.

the formation of varieties by natural Par Charles Darwin.' 'Archives des

.selection in the existing world, and Sc. de la Bibliotheque Universelle

that, so far as earlier epochs are con- de Geneve,' pp. 242, 243, Mars i860,

cerned, this law may be assumed f One is reminded of the effect

to explain the origin of closely allied of another small academic epigram,

species, supposing for this purpose a The so-called vertebral theory of

very long period of time. the skull is said to have been nipped

" With regard to simple varieties in the bud in France by the whisper

and closely allied species, I believe of an academician to his neighbour,

that Mr. Darwin's theory may that, in that case, one's head was a

explain many things, and throw a "vertebre pensante"
great light upon numerous ques-

1 86 ON THE RECEPTION OF

long time the effect of a conspiracy of silence ; and many
years passed before the Academy redeemed itself from the
reproach that the name of Darwin was not to be found on the
list of its members. However, an accomplished writer, out of
the range of academical influences, M. Laugel, gave an excel-
lent and appreciative notice of the ' Origin ' in the ' Revue
des Deux Mondes.' Germany took time to consider ; Bronn
produced a slightly Bowdlerized translation of the ' Origin ' ;
and ' Kladderadatsch ' cut his jokes upon the ape origin of
man ; but I do not call to mind that any scientific notability
declared himself publicly in i860.* None of us dreamed that,
in the course of a few years, the strength (and perhaps I may add
the weakness) of " Darwinismus " would have its most exten-
sive and most brilliant illustrations in the land of learning.
If a foreigner may presume to speculate on the cause of this
curious interval of silence, I fancy it was that one moiety of
the German biologists were orthodox at any price, and the
other moiety as distinctly heterodox. The latter were evo-
lutionists, a priori^ already, and they must have felt the dis-
gust natural to deductive philosophers at being offered an
inductive and experimental foundation for a conviction which
they had reached by a shorter cut. It is undoubtedly trying
to learn that, though your conclusions may be all right, your
reasons for them are all wrong, or, at any rate, insufficient.

On the whole, then, the supporters of Mr. Darwin's views
in i860 were numerically extremely insignificant. There is not
the slightest doubt that, if a general council of the Church
scientific had been held at that time, we should have been con-
demned by an overwhelming majority. And there is as little
doubt that, if such a council gathered now, the decree would
be of an exactly contrary nature. It would indicate a lack

* However, the man who stands lutionist views. His phrase, " J'ai

next to Darwin in his influence on enonce les memes idees . . . que

modern biologists, K. E. von Bar, M. Darwin " (vol. ii. p. 329), is

wrote to me, in August i860, ex- shown by his subsequent writings

pressing his general assent to evo- to mean no more than this.

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' I $?

of sense, as well as of modesty, to ascribe to the men of that
generation less capacity or less honesty than their successors
possess. What, then, are the causes which led instructed and
fair-judging- men of that day to arrive at a judgment so
different from that which seems just and fair to those who
follow them ? That is really one of the most interesting of all
questions connected with the history of science, and I shall
try to answer it. I am afraid that in order to do so I must
run the risk of appearing egotistical. However, if I tell my
own story it is only because I know it better than that of
other people.

I think I must have read the ' Vestiges ' before I left Eng-
land in 1846 ; but, if I did, the book made very little impres-
sion upon me, and I was not brought into serious contact with
the 'Species' question until after 1850. At that time, I had
long done with the Pentateuchal cosmogony, which had been
impressed upon my childish understanding as Divine truth,
with all the authority of parents and instructors, and from
which it had cost me many a struggle to get free. But my
mind was unbiassed in respect of any doctrine which presented
itself, if it professed to be based on purely philosophical and
scientific reasoning. It seemed to me then (as it does now)
that " creation," in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly
conceivable. I find no difficulty in imagining that, at some
former period, this universe was not in existence ; and that
it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if
that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some pre-
existent Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori argu-
ments against Theism, and, given a Deity, against the
possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of
reasonable foundation. I had not then, and I have not now,
the smallest a priori objection to raise to the account of the
creation of animals and plants given in ' Paradise Lost,' in
which Milton so vividly embodies the natural sense of Genesis.
Far be it from me to say that it is untrue because it is impos-

1 88 ON THE RECEPTION OF

sible. I confine myself to what must be regarded as a modest
and reasonable request for some particle of evidence that the
existing species of animals and plants did originate in that
way, as a condition of my belief in a statement which appears
to me to be highly improbable.

And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the
same answer to give to the evolutionists of 185 1-8. Within
the ranks of the biologists, at that time, I met with nobody,
except Dr. Grant, of University College, who had a word to say
for Evolution — and his advocacy was not calculated to advance
the cause. Outside these ranks, the only person known to me
whose knowledge and capacity compelled respect, and who
was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr.
Herbert Spencer, whose acquaintance I made, I think, in
1852, and then entered into the bonds of a friendship which,
I am happy to think, has known no interruption. Many and
prolonged were the battles we fought on this topic. But
even my friend's rare dialectic skill and copiousness of
apt illustration could not drive me from my agnostic position.
I took my stand upon two grounds : firstly, that up to that
time, the evidence in favour of transmutation was wholly
insufficient ; and, secondly, that no suggestion respecting
the causes of the transmutation assumed, which had been
made, was in any way adequate to explain the phenomena.
Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, I
really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable.

In those days I had never even heard of Treviranus'
1 Biologie.' However, I had studied Lamarck attentively and
I had read the ' Vestiges ' with due care ; but neither of them
afforded me any good ground for changing my negative
and critical attitude. As for the 'Vestiges,' I confess that
the book simply irritated me by the prodigious ignorance
and thoroughly unscientific habit of mind manifested by the
writer. If it had any influence on me at all, it set me
against Evolution ; and the only review I ever have qualms

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 1 89

of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is
one I wrote on the ' Vestiges ' while under that influence.

With respect to the ' Philosophic Zoologique,' it is no
reproach to Lamarck to say that the discussion of the Species
question in that work, whatever might be said for it in 1809,
was miserably below the level of the knowledge of half a
century later. In that interval of time the elucidation of
the structure of the lower animals and plants had given rise
to wholly new conceptions of their relations ; histology and
embryology, in the modern sense, had been created ; physio-
logy had been reconstituted ; the facts of distribution,
geological and geographical, had been prodigiously multi-
plied and reduced to order. To any biologist whose studies
had carried him beyond mere species-mongering in 1850, one-
half of Lamarck's arguments were obsolete and the other
half erroneous, or defective, in virtue of omitting to deal with
the various classes of evidence which had been brought to
light since his time. Moreover his one suggestion as to the
cause of the gradual modification of species — effort excited
by change of conditions — was, on the face of it, inapplicable to
the whole vegetable world. I do not think that any impartial
judge who reads the ' Philosophie Zoologique' now, and who
afterwards takes up Lyell's trenchant and effectual criticism
(published as far back as 1830), will be disposed to allot
to Lamarck a much higher place in the establishment of
biological evolution than that which Bacon assigns to himself
in relation to physical science generally, — buccinator tantum*

But, by a curious irony of fate, the same influence which
led me to put as little faith in modern speculations on this
subject, as in the venerable traditions recorded in the first two
chapters of Genesis, was perhaps more potent than any other

* Erasmus Darwin first promul- claims have failed to show that he,

gated Lamarck's fundamental con- in any respect, anticipated the

ceptions, and, with greater logical central idea of the ' Origin of

consistency, he had applied them Species.'
to plants. But the advocates of his

igo ON THE RECEPTION OF

in keeping alive a sort of pious conviction that Evolution,
after all, would turn out true. I have recently read afresh
the first edition of the 'Principles of Geology' ; and when I
consider that this remarkable book had been nearly thirty
years in everybody's hands, and that it brings home to any
reader of ordinary intelligence a great principle and a great
fact — the principle, that the past must be explained by the
present, unless good cause be shown to the contrary ; and the
fact, that, so far as our knowledge of the past history of life
on our globe goes, no such cause can ber shown * — I cannot
but believe that Lyell, for others, as for myself, was the chief
agent in smoothing the road for Darwin. For consistent
uniformitarianism postulates evolution as much in the organic
as in the inorganic world. The origin of a new species by
other than ordinary agencies would be a vastly greater
" catastrophe " than any of those which Lyell successfully
eliminated from sober geological speculation.

In fact, no one was better aware of this than Lyell himself. f
If one reads any of the earlier editions of the ' Principles '
carefully (especially by the light of the interesting series of
letters recently published by Sir Charles Lyell's biographer), it
is easy to see that, with all his energetic opposition to Lamarck,

* The same principle and the which was beyond our comprehen-

same fact guide and result from sion ; it remained for Darwin to

all sound historical investigation. accumulate proof that there is no

Grote's 'History of Greece ' is a break between the incoming and the

product of the same intellectual outgoing species, that they are the

movement as Lyell's ' Principles/ work of evolution, and not of special

f Lyell, with perfect right, claims creation. . . .
this position for himself. He speaks "I had certainly prepared the

of having "advocated a law of con- way in this country, in six editions

tinuity even in the organic world, so of my work before the ' Vestiges of

far as possible without adopting La- Creation' appeared in 1842 [1844],

marck's theory of transmutation. . . . for the reception of Darwin's gradual

" But while I taught that as often and insensible evolution of species."

as certain forms of animals and — ' Life and Letters,' Letter to

plants disappeared, for reasons quite Haeckel, vol. ii. p. 436. Nov. 23,

intelligible to us, others took their 1868.
place by virtue of a causation

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

I9I

on the one hand, and to the ideal quasi-progressionism of
Agassiz, on the other, Lyell, in his own mind, was strongly-
disposed to account for the origination of all past and present
species of living things by natural causes. But he would have
liked, at the same, time, to keep the name of creation for a
natural process which he imagined to be incomprehensible.

In a letter addressed to Mantell (dated March 2, 1827),
Lyell speaks of having just read Lamarck ; he expresses his
delight at Lamarck's theories, and his personal freedom from
any objections based on theological grounds. And though he
is evidently alarmed at the pithecoid origin of man involved
in Lamarck's doctrine, he observes : —

" But, after all, what changes species may really undergo !
How impossible will it be to distinguish and lay down a line,
beyond which some of the so-called extinct species have
never passed into recent ones."

Again, the following remarkable passage occurs in the post-
script of a letter addressed to Sir John Herschel in 1836 : —

" In regard to the origination of new species, I am very
glad to find that you think it probable that it may be carried
on through the intervention of intermediate causes. I left this
rather to be inferred, not thinking it worth while to offend a
certain class of persons by embodying in words what would
only be a speculation." * He goes on to refer to the criticisms
which have been directed against him on the ground that, by
leaving species to be originated by miracle, he is inconsistent
with his own doctrine of uniformitarianism ; and he leaves it

* In the same sense, see the letter
to Whewell, March 7, 1837, vol. ii.,
p. 5 :—

" In regard to this last subject
[the changes from one set of animal
and vegetable species to another] . . .
you remember what Herschel said
in his letter to me. If I had stated
as plainly as he has done the possi-
bility of the introduction or origina-

tion of fresh species being a natural,
in contradistinction to a miraculous
process, I should have raised a host
of prejudices against me, which are
unfortunately opposed at every step
to any philosopher who attempts to
address the public on these mys-
terious subjects." See also letter to
Sedgwick, Jan. 20, 1838, vol. ii.

P- 35-

192 ON THE RECEPTION OF

to be understood that he had not replied, on the ground of his
general objection to controversy.

Lyell's contemporaries were not without some inkling of
his esoteric doctrine. Whewell's ' History of the Inductive
Sciences,' whatever its philosophical value, is always worth
reading and always interesting, if under no other aspect than
that of an evidence of the speculative limits within which a
highly-placed divine might, at that time, safely range at
will. In the course of his discussion of uniformitarianism, the
encyclopaedic Master of Trinity observes : —

" Mr. Lyell, indeed, has spoken of an hypothesis that 'the
successive creation of species may constitute a regular part of
the economy of nature,' but he has nowhere, I think, so
described this process as to make it appear in what depart-
ment of science we are to place the hypothesis. Are these
new species created by the production, at long intervals, of
an offspring different in species from the parents ? Or are
the species so created produced without parents? Are they
gradually evolved from some embryo substance ? Or do they
suddenly start from the ground, as in the creation of the
poet? . . .

" Some selection of one of these forms of the hypothesis,
rather than the others, with evidence for the selection, is
requisite to entitle us to place it among the known causes of
change, which in this chapter we are considering. The bare
conviction that a creation of species has taken place, whether
once or many times, so long as it is unconnected with our
organical sciences, is a tenet of Natural Theology rather
than of Physical Philosophy." *

The earlier part of this criticism appears perfectly just and
appropriate ; but, from the concluding paragraph, Whewell
evidently imagines that by " creation " Lyell means a preter-
natural intervention of the Deity ; whereas the letter to
Herschel shows that, in his own mind, Lyell meant natural

* Whewell's ' History,' vol. iii. p. 639-640 (ed. 2, 1847).

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

193

causation ; and I see no reason to doubt * that, if Sir Charles
could have avoided the inevitable corollary of the pithecoid
origin of man — for which, to the end of his life, he entertained
a profound antipathy — he would have advocated the efficiency
of causes now in operation to bring about the condition of the
organic world, as stoutly as he championed that doctrine in
reference to inorganic nature.

The fact is, that a discerning eye might have seen that
some form or other of the doctrine of transmutation was
inevitable, from the time when the truth enunciated by William

* The following passages in
Lyell's letters appear to me decisive
on this point : — ■

To Darwin, Oct. 3, 1859 (ii. 325),
on first reading the ' Origin.'

" I have long seen most clearly
that if any concession is made, all
that you claim in your concluding
pages will follow.

"It is this which has made me
so long hesitate, always feeling that
the case of Man and his Races, and
of other animals, and that of plants,
is one and the same, and that if
a vera causa be admitted for one
instant, [instead] of a purely un-
known and imaginary one, such as
the word ' creation,' all the conse-
quences must follow."

To Darwin, March 15, 1863
(vol. ii. p. 365).

" I remember that it was the con-
clusion he [Lamarck] came to about
man that fortified me thirty years
ago against the great impression
which his arguments at first made
on my mind, all the greater because
Constant Prevost, a pupil of Cuvier's
forty years ago, told me his con-
viction ' that Cuvier thought species
not real, but that science could not

VOL. II.

advance without assuming that they
were so.' "

To Hooker, March 9, 1863 (vol.
ii. p. 361), in reference to Darwin's
feeling about the ' Antiquity of Man.'

"He [Darwin] seems much dis-
appointed that I do not go farther
with him, or do not speak out
more. I can only say that I have
spoken out to the full extent of my
present convictions, and even beyond
my state of feeling as to man's un-
broken descent from the brutes, and
I find I am half converting not a
few who were in arms against Dar-
win, and are even now against
Huxley." He speaks of having had
to abandon " old and long cherished
ideas, which constituted the charm
to me of the theoretical part of the
science in my earlier days, when I
believed with Pascal in the theory,
as Hallam terms it, of 'the arch-
angel ruined.' "

See the same sentiment in the
letter to Darwin, March 11, 1863,
P- 363 :—

"I think the old 'creation' is
almost as much required as ever,
but of course it takes a new form
if Lamarck's views improved by
yours are adopted."

O

194 ON THE RECEPTION OF

Smith, that successive strata are characterised by different
kinds of fossil remains, became a firmly established law of
nature. No one has set forth the speculative consequences
of this generalisation better than the historian of the ' Induc-
tive Sciences ' : — ■

" But the study of geology opens to us the spectacle of
many groups of species which have, in the course of the earth's
history, succeeded each other at vast intervals of time ; one
set of animals and plants disappearing, as it would seem,
from the face of our planet, and others, which did not before
exist, becoming the only occupants of the globe. And the
dilemma then presents itself to us anew : — either we must
accept the doctrine of the transmutation of species, and must
suppose that the organized species of one geological epoch
were transmuted into those of another by some long-con-
tinued agency of natural causes ; or else, we must believe in
many successive acts of creation and extinction of species,
out of the common course of nature ; acts which, therefore,
we may properly call miraculous." *

Dr. Whewell decides in favour of the latter conclusion. And
if any one had plied him with the four questions which he
puts to Lyell in the passage already cited, all that can be said
now is that he would certainly have rejected the first. But
would he really have had the courage to say that a Rhinoceros
ticJwrJiinus, for instance, " was produced without parents ; " or
was " evolved from some embryo substance ; " or that it
suddenly started from the ground like Milton's lion "pawing
to get free his hinder parts " ? I permit myself to doubt
whether even the Master of Trinity's well-tried courage —
physical, intellectual, and moral — would have been equal to
this feat. No doubt the sudden concurrence of half-a-ton of
inorganic molecules into a live rhinoceros is conceivable, and
therefore may be possible. But does such an event lie

* Whevvell's f History of the In- vol. iii. p. 624-625. See, for the
ductive Sciences.' Ed. ii., 1847, author's verdict, pp. 638-39.

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 195

•sufficiently within the bounds of probability to justify the
belief in its occurrence on the strength of any attainable, or,
indeed, imaginable, evidence ?

In view of the assertion (often repeated in the early days
of the opposition to Darwin) that he had added nothing to
Lamarck, it is very interesting to observe that the possibility
of a fifth alternative, in addition to the four he has stated, has
not dawned upon Dr. Whewell's mind. The suggestion that
new species may result from the selective action of external
conditions upon the variations from their specific type which
individuals present — and which we call "spontaneous," because
we are ignorant of their causation — is as wholly unknown to
the historian of scientific ideas as it was to biological spe-
cialists before 1858. But that suggestion is the central idea
of the ' Origin of Species,' and contains the quintessence of
Darwinism.

Thus, looking back into the past, it seems to me that my
own position of critical expectancy was just and reasonable,
and must have been taken up, on the same grounds, by many
other persons. If Agassiz told me that the forms of life
which had successivelv tenanted the globe were the incarna-
tions of successive thoughts of the Deity ; and that He had
wiped out one set of these embodiments by an appalling
geological catastrophe as soon as His ideas took a more
advanced shape, I found myself not only unable to admit the
accuracy of the deductions from the facts of paleontology,
upon which this astounding hypothesis was founded, but I
had to confess my want of any means of testing the correctness
of his explanation^ them. And besides that, I could by no
means see what the explanation explained. Neither did it
help me to be told bby an eminent anatomist that species had
succeeded one another in time, in virtue of " a continuously
operative creational law." That seemed to me to be no more
than saying that species had succeeded one another, in the
form of a vote-catching resolution, with " law " to please the

O 2

196 ON THE RECEPTION OF

man of science, and " creational " to draw the orthodox. So
I took refuge in that " tJidtige Skepsis " which Goethe has so
well defined ; and, reversing the apostolic precept to be all
things to all men, I usually defended the tenability of the
received doctrines, when I had to do with the transmuta-
tionists ; and stood up for the possibility of transmutation
among the orthodox — thereby, no doubt, increasing an already
current, but quite undeserved, reputation for needless com-
bativeness.

I remember, in the course of my first interview with
Mr. Darwin, expressing my belief in the sharpness of the lines
of demarcation between natural groups and in the absence
of transitional forms, with all the confidence of youth and
imperfect knowledge. I was not aware, at that time, that he
had then been many years brooding over the species-ques-
tion ; and the humorous smile which accompanied his gentle
answer, that such was not altogether his view, long haunted
and puzzled me. But it would seem that four or five years'
hard work had enabled me to understand what it meant ;
for Lyell,* writing to Sir Charles Bunbury (under date of
April 30, 1S56), says: —

" When Huxley, Hooker, and Wollaston were at Darwin's
last week they (all four of them) ran a tilt against species —
further, I believe, than they are prepared to go."

I recollect nothing of this beyond the fact of meeting Mr.
Wollaston ; and except for Sir Charles' distinct assurance
as to " all four," I should have thought my ontrectiidance was
probably a counterblast to Wollaston's conservatism. With
regard to Hooker, he was already, like Voltaire's Habakkuk,
"capable de tout" in the way of advocating Evolution.

As I have already said, I imagine that most of those of my
contemporaries who thought seriously about the matter, were
very much in my own state of mind — inclined to say to
both Mosaists and Evolutionists, " a plague on both your

* ' Life and Letters/ vol. ii. p. 212.

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 1 97

houses ! " and disposed to turn aside from an interminable and
apparently fruitless discussion, to labour in the fertile fields
of ascertainable fact. And I may, therefore, further suppose
that the publication of the Darwin and Wallace papers in
1858, and still more that of the 'Origin' in 1859, had the
effect upon them of the flash of light, which to a man who
has lost himself in a dark night, suddenly reveals a road
which, whether it takes him straight home or not, certainly
goes his way. That which we were looking for, and could
not find, was a hypothesis respecting the origin of known
organic forms, which assumed the operation of no causes but
such as could be proved to be actually at work. We wanted,
not to pin our faith to that or any other speculation, but to
get hold of clear and definite conceptions which could be
brought face to face with facts and have their validity tested.
The ' Origin ' provided us with the working hypothesis we
sought. Moreover, it did the immense service of freeing
us for ever from the dilemma — refuse to accept the creation
hypothesis, and what have you to propose that can be accepted
by any cautious reasoner? In 1857, I had no answer ready,
and I do not think that any one else had. A year later, we
reproached ourselves with dulness for being perplexed by
such an inquiry. My reflection, when I first made myself
master of the central idea of the ' Origin/ was, " How ex-
tremely stupid not to have thought of that ! ' I suppose that
Columbus' companions said much the same when he made
the egg stand on end. The facts of variability, of the struggle
for existence, of adaptation to conditions, were notorious
enough ; but none of us had suspected that the road to the
heart of the species problem lay through them, until Darwin
and Wallace dispelled the darkness, and the beacon-fire of
the ' Origin ' guided the benighted.

Whether the particular shape which the doctrine of evolu-
tion, as applied to the organic world, took in Darwin's hands,
would prove to be final or not, was, to me, a matter of indiffer-

I9S ON THE RECEPTION OF

ence. In my earliest criticisms of the ' Origin ' I ventured to
point out that its logical foundation was insecure so long as
experiments in selective breeding had not produced varieties
which were more or less infertile ; and that insecurity remains
up to the present time. But, with any and every critical doubt
which my sceptical ingenuity could suggest, the Darwinian
hypothesis remained incomparably more probable than the
creation hypothesis. And if we had none of us been able to
discern the paramount significance of some of the most patent,
and notorious of natural facts, until they were, so to speak,
thrust under our noses, what force remained in the dilemma —
creation or nothing? It was obvious that, hereafter, the
probability would be immensely greater, that the links of
natural causation were hidden from our purblind eyes, than
that natural causation should be incompetent to produce all
the phenomena of nature. The only rational course for those
who had no other object than the attainment of truth, was to
accept " Darwinism " as a working hypothesis, and see what
could be made of it. Either it would prove its capacity to
elucidate the facts of organic life, or it would break down under
the strain. This was surely the dictate of common sense ;
and, for once, common sense carried the day. The result has
be sn that complete volte-face of the whole scientific world,
which must seem so surprising to the present generation. I
do not mean to say that all the leaders of biological science
have avowed themselves Darwinians ; but I do not think
that there is a single zoologist, or botanist, or palaeontologist,
among the multitude of active workers of this generation,
who is other than an evolutionist, profoundly influenced by
Darwin's views. Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the
particular theory put forth by Darwin, I venture to affirm that,,
so far as my knowledge goes, all the ingenuity and all the
learning of hostile critics has not enabled them to adduce a
solitary fact, of which it can be said, this is irreconcilable with
the Darwinian theory. In the prodigious variety and com-

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 1 99

plexity of organic nature, there are multitudes of phenomena
which are not deducible from any generalisations we have yet
reached. But the same may be said of every other class of
natural objects. I believe that astronomers cannot yet get
the moon's motions into perfect accordance with the theory
of gravitation.

It would be inappropriate, even if it were possible, to dis-
cuss the difficulties and unresolved problems which have
hitherto met the evolutionist, and which will probably continue
to puzzle him for many generations to come, in the course of
this brief history of the reception of M r. Darwin's great work.
But there are two or three objections cf a more general
character, based, or supposed to be based, upon philosophical
and theological foundations, which were loudly expressed in
the early days of the Darwinian controversy, and which,
though they have been answered over and over again, crop
up now and then at the present day.

The most singular of these, perhaps immortal, fallacies,
which live on, Tithonus-like, when sense and force have long
deserted them, is that which charges Mr. Darwin with having
attempted to reinstate the old pagan goddess, Chance. It is
said that he supposes variations to come about " by chance,"
and that the fittest survive the " chances " of the stru^crle for
existence, and thus "chance" is substituted for providential
design-
It is not a little wonderful that such an accusation as this
should be brought against a writer who has, over and over
again, warned his readers that when he uses the word " spon-
taneous," he merely means that he is ignorant of the cause of
that which is so termed ; and whose whole theory crumbles
to pieces if the uniformity and regularity of natural causation
for illimitable past ages is denied. But probably the best
answer to those who talk of Darwinism meaning the rei^n of
" chance," is to ask them what they themselves understand by

200 ON THE RECEPTION OF

" chance." Do they believe that anything in this universe
happens without reason or without a cause ? Do they really
conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have
been predicted by any one who had a sufficient insight into
the order of Nature? If they do, it is they who are the
inheritors of antique superstition and ignorance, and whose
minds have never been illumined by a ray of scientific
thought. The one act of faith in the convert to science, is
the confession of the universality of order and of the absolute
validity, in all times and under all circumstances, of the law
of causation. This confession is an act of faith, because,
by the nature of the case, the truth of such propositions is
not susceptible of proof. But such faith is not blind, but
reasonable ; because it is invariably confirmed by experi-
ence, and constitutes the sole trustworthy foundation for all
action.

If one of these people, in whom the chance-worship of our
remoter ancestors thus strangely survives, should be within
reach of the sea when a heavy gale is blowing, let him betake
himself to the shore and watch the scene. Let him note the
infinite variety of form and size of the tossing waves out at
sea ; or of the curves of their foam-crested breakers, as they
dash against the rocks ; let him listen to the roar and scream
of the shingle as it is cast up and torn down the beach ; or
look at the flakes of foam as they drive hither and thither
before the wind ; or note the play of colours, which answers
a gleam of sunshine as it falls upon their myriad bubbles.
Surely here, if anywhere, he will say that chance is supreme,
and bend the knee as one who has entered the very penetralia
of his divinity. But the man of science knows that here, as
everywhere, perfect order is manifested ; that there is not a
curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a
rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary
consequence of the ascertained laws of nature ; and that with
a sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent physico-

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 201

mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict,
/every one of these " chance " events.

A second very common objection to Mr. Darwin's views
was (and is), that they abolish Teleology, and eviscerate the
argument from design. It is nearly twenty years since I
ventured to offer some remarks on this subject, and as my
arguments have as yet received no refutation, I hope I may
be excused for reproducing them. I observed, " that the doc-
trine of Evolution is the most formidable opponent of all the
commoner and coarser forms of Teleology. But perhaps the
most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology ren-
dered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and
Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which
his views offer. The teleology which supposes that the eye,
such as we see it in man, or one of the higher vertebrata, was
made with the precise structure it exhibits, for the purpose of
enabling the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly
received its death-blow. Nevertheless, it is necessary to re-
member that there is a wider teleology which is not touched
by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based upon the
fundamental proposition of Evolution. This proposition is
that the whole world, living and not living, is the result of the
mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the forces *
possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity
•of the universe was composed. If this be true, it is no less
certain that the existing world lay potentially in the cosmic
vapour, and that a sufficient intelligence could, from a know-
ledge of the properties of the molecules of that vapour, have
predicted, say the state of the fauna of Britain in 1869, with
as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the
vapour of the breath on a cold winter's day

.... The teleological and the mechanical views of nature
are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the
more purely a mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly

* I should now like to substitute the word powers for " forces."

202 ON THE RECEPTION OF

does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of which
all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences,,
and the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the
teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this
primordial molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve
the phenomena of the universe." *

The acute champion of Teleology, Paley, saw no difficulty
in admitting that the "production of things" may be the
result of trains of mechanical dispositions fixed beforehand
by intelligent appointment and kept in action by a power at
the centre, f that is to say, he proleptically accepted the modern
doctrine of Evolution ; and his successors might do well to
follow their leader, or at any rate to attend to his weighty
reasonings, before rushing into an antagonism which has no
reasonable foundation.

Having got rid of the belief in chance and the disbelief in
design, as in no sense appurtenances of Evolution, the third
libel upon that doctrine, that it is anti-theistic, might perhaps
be left to shift for itself. But the persistence with which
many people refuse to draw the plainest consequences from
the propositions they profess to accept, renders it advisable
to remark that the doctrine of Evolution is neither Anti-
theistic nor Theistic. It simply has no more to do with Theism
than the first book of Euclid has. It is quite certain that a
normal fresh-laid egg contains neither cock nor hen ; and it
is also as certain as any proposition in physics or morals, that
if such an egg is kept under proper conditions for three
weeks, a cock or hen chicken will be found in it. It is also
quite certain that if the shell were transparent we should be
able to watch the formation of the young fowl, day by day,
by a process of evolution, from a microscopic cellular germ
to its full size and complication of structure. Therefore

* The " Genealogy of Animals " f ' Natural Theology,' chap.

('The Academy,' 1S69), reprinted xxiii.
in ' Critiques and Addresses.'

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 203

Evolution, in the strictest sense, is actually going on in this
and analogous millions and millions of instances, wherever
living creatures exist. Therefore, to borrow an argument
from Butler, as that which now happens must be consistent
with the attributes of the Deity, if such a Being exists,
Evolution must be consistent with those attributes. And, if
so, the evolution of the universe, which is neither more nor less
explicable than that of a chicken, must also be consistent
with them. The doctrine of Evolution, therefore, does not
even come into contact with Theism, considered as a philo-
sophical doctrine. That with which it does collide, and with
which it is absolutely inconsistent, is the conception of
creation, which theological speculators have based upon the
history narrated in the opening of the book of Genesis.

There is a greal deal of talk and not a little lamentation
about the so-called religious difficulties which physical science
has created. In theological science, as a matter of fact, it
has created none. Not a solitary problem presents itself to
the philosophical Theist, at the present day, which has not
existed from the time that philosophers began to think out
the logical grounds and the logical consequences of Theism.
All the real or imaginary perplexities which flow from the
conception of the universe as a determinate mechanism, are
equally involved in the assumption of an Eternal, Omnipotent
and Omniscient Deity. The theological equivalent of the
scientific conception of order is Providence ; and the doctrine
of determinism follows as surely from the attributes of fore-
knowledge assumed by the theologian, as from the universality
of natural causation assumed by the man of science. The
angels in ' Paradise Lost ' would have found the task of en-
lightening Adam upon the mysteries of " Fate, Foreknow-
ledge, and Free-will," not a whit more difficult, if their pupil
had been educated in a " Real-schule " and trained in every
laboratory of a modern university. In respect of the great
problems of Philosophy, the post-Darwinian generation is,

204 ON THE RECEPTION OF THE ' ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

in one sense, exactly where the prae-Darwinian generations
were. They remain insoluble. But the present generation
has the advantage of being better provided with the means
of freeing itself from the tyranny of certain sham solutions.

The known is finite, the unknown infinite ; intellectually
we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean
of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to
reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent
and the solidity of our possessions. And even a cursory
glance at the history of the biological sciences during the
last quarter of a century is sufficient to justify the assertion,
that the most potent instrument for the extension of the
realm of natural knowledge which has come into men's hands,
since the publication of Newton's ' Principia,' is Darwin's
' Origin of Species.'

It was badly received by the generation to which it was
first addressed, and the outpouring of angry nonsense to which
it gave rise is sad to think upon. But the present generation
will probably behave just as badly if another Darwin should
arise, and inflict upon them that which the generality of man-
kind most hate — the necessity of revising their convictions.
Let them, then, be charitable to us ancients ; and if they
behave no better than the men of my day to some new
benefactor, let them recollect that, after all, our wrath did not
come to much, and vented itself chiefly in the bad language
of sanctimonious scolds. Let them as speedily perform a
strategic right-about-face, and follow the truth wherever it
leads. The opponents of the new truth will discover, as those
of Darwin are doing, that, after all, theories do not alter facts,
and that the universe remains unaffected even though texts
crumble. Or, it may be, that, as history repeats itself, their
happy ingenuity will also discover that the new wine is
exactly of the same vintage as the old, and that (rightly
viewed) the old bottles prove to have been expressly made
for holding it.

( -os ) 4^^&

4

CHAPTER VI.

THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'
OCTOBER 3, 1859, TO DECEMBER 3 1, 1 859.

1859.

[UNDER the date of October 1st, 1859, in my father's Diary
occurs the entry : " Finished proofs (thirteen months and ten
days) of Abstract on ' Origin of Species ' ; 1250 copies printed.
The first edition was published on November 24th, and all
copies sold first day."

On October 2nd he started for a water-cure establishment
at Ilkley, near Leeds, where he remained with his family
until December, and on the 9th of that month he was again
at Down. The only other entry in the Diary for this year
is as follows : " During end of November and beginning of
December, employed in correcting for second edition of 3000
copies ; multitude of letters."

The first and a few of the subsequent letters refer to proof
sheets, and to early copies of the ' Origin ' which were sent to
friends before the book was published.]

C. Lyell to C. Darwin*

October 3rd, 1859.
My DEAR DARWIN, — I have just finished your volume
and right glad I am that I did my best with Hooker to

* Part of this letter is 'given in the ' Life of Sir Charles Lyell,' vol. ii.
p. 325-

:2o6 PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [1859.

persuade you to publish it without waiting for a time which
probably could never have arrived, though you lived till the
age of a hundred, when you had prepared all your facts on
which you ground so many grand generalizations.

It is a splendid case of close reasoning, and long substan-
tial argument throughout so many pages ; the condensation
immense, too great perhaps for the uninitiated, but an effective
and important preliminary statement, which will admit, even
before your detailed proofs appear, of some occasional useful
exemplification, such as your pigeons and cirripedes, of which
you make such excellent use.

I mean that, when, as I fully expect, a new edition is soon
called for, you may here and there insert an actual case to
relieve the vast number of abstract propositions. So far as
I am concerned, I am so well prepared to take your state-
ments of facts for granted, that I do not think the " pieces
justificatives" when published will make much difference, and
I have long seen most clearly that if any concession is made,
all that you claim in your concluding pages will follow. It
is this which has made me so long hesitate, always feeling
that the case of Man and his races, and of other animals, and
that of plants is one and the same, and that if a "vera causa"
be admitted for one, instead of a purely unknpwn and imagin-
ary one, such as the word " Creation," all the consequences
must follow.

I fear I have not time to-day, as I am just leaving this
place, to indulge in a variety of comments, and to say how
much I was delighted with Oceanic Islands — Rudimentar}r
Organs — Embryology — the genealogical key to the Natural
System, Geographical Distribution, and if I went on I should
be copying the heads of all your chapters. But I will say a
word of the Recapitulation, in case some slight alteration,
or, at least, omission of a word or two be still possible in
that.

In the first place, at p. 480, it cannot surely be said that

1859.] lyell's congratulations. 207

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

The first page of this most important summary gives the
adversary an advantage, by putting forth so abruptly and
crudely such a startling objection as the formation of "the
eye," not by means analogous to man's reason, or rather by
some power immeasurably superior to human reason, but
by superinduced variation like those of which a cattle-breeder
avails himself. Pages would be required thus to state an
•objection and remove it. It would be better, as you wish to
persuade, to say nothing. Leave out several sentences, and
in a future edition bring it out more fully. Between the
throwing down of such a stumbling-block in the way of the
reader, and the passage to the working ants, in p. 460, there
,are pages required ; and these ants are a bathos to him before
he has recovered from the shock of being called upon to
believe the eye to have been brought to perfection, from a
state of blindness or purblindness, by such variations as we
witness. I think a little omission would greatly lessen the
objectionableness of these sentences if you have not time to
recast and amplify.

.... But these are small matters, mere spots on the sun.
Your comparison of the letters retained in words, when

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

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

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

The want of peculiar birds in Madeira is a greater difficulty
than seemed to me allowed for. I could cite passages where
you show that variations are superinduced from the new cir-
cumstances of new colonists, which would require some
Madeira birds, like those of the Galapagos, to be peculiar.
There has been ample time in the case of Madeira and Porto'
Santo. . . .

You enclose your sheets in old MS., so the Post Office very
properly charge them, as letters, 2d. extra. I wish all their
fines on MS. were worth as much. I paid 4s. 6d. for such
wash the other day from Paris, from a man who can prove
300 deluges in the valley of Seine.

With my hearty congratulations to you on your grand
work, believe me,

Ever very affectionately yours,

Chas. Lyell.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Ilkley, Yorkshire,

October nth [1859].

My DEAR LYELL, — I thank you cordially for giving me so
much of your valuable time in writing me the long letter of
3rd, and still longer of 4th. I wrote a line with the missing
proof-sheet to Scarborough. I have adopted most thankfully
all your minor corrections in the last chapter, and the greater
ones as far as I could with little trouble. I damped the
opening passage about the eye (in my bigger work I show
the gradations in structure of the eye) by putting merely
" complex organs." But you are a pretty Lord Chancellor to
tell the barrister on one side how best to win the cause L
The omission of " living " before eminent naturalists was a
dreadful blunder.

1 859.] LYELL'S CRITICISMS. 209

Madeira and Bermuda Birds not peculiar. — You arc right,
there is a screw out here ; I thought no one would have
detected it ; I blundered in omitting a discussion, which
I have written out in full. But once for all, let me say as an
excuse, that it was most difficult to decide what to omit.
Birds, which have struggled in their own homes, when settled
in a body, nearly simultaneously in a new country, would not
be subject to much modification, for their mutual relations
would not be much disturbed. But I quite agree with you,
that in time they ought to undergo some. In Bermuda and
Madeira they have, as I believe, been kept constant by the
frequent arrival, and the crossing with unaltered immigrants
of the same species from the main land. In Bermuda this
can be proved, in Madeira highly probable, as shown me by
letters from E. V. Harcourt. Moreover, there are ample ground,
for believing that the crossed offspring of the new immigrants
(fresh blood as breeders would say), and old colonists of the
same species would be extra vigorous, and would be the most
likely to survive ; thus the effects of such crossing in keeping
the old colonists unaltered would be much aided.

On Galapagos productions having American type on view
of Creation. — I cannot agree with you, that species if created
to struggle with American forms, would have to be created on
the American type. Facts point diametrically the other way.
Look at the unbroken and untilled ground in La Plata,
covered with European products, which have no near affinity
to the indigenous products. They are not American types
which conquer the aborigines. So in every island throughout
the world. Alph. De Candolle's result (though he does not
see its full importance), that thoroughly well naturalised
[plants] are in general very different from the aborigines
(belonging in large proportion of cases to non-indigenous
genera) is most important always to bear in mind. Once
for all, I am sure, you will understand that I thus write
dogmatically for brevity sake.

VOL. II. P

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

On the continued Creation of Monads. — This doctrine is
superfluous (and groundless) on the theory of Natural Selec-
tion, which implies no necessary tendency to progression. A
monad, if no deviation in its structure profitable to it under
its excessively simple conditions of life occurred, might remain
unaltered from long before the Silurian Age to the present
day. I grant there will generally be a tendency to advance
in complexity of organisation, though in beings fitted for very
simple conditions it would be slight and slow. How could
a complex organisation profit a monad ? if it did not profit
it there would be no advance. The Secondary Infusoria differ
but little from the living. The parent monad form might
perfectly well survive unaltered and fitted for its simple
conditions, whilst the offspring of this very monad might
become fitted for more complex conditions. The one prim-
ordial prototype of all living and extinct creatures may,
it is possible, be now alive ! Moreover, as you say, higher
forms might be occasionally degraded, the snake Typhlops
seems (? !) to have the habits of earth-worms. So that fresh
creations of simple forms seem to me wholly superfluous.

" Must you not assume a primeval creative power which
does not act with uniformity ', or how could man supervene ? " —
I am not sure that I understand your remarks which follow
the above. We must, under present knowledge, assume the
creation of one or of a few forms in the same manner as philo-
sophers assume the existence of a power of attraction without
any explanation. But I entirely reject, as in my judgment
quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition " of new powers
and attributes and forces;" or of any "principle of improve-
ment," except in so far as every character which is naturally
selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improve-
ment, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were
convinced that I required such additions to the theory of
natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish, but I have firm
faith in it, as I cannot believe, that if false, it would explain so

1 859.] LYELL'S CRITICISMS. 211

many whole classes of facts, which, if I am in my senses, it
seems to explain. As far as I understand your remarks and
illustrations, you doubt the possibility of gradations of intel-
lectual powers. Now, it seems to me, looking to existing
animals alone, that we have a very fine gradation in the intel-
lectual powers of the Vertebrata, with one rather wide gap (not
half so wide as in many cases of corporeal structure), between
say a Hottentot and an Ourang, even if civilised as much
mentally as the dog has been from the wolf. I suppose that
you do not doubt that the intellectual powers are as important
for the welfare of each being as corporeal structure ; if so, I
can see no difficulty in the most intellectual individuals of a
species being continually selected ; and the intellect of the
new species thus improved, aided probably by effects of
inherited mental exercise. I look at this process as now
going on with the races of man ; the less intellectual races
being exterminated. But there is not space to discuss this
point. If I understand you, the turning-point in our difference
must be, that you think it impossible that the intellectual
powers of a species should be much improved by the con-
tinued natural selection of the most intellectual individuals.
To show how minds graduate, just reflect how impossible
every one has yet found it, to define the difference in mind
of man and the lower animals ; the latter seem to have the
very same attributes in a much lower stage of perfection than
the lowest savage. I would give absolutely nothing for the
theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions
at any one stage of descent. I think Embryology, Homo-
logy, Classification, &c. &c, show us that all vertebrata have
descended from one parent ; how that parent appeared we
know not. If you admit in ever so little a degree, the
explanation which I have given of Embryology, Homology
and Classification, you will find it difficult to say : thus far
the explanation holds good, but no further; here we must
call in "the addition of new creative forces." I think you

P 2

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

will be driven to reject all or admit all : I fear by your letter
it will be the former alternative ; and in that case I shall feel
sure it is my fault, and not the theory's fault, and this will
certainly comfort me. With regard to the descent of the
great Kingdoms (as Vertebrata, Articulata, &c.) from one
parent, I have said in the conclusion, that mere analogy
makes me think it probable ; my arguments and facts are
sound in my judgment only for each separate kingdom.

The forms which are beaten inheriting some inferiority i7i
common. — I dare say I have not been guarded enough, but
might not the term inferiority include less perfect adaptation
to physical conditions ?

My remarks apply not to single species, but to groups or
genera ; the species of most genera are adapted at least to
rather hotter, and rather less hot, to rather damper and dryer
climates ; and when the several species of a group are beaten
and exterminated by the several species of another group, it
will not, I think, generally be from each new species being
adapted to the climate, but from all the new species having
some common advantage in obtaining sustenance, or escaping
enemies. As groups are concerned, a fairer illustration than
negro and white in Liberia would be the almost certain future
extinction of the genus ourang by the genus man, not owing
to man being better fitted for the climate, but owing to the
inherited intellectual inferiority of the Ourang-genus to Man-
genus, by his intellect, inventing fire-arms and cutting down
forests. I believe, from reasons given in my discussion, that
acclimatisation is readily effected under nature. It has taken
me so many years to disabuse my mind of the too great import-
ance of climate — its important influence being so conspicuous,
whilst that of a struggle between creature and creature is so
hidden — that I am inclined to swear at the North Pole, and
as Sydney Smith said, even to speak disrespectfully of the
Equator. I beg you often to reflect (I have found nothing
so instructive) on the case of thousands of plants in the

1859.] lyell's criticisms. 213

middle point of their respective ranges, and which, as we
positively know, can perfectly well withstand a little more
heat and cold, a little more damp and dry, but which in
the metropolis of their range do not exist in vast numbers,
although, if many of the other inhabitants were destroyed
[they] would cover the ground. We thus clearly see that
their numbers are kept down, in almost every case, not by
climate, but by the struggle with other organisms. All this
you will perhaps think very obvious ; but, until I repeated it
to myself thousands of times, I took, as I believe, a wholly
wrong view of the whole economy of nature. . . .

Hybridism. — I am so much pleased that you approve of
this chapter ; you would be astonished at the labour this
cost me ; so often was I, on what I believe was, the wrong
scent.

Rudimentary Organs. — On the theory of Natural Selection
there is a wide distinction between Rudimentary Organs and
what you call germs of organs, and what I call in my bigger
book " nascent " organs. An organ should not be called rudi-
mentary unless it be useless — as teeth which never cut through
the gums — the papillae, representing the pistil in male flowers,
wing of Apteryx, or better, the little wings under soldered
elytra. These organs are now plainly useless, and a fortiori,
they would be useless in a less developed state. Natural Selec-
tion acts exclusively by preserving successive slight, tiseful
modifications. Hence Natural Selection cannot possibly make
a useless or rudimentary organ. Such organs are solely due
to inheritance (as explained in my discussion), and plainly
bespeak an ancestor having the organ in a useful condition.
They may be, and often have been, worked in for other pur-
poses, and then they are only rudimentary for the original
function, which is sometimes plainly apparent. A nascent
organ, though little developed, as it has to be developed must
be useful in every stage of development. As we cannot
•prophesy, we cannot tell what organs are now nascent ; and

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

nascent organs will rarely have been handed down by certain
members of a class from a remote period to the present day,
for beings with any important organ but little developed, will
generally have been supplanted by their descendants with the
organ well developed. The mammary glands in Ornitho-
rhynchus may, perhaps, be considered as nascent compared
with the udders of a cow — Ovigerous frena, in certain cirripedes,
are nascent branchiae — in [illegible] the swim bladder is almost
rudimentary for this purpose, and is nascent as a lung. The
small wing of penguin, used only as a fin, might be nascent
as a wing ; not that I think so ; for the whole structure of the
bird is adapted for flight, and a penguin so closely resembles
other birds, that we may infer that its wings have probably
been modified, and reduced by natural selection, in accordance
with its sub-aquatic habits. Analogy thus often serves as a
guide in distinguishing whether an organ is rudimentary or
nascent. I believe the Os coccyx gives attachment to certain
muscles, but I cannot doubt that it is a rudimentary tail.
The bastard wing of birds is a rudimentary digit ; and I
believe that if fossil birds are found very low down in the
series, they will be seen to have a double or bifurcated wing.
Here is a bold prophecy !

To admit prophetic germs, is tantamount to rejecting the
theory of Natural Selection.

I am very glad you think it worth while to run through my
book again, as much, or more, for the subject's sake as for my
own sake. But I look at your keeping the subject for some
little time before your mind — raising your own difficulties
and solving them — as far more important than reading my
book. If you think enough, I expect you will be perverted,
and if you ever are, I shall know that the theory of Natural
Selection is, in the main, safe ; that it includes, as now put
forth, many errors, is almost certain, though I cannot see
them. Do not, of course, think of answering this ; but if you have
other occasion to write again, just say whether I have, in ever

I859-]

AGASSIZ.

215

so slight a degree, shaken any of your objections. Farewell.
With my cordial thanks for your long letters and valuable
remarks,

Believe me, yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — You often allude to Lamarck's work ; I do not know
what you think about it, but it appeared to me extremely
poor ; I got not a fact or idea from it.

C. Darwin to L. Agassiz*

Down, November nth [1859].

My DEAR Sir, — I have ventured to send you a copy of my
book (as yet only an abstract) on the ' Origin of Species.'
As the conclusions at which I have arrived on several points
differ so widely from yours, I have thought (should you at
any time read my volume) that you might think that I had
sent it to you out of a spirit of defiance or bravado ; but I
assure you that I act under a wholly different frame of mind.
I hope that you will at least give me credit, however erro-
neous you may think my conclusions, for having earnestly
endeavoured to arrive at the truth. With sincere respect,

I beg leave to remain,

Yours very faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

* Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz,
born at Mortier,onthelakeof Morat
in Switzerland, on May 28, 1807.
He emigrated to America in 1846,
where he spent the rest of his life,
and died Dec. 14, 1873. His ' Life,'
written by his widow, was published
in 1885. The following extract from
a letter to Agassiz (1850) is worth
giving, as showing how my father
regarded him, and it may be added
that his cordial feelings towards the
great American naturalist remained
: strong to the end of his life : —

" I have seldom been more deeply
gratified than by receiving your
most kind present of ' Lake Su-
perior.' I had heard of it, and had
much wished to read it, but I con-
fess that it was the very great
honour of having in my posses-
sion a work with your autograph
as a presentation copy, that has
given me such lively and sincere
pleasure. I cordially thank you
for it. I have begun to read it
with uncommon interest, which I
see will increase as I go on."

2l6 PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [1859..

C. Darwin to A. De Candolle.

Down, November nth [1859].

DEAR SIR, — I have thought that you would permit me to
send you (by Messrs. Williams and Norgate, booksellers)
a copy of my work (as yet only an abstract) on the ' Origin
of Species.' I wish to do this, as the only, though quite
inadequate manner, by which I can testify to you the extreme
interest which I have felt, and the great advantage which I
have derived, from studying your grand and noble work on
Geographical Distribution. Should you be induced to read
my volume, I venture to remark that it will be intelligible
only by reading the whole straight through, as it is very much
condensed. It would be a high gratification to me if any
portion interested you. But I am perfectly well aware that
you will entirely disagree with the conclusion at which I have
arrived.

You will probably have quite forgotten me ; but many
years ago you did me the honour of dining at my house in
London to meet M. and Madame Sismondi,* the uncle and
aunt of my wife. With sincere respect, I beg to remain,

Yours very faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwi?i to Hugh Falconer.

Down, November nth [1859].

My DEAR FALCONER, — I have told Murray to send you
a copy of my book on the ' Origin of Species/ which as yet
is only an abstract.

If you read it, you must read it straight through, otherwise
from its extremely condensed state it will be unintelligible.

Lord, how savage you will be, if you read it, and how you
will long to crucify me alive ! I fear it will produce no other

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

1 8 59.] DE CANDOLLE — FALCONER — GRAY. 217

effect on you ; but if it should stagger you in ever so slight
a degree, in this case, I am fully convinced that you will
become, year after year, less fixed in your belief in the immut-
ability of species. With this audacious and presumptuous

conviction,

I remain, my dear Falconer,

Yours most truly,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, November nth [1859].

My DEAR Gray, — I have directed a copy of my book (as
yet only an abstract) on the ' Origin of Species ' to be sent
you. I know how you are pressed for time ; but if you can
read it, I shall be infinitely gratified .... If ever you
do read it, and can screw out time to send me (as I value
your opinion so highly), however short a note, telling me
what you think its weakest and best parts, I should be ex-
tremely grateful. As you are not a geologist, you will excuse
my conceit in telling you that Lyell highly approves of the
two Geological chapters, and thinks that on the Imperfection
of the Geological Record not exaggerated. He is nearly
a convert to my views

Let me add I fully admit that there are very many diffi-
culties not satisfactorily explained by my theory of descent
with modification, but I cannot possibly believe that a false
theory would explain so many classes of facts as I think it
certainly does explain. On these grounds I drop my anchor,
and believe that the difficulties will slowly disappear. . . .

C. Darwin to jf. S. Henslow.

Down, November nth, 1859.
My DEAR HENSLOW, — I have told Murray to send a copy
of my book on Species to you, my dear old master in Natural

:2l8 [ PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [1859.

History ; I fear, however, that you will not approve of your
pupil in this case. The book in its present state does not
show the amount of labour which I have bestowed on the
subject.

If you have time to read it carefully, and would take the
trouble to point out what parts seem weakest to you and
what best, it would be a most material aid to me in writing
my bigger book, which I hope to commence in a few months.
You know also how highly I value your judgment. But I
am not so unreasonable as to wish or expect you to write
detailed and lengthy criticisms, but merely a few general
remarks, pointing out the weakest parts.

If you are in even so slight a degree staggered (which I
hardly expect) on the immutability of species, then I am
convinced with further reflection you will become more and
more staggered, for this has been the process through which
my mind has gone. My dear Henslow,

Yours affectionately and gratefully,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to John Ltibbock.

*

Ilkley, Yorkshire,
Saturday [November 12th, 1859].

. . . Thank you much for asking me to Brighton. I hope
much that you will enjoy your holiday. I have told Murray
to send a copy for you to Mansion House Street, and I am
surprised that you have not received it. There are so many
valid and weighty arguments against my notions, that you,
or any one, if you wish on the other side, will easily persuade
yourself that I am wholly in error, and no doubt I am in part
in error, perhaps wholly so, though I cannot see the blindness
of my ways. I dare say when thunder and lightning were
first proved to be due to secondary causes, some regretted to

* The present Sir John Lubbock.

1 859.] HENSLOW — LUBBOCK — JENYNS. 219

give up the idea that each flash was caused by the direct
hand of God.

Farewell, I am feeling very unwell to-day, so no more.

Yours very truly,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to John Ltibbock.

Ilkley, Yorkshire,
Tuesday [November 15th, 1859].

My DEAR LUBBOCK, — I beg pardon for troubling you
again. I do not know how I blundered in expressing myself
in making you believe that we accepted your kind invitation
to Brighton. I meant merely to thank you sincerely for
wishing to see such a worn-out old dog as myself. I hardly
know when we leave this place, — not under a fortnight, and
then we shall wish to rest under our own roof-tree.

I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than
Paley's ' Natural Theology.' I could almost formerly have
said it by heart.

I am glad you have got my book, but I fear that you value
it far too highly. I should be grateful for any criticisms. I
care not for Reviews ; but for the opinion of men like you
and Hooker and Huxley and Lyell, &c.

Farewell, with our joint thanks to Mrs. Lubbock and

yourself. Adios.

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to L. Jenyns*

Ilkley, Yorkshire.
November 13th, 1859.

My DEAR JENYNS, — I must thank you for your very kind

note forwarded to me from Down. I have been much out

of health this summer, and have been hydropathising here for

the last six weeks with very little good as yet. I shall stay

* Now Rev. L. Blomefield.

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

here for another fortnight at least. Please remember that my
book is only an abstract, and very much condensed, and, to
be at all intelligible, must be carefully read. I shall be very
grateful for any criticisms. But I know perfectly well that
you will not at all agree with the lengths which I go. It took
long years to convert me. I may, of course, be egregiously
wrong ; but I cannot persuade myself that a theory which
explains (as I think it certainly does) several large classes of
facts, can be wholly wrong ; notwithstanding the several diffi-
culties which have to be surmounted somehow, and which
stagger me even to this day.

I wish that my health had allowed me to publish in
extenso ; if ever I get strong enough I will do so, as the
greater part is written out, and of which MS. the present
volume is an abstract.

I fear this note will be almost illegible ; but I am poorly ?
and can hardly sit up. Farewell ; with thanks for your kind
note, and pleasant remembrances of good old days.

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Ilkley, November 13th, 1859.

My DEAR Sir, — I have told Murray to send you by post
(if possible) a copy of my book, and I hope that you will
receive it at nearly the same time with this note. (N.B. I
have got a bad finger, which makes me write extra badly.)
If you are so inclined, I should very much like to hear your
general impression of the book, as you have thought so pro-
foundly on the subject, and in so nearly the same channel
with myself. I hope there will be some little new to you, but
I fear not much. Remember it is only an abstract, and very
much condensed. God knows what the public will think. No
one has read it, except Lyell, with whom I have had much
correspondence. Hooker thinks him a complete convert, but

1 859.] MR. WALLACE. 221

he does not seem so in his letters to me ; but is evidently
deeply interested in the subject. I do not think your share
in the theory will be overlooked by the real judges, as
Hooker, Lyell, Asa Gray, &c. I have heard from Mr. Sclater
that your paper on the Malay Archipelago has been read
at the Linnean Society, and that he was extremely much
interested by it.

I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months,
owing to the state of my health, and therefore I really have
no news to tell you. I am writing this at Ilkley Wells, where
I have been with my family for the last six weeks, and shall
stay for some few weeks longer. As yet I have profited
very little. God knows when I shall have strength for my
bigger book.

I sincerely hope that you keep your health ; I suppose that
you will be thinking , of returning * soon with your magni-
ficent collections, and still grander mental materials. You
will be puzzled how to publish. The Royal Society fund will
be worth your consideration. With every good wish, pray
believe me,

Yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

P.S. — I think that I told you before that Hooker is a
complete convert. If I can convert Huxley I shall be
content.

C. Darwin to W. D. Fox.

Ilkley, Yorkshire,
Wednesday [November 16th, 1859].

I like the place very much, and the children have

enjoyed it much, and it has done my wife good. It did H.
good at first, but she has gone back again. I have had a
series of calamities ; first a sprained ankle, and then a badly

* Mr. Wallace was in the Malay Archipelago,

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

swollen whole leg and face, much rash, and a frightful succes-
sion of boils — four or five at once. I have felt quite ill, and
have little faith in this " unique crisis," as the doctor calls it,

doing me much good You will probably have

received, or will very soon receive, my weariful book on
species. I naturally believe it mainly includes the truth, but
you will not at all agree with me. Dr. Hooker, whom I con-
sider one of the best judges in Europe, is a complete convert,
and he thinks Lyell is likewise; certainly, judging from Lyell's
letters to me on the subject, he is deeply staggered. Farewell.
If the spirit moves you, let me have a line. . . .

C. Darwin to W. B. Carpenter.

Ilkley, Yorkshire,

November 18th [1859].

My dear Carpenter, — I must thank you for your letter
on my own account, and, if I know myself, still more warmly
for the subject's sake. As you seem to have understood my
last chapter without reading the previous chapters, you must
have maturely and most profoundly self-thought out the sub-
ject; for I have found the most extraordinary difficulty in
making even able men understand at what I was driving.
There will be strong opposition to my views. If I am in the
main right (of course including partial errors unseen by me),
the admission of my views will depend far more on men, like
yourself, with well-established reputations, than on my own
writings. Therefore, on the supposition that when you have
read my volume you think the view in the main true, I thank
and honour you for being willing to run the chance of unpopu-
larity by advocating the view. I know not in the least
whether any one will review me in any of the Reviews. I do
not see how an author could enquire or interfere ; but if you
are willing to review me anywhere, I am sure from the admira-
tion which I have long felt and expressed for your ' Compara-

1 859.] DR. CARPENTER. 223

tive Physiology,' that your review will be excellently done, and
will do good service in the cause for which I think I am not
selfishly deeply interested. I am feeling very unwell to-day,
and this note is badly, perhaps hardly intelligibly, expressed ;
but you must excuse me, for I could not let a post pass>
without thanking you for your note. You will have a tough
job even to shake in the slightest degree Sir H. Holland. I
do not think (privately I say it) that the great man has know-
ledge enough to enter on the subject. Pray believe me with
sincerity,

Yours truly obliged,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — As you are not a practical geologist, let me add that
Lyell thinks the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological
Record not exaggerated.

C. Darwin to W. B. Carpenter.

Ilkley, Yorkshire,

November 19th [1859].

My dear Carpenter, — I beg pardon for troubling you
again. If, after reading my book, you are able to come to a
conclusion in any degree definite, will you think me very un-
reasonable in asking you to let me hear from you. I do not
ask for a long discussion, but merely for a brief idea of your
general impression. From your widely extended knowledge,
habit of investigating the truth, and abilities, I should value
your opinion in the very highest rank. Though I, of course,
believe in the truth of my own doctrine, I suspect that no
belief is vivid until shared by others. As yet I know only one
believer, but I look at him as of the greatest authority, viz.
Hooker. When I think of the many cases of men who
have studied one subject for years, and have persuaded

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

themselves of the truth of the foolishest doctrines, I feel
sometimes a little frightened, whether I may not be one of
these monomaniacs.

Again pray excuse this, I fear, unreasonable request. A
short note would suffice, and I could bear a hostile verdict, and
shall have to bear many a one.

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to jf. D. Hooker.

Ilkley, Yorkshire,

Sunday [November, 1859].

My DEAR HOOKER, — I have just read a review on my
book in the Athenoeum* and it excites my curiosity much
who is the author. If you should hear who writes in the
Athenceum I wish you would tell me. It seems to me well
done, but the reviewer gives no new objections, and, being
hostile, passes over every single argument in favour of the
doctrine, ... I fear from the tone of the review, that I have
written in a conceited and cocksure style,f which shames
me a little. There is another review of which I should like
to know the author, viz. of H. C. Watson in the Gardeners^
Chronicle. % Some of the remarks are like yours, and he does
deserve punishment ; but surely the review is too severe.
Don't you think so ? . . . .

I have heard from Carpenter, who, I think, is likely to be a
convert. Also from Ouatrefages, who is inclined to go a
long way with us. He says that he exhibited in his lecture
a diagram closely like mine !

* Nov. 19, 1859. ulties "more or less confidently."
t The Reviewer speaks of the % A review of the fourth volume

author's u evident self-satisfaction," of Watson's ' Cybele Britannica,'

and of his disposing of all diffic- Card. C/iron., 1859, p. 911.

1 859.] OPINIONS AND REVIEWS. 225

I shall stay here one fortnight more, and then go to Down,

staying on the road at Shrewsbury a week. I have been very

unfortunate : out of seven weeks I have been confined for five

to the house. This has been bad for me, as I have not been

able to help thinking to a foolish extent about my book. If

some four or five good men came round nearly to our view, I

shall not fear ultimate success. I long to learn what Huxley

thinks. Is your Introduction* published ? I suppose that you

will sell it separately. Please answer this, for I want an

extra copy to send away to Wallace. I am very bothersome,

farewell.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.
I was very glad to see the Royal Medal for Mr. Bentham.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [November 21st, 1859].

My DEAR HOOKER, — Pray give my thanks to Mrs. Hooker
for her extremely kind note, which has pleased me much.
We are very sorry she cannot come here, but shall be delighted
to see you and W. (our boys will be at home) here in the
2nd week of January, or any other time. I shall much enjoy
discussing any points in my book with you. . . .

I hate to hear you abuse your own work. I, on the con-
trary, so sincerely value all that you have written. It is an old
and firm conviction of mine, that the Naturalists who accumu-
late facts and make many partial generalisations are the real
benefactors of science. Those who merely accumulate facts I
cannot very much respect.

I had hoped to have come up for the Club to-morrow, but
very much doubt whether I shall be able. Ilkley seems to
have done me no essential good. I attended the Bench on

* Introduction to the ' Flora of Australia.'
VOL. II. O

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

Monday, and was detained in adjudicating some troublesome
cases 1 J hours longer than usual, and came home utterly
knocked up, and cannot rally. I am not worth an old

button Many thanks for your pleasant note.

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — I feel confident that for the future progress of the
subject of the origin, and manner of formation of species, the
assent and arguments and facts of working naturalists, like
yourself, are far more important than my own book ; so for
God's sake do not abuse your Introduction.

H\ C. Watson to C. Darwin.

Thames Ditton, November 21st [1859].

My DEAR Sir, — Once commenced to read the ' Origin,' I
could not rest till I had galloped through the whole. I shall
now begin to re-read it more deliberately. Meantime I am
tempted to write you the first impressions, not doubting that
they will, in the main, be the permanent impressions : —

1st. Your leading idea will assuredly become recognised as
an established truth in science, i.e. " Natural selection." It
has the characteristics of all great natural truths, clarifying
what was obscure, simplifying what was intricate, adding
greatly to previous knowledge. You are the greatest revo-
lutionist in natural history of this century, if not of all
centuries.

2nd. You will perhaps need, in some degree, to limit or
modify, possibly in some degree also to extend, your present
applications of the principle of natural selection. Without
going to matters of more detail, it strikes me that there is
one considerable primary inconsistency, by one failure in the
analogy between varieties and species ; another by a sort of
barrier assumed for nature on insufficient grounds, and arising
from " divergence." These may, however, be faults in my

1859.] H- c- WATSON. 227

own mind, attributable to yet incomplete perception of your
views. And I had better not trouble you about them before
again reading the volume.

3rd. Now these novel views are brought fairly before the
scientific public, it seems truly remarkable how so many of
them could have failed to see their right road sooner. How
could Sir C. Lyell, for instance, for thirty years read, write,
and think, on the subject of species and their succession, and
yet constantly look down the wrong road !

A quarter of a century ago, you and I must have been in
something like the same state of mind on the main question.
But you were able to see and work out the quo modo of the
succession, the all-important thing, while I failed to grasp it.
I send by this post a little controversial pamphlet of old
date — Combe and Scott. If you will take the trouble to
glance at the passages scored on the margin, you will see
that, a quarter of a century ago, I was also one of the few who
then doubted the absolute distinctness of species, and special
creations of them. Yet I, like the rest, failed to detect the
quo modo which was reserved for your penetration to discover,
and your discernment to apply.

You answered my query about the hiatus between Satyrus
and Homo as was expected. The obvious explanation really
never occurred to me till some months after I had read the
papers in the 'Linnean Proceedings.' The first species of
Fere-homo * would soon make direct and exterminating war
upon his Infra-homo cousins. The gap would thus be made,
and then go on increasing, into the present enormous and
still widening hiatus. But how greatly this, with your
chronology of animal life, will shock the ideas of many
men !

Very sincerely,

Hewett C. Watson.

* " Almost-man."

Q 2

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

J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin,

Athenaeum, Monday [Nov. 21, 1859].

My DEAR Darwin, — I am a sinner not to have written
you ere this, if only to thank you for your glorious book' —
what a mass of close reasoning on curious facts and fresh
phenomena — it is capitally written, and will be very suc-
cessful. I say this on the strength of two or three plunges
into as many chapters, for I have not yet attempted to read
it. Lyell, with whom we are staying, is perfectly enchanted,
and is absolutely gloating over it. I must accept your com-
pliment to me, and acknowledgment of supposed assistance
from me, as the warm tribute of affection from an honest
(though deluded) man, and furthermore accept it as very
pleasing to my vanity ; but, my dear fellow, neither my name
nor my judgment nor my assistance deserved any such com-
pliments, and if I am dishonest enough to be pleased with
what I don't deserve, it must just pass. How different the
book reads from the MS. I see I shall have much to talk
over with you. Those lazy printers have not finished my
luckless Essay ; which, beside your book, will look like a
ragged handkerchief beside a Royal Standard . . .
All well, ever yours affectionately,

Jos. D. Hooker.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Ilkley, Yorkshire [November, 1859].

My DEAR HOOKER, — I cannot help it, I must thank you

for your affectionate and most kind note. My head will be

turned. By Jove, I must try and get a bit modest. I was

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

* This refers to the review book, leaves the author to "the

in the AthencEiwi, Nov. 19, 1859, mercies of the Divinity Hall, the

where the reviewer, after touching College, the Lecture Room, and

on the theological aspects of the the Museum."

1S59] TIIE 'ATHENAEUM.' 229

As advocate, he might think himself justified in giving the
argument only on one side. But the manner in which he
drags in immortality, and sets the priests at me, and leaves
me to their mercies, is base. He would, on no account, burn
me, but he will get the wood ready, and tell the black beasts
how to catch me. ... It would be unspeakably grand if
Huxley were to lecture on the subject, but I can see this is a
mere chance ; Faraday might think it too unorthodox.

... I had a letter from [Huxley] with such tremendous
praise of my book, that modesty (as I am trying to cultivate
that difficult herb) prevents me sending it to you, which
I should have liked to have done, as he is very modest about
himself.

You have cockered me up to that extent, that I now feel I
can face a score of savage reviewers. I suppose you are still
with the Lyells. Give my kindest remembrance to them. I
triumph to hear that he continues to approve.

Believe me, your would-be modest friend,

C. D.

C. Darwin to C. Lye 11.

Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire,

November 23rd [1859].

My DEAR Lyell, — You seemed to have worked admirably
on the species question ; there could not have been a better
plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice pro-
foundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modifica-
tion in your new edition ;* nothing, I am convinced, could be
more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely.
To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a
question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a

* It appears from Sir Charles lished till 1865. He was, however,

Lyell's published letters that he in- at work on the ' Antiquity of Man'

tended to admit the doctrine of in i860, and had already deter-

evolution in a new edition of the mined to discuss the ' Origin ' at

' Manual,' but this was not pub- the end of the book.

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

fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer
a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly ; for, thinking
of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often
and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have
asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a
phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that in-
vestigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly
wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criti-
cisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to.
I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an
atheist, &c, whether the admission of the doctrine of natural
selection could injure your works ; but I hope and think not,
for, as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is
expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views
are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of
the multiple origin of dogs. The only difference is, that in the
case of single origins, all difference of the races has originated
since man domesticated the species. In the case of multiple
origins, part of the difference was produced under natural con-
ditions. I should infinitely prefer the theory of single origin
in all cases, if facts would permit its reception. But there
seems to me some a priori improbability (seeing how fond
savages are of taming animals), that throughout all times, and
throughout all the world, man should have domesticated one
single species alone, of the widely distributed genus Canis.
Besides this, the close resemblance of at least three kinds of
American domestic dogs to wild species still inhabiting the
countries where they are now domesticated, seems to almost
compel admission that more than one wild Canis has been
domesticated by man.

I thank you cordially for all the generous zeal and interest
you have shown about my book, and I remain, my dear Lyell,
Your affectionate friend and disciple,

Charles Darwin.

1 859J MR- HUXLEY'S ADHERENCE. 23 I

Sir J. Herschel, to whom I sent a copy, is going to read my
book. He says he leans to the side opposed to me. If you
should meet him after he has read me, pray find out what he
thinks, for, of course, he will not write ; and I should ex-
cessively like to hear whether I produce any effect on such a
mind.

T. H. Huxley to C. Darwin.

Jermyn Street, W.,

November 23rd, 1859.

My DEAR DARWIN, — I finished your book yesterday, a
lucky examination having furnished me with a few hours of
continuous leisure.

Since I read Von Bar's * essays, nine years ago, no work on
Natural History Science I have met with has made so great
an impression upon me, and I do most heartily thank you for
the great store of new views you have given me. Nothing, I
think, can be better than the tone of the book, it impresses
those who know nothing about the subject. As for your
doctrine, I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite, in sup-
port of Chapter IX., and most parts of Chapters X., XL, XII.,
and Chapter XIII. contains much that is most admirable,
but on one or two points I enter a caveat until I can see
further into all sides of the question.

As to the first four chapters, I agree thoroughly and fully
with all the principles laid down in them. I think you have
demonstrated a true cause for the production of species, and
have thrown the onus probandi, that species did not arise in
the way you suppose, on your adversaries.

But I feel that I have not yet by any means fully
realized the bearings of those most remarkable and original

* Karl Ernst von Baer, b. 1792, my. He practically founded the
d. at Dorpat 1876 — one of the most modern science of embryology.
• distinguished biologists of the cent-

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

Chapters III., IV. and V., and I will write no more about
them just now.

The only objections that have occurred to me are, 1st that
you have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in
adopting Natura 11011 facit saltum so unreservedly. . . . And
2nd, it is not clear to me why, if continual physical conditions
are of so little moment as you suppose, variation should
occur at all.

However, I must read the book two or three times more
before I presume to begin picking holes.

I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way dis-
gusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse and mis-
representation which, unless I greatly mistake, is in store for
you. Depend upon it you have earned the lasting gratitude
of all thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark
and yelp, you must recollect that some of your friends, at
any rate, are endowed with an amount of combativeness
which (though you have often and justly rebuked it) may
stand you in good stead.

I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness.

Looking back over my letter, it really expresses so feebly
all I think about you and your noble book that I am half
ashamed of it ; but you will understand that, like the parrot
in the story, " I think the more."

Ever yours faithfully,

T. H. Huxley.

C. Danvin to T. H. Huxley.

Ilkley, Nov. 25 [1859],

My DEAR HUXLEY, — Your letter has been forwarded to
me from Down. Like a G^ood Catholic who has received
extreme unction, I can now sing " nunc dimittis." I should
have been more than contented with one quarter of what you
have said. Exactly fifteen months ago, when I put pen to

1 859.] MR. HUXLEY'S ADHERENCE. 233

paper for this volume, I had awful misgivings ; and thought
perhaps I had deluded myself, like so many have done,
and I then fixed in my mind three judges, on whose decision
I determined mentally to abide. The judges were Lyell,
Hooker, and yourself. It was this which made me so exces-
sively anxious for your verdict. I am now contented, and
can sing my "nunc dimittis." What a joke it would be if I
pat you on the back when you attack some immovable crea-
tionists ! You have most cleverly hit on one point, which has
greatly troubled me ; if, as I must think, external conditions
produce little direct effect, what the devil determines each
particular variation ? What makes a tuft of feathers come
on a cock's head, or moss on a moss-rose ? I shall much like
to talk over this with you. . . .

My dear Huxley, I thank you cordially for your letter.

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — Hereafter I shall be particularly curious to hear what
you think of my explanation of Embryological similarity.
On classification I fear we shall split. Did you perceive the
argumentum ad hominem Huxley about the kangaroo and
bear?

Erasmus Darwin to C. Darwin.

November 23rd [1859].

DEAR CHARLES, — I am so much weaker in the head, that
I hardly know if I can write, but at all events I will jot down
a few things that the Dr.* has said. He has not read much
above half, so as he says he can give no definite conclusion,
and it is my private belief he wishes to remain in that state.
. . . He is evidently in a dreadful state of indecision, and
keeps stating that he is not tied down to either view^ and that
he has always left an escape by the way he has spoken of

* Dr., afterwards Sir Henry Holland.

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

varieties. I happened to speak of the eye before he had read
that part, and it took away his breath — utterly impossible —
structure — function, &c, &c, &c, but when he had read it he
hummed and hawed, and perhaps it was partly conceivable,
and then he fell back on the bones of the ear, which were
beyond all probability or conceivability. He mentioned a
slight blot, which I also observed, that in speaking of the
slave-ants carrying one another, you change the species
without giving notice first, and it makes one turn back. . . .

. . . For myself I really think it is the most interesting
book I ever read, and can only compare it to the first know-
ledge of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind
the scenes. To me the geographical distribution, I mean the
relation of islands to continents is the most convincing of the
proofs, and the relation of the oldest forms to the existing
species. I dare say I don't feel enough the absence of
varieties, but then I don't in the least know if everything
now living were fossilized whether the palaeontologists could
distinguish them. In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely
satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much
the worse for the facts is my' feeling. My ague has left me
in such a state of torpidity that I wish I had gone through
the process of natural selection.

Yours affectionately,

E. A. D.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Ilkley, November [24th, 1859].

My DEAR Lyell, — Again I have to thank you for a most
valuable lot of criticisms in a letter dated 22nd.

This morning I heard also from Murray that he sold the
whole edition * the first day to the trade. He wants a new
-edition instantly, and this utterly confounds me. Now, under

* First edition, 1250 copies.

1 859.] NEW EDITION. 235

water-cure, with all nervous power directed to the skin, I
cannot possibly do head-work, and I must make only actually
necessary corrections. But I will, as far as I can without
my manuscript, take advantage of your suggestions : I must
not attempt much. Will you send me one line to say whether
I must strike out about the secondary whale,* it goes to my
heart. About the rattle-snake, look to my Journal, under
Trigonocephalus, and you will see the probable origin of the
rattle, and generally in transitions it is the premier pas qui
£ozcte.

Madame Belloc wants to translate my book into French ;
I have offered to look over proofs for scientific errors. Did
you ever hear of her ? I believe Murray has agreed at my
urgent advice, but I fear I have been rash and premature.
Ouatrefages has written to me, saying he agrees largely with
my views. He is an excellent naturalist. I am pressed for
time. Will you give us one line about the whales ? Again
I thank you for never-tiring advice and assistance ; I do in
truth reverence your unselfish and pure love of truth.

My dear Lyell, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

[With regard to a French translation, he wrote to Mr.
Murray in Nov. 1859: "I am extremely anxious, for the
subject's sake (and God knows not for mere fame), to have
my book translated ; and indirectly its being known abroad
will do good to the English sale. If it depended on me,
I should agree without payment, and instantly send a copy,
and only beg that she [Mme. Belloc] would get some scientific
man to look over the translation. . . . You might say that,
though I am a very poor French scholar, I could detect any
scientific mistake, and would read over the French proofs."

The proposed translation was not made, and a second
plan fell through in the following year. He wrote to M. de

* The passage was omitted in the second edition.

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

Quatrefages : " The gentleman who wished to translate my
' Origin of Species ' has failed in getting a publisher.
Bailliere, Masson, and Hachette all rejected it with contempt.
It was foolish and presumptuous in me, hoping to appear in a
French dress ; but the idea would not have entered my head
had it not been suggested to me. It is a great loss. I must
console myself with the German edition which Prof. Bronn is
bringing out." *

A sentence in another letter to M. de Quatrefages shows
how anxious^ he was to convert one of the greatest of contemp-
orary Zoologists : " How I should like to know whether
Milne-Edwards has read the copy which I sent him, and
whether he thinks I have made a pretty good case on our
side of the question. There is no naturalist in the world
for whose opinion I have so profound a respect. Of course I
am not so silly as to expect to change his opinion."]

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Ilkley, [November 25th, 1859].

My DEAR LYELL, — I have received your letter of the 24th.
It is no use trying to thank you ; your kindness is beyond
thanks. I will certainly leave out the whale and bear . . .

The edition was 1250 copies. When I was in spirits, I
sometimes fancied that my book would be successful, but I
never even built a castle in the air of such success as it has
met with ; I do not mean the sale, but the impression it has
made on you (whom I have always looked at as chief judge)
and Hooker and Huxley. The whole has infinitely exceeded
my wildest hopes.

Farewell, I am tired, for I have been going over the sheets.

My kind friend, farewell, yours,

C. Darwin.

* See letters to Bronn, p. 276.

1 359-]

PROGRESS OF OPINION.

237

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Ilkley, Yorkshire,

December 2nd [1859].

My DEAR Lyell, — Every note which you have sent me has
interested me much. Pray thank Lady Lyell for her remark.
In the chapters she refers to, I was unable to modify the pas-
sage in accordance to your suggestion ; but in the final
chapter I have modified three or four. Kingsley, in a note *
to me, had a capital paragraph on such notions as mine being
not opposed to a high conception of the Deity. I have inserted
it as an extract from a letter to me from a celebrated author
and divine. I have put in about nascent organs. I had the
greatest difficulty in partially making out Sedgwick's letter, and
I dare say I did greatly underrate its clearness. Do what I
could, I fear I shall be greatly abused. In answer to Sedg-
wick's remark that my book would be " mischievous," I asked
him whether truth can be known except by being victorious
over all attacks. But it is no use. H. C. Watson tells me
that one zoologist says he will read my book, " but I will never
believe it." What a spirit to read any book in ! Crawford
writes to me that his notice f will be hostile, but that " he will
not calumniate the author." He says he has read my book,
" at least such parts as he could understand." He sent me
some notes and suggestions (quite unimportant), and they
show me that I have unavoidably done harm to the subject,
by publishing an abstract. He is a real Pallasian ; nearly all
our domestic races descended from a multitude of wild species
now commingled. I expected Murchison to be outrageous.

* The letter is given at Vol. II.
p. 287.

f John Crawford, orientalist, eth-
nologist, &c, b. 1783, d. 1868. The
review appeared in the Examiner,
and, though hostile, is free from
bigotry, as the following citation
will show : " We cannot help saying

that piety must be fastidious indeed
that objects to a theory the ten-
dency of which is to show that all
organic beings, man included, are
in a perpetual progress of ameliora-
tion, and that is expounded in the
reverential language which we have
quoted."

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

How little he could ever have grappled with the subject
of denudation ! How singular so great a geologist should
have so unphilosophical a mind ! I have had several notes

from , very civil and less decided. Says he shall not

pronounce against me without much reflection, perhaps will
say nothing on the subject. X. says he will go to that part
of hell, which Dante tells us is appointed for those who are
neither on God's side nor on that of the devil.

I fully believe that I owe the comfort of the next few years
of my life to your generous support, and that of a very few
others. I do not think I am brave enough to have stood
being odious without support ; now I feel as bold as a lion.
But there ris one thing I can see I must learn, viz. to think
less of myself and my book. Farewell, with cordial thanks,

Yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

I return home on the 7th, and shall sleep at Erasmus's. I
will call on you about ten o'clock, on Thursday, the 8th, and sit
with you, as I have so often sat, during your breakfast.

[In December there appeared in ' Macmillan's Magazine'
an article, " Time and Life," by Professor Huxley. It is
mainly occupied by an analysis of the argument of the
' Origin,' but it also gives the substance of a lecture deliver-
ed at the!Royal Institution before that book was published.
Professor Huxley spoke strongly in favour of evolution in his
Lecture, and explains that in so doing he was to a great
extent resting on a knowledge of " the general tenor of the
researches in which Mr. Darwin had been so long engaged,"
and was supported in so doing by his perfect confidence in
his knowledge, perseverance, and " high-minded love of
truth." He was evidently deeply pleased by Mr. Huxley's
words, and wrote :

" I must thank you for your extremely kind notice of my
book in ' Macmillan.' No one could receive a more delightful

1 859.] REVIEWS. 239

and honourable compliment. I had not heard of your
Lecture, owing to my retired life. You attribute much too
much to me from our mutual friendship. You have explained
my leading idea with admirable clearness. What a gift you
have of writing (or more properly thinking) clearly."]

C Darwin to W. B. Carpenter.

Ilkley, Yorkshire,

December 3rd [1859].

My DEAR CARPENTER, — I am perfectly delighted at your
letter. It is a great thing to have got a great physiologist on
our side. I say " our " for we are now a good and compact
body of really good men, and mostly not old men. In the
long-run we shall conquer. I do not like being abused, but I
feel that I can now bear it ; and, as I told Lyell, I am well
convinced that it is the first offender who reaps the rich
harvest of abuse. You have done an essential kindness in
checking the odium theologicum in the [?] * It much pains
all one's female relations and injures the cause.

I look at it as immaterial whether we go quite the same
lengths ; and I suspect, judging from myself, that you will go
further, by thinking of a population of forms like Ornitho-
rhynchus, and by thinking of the common homological and
embryological structure of the several vertebrate orders. But
this is immaterial. I quite agree that the principle is every-
thing. In my fuller MS. I have discussed a good many
instincts ; but there will surely be more unfilled gaps here
than with corporeal structure, for we have no fossil instincts,
and know scarcely any except of European animals. When
I reflect how very slowly I came round myself, I am in truth
astonished at the candour shown by Lyell, Hooker, Huxley,

* This must refer to Carpenter's number of the ' National Review,'
critique, which would now have i860, and in which the odium theo-
been ready to appear in the January logicum is referred to.

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

and yourself. In my opinion it is grand. I thank you cor-
dially for taking the trouble of writing a review for the
' National.' God knows I shall have few enough in any
degree favourable.*

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Saturday [December 5th, 1859].
... I have had a letter from Carpenter this morning. He
reviews me in the ' National.' He is a convert, but does not
go quite so far as I, but quite far enough, for he admits that
all birds are from one progenitor, and probably all fishes and
reptiles from another parent. But the last mouthful chokes
him. He can hardly admit all vertebrates from one parent.
He will surely come to this from Homology and Embryology.
I look at it as grand having brought round a great physio-
logist, for great I think he certainly is in that line. How
curious I shall be to know what line Owen will take: dead
against us, I fear ; but he wrote me a most liberal note on the
reception of my book, and said he was quite prepared to
consider fairly and without prejudice my line of argument.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, Saturday"[December 12th, 1859].

... I had very long interviews with , which perhaps

you would like to hear about. ... I infer from several
expressions that, at bottom, he goes an immense way with
us

He said to the effect that my explanation was the best
ever published of the manner of formation of species. I said
I was very glad to hear it. He took me up short : " You must
not at all suppose that I agree with you in all respects." I
said I thought it no more likely that I should be right in

* See a letter to Dr. Carpenter, Vol. II. p. 262.

1 859.] CRITICISM. 24I

nearly all points, than that I should toss up a penny and get
heads twenty times running. I asked him what he thought
the weakest part. He said he had no particular objection to
any part. He added : —

" If I must criticise, I should say, we do not want to know
what Darwin believes and is convinced of, but what he can
prove." I agreed most fully and truly that I have probably
greatly sinned in this line, and defended my general line of
argument of inventing a theory and seeing how many classes
of facts the theory would explain. I added that I would en-
deavour to modify the " believes " and " convinceds." He took
me up short : "You will then spoil your book, the charm of (!)
it is that it is Darwin himself." He added another objec-
tion, that the book was too teres atque rotundus — that it ex-
plained everything, and that it was improbable in the highest
degree that I should succeed in this. I quite agree with this
rather queer objection, and it comes to this that my book
must be very bad or very good. . . .

I have heard, by a roundabout channel, that Herschel says
my book "is the law of higgledy-piggledy." What this
exactly means I do not know, but it is evidently very
contemptuous. If true this is a great blow and discourage-
ment.

C. Darwin to JoJin Lubbock.

December 14th [1859].

. . . The latter part of my stay at Ilkley did me much
good, but I suppose I never shall be strong, for the work
I have had since I came back has knocked me up a little
more than once. I have been busy in getting a reprint (with
a very few corrections) through the press.

My book has been as yet very much more successful
than I ever dreamed of: Murray is now printing 3000 copies.
Have you finished it ? If so, pray tell me whether you are

VOL. II. R

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

with me on the general issue, or against me. If you are
against me, I know well how honourable, fair, and candid an
opponent I shall have, and which is a good deal more than
I can say of all my opponents, . . .

Pray tell me what you have been doing. Have you had
time for any Natural History ? . . .

P.S. — I have got — I wish and hope I might say that we
have got — a fair number of excellent men on our side of the
question on the mutability of species.

J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin.

Kew [1859].

DEAR DARWIN, — You have, I know, been drenched with
letters since the publication of your book, and I have hence
forborne to add my mite.* I hope now that you are well
through Edition II., and I have heard that you were
flourishing in London. I have not yet got half-through the
book, not from want of will, but of time — for it is the very
hardest book to read, to full profits, that I ever tried — it is so
cram-full of matter and reasoning. I am all the more glad
that you have published in this form, for the three volumes,
unprefaced by this, would have choked any Naturalist of the
nineteenth century, and certainly have softened my brain in
the operation of assimilating their contents. I am perfectly
tired of marvelling at the wonderful amount of facts you have
brought to bear, and your skill in marshalling them and
throwing them on the enemy ; it is also extremely clear as
far as I have gone, but very hard to fully appreciate. Some-
how it reads very different from the MS., and I often fancy that
I must have been very stupid not to have more fully followed
it in MS. Lyell told me of his criticisms. I did not appre-
ciate them all, and there are many little matters I hope one
day to talk over with you. I saw a highly flattering notice

* See, however, Vol. II. p. 22S.

•i359.]

CONVERTS.

243

in the ' English Churchman/ short and not at all entering
into discussion, but praising you and your book, and talking
patronizingly of the doctrine ! . . . Bentham and Henslow
will still shake their heads, I fancy. . . .

Ever yours affectionately,

Jos. D. Hooker.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, December 14th [1859].
My DEAR HOOKER, — Your approval of my book, for many
-reasons, gives me intense satisfaction ; but I must make some
allowance for your kindness and sympathy. Any one with
■ordinary faculties, if he had patience enough and plenty of
time, could have written my book. You do not know how I
admire your and Lyell's generous and unselfish sympathy ; I
do not believe either of you would have cared so much about
your own work. My book, as yet, has been far more suc-
cessful than I ever even formerly ventured in the wildest day-
dreams to anticipate. We shall soon be a good body of
working men, and shall have, I am convinced, all young and
rising naturalists on our side. I shall be intensely interested
to hear whether my book produces any effect on A. Gray ;
from what I heard at Lyell's, I fancy your correspondence has
brought him some way already. I fear that there is no
■ chance of Bentham being staggered. Will he read my book ?
Has he a copy? I would send him one of the reprints if he
has not. Old J. E. Gray,* at the British Museum, attacked
me in fine style : " You have just reproduced Lamarck's doc-

* John Edward Gray (born 1800,
died 1875) was the son of S. F.
Gray, author of the ' Supplement
rto the Pharmacopoeia.' In 1821 he
published in his father's name ' The
Natural Arrangement of British
Plants,' one of the earliest works in
English on the natural method. In
.1824 he became connected with the

Natural History Department of the
British Museum, and was appointed
Keeper of the Zoological collections
in 1840. He was the author of
' Illustrations of Indian Zoology,'
'The Knowsley Menagerie,' &c,
and of innumerable descriptive
Zoological papers.

R 2

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

trine, and nothing else, and here Lyell and others have been
attacking him for twenty years, and because you (with a sneer
and laugh) say the very same thing, they are all coming
round ; it is the most ridiculous inconsistency, &c, &c."

You must be very glad to be settled in your house, and I
hope all the improvements satisfy you. As far as my expe-
rience goes, improvements are never perfection. I am very
sorry to hear that you are still so very busy, and have so much
work. And now for the main purport of my note, which is to
ask and beg you and Mrs. Hooker (whom it is really an age
since I have seen), and all your children, if you like, to come
and spend a week here. It would be a great pleasure to me
and to my wife. . . . As far as we can see, we shall be at
home all the winter ; and all times probably would be equally
convenient ; but if you can, do not put it off very late, as it
may slip through. Think of this and persuade Mrs. Hooker^
and be a good man and come.

Farewell, my kind and dear friend,

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — I shall be very curious to hear what you think of my
discussion on Classification in Chap. XIII. ; I believe Huxley
demurs to the whole, and says he has nailed his colours to
the mast, and I would sooner die than give up ; so that
we are in as fine a frame of mind to discuss the point as any
two religionists.

Embryology is my pet bit in my book, and, confound my
friends, not one has noticed this to me.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, December 21st [1859].

My DEAR Gray, — I have just received your most kind,
long, and valuable letter. I will write again in a few days, for
I am at present unwell and much pressed with business :.

1 859-] AMERICAN EDITION. 245

to-day's note is merely personal. I should, for several reasons,

be very glad of an American Edition. I have made up my

mind to be well abused ; but I think it of importance that my

notions should be read by intelligent men, accustomed to

scientific argument, though not naturalists. It may seem

absurd, but I think such men will drag after them those

naturalists who have too firmly fixed in their heads that a

species is an entity. The first edition of 1250 copies was sold

on the first day, and now my publisher is printing off, as

rapidly as possible, 3000 more copies. I mention this solely

because it renders probable a remunerative sale in America.

I should be infinitely obliged if you could aid an American

reprint ; and could make, for my sake and the publisher's, any

arrangement for any profit. The new edition is only a reprint,

yet I have made a few important corrections. I will have

the clean sheets sent over in a few days of as many sheets as

are printed off, and the remainder afterwards, and you can do

anything you like, — if nothing, there is no harm done. I

should be glad for the new edition to be reprinted and not the

old. — In great haste, and with hearty thanks,

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.
I will write soon again.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, 22nd [December, 1859],
MY DEAR Lyell, — Thanks about " Bears," * a word of ill-
omen to me.

I am too unwell to leave home, so shall not see you.

I am very glad of your remarks on Hooker, f I have not yet

* See ' Origin,' ed. i., p. 184. wide botanical experience, and

f Sir C. Lyell wrote to Sir J. D. think it goes very far to raise the

Hooker, Dec. 19, 1S59 (' Life,' ii. variety-making hypothesis to the

p. 327) : " I have just finished the rank of a theory, as accounting for

reading of your splendid Essay [the the manner in which new species

' Flora of Australia '] on the origin enter the world."
of species, as illustrated by your

246 PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [1859;.

got the Essay. The parts which I read in sheets seemed to>
me grand, especially the generalization about the Australian-
flora itself. How superior to Robert Brown's celebrated
essay ! I have not seen Naudin's paper,* and shall not be
able till I hunt the libraries. I am very anxious to see it.
Decaisne seems to think he gives my whole theory. I do
not know when I shall have time and strength to grapple-
with Hooker. . . .

P.S. — I have heard from Sir W. Jardine :f his criticisms are
quite unimportant ; some of the Galapagos so-called species
ought to be called varieties, which I fully expected ; some of
the sub-genera, thought to be wholly endemic, have been found
on the Continent (not that he gives his authority), but I do
not make out that the species are the same. His letter is.
brief and vague, but he says he will write again.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [23rd December, 1859]!

My DEAR HOOKER, — I received last night your ' Intro-
duction,' for which very many thanks ; I am surprised to see

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

t Jardine, Sir William, Bart.,
b. 1800, d. 1874, was the son of
Sir A. Jardine of Applegarth, Dum-
friesshire. He was educated at
Edinburgh, and succeeded to the
title on his father's decease in 1821.
He published, jointly with Mr.
Prideaux J. Selby, Sir Stamford
Raffles, Dr. Horsfield, and other
ornithologists, ' Illustrations of Or-
nithology,' and edited the ' Na-
turalist's Library,' in 40 vols, which
included the four branches : Mam-
malia, Ornithology, Ichthyology,
and Entomology. Of these 40 vols.
14 were written by himself. In

1836 he became editor of the ' Maga-
zine of Zoology and Botany,' which,,
two years later, was transformed
into ' Annals of Natural History,'
but remained under his direction.
For Bonn's Standard Library he
edited White's ' Natural History of
Selborne.' Sir W. Jardine was also*
joint editor of the ' Edinburgh
Philosophical Journal,' and was
author of ' British Salmonidae,'
' Ichthyology of Annandale,' ' Me-
moirs of the late Hugh Strickland,'
' Contributions to Ornithology,'
c Ornithological Synonyms,' &c.
— (Taken from Ward, ' Men of the
Reign,' and Cates, ' Dictionary of
General Biography.')

1 859-] NAUDIN. 247

how big it is : I shall not be able to read it very soon. It
was very good of you to send Naudin, for I was very curious
to see it. I am surprised that Decaisne should say it was
the same as mine. Naudin gives artificial selection, as well
as a score of English writers, and when he says species were
formed in the same manner, I thought the paper would cer-
tainly prove exactly the same as mine. But I cannot find
one word like the struggle for existence and natural selection.
On the contrary, he brings in his principle (p. 103) of finality
(which I do not understand), which, he says, with some authors
is fatality, with others providence, and which adapts the forms
of every being, and harmonises them all throughout nature.

He assumes like old geologists (who assumed that the forces
of nature were formerly greater), that species were at first
more plastic. His simile of tree and classification is like
mine (and others), but he cannot, I think, have reflected
much on the subject, otherwise he would see that genealogy
by itself does not give classification ; I declare I cannot see a
much closer approach to Wallace and me in Naudin than
in Lamarck — we all agree in modification and descent. If
I do not hear from you I will return the ' Revue ' in a few
days (with the cover). I dare say Lyell would be glad to see
it. By the way, I will retain the volume till I hear whether
I shall or not send it to Lyell. I should rather like Lyell
to see this note, though it is foolish work sticking up for

independence or priority.

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

A. Sedgwick* to C. Darwin.

Cambridge, December 24th, 1859.

My DEAR Darwin, — I write to thank you for your work on
the ' Origin of Species.' It came, I think, in the latter part

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

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

of last week ; but it may have come a few days sooner, and
been overlooked among my book-parcels, which often remain
unopened when I am lazy or busy with any work before me.
So soon as I opened it I began to read it, and I finished it,
after many interruptions, on Tuesday. Yesterday I was em-
ployed— 1st, in preparing for my lecture ; 2ndly, in attending
a meeting of my brother Fellows to discuss the final proposi-
tions of the Parliamentary Commissioners ; 3rdly, in lecturing ;
4thly, in hearing the conclusion of the discussion and the
College reply, whereby, in conformity with my own wishes, we
accepted the scheme of the Commissioners ; 5thly, in dining
with an old friend at Clare College ; 6thly, in adjourning to
the weekly meeting of the Ray Club, from which I returned
at 10 P.M., dog-tired, and hardly able to climb my staircase.
Lastly, in looking through the Times to see what was going
on in the busy world.

I do not state this to fill space (though I believe that
Nature does abhor a vacuum), but to prove that my reply and
my thanks are sent to you by the earliest leisure I have, though
that is but a very contracted opportunity. If I did not think
you a good-tempered and truth-loving man, I should not tell
you that (spite of the great knowledge, store of facts, capital
views of the correlation of the various parts of organic nature,
admirable hints about the diffusion, through wide regions, of
many related organic beings, &c. &c.) I have read your book
with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly,
parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore ; other parts
I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly
false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted — after
a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth — the true
method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild,
I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail with
us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based
upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved,
why then express them in the language and arrangement

1859.] SEDGWICK. 249

of philosophical induction ? As to your grand principle —
natural selection — what is it but a secondary consequence of
supposed, or known, primary facts ? Development is a better
word, because more close to the cause of the fact ? For you
do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the
will of God ; and I can prove that He acts for the good of
His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study
and comprehend. Acting by law, and under what is called
final causes, comprehends, I think, your whole principle.
You write of " natural selection " as if it were done consciously
by the selecting agent. 'Tis but a consequence of the pre-
supposed development, and the subsequent battle for life.
This view of nature you have stated admirably, though
admitted by all naturalists and denied by no one of common
sense. We all admit development as a fact of history : but
•how came it about? Here, in language, and still more in
logic, we are point-blank at issue. There is a moral or meta-
physical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who
denies this is deep in the mire of folly. 'Tis the crown and
glory of organic science that it does through final cause, link
material and moral ; and yet does not allow us to mingle
them in our first conception of laws, and our classification
of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or the
other. You have ignored this link ; and, if I do not mistake
your meaning, you have done your best in one or two preg-
nant cases to break it. Were it possible (which, thank God, it is
not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage
that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower
grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since
its written records tell us of its history. Take the case of the
bee-cells. If your development produced the successive
modification of the bee and its cells (which no mortal can
prove), final cause would stand good as the directing cause
under which the successive generations acted and gradually
improved. Passages in your book, like that to which I have

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

alluded (and there are others almost as bad), greatly shocked
my moral taste. I think, in speculating on organic descent,
you over-state the evidence of geology ; and that you under-
state it while you are talking of the broken links of your
natural pedigree : but my paper is nearly done, and I must
go to my lecture-room. Lastly, then, I greatly dislike the con-
cluding chapter — not as a summary, for in that light it appears
good — but I dislike it from the tone of triumphant confidence
in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a tone I con-
demned in the author of the ' Vestiges ') and prophecy of things
not yet in the womb of time, nor (if we are to trust the accumu-
lated experience of human sense and the inferences of its
logic) ever likely to be found anywhere but in the fertile womb
of man's imagination. And now to say a word about a son of
a monkey and an old friend of yours : I am better, far better,
than I was last year. I have been lecturing three days
a week (formerly I gave six a week) without much fatigue,
but I find by the loss of activity and memory, and of all pro-
ductive powers, that my bodily frame is sinking slowly towards
the earth. But I have visions of the future. They are as
much a part of myself as my stomach and my heart, and these
visions are to have their antitype in solid fruition of what is
best and greatest. But on one condition only — that I humbly
accept God's revelation of Himself both in His works and in
His word, and do my best to act in conformity with that
knowledge which He only can give me, and He only can
sustain me in doing. If you and I do all this, we shall meet
in heaven.

I have written in a hurry, and in a spirit of brotherly love,,
therefore forgive any sentence you happen to dislike ; and
believe me, spite of any disagreement in some points of the
deepest moral interest, your true-hearted old friend,

A. Sedgwick.

1859.] CREATION. 251

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, Dec. 25th [1859].

My DEAR HUXLEY, — One part of your note has pleased
me so much that I must thank you for it. Not only Sir
H. H. [Holland], but several others, have attacked me about
analogy leading to belief in one primordial created form.*
(By which I mean only that we know nothing as yet [of] how
life originates.) I thought I was universally condemned on
this head. But I answered that though perhaps it would
have been more prudent not to have put it in, I would not
strike it out, as it seemed to me probable, and I give it on
no other grounds. You will see in your mind the kind of
arguments which made me think it probable, and no one
fact had so great an effect on me as your most curious remarks
on the apparent homologies of the head of Vertebrata and
Articulata.

You have done a real good turn in the Agency business \
(I never before heard of a hard-working, unpaid agent besides
yourself), in talking with Sir H. H., for he will have great
influence over many. He floored me from my ignorance
about the bones of the ear, and I made a mental note to ask
you what the facts were.

With hearty thanks and real admiration for your generous-
zeal for the subject.

Yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

You may smile about the care and precautions I have taken
about my ugly MS. ; % it is not so much the value I set on

* ' Origin,' edit. i. p. 484. — into which life was first breathed."

"Therefore I should infer from f "My General Agent" was a

analogy that probably all the sobriquet applied at this time by

organic beings which have ever my father to Mr. Huxley,

lived on this earth have descended % Manuscript left with Mr. Hux-

from some one primordial form, ley for his perusal.

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

them, but the remembrance of the intolerable labour — for
instance, in tracing the history of the breeds of pigeons.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, 25th [December, 1859].

... I shall not write to Decaisne ; * I have always had
a strong feeling that no one had better defend his own
priority. I cannot say that I am as indifferent to the subject
as I ought to be, but one can avoid doing anything in
consequence,

I do not believe one iota about your having assimilated any
of my notions unconsciously. You have always done me more
than justice. But I do think I did you a bad turn by getting
you to read the old MS., as it must have checked your own
original thoughts. There is one thing I am fully convinced
of, that the future progress (which is the really important
point) of the subject will have depended on really good and
well-known workers, like yourself, Lyell, and Huxley, having
taken up the subject, than on my own work. I see plainly it
is this that strikes my non-scientific friends.

Last night I said to myself, I would just cut your Intro-
duction, but would not begin to read, but I broke down, and
had a good hour's read.

Farewell, yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

December 28th, 1859.
. . . Have you seen the splendid essay and notice of my
book in the Times ?\ I cannot avoid a strong suspicion that
it is by Huxley ; but I never heard that he wrote in the
Times. It will do grand service, . . .

* With regard to Naudin's paper in the ' Revue Horticole,' 1852.
t Dec. 26th.

I859-]

THE ' TIMES ' REVIEW.

2:^

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, Dec. 28th [1S59].

My DEAR HUXLEY, — Yesterday evening-, when I read the
Times of a previous day, I was amazed to find a splendid
essay and review of me. Who can the author be ? I am
intensely curious. It included an eulogium of me which quite
touched me, though I am not vain enough to think it all
deserved. The author is a literary man, and German scholar.
He has read my book very attentively ; but, what is very
remarkable, it seems that he is a profound naturalist. He
knows my Barnacle-book, and appreciates it too highly.
Lastly, he writes and thinks with quite uncommon force and
clearness ; and what is even still rarer, his writing is seasoned
with most pleasant wit. We all laughed heartily over some
of the sentences. I was charmed with those unreasonable
mortals, who know anything, all thinking fit to range them-
selves on one side.* Who can it be ? Certainly I should
have said that there was only one man in England who could
have written this essay, and that you were the man. But I
suppose I am wrong, and that there is some hidden genius of
great calibre. For how could you influence Jupiter Olympius
and make him give three and a half columns to pure science ?
The old fogies will think the world will come to an end.
Well, whoever the man is, he has done great service to the
cause, far more than by a dozen reviews in common peri-
odicals. The grand way he soars above common religious

* The reviewer proposes to pass
by the orthodox view, according to
which the phenomena of the organic
world are " the immediate product
of a creative fiat, and consequently
are out of the domain of science
altogether." And he does so " with
less hesitation, as it so happens
that those persons who are prac-

tically conversant with the facts of
the case (plainly a considerable
advantage) have always thought
fit to range themselves " in the
category of those holding " views
which profess to rest on a scientific
basis only, and therefore admit
of being argued to their conse-
quences."

-254 PUBLICATION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES/ [1859.

prejudices, and the admission of such views into the Times,
I look at as of the highest importance, quite independently of
the mere question of species. If you should happen to be
acquainted with the author, for Heaven-sake tell me who
he is?

My dear Huxley, yours most sincerely,

C. Darwin.

[It is impossible to give in a short space an adequate idea
of Mr. Huxley's article in the Times of December 26. It is
.admirably planned, so as to claim for the ' Origin ' a respectful
hearing, and it abstains from anything like dogmatism in
;asserting the truth of the doctrines therein upheld. A few pas-
sages may be quoted : — " That this most ingenious hypothesis
enables us to give a reason for many apparent anomalies in the
distribution of living beings in time and space, and that it is not
contradicted by the main phenomena of life and organisation,
appear to us to be unquestionable." Mr. Huxley goes on to
recommend to the readers of the ' Origin ' a condition of
" thdtige Skepsis " — a state of " doubt which so loves truth
that it neither dares rest in doubting, nor extinguish itself
by unjustified belief." The final paragraph is in a strong
^contrast to Professor Sedgwick and his "ropes of bubbles"
(see p. 298). Mr. Huxley writes : " Mr. Darwin abhors mere
speculation as nature abhors a vacuum. He is as greedy of
cases and precedents as any constitutional lawyer, and all the
principles he lays down are capable of being brought to the
test of observation and experiment. The path he bids us
follow professes to be not a mere airy track, fabricated of
ideal cobwebs, but a solid and broad bridge of facts. If it be
so, it will carry us safely over many a chasm in our know-
ledge, and lead us to a region free from the snares of those
fascinating but barren virgins, the Final Causes, against whom
.a high authority has so justly warned us."

There can be no doubt that this powerful essay, appearing

1859.] THE 'times' review. 255

as it did in the leading daily Journal, must have had a strong
influence on the reading public. Mr. Huxley allows me to
quote from a letter an account of the happy chance that threw
into his hands the opportunity of writing it.

" The ' Origin ' was sent to Mr. Lucas, one of the staff of
the Times writers at that day, in what I suppose was the
ordinary course of business, Mr. Lucas, though an excellent
journalist, and, at a later period, editor of ' Once a Week,'
was as innocent of any knowledge of science as a babe, and
bewailed himself to an acquaintance on having to deal with
such a book. Whereupon he was recommended to ask me to
get him out of his difficulty, and he applied to me accordingly,
explaining, however, that it would be necessary for him
formally to adopt anything I might be disposed to write, by
prefacing it with two or three paragraphs of his own.

" I was too anxious to seize upon the opportunity thus
offered of giving the book a fair chance with the multitudinous
readers of the Times to make any difficulty about condi-
tions ; and being then very full of the subject, I wrote the
article faster, I think, than I ever wrote anything in my life,
and sent it to Mr. Lucas, who duly prefixed his opening
sentences.

" When the article appeared, there was much speculation as
to its authorship. The secret leaked out in time, as all secrets
will, but not by my aid ; and then I used to derive a good
deal of innocent amusement from the vehement assertions of
some of my more acute friends, that they knew it was mine
from the first paragraph !

" As the Times some years since, referred to my connection
with the review, I suppose there will be no breach of con-
fidence in the publication of this little history, if you think it
worth the space it will occupy."]

256 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

CHAPTER VII.
THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES' — {continued).

i860.

I EXTRACT a few entries from my father's Diary : —

"Jan. 7th. The second edition, 3000 copies, of 'Origin

was published."

" May 22nd. The first edition of ' Origin ' in the United

States was 2500 copies."

My father has here noted down the sums received for the
Origin.'

First Edition . . . . . . £\%o o o

Second Edition .. .. .. 636 13 4

£816 13 4

After the publication of the second edition he began at
once, on Jan. 9th, looking over his materials for the ' Variation
of Animals and Plants ; ' the only other work of the year was
on Drosera.

He was at Down during the whole of this year, except for
a visit to Dr. Lane's Water-cure Establishment at Sudbrooke,
in June, and for visits to Miss Elizabeth Wedgwood's house
at Hartfield, in Sussex (July), and to Eastbourne, Sept. 22
to Nov. 16.

i860.] AUSTRALIAN FLORA. 257

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, January 3rd [i860].

My DEAR Hooker,— I have finished your Essay.* As
probably you would like to hear my opinion, though a non-
botanist, I will give it without any exaggeration. To my
judgment it is by far the grandest and most interesting essay,
on subjects of the nature discussed, I have ever read. You
know how I admired your former essays, but this seems to
me far grander. I like all the part after p. xxvi better than
the first part, probably because newer to me. I dare say you
will demur to this, for I think every author likes the most
speculative parts of his own productions. How superior your
essay is to the famous one of Brown (here will be sneer 1st
from you). You have made all your conclusions so admirably
clear, that it would be no use at all to be a botanist (sneer
No. 2). By Jove, it would do harm to affix any idea to the
long names of outlandish orders. One can look at your con-
clusions with the philosophic abstraction with which a mathe-
matician looks at his a X x + y/ z 2, &c. &c. I hardly know
which parts have interested me most ; for over and over again
I exclaimed, " this beats all." The general comparison of the
Flora of Australia with the rest of the world, strikes me (as
before) as extremely original, good, and suggestive of many
reflections.

.... The invading Indian Flora is very interesting, but I
think the fact you mention towards the close of the essay —
that the Indian vegetation, in contradistinction to the Ma-
layan vegetation, is found in low and level parts of the Malay
Islands, greatly lessens the difficulty which at first (page 1)
seemed so great. There is nothing like one's own hobby-
horse. I suspect it is the same case as of glacial migration,
and of naturalised production — of production of greater area

* ' Australian Flora.
VOL. II. S

258 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

conquering those of lesser ; of course the Indian forms would
have a greater difficulty in seizing on the cool parts of Aus-
tralia. I demur to your remarks (page 1), as not " conceiving
anything in soil, climate, or vegetation of India," which could
stop the introduction of Australian plants. Towards the close
of the essay (page civ), you have admirable remarks on our
profound ignorance of the cause of possible naturalisation
or introduction ; I would answer p. 1, by a later page, viz.
p. civ.

Your contrast of the south-west and south-east corners is
one of the most wonderful cases I ever heard of. . . . You
show the case with wonderful force. Your discussion on
mixed invaders of the south-east corner (and of New Zealand)
is as curious and intricate a problem as of the races of men in
Britain. Your remark on a mixed invading Flora keeping
down or destroying an original Flora, which was richer in
number of species, strikes me as eminently new and important.
I am not sure whether to me the discussion on the New Zea-
land Flora is not even more instructive. I cannot too much
admire both. But it will require a long time to suck in all
the facts. Your case of the largest Australian orders having
none, or very few, species in New Zealand, is truly mar-
vellous. Anyhow, you have now demonstrated (together
with no mammals in New Zealand) (bitter sneer No. 3), that
New Zealand has never been continuously, or even nearly
continuously, united by land to Australia ! ! At p. lxxxix,
is the only sentence (on this subject) in the whole essay at
which I am much inclined to quarrel, viz. that no theory
of trans-oceanic migration can explain, &c. &c. Now I
maintain against all the world, that no man knows anything
about the trans-oceanic power of migration. You do not
know whether or not the absent orders have seeds which
are killed by sea-water, like almost all Leguminosse, and
like another order which I forget. Birds do not migrate

i860.] AUSTRALIAN FLORA. 259

from Australia to New Zealand, and therefore floatation seems
the only possible means ; but yet I maintain that we do not
know enough to argue on the question, especially as we do
not know the main fact whether the seeds of Australian
orders are killed by sea-water.

The discussion on European Genera is profoundly interest-
ing ; but here alone I earnestly beg for more information, viz.
to know which of these genera are absent in the Tropics of
the world, i.e. confined to temperate regions. I excessively
wish to know, on the notion of Glacial Migration, how much
modification has taken place in Australia. I had better
explain when we meet, and get you to go over and mark
the list.

.... The list of naturalised plants is extremely interest-
ing, but why at the end, in the name of all that is good and
bad, do you not sum up and comment on your facts ? Come, I
will have a sneer at you in return for the many which you will
have launched at this letter. Should you [not] have remarked
on the number of plants naturalised in Australia and the
United States under extremely different climates, as showing
that climate is so important, and [on] the considerable
sprinkling of plants from India, North America, and South
Africa, as showing that the frequent introduction of seeds is
so important ? With respect to " abundance of unoccupied
ground in Australia," do you believe that European plants
introduced by man now grow on spots in Australia which
were absolutely bare ? But I am an impudent dog, one must
defend one's own fancy theories against such cruel men as
you. I dare say this letter will appear very conceited, but
one must form an opinion on what one reads with attention,
and in simple truth, I cannot find words strong enough to
express my admiration of your essay.

My dear old friend, yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

s 2

260 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

P.S. — I differ about the Saturday Review* One cannot
expect fairness in a reviewer, so I do not complain of all
the other arguments besides the ' Geological Record ' being
omitted. Some of the remarks about the lapse of years are
very good, and the reviewer gives me some good and well-
deserved raps — confound it. I am sorry to confess the truth :
but it does not at all concern the main argument. That was
a nice notice in the Gardeners' Chronicle. I hope and imagine
that Lindley is almost a convert. Do not forget to tell me
if Bentham gets at all more staggered.

With respect to tropical plants during the Glacial period,
I throw in your teeth your own facts, at the base of the
Himalaya, on the possibility of the co-existence of at least
forms of the tropical and temperate regions. I can give a
parallel case for animals in Mexico. Oh ! my dearly beloved
puny child, how cruel men are to you ! I am very glad you
approve of the Geographical chapters. . . .

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down [January 4th, i860].
My DEAR L. — Gardeners' Chronicle returned safe. Thanks
for note. I am beyond measure glad that you get more
and more roused on the subject of species, for, as I have
always said, I am well convinced that your opinions and
writings will do far more to convince the world than mine.
You will make a grand discussion on man. You are very bold
in this, and I honour you. I have been, like you, quite sur-
prised at the want of originality in opposed arguments and
in favour too. Gwyn Jeffreys attacks me justly in his letter
about strictly littoral shells not being often embedded at least

* Saturday Review, Dec. 24, remarks that, "if a million of cen-

1859. The hostile arguments of turies, more or less, is needed for

the reviewer are geological, and he any part of his argument, he feels

deals especially with the denuda- no scruple in taking them to suit

tion of the Weald. The reviewer his purpose."

i860.]

ANDREW MURRAY.

26l

in Tertiary deposits. I was in a muddle, for I was thinking

of Secondary, yet Chthamalus applied to Tertiary

Possibly you might like to see the enclosed note * from

Whewell, merely as showing that he is not horrified with us.

You can return it whenever you have occasion to write, so as

not to waste your time.

C. D.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down [January 4th ? i860].

I have had a brief note from Keyserling,f but not

worth sending you. He believes in change of species, grants
that natural selection explains well adaptation of form, but
thinks species change too regularly, as if by some chemical
law, for natural selection to be the sole cause of change.
I can hardly understand his brief note, but this is I think
the upshot.

I will send A. Murray's paper whenever published.^

* Dr. Whewell wrote (Jan. 2,
i860) : "... I cannot, yet at least,
become a convert. But there is so
much of thought and of fact in
what you have written that it is
not to be contradicted without
careful selection of the ground and
manner of the dissent." Dr. Whe-
well dissented in a practical manner
for some years, by refusing to allow
a copy of the ' Origin of Species '
to be placed in the Library of
Trinity College.

f Count Keyserling, geologist,
joint author with Murchison of the
1 Geology of Russia,' 1845 ; and
mentioned in Prof. Geikie's ' Life
of Murchison.'

X The late Andrew Murray
wrote two papers on the ' Origin '
in the Proc. R. Soc. Edin. i860.
The one referred to here is dated
Jan. 16, i860. The following is

quoted from p. 6 of the separate
copy : " But the second, and, as it
appears to me, by much the most
important phase of reversion to
type (and which is practically, if
not altogether ignored by Mr. Dar-
win), is the instinctive inclination
which induces individuals of the
same species by preference to inter-
cross with those possessing the
qualities which they themselves
want, so as to preserve the purity
or equilibrium of the breed. . . .
It is trite to a proverb, that tall
men marry little women ... a man
of genius marries a fool . . . and
we are told that this is the result
of the charm of contrast, or of
qualities admired in others because
we do not possess them. I do not
so explain it. I imagine it is the
effort of nature to preserve the
typical medium of the race."

262 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

It includes speculations (which perhaps he will modify) so rash,
and without a single fact in support, that had I advanced them
he or other reviewers would have hit me very hard. I am
sorry to say that I have no " consolatory view " on the dignity
of man. I am content that man will probably advance, and
care not much whether we are looked at as mere savages in a
remotely distant future. Many thanks for your last note.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

I have received, in a Manchester newspaper, rather a good
squib, showing that I have proved " might is right," and there-
fore that Napoleon is right, and every cheating tradesman is
also right.

C. Darzvin to W. B. Carpenter.

Down, January 6th [i860] ?

My dear Carpenter, — I have just read your excellent
article in the ' National.' It will do great good ; especially if it
becomes known as your production. It seems to me to give
an excellently clear account of Mr. Wallace's and my views.
How capitally you turn the flanks of the theological opposers
by opposing to them such men as Bentham and the more
philosophical of the systematists ! I thank you sincerely for
the extremely honourable manner in which you mention me.
I should have liked to have seen some criticisms or remarks
on embryology, on which subject you are so well instructed.
I do not think any candid person can read your article with-
out being much impressed with it. The old doctrine of
immutability of specific forms will surely but slowly die away.
It is a shame to give you trouble, but I should be very much
obliged if you could tell me where differently coloured eggs
in individuals of the cuckoo have been described, and their
laying in twenty-seven kinds of nests. Also do you know
from your own observation that the limbs of sheep imported

i36o.] rev. l. elomefield. 263

into the West Indies change colour ? I have had detailed in-
formation about the loss of wool ; but my accounts made the
change slower than you describe.

With most cordial thanks and respect, believe me, my dear
Carpenter, yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Danvin to L. jfenyns*

Down, January 7th, i860.

My DEAR JENYNS, — I am very much obliged for your
letter. It is of great use and interest to me to know what
impression my book produces on philosophical and instructed
minds. I thank you for the kind things which you say ; and
you go with me much further than I expected. You will
think it presumptuous, but I am convinced, if circumstances
lead yoit to keep the subject in mind, that you will go further.
No one has yet cast doubts on my explanation of the sub-
ordination of group to group, on homologies, embryology,
and rudimentary organs ; and if my explanation of these
classes of facts be at all right, whole classes of organic beings
must be included in one line of descent.

The imperfection of the Geological Record is one of the

greatest difficulties During the earliest period the

record would be most imperfect, and this seems to me
sufficiently to account for our not finding intermediate forms
between the classes in the same great kingdoms. It was
certainly rash in me putting in my belief of the probability of
all beings having descended from one primordial form ; but
as this seems yet to me probable, I am not willing to strike
it out. Huxley alone supports me in this, and something
could be said in its favour. With respect to man, I am very
far from wishing to obtrude my belief; but I thought it
dishonest to quite conceal my opinion. Of course it is

* Rev. L. Blomefield.

264

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

open to every one to believe that man appeared by a
separate miracle, though I do not myself see the necessity or
probability.

Pray accept my sincere thanks for your kind note. Your
going some way with me gives me great confidence that I am
not very wrong. For a very long time I halted half-way ; but
I do not believe that any enquiring mind will rest half-way.
People will have to reject all or admit all ; by all, I mean
only the members of each great kingdom.

My dear Jenyns, yours most sincerely,

C. Darwin.

*

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, January 10th [i860].

... It is perfectly true that I owe nearly all the corrections
to you, and several verbal ones to you and others ; I am
heartily glad you approve of them, as yet only two things
have annoyed me ; those confounded millions f of years (not
that I think it is probably wrong), and my not having (by
inadvertence) mentioned Wallace towards the close of the
book in the summary, not that any one has noticed this to me.
I have now put in Wallace's name at p. 484 in a conspicuous
place. I cannot refer you to tables of mortality of children,
&c. &c. I have notes somewhere, but I have not the least
idea where to hunt, and my notes would now be old. I shall
be truly glad to read carefully any MS. on man, and give my
opinion. You used to caution me to be cautious about man.

* The second edition of 3000
copies of the ' Origin ' was pub-
lished on January 7th.

f This refers to the passage in
the ' Origin of Species ' (2nd edit.
p. 285), in which the lapse of time
implied by the denudation of the
Weald is discussed. The discus-
sion closes with the sentence : " So

that it is not improbable that a
longer period than 300 million
years has elapsed since the latter
part of the Secondary period."
This passage is omitted in the later
editions of the ' Origin,' against the
advice of some of his friends, as
appears from the pencil notes in
my father's copy of the 2nd edition.

i860.] second edition. 265

I suspect I shall have to return the caution a hundred fold !
Yours will, no doubt, be a grand discussion ; but it will
horrify the world at first more than my wrhole volume ;
although by the sentence (p. 489, new edition *) I show that
I believe man is in the same predicament with other animals.
It is in fact impossible to doubt it. I have thought (only
vaguely) on man. With respect to the races, one of my best
chances of truth has broken down from the impossibility of
getting facts. I have one good speculative line, but a man
must have entire credence in Natural Selection before he will
even listen to it. Psychologically, I have done scarcely any-
thing. Unless, indeed, expression of countenance can be
included, and on that subject I have collected a good many
facts, and speculated, but I do not suppose I shall ever
publish, but it is an uncommonly curious subject. By the
wray I sent off a lot of questions the day before yesterday
to Tierra del Fuego on expression ! I suspect (for I have
never read it) that Spencer's ' Psychology ' has a bearing on
Psychology as we should look at it. By all means read the
Preface, in about 20 pages, of Hensleigh Wedgwood's new
Dictionary, on the first origin of Language ; Erasmus would
lend it. I agree about Carpenter, a very good article, but
with not much original. . . . Andrew Murray has criticised,
in an address to the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, the
notice in the ' Linnean Journal,' and "has disposed of" the
whole theory by an ingenious difficulty, which I was very
stupid not to have thought of; for I express surprise at more
and analogous cases not being known. The difficulty is, that
amongst the blind insects of the caves in distant parts of the
world there are some of the same genus, and yet the genus is
not found out of the caves or living in the free world. I have
little doubt that, like the fish Amblyopsis, and like Proteus in
Europe, these insects are " wrecks of ancient life," or " living
fossils," saved from competition and extermination. But that

* First edition, p. 488.

266 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

formerly seeing insects of the same genus roamed over the
whole area in which the cases are included.

Farewell, yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — Our ancestor was an animal which breathed water,
had a swim bladder, a great swimming tail, an imperfect
skull, and undoubtedly was an hermaphrodite !

Here is a pleasant genealogy for mankind.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, January 14th [i860].

... I shall be much interested in reading your man dis-
cussion, and will give my opinion carefully, whatever that
may be worth ; but I have so long looked at you as the type
of cautious scientific judgment (to my mind one of the
highest and most useful qualities), that I suspect my opinion
will be superfluous. It makes me laugh to think what a joke
it will be if I have to caution you, after your cautions on the
same subject to me !

I will order Owen's book ; * I am very glad to hear
Huxley's opinion on his classification of man ; without
having due knowledge, it seemed to me from the very first
absurd ; all classifications founded on single characters I
believe have failed.

. . . What a grand immense benefit you conferred on me
by getting Murray to publish my book. I never till to-day
realised that it was getting widely distributed ; for in a letter
from a lady to-day to E., she says she heard a man enquiring
for it at the Raihvay Station! II at Waterloo Bridge ; and the
bookseller said that he had none till the new edition was
out. The bookseller said he had not read it, but had heard
it was a very remarkable book !!!....

* c Classification of the Mammalia,' 1859.

iS6o.] 'gardeners' chronicle.' 267

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, 14th [January, i860].

I heard from Lyell this morning, and he tells

me a piece of news. You are a good-for-nothing man ; here
you are slaving yourself to death with hardly a minute to spare,
and you must write a review on my book ! I thought it * a
very good one, and was so much struck with it, that I sent it
to Lyell. But I assumed, as a matter of course, that it was
Lindley's. Now that I know it is yours, I have re-read it, and
my kind and good friend, it has warmed my heart with all the
honourable and noble things you say of me and it. I was a
good deal surprised at Lindley hitting on some of the remarks,
but I never dreamed of you. I admired it chiefly as so well
adapted to tell on the readers of the Gardeners" Chronicle ;
but now I admire it in another spirit. Farewell, with hearty
thanks. ; . . . Lyell is going at man with an audacity that
frightens me. It is a good joke ; he used always to caution
me to slip over man.

[In the Gardeners* Chronicle > Jan. 21, i860, appeared a
short letter from my father, which was called forth by
Mr. Westwood's communication to the previous number of
the journal, in which certain phenomena of cross-breeding are
discussed in relation to the ' Origin of Species.' Mr. West-
wood wrote in reply (Feb. n), and adduced further evidence
against the doctrine of descent, such as the identity of the
figures of ostriches on the ancient " Egyptian records," with
the bird as we now know it. The correspondence is hardly
worth mentioning, except as one of the very few cases in
which my father was enticed into anything resembling a
controversy.]

* Gardeners' Chronicle, i860, plete impartiality, so as not to
Referred to above, at p. 260. Sir commit Lindley.
J. D. Hooker took the line of com-

268 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

Asa Gray to J. D. Hooker.

Cambridge, Mass.,

January 5th, i860.

My DEAR HOOKER, — Your last letter, which reached me
just before Christmas, has got mislaid during the upturnings
in my study which take place at that season, and has not yet
been discovered. I should be very sorry to lose it, for there
were in it some botanical mems. which I had not secured. . .

The principal part of your letter was high laudation of
Darwin's book.

Well, the book has reached me, and I finished its careful
perusal four days ago ; and I freely say that your laudation
is not out of place.

It is done in a masterly manner. It might well have taken
twenty years to produce it. It is crammed full of most
interesting matter — thoroughly digested — well expressed —
close, cogent, and taken as a system it makes out a better
case than I had supposed possible. . . .

Agassiz, when I saw him last, had read but a part of it.
He says it is poor — very poor 1 1 (entre nous). The fact [is]
he is very much annoyed by it, ... . and I do not wonder
at it. To bring all ideal system within the domain of science,
and give good physical or natural explanations of all his
capital points, is as bad as to have Forbes take the glacier
materials . . . and give scientific explanation of all the
phenomena.

Tell Darwin all this. I will write to him when I get a
chance. As I have promised, he and you shall have fair-play
here. ... I must myself write a review of Darwin's book for
' Silliman's Journal ' (the more so that I suspect Agassiz means
to come out upon it) for the next (March) No., and I am now
setting about it (when I ought to be every moment working
the Exploring] Expedition Composite, which I know far more
about). And really it is no easy job as you may well imagine.

i860.] dr. gray's approval. 269

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

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, January 28th [i860].

My DEAR Gray, — Hooker has forwarded to me your letter
to him ; and I cannot express how deeply it has gratified
me. To receive the approval of a man whom one has long
sincerely respected, and whose judgment and knowledge are
most universally admitted, is the highest reward an author
can possibly wish for ; and I thank you heartily for your
most kind expressions.

I have been absent from home for a few days, and so could
not earlier answer your letter to me of the 10th of January.
You have been extremely kind to take so much trouble and
interest about the edition. It has been a mistake of my
publisher not thinking of sending over the sheets. I had
entirely and utterly forgotten your offer of receiving the
sheets as printed off. But I must not blame my publisher,
for had I remembered your most kind offer I feel pretty sure
I should not have taken advantage of it ; for I never dreamed
of my book being so successful with general readers : I believe
I should have laughed at the idea of sending the sheets to
America.*

After much consideration, and on the strong advice of Lyell
and others, I have resolved to have the present book as it is
(excepting correcting errors, or here and there inserting short

* In a letter to Mr. Murray, 1 S60, but yet in such terms that it is in fact

my father wrote : — " I am amused a fine advertisement ! " This seems

by Asa Gray's account of the excite- to refer to a lecture given before

ment my book has made amongst the Mercantile Library Associa-

naturalists in the U. States. Agassiz tion.
has denounced it in a newspaper,

270 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

sentences) and to use all my strength, which is but little, to
bring out the first part (forming a separate volume, with
index, &c.) of the three volumes which will make my bigger
work ; so that I am very unwilling to take up time in making
corrections for an American edition. I enclose a list of a few
corrections in the second reprint, which you will have received
by this time complete, and I could send four or five corrections
or additions of equally small importance, or rather of equal
brevity. I also intend to write a short preface with a brief
history of the subject. These I will set about, as they must
some day be done, and I will send them to you in a short time
— the few corrections first, and the preface afterwards, unless
I hear that you have given up all idea of a separate edition.
You will then be able to judge whether it is worth having
the new edition with your reviezu prefixed. Whatever be the
nature of your review, I assure you I should feel it a great
honour to have my book thus preceded

Asa Gray to C. Darwin.

Cambridge, January 23rd, i860.

MY DEAR DARWIN, — You have my hurried letter telling
you of the arrival of the remainder of the sheets of the reprint,
and of the stir I had made for a reprint in Boston. Well, all
looked pretty well, when, lo, we found that a second New
York publishing house had announced a reprint also! I wrote
then to both New York publishers, asking them to give way
to the author and his reprint of a revised edition. I got
an answer from the Harpers that they withdraw — from the
Appletons that they had got the book out (and the next day
I saw a copy) ; but that, " if the work should have any con-
siderable sale, we certainly shall be disposed to pay the
author reasonably and liberally."

The Appletons being thus out with their reprint, the Boston
house declined to go on. So I wrote to the Appletons takin

or

iS6o.] dr. gray's criticisms. 271

them at their word, offering to aid their reprint, to give them
the use of the alterations in the London reprint, as soon as I
find out what they are, &c. &c. And I sent them the first
leaf, and asked them to insert in their future issue the addi-
tional matter from Butler,* which tells just right. So there
the matter stands. If you furnish any matter in advance of
the London third edition, I will make them pay for it.

I may get something for you. All got is clear gain ; but it
will not be very much, I suppose.

Such little notices in the papers here as have yet appeared
are quite handsome and considerate.

I hope next week to get printed sheets of my review from
New Haven, and send [them] to you, and will ask you to pass
them on to Dr. Hooker.

To fulfil your request, I ought to tell you what I think
the weakest, and what the best, part of your book. But
this is not easy, nor to be done in a word or two. The best
party I think, is the whole, i.e. its plan and treatment, the vast
amount of facts and acute inferences handled as if you had a
perfect mastery of them. I do not think twenty years too
much time to produce such a book in.

Style clear and good, but now and then wants revision for
little matters (p. 97, self-fertilises itself, &c).

Then your candour is worth everything to your cause. It
is refreshing to find a person with a new theory who frankly
confesses that he finds difficulties, insurmountable, at least
for the present. I know some people who never have any
difficulties to speak of.

The moment I understood your premisses, I felt sure you
had a real foundation to hold on. Well, if one admits your
premisses, I do not see how he is to stop short of your conclu-
sions, as a probable hypothesis at least.

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

272 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

It naturally happens that my review of your book does not
exhibit anything like the full force of the impression the book
has made upon me. Under the circumstances I suppose I do
your theory more good here, by bespeaking for it a fair and
favourable consideration, and by standing non-committed as
to its full conclusions, than I should if I announced myself a
convert ; nor could I say the latter, with truth.

Well, what seems to me the weakest point in the book is
the attempt to account for the formation of organs, the making
of eyes, &c, by natural selection. Some of this reads quite
Lamarckian.

The chapter on Hybridism is not a weaky but a strong
chapter. You have done wonders there. But still you have
not accounted, as you may be held to account, for divergence
up to a certain extent producing increased fertility of the
crosses, but carried one short almost imperceptible step more,
giving rise to sterility, or reversing the tendency. Very likely
you are on the right track ; but you have something to do yet
in that department.

Enough for the present.

I am not insensible to your compliments, the very

high compliment which you pay me in valuing my opinion.
You evidently think more of it than I do, though from the
way I write [to] you, and especially [to] Hooker, this might
not be inferred from the reading of my letters.

I am free to say that I never learnt so much from one book

as I have from yours. There remain a thousand things I long

to say about it.

Ever yours,

Asa Gray.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

[February? i860.]

Now I will just run through some points in your

letter. What you say about my book gratifies me most deeply,

i860.] historical sketch. 273

and I wish I could feel all was deserved by me. I quite think
a review from a man, who is not an entire convert, if fair and
moderately favourable, is in all respects the best kind of
review. About the weak points I agree. The eye to this
day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine
known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer
the cold shudder.

Pray kindly remember and tell Prof. Wyman how very
grateful I should be for any hints, information, or criticisms.
I have the highest respect for his opinion. I am so sorry
about Dana's health. I have already asked him to pay me a
visit.

Farewell, you have laid me under a load of obligation — not
that I feel it a load. It is the highest possible gratification to
me to think that you have found my book worth reading and
reflection ; for you and three others I put down in my own
mind as the judges whose opinions I should value most of all.

My dear Gray, yours most sincerely,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — I feel pretty sure, from my own experience, that if
you are led by your studies to keep the subject of the origin
of species before your mind, you will go further and further
in your belief. It took me long years, and I assure you I am
astonished at the impression my book has made on many
minds. I fear twenty years ago I should not have been half
as candid and open to conviction.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [January 31st, i860].

My DEAR HOOKER, — I have resolved to publish a little
sketch of the progress of opinion on the change of species.
Will you or Mrs. Hooker do me the favour to copy one
sentence out of Naudin's paper in the ' Revue Horticole,'
1852, p. 103, namely, that on his principle of Finalite. Can

VOL. II. T

274

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

you let me have it soon, with those confounded dashes over

the vowels put in carefully ? Asa Gray, I believe, is going to

get a second edition of my book, and I want to send this little

preface over to him soon. I did not think of the necessity of

having Naudin's sentence on finality, otherwise I would have

copied it.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — I shall end by just alluding to your Australian
Flora Introduction. What was the date of publication :
December 1859, or January i860? Please answer this.

My preface will also do for the French edition, which, I
believe, is agreed on.

C. Darwin to J, D, Hooker.

February [i860].

.... As the ' Origin ' now stands, Harvey's * is a good
hit against my talking so much of the insensibly fine grada-
tions ; and certainly it has astonished me that I should be
pelted with the fact, that I had not allowed abrupt and great
enough variations under nature. It would take a good deal
more evidence to make me admit that forms have often
changed by saltum.

* William Henry Harvey was
descended from a Quaker family of
Youghal, and was born in Feb-
ruary, 181 1, at Summerville, a
country house on the banks of the
Shannon. He died at Torquay in
1866. In 1835, Harvey went to
Africa (Table Bay) to pursue his
botanical studies, the results of
which were given in his ' Genera of
South African Plants.' In 1838,
ill-health compelled him to obtain
leave of absence, and return to
England for a time ; in 1840 he
returned to Cape Town, to be again

compelled by illness to leave. In
1843 he obtained the appointment
of Botanical Professor at Trinity
College, Dublin. In 1854, 1855,
and 1856 he visited Australia, New
Zealand, the Friendly and Fiji
Islands. In 1857 Dr. Harvey
reached home, and was appointed
the successor of Professor Allman
to the Chair of Botany in Dublin
University. He was author of
several botanical works, princi-
pally on Algae. — (From a Memoir
published in 1869.)

i860.] DR. HARVEY. 275

Have you seen Wollaston's attack in the ' Annals'? * The
stones are beginning to fly. But Theology has more to do
with these two attacks than Science. . . .

[In the above letter a paper by Harvey in the Gardeners'
Chronicle, Feb. 18, i860, is alluded to. He describes a case
of monstrosity in Begonia frigida, in which the " sport "
differed so much from a normal Begonia that it might have
served as the type of a distinct natural order. Harvey goes
on to argue that such a case is hostile to the theory of natural
selection, according to which changes are not supposed to
take place per saltum, and adds that " a few such cases would
overthrow it [Mr. Darwin's hypothesis] altogether." In the
following number of the Gardeners Chronicle Sir J. D. Hooker
showed that Dr. Harvey had misconceived the bearing of the
Begonia case, which he further showed to be by no means
calculated to shake the validity of the doctrine of modification
by means of natural selection. My father mentions the
Begonia case in a letter to Lyell (Feb. 18, i860) : —

" I send by this post an attack in the Gardeners' Chronicle,
by Harvey (a first-rate Botanist, as you probably know). It
seems to me rather strange ; he assumes the permanence
of monsters, whereas, monsters are generally sterile, and not
often inheritable. But grant his case, it comes that I have
been too cautious in not admitting great and sudden varia-
tions. Here again comes in the mischief of my abstract. In
the fuller MS. I have discussed a parallel case of a normal
fish like a monstrous gold-fish."

With reference to Sir J. D. Hooker's reply, my father
wrote :]

Down [February 26th, i860].

My DEAR HOOKER, — Your answer to Harvey seems to me
admirably good. You would have made a gigantic fortune as

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

T 2

276 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

a barrister. What an omission of Harvey's about the
graduated state of the flowers ! But what strikes me most is
that surely I ought to know my own book best, yet, by Jove,
you have brought forward ever so many arguments which
I did not think of! Your reference to classification (viz. I
presume to such cases as Aspicarpa) is excellent, for the
monstrous Begonia no doubt in all details would be a Be-
gonia. I did not think of this, nor of the retrograde step from
separated sexes to an hermaphrodite state ; nor of the
lessened fertility of the monster. Proh pudor to me.

The world would say what a lawyer has been lost in a mere
botanist !

Farewell, my dear master in my own subject,

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

I am so heartily pleased to see that you approve of the
chapter on Classification.

I wonder what Harvey will say. But no one hardly, I think,
is able at first to see when he is beaten in an argument.

[The following letters refer to the first translation (i860) of
the ' Origin of Species ' into German, which was superintended
by H. G. Bronn, a good zoologist and palaeontologist, who
was at the time at Freiburg, but afterwards Professor at
Heidelberg. I have been told that the translation was not a
success, it remained an obvious translation, and was cor-
respondingly unpleasant to read. Bronn added to the trans-
lation an appendix on the difficulties that occurred to him.
For instance, how can natural selection account for differences
between species, when these differences appear to be of no
service to their possessors ; e.g., the length of the ears and
tail, or the folds in the enamel of the teeth of various species
of rodents? Krause, in his book, ' Charles Darwin,' p. 91,
criticises Bronn's conduct in this matter, but it will be seen
that my father actually suggested the addition of Bronn's

i860.] GERMAN TRANSLATION. 277

remarks. A more serious charge against Bronn made by
Krause (pp. cit. p. 8y) is that he left out passages of which he
did not approve, as, for instance, the passage (' Origin,' first
edition, p. 488) " Light will be thrown on the origin of man
and his history." I have no evidence as to whether my
father did or did not know of these alterations.]

C. Darwin to H. G. Bronn.

Down, Feb. 4 [i860].

Dear and much honoured Sir, — I thank you sincerely
for your most kind letter ; I feared that you would much dis-
approve of the * Origin,' and I sent it to you merely as a mark
of my sincere respect. I shall read with much interest your
work on the productions of Islands whenever I receive it. I
thank you cordially for the notice in the ' Neues Jahrbuch
fiir Mineralogie,' and still more for speaking to Schweitzerbart
about a translation ; for I am most anxious that the great and
intellectual German people should know something about my
book.

I have told my publisher to send immediately a copy of
the new * edition to Schweitzerbart, and I have written to
Schweitzerbart that I give up all right to profit for myself, so
that I hope a translation will appear. I fear that the book
will be difficult to translate, and if you could advise Schweit-
zerbart about a good translator, it would be of very great
service. Still more, if you would run your eye over the more
difficult parts of the translation ; but this is too great a favour
to expect. I feel sure that it will be difficult to translate,
from being so much condensed.

Again I thank you for your noble and generous sympathy,
and I remain, with entire respect,

Yours, truly obliged,

C. Darwin.

* Second edition.

2/8 THE ' ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

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

How interesting you could make the work by editing (I do
not mean translating) the work, and appending notes of
refutation or confirmation. The book has sold so very largely
in England, that an editor would, I think, make profit by the
translation.

C. Darwin to H. G. Bronn.

Down, Feb. 14 [i860].

My dear and much honoured Sir, — I thank you
cordially for your extreme kindness in superintending the
translation, I have mentioned this to some eminent scientific
men, and they all agree that you have done a noble and
generous service. If I am proved quite wrong, yet I comfort
myself in thinking that my book may do some good, as truth
can onl}-r be known by rising victorious from every attack. I
thank you also much for the review, and for the kind manner
in which you speak of me. I send with this letter some cor-
rections and additions to M. Schweitzerbart, and a short
historical preface. I am not much acquainted with German
authors, as I read German very slowly ; therefore I do not
know whether any Germans have advocated similar views
with mine ; if they have, would you do me the favour to insert
a foot-note to the preface ? M. Schweitzerbart has now the
reprint ready for a translator to begin. Several scientific men
have thought the term " Natural Selection " good, because its
meaning is not obvious, and each man could not put on it his
own interpretation, and because it at once connects variation
under domestication and nature. Is there any analogous
term used by German breeders of animals ? " Adelung,"
ennobling, would, perhaps, be too metaphorical. It is folly in
me, but I cannot help doubting whether " Wahl der Lebens-
weise " expresses my notion. It leaves the impression on my

i860.] GERMAN TRANSLATION. 279

mind of the Lamarckian doctrine (which I reject) of habits of
life being all-important. Man has altered, and thus improved
the English race-horse by selecting successive fleeter indi-
viduals ; and I believe, owing to the struggle for existence,
that similar slight variations in a wild horse, if advantageous
to it, would be selected or preserved by nature ; hence Natural
Selection. But I apologise for troubling you with these
remarks on the importance of choosing good German terms
for " Natural Selection." With my heartfelt thanks, and with
sincere respect,

I remain, dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to H. G. Broun.

Down July 14 [i860].

Dear AND HONOURED Sir, — On my return home, after an
absence of some time, I found the translation of the third
part * of the ' Origin,' and I have been delighted to see a final
chapter of criticisms by yourself. I have read the first few
paragraphs and final paragraph, and am perfectly contented,
indeed more than contented, with the generous and candid
spirit with which you have considered my views. You speak
with too much praise of my work. I shall, of course, care-
fully read the whole chapter ; but though I can read descrip-
tive books like Gaertner's pretty easily, when any reasoning
comes in, I find German excessively difficult to understand.
At some future time I should very much like to hear how my
book has been received in Germany, and I most sincerely
hope M. Schweitzerbart will not lose money by the publica-
tion. Most of the reviews have been bitterly opposed to me
in England, yet I have made some converts, and several
naturalists who would not believe in a word of it, are now

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

28o THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES/ [i860.

coming slightly round, and admit that natural selection may
have done something. This gives me hope that more will
ultimately come round to a certain extent to my views.

I shall ever consider myself deeply indebted to you for the
immense service and honour which you have conferred on me
in making the excellent translation of my book. Pray believe
me, with most sincere respect,

Dear Sir, yours gratefully,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. LyelL

Down [February 12th, i860].

... I think it was a great pity that Huxley wasted so
much time in the lecture on the preliminary remarks ; . . .
but his lecture seemed to me very fine and very bold. I have
remonstrated (and he agrees) against the impression that he
would leave, that sterility was a universal and infallible cri-
terion of species.

You will, I am sure, make a grand discussion on man. I
am so glad to hear that you and Lady Lyell will come here.
Pray fix your own time ; and if it did not suit us we would
say so. We could then discuss man well. . . .

How much I owe to you and Hooker ! I do not suppose
I should hardly ever have published had it not been for you.

[The lecture referred to in the last letter was given at the
Royal Institution, February 10, i860. The following letter
was written in reply to Mr. Huxley's request for information
about breeding, hybridisation, &c. It is of interest as giving
a vivid retrospect of the writer's experience on the subject.]

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Ilkley, Yorks, Nov. 27 [1859].
My DEAR HUXLEY, — Gartner grand, Kolreuter grand, but
papers scattered through many volumes and very lengthy. I

i860.] pigeon fanciers. 281

had to make an abstract of the whole. Herbert's volume on
Amaryllidacese very good, and two excellent papers in the
' Horticultural Journal.' For animals, no resume to be trusted
at all ; facts are to be collected from all original sources.*
I fear my MS. for the bigger book (twice or thrice as long
as in present book), with all references, would be illegible,
but it would save you infinite labour ; of course I would
gladly lend it, but I have no copy, so care would have to be
taken of it. But my accursed handwriting would be fatal,
I fear.

About breeding, I know of no one book. I did not think
well of Lowe, but I can name none better. Youatt I look at
as a far better and more practical authority ; but then his views
and facts are scattered through three or four thick volumes.
I have picked up most by reading really numberless special
treatises and all agricultural and horticultural journals ; but
it is a work of long years. The difficulty is to know what to
trust. No one or two statements are worth a farthing ; the
facts are so complicated. I hope and think I have been
really cautious in what I state on this subject, although all
that I have given, as yet, is far too briefly. I have found it
very important associating with fanciers and breeders. For
instance, I sat one evening in a gin palace in the Borough
amongst a set of pigeon fanciers, when it was hinted that
Mr. Bull had crossed his Pouters with Runts to gain size ; and

* This caution is exemplified in proved subsequently to be quite

the following extract from an earlier sterile ; well, compiler the first,

letter to Professor Huxley : — "The Chevreul, says that the hybrids were

inaccuracy of the blessed gang (of propagated for seven generations

which I am one) of compilers passes inter se. Compiler second (Morton)

all bounds. Monsters have fre- mistakes the French name, and

quently been described as hybrids gives Latin names for two more

without a tittle of evidence. I must distinct geese, and says Chevreul

give one other case to show how himself propagated them inter se

we jolly fellows work. A Belgian for seven generations ; and the latter

Baron (I forget his name at this statement is copied from book to

moment) crossed two distinct geese book."
and got seven hybrids, which he

282 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

if you had seen the solemn, the mysterious, and awful shakes
of the head which all the fanciers gave at this scandalous
proceeding, you would have recognised how little crossing
has had to do with improving breeds, and how dangerous for
endless generations the process was. All this was brought
home far more vividly than by pages of mere statements, &c.
But I am scribbling foolishly. I really do not know how to
advise about getting up facts on breeding and improving
breeds. Go to Shows is one way. Read all treatises on any
one domestic animal, and believe nothing without largely
confirmed. For your lectures I can give you a few amusing
anecdotes and sentences, if you want to make the audience
laugh.

I thank you particularly for telling me what naturalists
think. If we can once make a compact set of believers we
shall in time conquer. I am eminently glad Ramsay is on
our side, for he is, in my opinion, a first-rate geologist. I sent
him a copy. I hope he got it. I shall be very curious to
hear whether any effect has been produced on Prestwich ; I
sent him a copy, not as a friend, but owing to a sentence
or two in some paper, which made me suspect he was
doubting.

Rev. C. Kingsley has a mind to come round. Quatrefages
writes that he goes some long way with me ; says he exhibited
diagrams like mine. With most hearty thanks,

Yours very tired,

C. Darwin.

[I give the conclusion of Professor Huxley's lecture, as
being one of the earliest, as well as one of the most eloquent,
of his utterances in support of the ' Origin of Species ' :

" I have said that the man of science is the sworn inter-
preter of nature in the high court of reason. But of what
avail is his honest speech, if ignorance is the assessor of the
judge, and prejudice the foreman of the jury ? I hardly know

i860.] MR. HUXLEY'S LECTURE. 283

of a great physical truth, whose universal reception has not
been preceded by an epoch in which most estimable per-
sons have maintained that the phenomena investigated were
directly dependent on the Divine Will, and that the attempt
to investigate them was not only futile, but blasphemous.
And there is a wonderful tenacity of life about this sort of
opposition to physical science. Crushed and maimed in every
battle, it yet seems never to be slain ; and after a hundred
defeats it is at this day as rampant, though happily not so
mischievous, as in the time of Galileo.

" But to those whose life is spent, to use Newton's noble
words, in picking up here a pebble and there a pebble on the
shores of the great ocean of truth — who watch, day by day,
the slow but sure advance of that mighty tide, bearing on its
bosom the thousand treasures wherewith man ennobles and
beautifies his life — it would be laughable, if it were not so sad,
to see the little Canutes of the hour enthroned in solemn
state, bidding that great wave to stay, and threatening to
check its beneficent progress. The wave rises and they fly ;
but, unlike the brave old Dane, they learn no lesson of
humility : the throne is pitched at what seems a safe distance,
and the folly is repeated.

" Surely it is the duty of the public to discourage anything
of this kind, to discredit these foolish meddlers who think
they do the Almighty a service by preventing a thorough
study of His works.

" The Origin of Species is not the first, and it will not be
the last, of the great questions born of science, which will
demand settlement from this generation. The general mind
is seething strangely, and to those who watch the signs of the
times, it seems plain that this nineteenth century will see
revolutions of thought and practice as great as those which
the sixteenth witnessed. Through what trials and sore con-
tests the civilised world will have to pass in the course of this
new reformation, who can tell ?

284

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

" But I verily believe that come what will, the part which
England may play in the battle is a grand and a noble one.
She may prove to the world that, for one people, at any rate,
despotism and demagogy are not the necessary alternatives
of government ; that freedom and order are not incompatible ;
that reverence is the handmaid of knowledge ; that free
discussion is the life of truth, and of true unity in a nation.

" Will England play this part ? That depends upon how
you, the public, deal with science. Cherish her, venerate her,
follow her methods faithfully and implicitly in their applica-
tion to all branches of human thought, and the future of this
people will be greater than the past.

" Listen to those who would silence and crush her, and I
fear our children will see the glory of England vanishing like
Arthur in the mist ; they will cry too late the woful cry of
Guinever : —

; It was my duty to have loved the highest ;
It surely was my profit had I known ;
It would have been my pleasure had I seen.' "]

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down [February 15th, i860].

... I am perfectly convinced (having read this morning)
that the review in the ' Annals ' * is by Wollaston ; no one
else in the world would have used so many parentheses. I

* Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist,
third series, vol. 5, p. 132. My
father has obviously taken the ex-
pression " pestilent " from the fol-
lowing passage (p. 13S) : " But who
is this Nature, we have a right to
ask, who has such tremendous
power, and to whose efficiency such
marvellous performances are as-
cribed ? What are her image and
attributes, when dragged from her
wordy lurking-place ? Is she ought

but a pestilent abstraction, like dust
cast in our eyes to obscure the
workings of an Intelligent First
Cause of all ? " The reviewer pays
a tribute to my father's candour,
" so manly and outspoken as almost
to ' cover a multitude of sins.' "
The parentheses (to which allusion
is made above) are so frequent as
to give a characteristic appearance
to Mr. Wollaston's pages.

i860.] wollaston's review. 285

have written to him, and told him that the " pestilent " fellow
thanks him for his kind manner of speaking about him. I
have also told him that he would be pleased to hear that the
Bishop of Oxford says it is the most unphilosophical * work
he ever read. The review seems to me clever, and only mis-
interprets me in a few places. Like all hostile men, he passes
over the explanation given of Classification, Morphology,
Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs, &c. I read Wallace's
paper in MS.,f and thought it admirably good ; he does not
know that he has been anticipated about the depth of inter-
vening sea determining distribution. . . . The most curious
point in the paper seems to me that about the African
character of the Celebes productions, but I should require
further confirmation. . . .

Henslow is staying here ; I have had some talk with him ;
he is in much the same state as BunburyJ and will go a very
little way with us, but brings up no real argument against going
further. He also shudders at the eye ! It is really curious
(and perhaps is an argument in our favour) how differently
different opposers view the subject. Henslow used to rest his
opposition on the imperfection of the Geological Record,
but he now thinks nothing of this, and says I have got well
out of it ; I wish I could quite agree with him. Baden Powell
says he never read anything so conclusive as my statement
about the eye ! ! A stranger writes to me about sexual selec-
tion, and regrets that I boggle about such a trifle as the brush
of hair on the male turkey, and so on. As L. Jenyns has
a really philosophical mind, and as you say you like to see
everything, I send an old letter of his. In a later letter to
Henslow, which I have seen, he is more candid than any
opposer I have heard of, for he says, though he cannot go so

* Another version of the words f " On the Zoological Geography-
is given by Lyell, to whom they of the Malay Archipelago."— Linn,
were spoken, viz. "the most il- Soc. Journ. i860,
logical book ever written." — ' Life/ X The late Sir Charles Bunbury,
vol. ii. p. 358. well known as a Palaso-botanist.

286 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

far as I do, yet he can give no good reason why he should
not. It is funny how each man draws his own imaginary line
at which to halt. It reminds me so vividly what I was told *
about you when I first commenced geology — to believe a
little, but on no account to believe all.

Ever yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, February 18th [i860].
My dear Gray, — I received about a week ago two sheets
of your Review ;f read them, and sent them to Hooker ; they
are now returned and re-read with care, and to-morrow I
send them to Lyell. Your Review seems to me admirable ;
by far the best which I have read. I thank you from my
heart both for myself, but far more for the subject's sake.
Your contrast between the views of Agassiz and such as mine
is very curious and instructive.^ By the way, if Agassiz
writes anything on the subject, I hope you will tell me. I am
charmed with your metaphor of the streamlet never running
against the force of gravitation. Your distinction between
an hypothesis and theory seems to me very ingenious ; but I
do not think it is ever followed. Every one now speaks of the
undulatory theory of light ; yet the ether is itself hypothetical,
and the undulations are inferred only from explaining the
phenomena of light. Even in the theory of gravitation is the
attractive power in any way known, except by explaining
the fall of the apple, and the movements of the Planets ? It
seems to me that an hypothesis is developed into a theory
solely by explaining an ample lot of facts. Again and again I

* By Professor Henslow. regards the origin of species and
t The ' American Journal of their present general distribution
Science and Arts,' March i860. over the world as equally primor-
Reprinted in ' Darwiniana,' 1876. dial, equally supernatural ; that of
% The contrast is briefly summed Darwin as equally derivative, equal-
up thus : "The theory of Agassiz ly natural." — ' Darwiniana,' p. 14.

i860.] clerical opinions. 287

thank you for your generous aid in discussing a view, about
which you very properly hold yourself unbiassed.

My dear Gray, yours most sincerely,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — Several clergymen go far with me. Rev. L. Jenyns, a
very good naturalist. Henslow will go a very little way with
me, and is not shocked at me. He has just been visiting me.

[With regard to the attitude of the more liberal repre-
sentatives of the Church, the following letter (already referred
to) from Charles Kingsley is of interest :]

C. Kingsley to C. Darwin.

Eversley Rectory, Winchfield,

November 18th, 1S59.

Dear Sir, — I have to thank you for the unexpected
honour of your book. That the Naturalist whom, of all
naturalists living, I most wish to know and to learn from,
should have sent a scientist like me his book, encourages me
at least to observe more carefully, and think more slowly.

I am so poorly (in brain), that I fear I cannot read your
book just now as I ought. All I have seen of it azves me ;
both with the heap of facts and the prestige of your name,
and also with the clear intuition, that if you be right, I must
give up much that I have believed and written.

In that I care little. Let God be true, and every man a
liar ! Let us know what is, and, as old Socrates has it, eireo-Oat,
tco \6yq> — follow up the villainous shifty fox of an argument,
into whatsoever unexpected bogs and brakes he may lead us,
if we do but run into him at last.

From two common superstitions, at least, I shall be free
while judging of your book : —

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

288 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

(2.) I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble
a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal
forms capable of self development into all forms needful pro
tempore and pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh
act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself
had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier
thought.

Be it as it may, I shall prize your book, both for itself,

and as a proof that you are aware of the existence of such a

person as

Your faithful servant,

C. KlNGSLEY.

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

" We never attacked each other. Before I knew Mr. Darwin
I had adopted, and publicly expressed, the principle that the
study of natural history, geology, and science in general,
should be pursued without reference to the Bible. That the
Book of Nature and Scripture came from the same Divine
source, ran in parallel lines, and when properly understood
would never cross

" His views on this subject were very much to the same effect
from his side. Of course any conversations we may have had
on purely religious subjects are as sacredly private now as in
his life ; but the quaint conclusion of one may be given. We
had been speaking of the apparent contradiction of some sup-
posed discoveries with the Book of Genesis ; he said, ' you
are (it would have been more correct to say you ought to be)
a theologian, I am a naturalist, the lines are separate. I en-
deavour to discover facts without considering what is said in
the Book of Genesis. I do not attack Moses, and I think
Moses can take care of himself.' To the same effect he wrote
more recently, ' I cannot remember that I ever published a

i860.] clerical opinions. 289

word directly against religion or the clergy ; but if you were
to read a little pamphlet which I received a couple of days
ago by a clergyman, you would laugh, and admit that I had
some excuse for bitterness. After abusing me for two or three
pages, in language sufficiently plain and emphatic to have
satisfied any reasonable man, he sums up by saying that he
has vainly searched the English language to find terms to
express his contempt for me and all Darwinians.' In another
letter, after I had left Down, he writes, ' We often differed,
but you are one of those rare mortals from whom one can
differ and yet feel no shade of animosity, and that is a thing
[of] which I should feel very proud, if any one could say [it]
of me.'

" On my last visit to Down, Mr. Darwin said, at his dinner-
table, 'Brodie Innes and I have been fast friends for thirty
years, and we never thoroughly agreed on any subject but
once, and then we stared hard at each other, and thought one
of us must be very ill.' "]

C. Danvin to C. Lyell.

Down, February 23rd [i860].

My DEAR LYELL, — That is a splendid answer of the father
of Judge Crampton. How curious that the Judge should have
hit on exactly the same points as yourself. It shows me what
a capital lawyer you would have made, how many unjust acts
you would have made appear just ! But how much grander a
field has science been than the law, though the latter might
have made you Lord Kinnordy. I will, if there be another
edition, enlarge on gradation in the eye, and on all forms
coming from one prototype, so as to try and make both less
glaringly improbable. . . .

With respect to Bronn's objection that it cannot be shown
how life arises, and likewise to a certain extent Asa Gray's
remark that natural selection is not a vera causa, I was much

VOL. II. U

29O THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860..

interested by finding accidentally in Brewster's ' Life of
Newton,' that Leibnitz objected to the law of gravity because
Newton could not show what gravity itself is. As it has.
chanced, I have used in letters this very same argument,
little knowing that anyone had really thus objected to the law
of gravity. Newton answers by saying that it is philosophy
to make out the movements of a clock, though you do not
know why the weight descends to the ground. Leibnitz fur-
ther objected that the law of gravity was opposed to Natural
Religion ! Is this not curious ? I really think I shall use the
facts for some introductory remarks for my bigger book.

. . . You ask (I see) why wre do not have monstrosities in
higher animals ; but when they live they are almost always
sterile (even giants and dwarfs are generally sterile), and we do
not know that Harvey's monster would have bred. There is
I believe only one case on record of a peloric flower being
fertile, and I cannot remember whether this reproduced itself..

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

I thank you much for your most pleasant letter.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

p.S# — I send a letter by Herbert Spencer, which you can;
read or not as you think fit. He puts, to my mind, the
philosophy of the argument better than almost any one,,
at the close of the letter. I could make nothing of Dana's
idealistic notions about species ; but then, as Wollaston says,.
I have not a metaphysical head.

By the way, I have thrown at Wollaston's head, a paper by
Alexander Jordan, who demonstrates metaphysically that all
our cultivated races are God-created species.

i860.] progress of opinion. 291

Wollaston misrepresents accidentally, to a wonderful extent,
some passages in my book. He reviewed, without relooking
at certain passages.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, February 25th [i860].

I cannot help wondering at your zeal about my

book. I declare to heaven you seem to care as much about
my book as I do myself. You have no right to be so
eminently unselfish ! I have taken off my spit [i.e. file] a
letter of Ramsay's, as every geologist convert I think very
important. By the way, I saw some time ago a letter from
H. D. Rogers* to Huxley, in which he goes very far with
us

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Saturday March 3rd, [i860].

My DEAR HOOKER, — What a day's work you had on that
Thursday ! I was not able to go to London till Monday, and
then I was a fool for going, for, on Tuesday night, I had an
attack of fever (with a touch of pleurisy), which came on
like a lion, but went off as a lamb, but has shattered me a
good bit.

I was much interested by your last note. ... I think you
expect too much in regard to change of opinion on the sub-
ject of Species. One large class of men, more especially I
suspect of naturalists, never will care about any general ques-
tion, of which old Gray, of the British Museum, may be taken
as a type ; and secondly, nearly all men past a moderate age,
either in actual years or in mind, are, I am fully convinced,
incapable of looking at facts under a new point of view.
Seriously, I am astonished and rejoiced at the progress which

* Professor of Geology in the University of Glasgow. Born in the
United States 1809, died 1866.

U 2

292

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

the subject has made ; look at the enclosed memorandum.*

says my book will be forgotten in ten years, perhaps so ;

but, with such a list, I feel convinced the subject will not.
The outsiders, as you say, are strong.

You say that you think that Bentham is touched, "but,
like a wise man, holds his tongue." Perhaps you only mean
that he cannot decide, otherwise I should think such silence
the reverse of magnanimity ; for if others behaved the same
way, how would opinion ever progress ? It is a dereliction of
actual duty.f

I am so glad to hear about Thwaites.J ... I have had an
astounding letter from Dr. Boott ; § it might be turned into
ridicule against him and me, so I will not send it to any one.
He writes in a noble spirit of love of truth.

I wonder what Lindley thinks ; probably too busy to read
or think on the question.

I am vexed about Bentham's reticence, for it would have
been of real value to know what parts appeared weakest to a
man of his powers of observation.

Farewell, my dear Hooker, yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — Is not Harvey in the class of men who do not at all
care for generalities ? I remember your saying you could

* See table of names, p. 293.

t In a subsequent letter to Sir
J. D. Hooker (March 12th, i860),
my father wrote, " I now quite un-
derstand Bentham's silence."

X Dr. G. J. K. Thwaites, who
was born in 181 1, established a
reputation in this country as an
expert microscopist and an acute
observer, working especially at
cryptogamic botany. On his ap-
pointment as Director of the
Botanic Gardens at Peradenyia,
Ceylon, Dr. Thwaites devoted him-
self to the flora of Ceylon. As a

result of this he has left numerous
and valuable collections, a descrip-
tion of which he embodied in his
' Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae '
(1864). Dr. Thwaites was a Fellow
of the Linnean Society, but beyond
the above facts, little seems to have
been recorded of his life. His death
occurred in Ceylon on September
nth, 1882, in his seventy-second
year. Athentzum, October 14th,
1882, p. 500.

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

i860.]

LIST OF EVOLUTIONISTS.

293

not cret him to write on Distribution. I have found his
works very unfruitful in every respect.

[Here follows the memorandum referred to :]

Geologists.

Zoologists and
Palaeontologists.

Physiologists.

Botanists.

Lyell.

Huxley.

Carpenter.

Hooker.

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

J. Lubbock.

L. Jenyns
(to large extent).

Sir H. Holland
(to large extent).

H. C. Watson.

Asa Gray
(to some extent).

Searles Wood.J

Dr. Boott
(to large extent).

Thwaites.

[The following letter is of interest in connection with the
mention of Mr. Bentham in the last letter :]

G. Bentham to Francis Darwin,

25 Wilton Place, S.W.,

May 30th, 1882.

My DEAR Sir. — In compliance with your note which I
received last night, I send herewith the letters I have from
your father. I should have done so on seeing the general
request published in the papers, but that I did not think
there were any among them which could be of any use to
you. Highly flattered as I was by the kind and friendly
notice with which Mr. Darwin occasionally honoured me, I

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

f Joseph Beete Jukes, M.A.,
F.R.S., born 181 1, died 1869. He
was educated at Cambridge, and
from 1842 to 1846 he acted as
naturalist to H.M.S. Fly, on an
exploring expedition in Australia
and New Guinea. He was after-

wards appointed Director of the
Geological Survey of Ireland. He
was the author of many papers,
and of more than one good hand-
book of geology.

% Searles Valentine Wood, born
Feb. 14, 1798, died 1880. Chiefly
known for his work on the Mollusca
of the ' Crag.'

294 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

was never admitted into his intimacy, and he therefore never
made any communications to me in relation to his views and
labours. I have been throughout one of his most sincere
admirers, and fully adopted his theories and conclusions,
notwithstanding the severe pain and disappointment they at
first occasioned me. On the day that his celebrated paper
was read at the Linnean Society, July 1st, 1858, a long paper
of mine had been set down for reading, in which, in com-
menting on the British Flora, I had collected a number of
observations and facts illustrating what I then believed to be
a fixity in species, however difficult it might be to assign their
limits, and showing a tendency of abnormal forms produced
by cultivation or otherwise, to withdraw within those original
limits when left to themselves. Most fortunately my paper
had to give way to Mr. Darwin's, and when once that was
read, I felt bound to defer mine for reconsideration ; I began
to entertain doubts on the subject, and on the appearance of
the ' Origin of Species,' I was forced, however reluctantly, to

B

give up my long-cherished convictions, the results of much
labour and study, and I cancelled all that part of my paper
which urged original fixity, and published only portions of
the remainder in another form, chiefly in the * Natural History
Review.' I have since acknowledged on various occasions
my full adoption of Mr. Darwin's views, and chiefly in my
Presidential Address of 1863, and in my thirteenth and last
address, issued in the form of a report to the British Associa-
tion at its meeting at Belfast in 1874.

I prize so highly the letters that I have of Mr. Darwin's,
that I should feel obliged by your returning them to me when
you have done with them. Unfortunately I have not kept
the envelopes, and Mr. Darwin usually only dated them by
the month not by the year, so that they are not in any
chronological order.

Yours very sincerely,

George Bentham.

i860.] evolution and history. 295

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down [March] 12th [i860].

MY DEAR Lyell, — Thinking- over what we talked about,
the high state of intellectual development of the old Grecians
with the little or no subsequent improvement, being an appa-
rent difficulty, it has just occurred to me that in fact the case
harmonises perfectly with our views. The case would be a
decided difficulty on the Lamarckian or Vestigian doctrine
of necessary progression, but on the view which I hold of
progression depending on the conditions, it is no objection at
all, and harmonises with the other facts of progression in
the corporeal structure of other animals. For in a state of
anarchy, or despotism, or bad government, or after irruption
of barbarians, force, strength, or ferocity, and not intellect,
would be apt to gain the day.

We have so enjoyed your and Lady Lyell's visit.

Good-night.

C. Darwin.

P.S. — By an odd chance (for I had not alluded even to the
subject) the ladies attacked me this evening, and threw the
high state of old Grecians into my teeth, as an unanswerable
difficulty, but by good chance I had my answer all pat, and
silenced them. Hence I have thought it worth scribbling to

you.

C. Darwin to J. Prestzvick*

Down, March 12th [i860].

... At some future time, when you have a little leisure,
and when you have read my ' Origin of Species,' I should
esteem it a singular favour if you wrould send me any general
.criticisms. I do not mean of unreasonable length, but such

* Now Professor of Geology in the University of Oxford.

296 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

as you could include in a letter. I have always admired your
various memoirs so much that I should be eminently glad to
receive your opinion, which might be of real service to me.

Pray do not suppose that I expect to convert or pervert
you ; if I could stagger you in ever so slight a degree I
should be satisfied ; nor fear to annoy me by severe criticisms,
for I have had some hearty kicks from some of my best
friends. If it would not be disagreeable to you to send me
your opinion, I certainly should be truly obliged. . . .

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, April 3 [i860 J.

.... I remember well the time when the thought of the
eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of
the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure
often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather
in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick ! . . .

You may like to hear about reviews on my book. Sedg-
wick (as I and Lyell feel certain from internal evidence) has
reviewed me savagely and unfairly in the Spectator* The
notice includes much abuse, and is hardly fair in several
respects. He would actually lead any one, who was ignorant
of geology, to suppose that I had invented the great gaps
between successive geological formations, instead of its being
an almost universally admitted dogma. But my dear old
friend Sedgwick, with his noble heart, is old, and is rabid with
indignation. It is hard to please every one ; you may
remember that in my last letter I asked you to leave out
about the Weald denudation : I told Jukes this (who is head
man of the Irish geological survey), and he blamed me much,
for he believed every word of it, and thought it not at all
exaggerated ! In fact, geologists have no means of gauging
the infinitude of past time. There has been one prodigy of a

* See the quotations which follow the present letter.

1 860.]

TICTET. — SEDGWICK

297

review, namely, an opposed one (by Pictet,* the palaeontologist,
in the Bib. Universelle of Geneva) which is perfectly fair and
just, and I agree to every word he says; our only difference
being that he attaches less weight to arguments in favour,
and more to arguments opposed, than I do. Of all the op-
posed reviews, I think this the only quite fair one, and I never
expected to see one. Please observe that I do not class your
review by any means as opposed, though you think so your-
self! It has done me muck too good service ever to appear
in that rank in my eyes. But I fear I shall weary you with
so much about my book. I should rather think there was a
good chance of my becoming the most egotistical man in all
Europe ! What a proud pre-eminence ! Well, you have
helped to make me so, and therefore you must forgive me if
you can.

My dear Gray, ever yours most gratefully,

C. Darwin.

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

" I now feel certain that Sedgwick is the author of the
article in the Spectator. No one else could use such abusive
terms. And what a misrepresentation of my notions ! Any
ignoramus would suppose that I had first broached the

* Frangois Jules Pictet, in the
' Archives des Sciences de la Bib-
liotheque Universelle,' Mars i860.
The article is written in a courteous
and considerate tone, and con-
cludes by saying that the ' Origin '
will be of real value to naturalists,
especially if they are not led away
by its seductive arguments to be-
lieve in the dangerous doctrine of
modification. A passage which
seems to have struck my father as
being valuable, and opposite which
he has made double pencil marks

and written the word " good," is
worth quoting : " La theorie de
M. Darwin s'accorde mal avec
l'histoire des types a formes bien
tranchees et definies qui paraissent
n'avoir vecu que pendant un temps
limite. On en pourrait citer des
centaines d'exemples, tel que les
reptiles volants, les ichthyosaures,
les belemnites, les ammonites, &c."
Pictet was born in 1809, died 1872 ;
he was Professor of Anatomy and
Zoology at Geneva.

29$ THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

doctrine, that the breaks between successive formations
marked long intervals of time. It is very unfair. But poor
dear old Sedgwick seems rabid on the question. " Demo-
ralised understanding ! " If ever I talk with him I will tell
liim that I never could believe that an inquisitor could be a
good man ; but now I know that a man may roast another,
and yet have as kind and noble a heart as Sedgwick's."

The following passages are taken from the review :

" I need hardly go on any further with these objections.
But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of
the theory, because of its unflinching materialism ; — because
it has deserted the inductive track, the only track that leads
to physical truth ; — because it utterly repudiates final causes,
and thereby indicates a demoralised understanding on the
part of its advocates."

" Not that I believe that Darwin is an atheist ; though I
cannot but regard his materialism as atheistical. I think it
untrue, because opposed to the obvious course of nature, and
the very opposite of inductive truth. And I think it intensely
mischievous."

"Each series of facts is laced together by a series of
assumptions, and repetitions of the one false principle.
You cannot make a good rope out of a string of air
bubbles."

" But any startling and (supposed) novel paradox, main-
tained very boldly and with something of imposing plausi-
bility, produces in some minds a kind of pleasing excitement
which predisposes them in its favour ; and if they are unused
to careful reflection, and averse to the labour of accurate
investigation, they will be likely to conclude that what is
(apparently) original, must be a production of original genius,
and that anything very much opposed to prevailing notions
must be a grand discovery, — in short, that whatever comes
from the ' bottom of a well ' must be the ' truth ' supposed to
be hidden there."

i860.] dr. carpenter. 299

In a review in the December number of ' Macmillan's
Magazine,' i860, Fawcett vigorously defended my father
from the charge of employing a false method of reasoning ; a
charge which occurs in Sedgwick's review, and was made at
the time ad nauseam, in such phrases as : " This is not the
true Baconian method." Fawcett repeated his defence at the
meeting of the British Association in 1861.*]

C. Darwin to W. B. Carpenter.

Down, April 6th [i860].

My DEAR CARPENTER, — I have this minute finished your
review in the ' Med. Chirurg. Review.' f You must let me
■express my admiration at this most able essay, and I hope to
God it will be largely read, for it must produce a great effect:
I ought not, however, to express such warm admiration, for
you give my book, I fear, far too much praise. But you have
gratified me extremely ; and though I hope I do not care
very much for the approbation of the non-scientific readers, I
cannot say that this is at all so with respect to such few men
as yourself. I have not a criticism to make, for I object to
not a word ; and I admire all, so that I cannot pick out one
part as better than the rest. It is all so well balanced. But
it is impossible not to be struck with your extent of knowledge
in geology, botany, and zoology. The extracts which you
give from Hooker seem to me excellently chosen, and most
forcible. I am so much pleased in what you say also about
Lyell. In fact I am in a fit of enthusiasm, and had better
write no more. With cordial thanks,

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

* See an interesting letter from Henry Fawcett/ 1886, p. 101.
any father in Mr. Stephen's 'Life of \ April i860.

300 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, April 10th [i860].

My DEAR LYELL, — Thank you much for your note of the
4th ; I am very glad to hear that you are at Torquay. I should
have amused myself earlier by writing to you, but I have had
Hooker and Huxley staying here, and they have fully occupied
my time, as a little of anything is a full dose for me. . . .
There has been a plethora of reviews, and I am really quite
sick of myself. There is a very long review by Carpenter in
the 'Medical and Chirurg. Review,' very good and well balanced,,
but not brilliant. He discusses Hooker's books at as great
length as mine, and makes excellent extracts ; but I could not
get Hooker to feel the least interest in being praised.

Carpenter speaks of you in thoroughly proper terms. There
is a brilliant review by Huxley, * with capital hits, but I do
not know that he much advances the subject. I think I have
convinced him that he has hardly allowed weight enough to
the case of varieties of plants being in some degrees sterile.

To diverge from reviews : Asa Gray sends me from Wyman
(who will write), a good case of all the pigs being black in the
Everglades of Virginia. On asking about the cause, it seems
(I have got capital analogous cases) that when the black pigs
eat a certain nut their bones become red, and they suffer to a
certain extent, but that the white pigs lose their hoofs and
perish, " and we aid by selection, for we kill most of the young
white pigs." This was said by men who could hardly read.
By the way, it is a great blow to me that you cannot admit
the potency of natural selection. The more I think of it, the
less I doubt its power for great and small changes. I have

just read the ' Edinburgh/ f which without doubt is by .

It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear will be very
damaging. He is atrociously severe on Huxley's lecture,

* 'Westminster Review,' April i860,
t ' Edinburgh Review,' April i86d.

i860.] THE 'EDINBURGH REVIEW.' 301

and very bitter against Hooker. So we three enjoyed it
together. Not that I really enjoyed it, for it made me
uncomfortable for one night ; but I have got quite over it
to-day. It requires much study to appreciate all the bitter
spite of many of the remarks against me ; indeed I did not
discover all myself. It scandalously misrepresents many
parts. He misquotes some passages, altering words within
inverted commas. . . .

It is painful to be hated in the intense degree with which
hates me.

Now for a curious thing about my book, and then I have
done. In last Saturday's Gardeners Chronicle* a Mr. Patrick
Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on ' Naval
Timber and Arboriculture,' published in 1831, in which he
briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Natural Selec-
tion. I have ordered the book, as some few passages are
rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a complete but not
developed anticipation ! Erasmus always said that surely
this would be shown to be the case some day. Anyhow, one
may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work
on Naval Timber.

I heartily hope that your Torquay work may be successful.
Give my kindest remembrances to Falconer, and I hope he is
pretty well. Hooker and Huxley (with Mrs. Huxley) were
extremely pleasant. But poor dear Hooker is tired to death
of my book, and it is a marvel and a prodigy if you are not
worse tired — if that be possible. Farewell, my dear Lyell,

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [April 13th, i860].
My DEAR HOOKER, — Questions of priority so often lead to
odious quarrels, that I should esteem it a great favour if you

* April 7th, i860.

302

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860..

would read the enclosed.* If you think it proper that I
should send it (and of this there can hardly be any question),
and if you think it full and ample enough, please alter the
date to the day on which you post it, and let that be soon.
The case in the Gardeners' Chronicle seems a little stronger
than in Mr. Matthew's book, for the passages are therein
scattered in three places ; but it would be mere hair-splitting
to notice that. If you object to my letter, please return it ;
but I do not expect that you, will, but I thought that you
would not object to run your eye over it. My dear Hooker,
it is a great thing for me to have so good, true, and old a
friend as you. I owe much for science to my friends.

Many thanks for Huxley's lecture. The latter part seemed;
to be grandly eloquent.

... I have gone over [the ' Edinburgh '] review again, and
compared passages, and I am astonished at the misrepre-
sentations. But I am glad I resolved not to answer. Perhaps
it is selfish, but to answer and think more on the subject is-
too unpleasant. I am so sorry that Huxley by my means
has been thus atrociously attacked. I do not suppose you
much care about the gratuitous attack on you.

* My father wrote (Gardeners'
Chronicle, i860, p. 362, April 21st) :
" I have been much interested by
Mr. Patrick Matthew's communi-
cation in the number of your paper
dated April 7th. I freely acknow-
ledge that Mr. Matthew has anti-
cipated by many years the ex-
planation which I have offered of
the origin of species, under the
name of natural selection. I think
that no one will feel surprised
that neither I, nor apparently any
other naturalist, had heard of Mr.
Matthew's views, considering how
briefly they are given, and that
they appeared in the appendix to
a work on Naval Timber and

Arboriculture. I can do no more
than offer my apologies to Mr.
Matthew for my entire ignorance
of his publication. If another edi-
tion of my work is called for, I will
insert to the foregoing effect." In
spite of my father's recognition of
his claims, Mr. Matthew remained
unsatisfied, and complained that
an article in the ' Saturday Analyst
and Leader ' was " scarcely fair in
alluding to Mr. Darwin as the
parent of the origin of species,
seeing that I published the whole
that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove,
more than twenty-nine years ago."
— Saturday Analyst and Leader y
Nov. 24, i860.

i860.] DESIGNED VARIATION. 30J

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

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, April [i860].

My DEAR LYELL, — I was very glad to get your nice long-
letter from Torquay. A press of letters prevented me writing
to Wells. I was particularly glad to hear what you thought
about not noticing [the ' Edinburgh ' review. Hooker and
Huxley thought it a sort of duty to point out the alteration of
quoted citations, and there is truth in this remark ; but I so
hated the thought that I resolved not to do so. I shall come
up to London on Saturday the 14th, for Sir B. Brodie's party,
as I have an accumulation of things to do in London, and will'
(if I do not hear to the contrary) call about a quarter before
ten on Sunday morning, and sit with you at breakfast, but
will not sit long, and so take up much of your time. I must say
one more word about our quasi-theological controversy about
natural selection, and let me have your opinion when we meet
in London. Do you consider that the successive variations in
the size of the crop of the Pouter Pigeon, which man has accu-
mulated to please his caprice, have been due to "the creative and
sustaining powers of Brahma ? " In the sense that an omni-
potent and omniscient Deity must order and know everything,,
this must be admitted ; yet, in honest truth, I can hardly
admit it. It seems preposterous that a maker of a universe
should care about the crop of a pigeon solely to please man's
silly fancies. But if you agree with me in thinking such an
interposition of the Deity uncalled for, I can see no reason
whatever for believing in such interpositions in the case of
natural beings, in which strange and admirable peculiarities

3C4 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

have been naturally selected for the creature's own benefit.

Imagine a Pouter in a state of nature wading into the water

and then, being buoyed up by its inflated crop, sailing about

in search of food. What admiration this would have excited

— adaptation to the laws of hydrostatic pressure, &c. &c. For

the life of me I cannot see any difficulty in natural selection

producing the most exquisite structure, if such structure can

be arrived at by gradation, and I know from experience how

hard it is to name any structure towards which at least some

gradations are not known.

Ever vours,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — The conclusion at which I have come, as I have told
Asa Gray, is that such a question, as is touched on in this
note, is beyond the human intellect, like " predestination and
free will," or the " origin of evil."

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [April 18th, i860].

My dear Hooker, — I return 's letter. . . . Some of

my relations say it cannot possibly be 's article,* because

the reviewer speaks so very highly of . Poor dear simple

folk ! My clever neighbour, Mr. Norman, says the article is
so badly written, with no definite object, that no one will
read it. . . . Asa Gray has sent me an article f from the
United States, clever, and dead against me. But one argu-
ment is funny. The reviewer says, that if the doctrine were
true, geological strata would be full of monsters which have
failed. A very clear view this writer had of the struggle for
existence !

* The ' Edinburgh Review.' where the author says that we ought
t 'North American Review,' to find " an infinite number of other
April i860. " By Professor Bowen," varieties — gross, rude, and purpose-
is written on my father's copy. The less— the unmeaning creations of
passage referred to occurs at p. 488, an unconscious cause."

i860.] 'NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.' 305

.... I am glad you like Adam Bede so much. I was
charmed with it. . . .

We think you must by mistake have taken with your own
numbers of the ' National Review ' my precious number.*
I wish you would look.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, April 25th [i860].

My DEAR Gray, — I have no doubt I have to thank you
for the copy of a review on the ' Origin ' in the ' North
American Review/ It seems to me clever, and I do not
doubt will damage my book. I had meant to have made
some remarks on it ; but Lyell wished much to keep it, and
my head is quite confused between the many reviews which
I have lately read. I am sure the reviewer is wrong about
bees' cells, i.e. about the distance ; any lesser distance would
do, or even greater distance, but then some of the places
would lie outside the generative spheres ; but this would
not add much difficulty to the work. The reviewer takes a
strange view of instinct : he seems to regard intelligence as
a developed instinct ; which I believe to be wholly false. I
suspect he has never much attended to instinct and the
minds of animals, except perhaps by reading.

My chief object is to ask you if you could procure for me
a copy of the New York Times for Wednesday, March 28th.
It contains a very striking review of my book, which I should
much like to keep. How curious that the two most striking
reviews (i.e. yours and this) should have appeared in America.
This review is not really useful, but somehow is impressive.
There was a good review in the ' Revue des Deux Mondes/
April 1st, by M. Laugel, said to be a very clever man.

* This no doubt refers to the January number, containing Dr.
Carpenter's review of the ' Origin.'

VOL. II. X

306 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

Hooker, about a fortnight ago, stayed here a few days, and
was very pleasant ; but I think he overworks himself. What
a gigantic undertaking, I imagine, his and Bentham's ' Genera
Plantarum' will be! I hope he will not get too much im-
mersed in it, so as not to spare some time for Geographical
Distribution and other such questions.

I have begun to work steadily, but very slowly as usual, at
details on variation under domestication.
My dear Gray,

Yours always truly and gratefully,

C Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down [May 8th, i860].

I have sent for the ' Canadian Naturalist.' If I

cannot procure a copy I will borrow yours. I had a letter
from Henslow this morning, who says that Sedgwick was, on
last Monday night, to open a battery on me at the Cambridge
Philosophical Society. Anyhow, I am much honoured by
being attacked there, and at the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

I do not think it worth while to contradict single cases, nor
is it worth while arguing against those who do not attend to
what I state. A moment's reflection will show you that there
must be (on our doctrine) large genera not varying (see p. 56
on the subject, in the second edition of the ' Origin'). Though
I do not there discuss the case in detail.

It may be sheer bigotry for my own notions, but I prefer to
the Atlantis, my notion of plants and animals having migra-
ted from the Old to the New World, or conversely, when
the climate was much hotter, by approximately the line of
Behring's Straits. It is most important, as you say, to see
living forms of plants going back so far in time. I wonder
whether we shall ever discover the flora of the dry land of
the coal period, and find it not so anomalous as the swamp
or coal-making flora. I am working away over the blessed

i860.] CAMBRIDGE PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 307

Pigeon Manuscript ; but, from one cause or another, I get on
very slowly. . . .

This morning I got a letter from the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia, announcing that I am elected a cor-
respondent ... It shows that some Naturalists there do not
think me such a scientific profligate as many think me here.

My dear Lyell, yours gratefully,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — What a grand fact about the extinct stag's horn
worked by man !

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [May 13th, i860].
My DEAR HOOKER, — I return Henslow, which I was very
;glad to see. How good of him to defend me.* I will write
and thank him.

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [May 15th, i860].

How paltry it is in such men as X., Y. and Co.

not reading your essay. It is incredibly paltry. % They
may all attack me to their hearts' content. I am got case-
hardened. As for the old fogies in Cambridge, it really signi-
fies nothing. I look at their attacks as a proof that our work
is worth the doing. It makes me resolve to buckle on my

* Against Sedgwick's attack son's ' Flora Indica,' 1855.
before the Cambridge Philosophical % These remarks do not apply to

Society. Dr. Harvey, who was, however, in

t Dr. Thomas Thomson, the a somewhat similar position. See

Indian botanist. He was a col- p. 313.
laborateur in Hooker and Thom-

X 2

308 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

armour. I see plainly that it will be a long uphill fight.
But think of Lyell's progress with Geology. One thing I
see most plainly, that without Lyell's, yours, Huxley's, and
Carpenter's aid, my book would have been a mere flash in
the pan. But if we all stick to it, we shall surely gain the
day. And I now see that the battle is worth fighting. I
deeply hope that you think so. Does Bentham progress
at all ? I do not know what to say about Oxford. *
I should like it much with you, but it must depend on
health. . . .

Yours most affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, May 18th [i860].

My dear LYELL, — I send a letter from Asa Gray to show-
how hotly the battle rages there. Also one from Wallace,,
very just in his remarks, though too laudatory and too modest,
and how admirably free from envy or jealousy. He must be
a good fellow. Perhaps I will enclose a letter from Thomson
of Calcutta ; not that it is much, but Hooker thinks so highly
of him. . . .

Henslow informs me that Sedgwick f and then Professor
Clarke [sic] J made a regular and savage onslaught on my
book lately at the Cambridge Philosophical Society, but
Henslow seems to have defended me well, and maintained
that the subject was a legitimate one for investigation. Since

* His health prevented him from % The late William Clark, Pro-
going to Oxford for the meeting of fessor of Anatomy. My father
the British Association. seems to have misunderstood his

t Sedgwick's address is given informant. I am assured by Mr.

somewhat abbreviated in The J. W. Clark that his father (Prof.

Cambridge Chronicle, May 19th, Clark) did not support Sedgwick in

i860. the attack.

i860.] REVIEWS. 309

then Phillips * has given lectures at Cambridge on the same
subject, but treated it very fairly. How splendidly Asa Gray
is fighting the battle. The effect on me of these multiplied
attacks is simply to show me that the subject is worth fight-
ing for, and assuredly I will do my best. ... I hope all the
attacks make you keep up your courage, and courage you
assuredly will require. . . .

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, May 18th, i860.

My DEAR Mr. WALLACE, — I received this morning your
letter from Amboyna, dated February 16th, containing some
remarks and your too high approval of my book. Your letter
has pleased me very much, and I most completely agree with
you on the parts which are strongest and which are weakest.
The imperfection of the Geological Record is, as you say, the
weakest of all ; but yet I am pleased to find that there are
almost more geological converts than of pursuers of other
branches of natural science. ... I think geologists are
more easily converted than simple naturalists, because more
accustomed to reasoning. Before telling you about the
progress of opinion on the subject, you must let me say how
I admire the generous manner in which you speak of my book.
Most persons would in your position have felt some envy or
jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common
failing of mankind. But you speak far too modestly of your-
self. You would, if you had my leisure, have done the work
just as well, perhaps better, than I have done it

* John Phillips, M.A., F.R.S., Succession of Life on the earth.'

born 1800, died 1874, from the The Rede Lecturer is appointed

effects of a fall. Professor of Geo- annually by the Vice-Chancellor,

logy at King's College, London, and is paid by an endowment left

and afterwards at Oxford. He in 1524 by Sir Robert Rede, Lord

gave the ' Rede ' lecture at Cam- Chief Justice, in the reign of

bridge on May 15th, i860, on 'The Henry VIII.

n

IO THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

. . . Agassiz sends me a personal civil message, but inces-
santly attacks me ; but Asa Gray fights like a hero in defence.
Lyell keeps as firm as a tower, and this autumn will publish
on the ' Geological History of Man,' and will then declare
his conversion, which now is universally known. I hope that
you have received Hooker's splendid essay. . . . Yesterday
I heard from Lyell that a German, Dr. Schaaffhausen,* has
sent him a pamphlet published some years ago, in which the
same view is nearly anticipated ; but I have not yet seen this
pamphlet. My brother, who is a very sagacious man, always
said, " you will find that some one will have been before you."
I am at work at my larger work, which I shall publish in a
separate volume. But from ill-health and swarms of letters,
I get on very very slowly. I hope that I shall not have
wearied you with these details. With sincere thanks for your
letter, and with most deeply felt wishes for your success in
science, and in every way, believe me,

Your sincere well-wisher,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, May 22nd [i860].

My DEAR GRAY, — Again I have to thank you for one of
your very pleasant letters of May 7th, enclosing a very plea-
sant remittance of £22. I am in simple truth astonished at all
the kind trouble you have taken for me. I return Appletons'
account. For the chance of your wishing for a formal acknow-
ledgement I send one. If you have any further communi-
cation to the Appletons, pray express my acknowledgement
for [their] generosity ; for it is generosity in my opinion. I
am not at all surprised at the sale diminishing ; my extreme

* Hermann Schaaffhausen 'Ueber Vereins, Bonn, 1853. See ' Origin
Bestandigkeit und Umwandlung Historical Sketch,
der Arten.5 Verhandl. d. Naturhist.

i860.]

THE 'EDINBURGH REVIEW.'

311

surprise is at the greatness of the sale. No doubt the public
has been shamefully imposed on ! for they bought the book
thinking that it would be nice easy reading. I expect the sale
to stop soon in England, yet Lyell wrote to me the other day
that calling at Murray's he heard that fifty copies had gone in
the previous forty-eight hours. I am extremely glad that you
will notice in 'Silliman' the additions in the 'Origin.' Judging
from letters (and I have just seen one from Thwaites to
Hooker), and from remarks, the most serious omission in my
book was not explaining how it is, as I believe, that all forms
do not necessarily advance, how there can now be simple organ-
isms still existing. ... I hear there is a very severe review on
me in the ' North British,' by a Rev. Mr. Dunns,* a Free Kirk
minister, and dabbler in Natural History. I should be very
glad to see any good American reviews, as they are all more
or less useful. You say that you shall touch on other reviews,
Huxley told me some time ago that after a time he would
write a review on all the reviews, whether he will I know not.
If you allude to the ' Edinburgh,' pray notice some of the
points which I will point out on a separate slip. In the
Saturday Review (one of our cleverest periodicals) of May
5th, p. 573, there is a nice article on [the 'Edinburgh']
review, defending Huxley, but not Hooker ; and the latter,
I think, [the ' Edinburgh ' reviewer] treats most ungenerously.!
But surely you will get sick unto death of me and my
reviewers.

With respect to the theological view of the question. This
is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no inten-

* This statement as to author-
ship was made on the authority of
Robert Chambers.

f In a letter to Mr. Huxley my
father wrote : " Have you seen the
last Saturday Review? I am
very glad of the defence of you and
of myself. I wish the reviewer had

noticed Hooker. The reviewer,
whoever he is, is a jolly good
fellow, as this review and the last
on me showed. He writes capit-
ally, and understands well his sub-
ject. I wish he had slapped [the
' Edinburgh ' reviewer] a little bit
harder."

312 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

tion to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as
plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of
design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me
too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that
a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat
should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity
in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the
other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this won-
derful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to
conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am
inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws,
with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out
of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all
satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too
profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well
speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and
believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my
views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills
a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the exces-
sively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may
turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex
laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal,
may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and
that all these laws may have been expressly designed by
an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and
consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I
become ; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.
Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest.

Yours sincerely and cordially,

Charles Darwin.

[Here follow my father's criticisms on the ' Edinburgh
Review ' :

i860.] THE 'EDINBURGH REVIEW.'

Sl5

"What a quibble to pretend he did not understand what I
meant by inhabitants of South America ; and any one would
suppose that I had not throughout my volume touched on
Geographical Distribution. He ignores also everything which
I have said on Classification, Geological Succession, Homo-
logies, Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs — p. 496.

He falsely applies what I said (too rudely) about " blind-
ness of preconceived opinions " to those who believe in
creation, whereas I exclusively apply the remark to those who
give up multitudes of species as true species, but believe in
the remainder — p. 500.

He slightly alters what I say, — I ask whether creationists
really believe that elemental atoms have flashed into life. He
says that I describe them as so believing, and this, surely, is a
difference — p. 501.

He speaks of my " clamouring against " all who believe in
creation, and this seems to me an unjust accusation — p. 501.

He makes me say that the dorsal vertebrae vary ; this is simply
false : I nowhere say a word about dorsal vertebrae — p. 522.

What an illiberal sentence that is about my pretension
to candour, and about my rushing through barriers which
stopped Cuvier : such an argument would stop any progress
in science — p. 525.

How disingenuous to quote from my remark to you about
my brief letter [published in the 'Linn. Soc. Journal'], as if it
applied to the whole subject — p. 530.

How disingenuous to say that we are called on to accept
the theory, from the imperfection of the geological record,
when I over and over again [say] how grave a difficulty the
imperfection offers — p. 530."]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, May 30th [i860].
My DEAR HOOKER, — I return Harvey's letter, I have been
very glad to see the reason why he has not read your Essay.

3H

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

I feared it was bigotry, and I am glad to see that he goes a
little way {very much further than I supposed) with us. . . .

I was not sorry for a natural opportunity of writing to
Harvey, just to show that I was not piqued at his turning
me and my book into ridicule,* not that I think it was a pro-
ceeding which I deserved, or worthy of him. It delights me
that you are interested in watching the progress of opinion
on the change of Species ; I feared that you were weary of
the subject ; and therefore did not send A. Gray's letters.
The battle rages furiously in the United States. Gray
says he was preparing a speech, which would take 1 \ hours to
deliver, and which he " fondly hoped would be a stunner."
He is fighting splendidly, and there seem to have been
many discussions with Agassiz and others at the meetings.
Agassiz pities me much at being so deluded. As for the
progress of opinion, I clearly see that it will be excessively
slow, almost as slow as the change of species. ... I am
getting wearied at the storm of hostile reviews and hardly any
useful. . . .

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, Friday night [June 1st, i860].

. . . Have you seen Hopkins f in the new 'Fraser'? the
public will, I should think, find it heavy. He will be dead

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

t William Hopkins died in 1866,
" in his seventy-third year." He
began life with a farm in Suffolk,
but ultimately entered, compara-
tively late in life, at Peterhouse,
Cambridge ; he took his degree in

1827, and afterwards became an
Esquire Bedell of the University.
He was chiefly known as a mathe-
matical " coach," and was eminently
successful in the manufacture of
Senior Wranglers. Nevertheless
Mr. Stephen says (' Life of Fawcett,'
p. 26) that he " was conspicuous
for inculcating " a " liberal view of
the studies of the place. He en-
deavoured to stimulate a philoso-
phical interest in the mathematical,
sciences, instead of simply rousing

i860.]

ATTACKS.

1Tf

3l>

against me as you prophesied ; but he is generously civil to
me personally. * On his standard of proof, natural science
would never progress, for without the making of theories
I am convinced there would be no observation.

.... I have begun reading the ' North British,' \ which
so far strikes me as clever.

Phillips's Lecture at Cambridge is to be published.

All these reiterated attacks will tell heavily ; there will be
no more converts, and probably some will go back. I hope
you do not grow disheartened, I am determined to fight to the
last. I hear, however, that the great Buckle highly approves
of my book.

I have had a note from poor Blyth, % of Calcutta, who is

an ardour for competition." He
contributed many papers on geolo-
gical and mathematical subjects to
the scientific journals. He had a
strong influence for good over the
younger men with whom he came in
contact. The letter which he wrote
to Henry Fawcett on the occasion
of his blindness illustrates this. Mr.
Stephen says (' Life of Fawcett,'
p. 48) that by " this timely word of
good cheer," Fawcett was roused
from " his temporary prostration,"
and enabled to take a " more cheer-
ful and resolute tone."

* ' Fraser's Magazine,' June i860.
My father, no doubt, refers to the
following passage, p. 752, where
the Reviewer expresses his " full
participation in the high respect in
which the author is universally held,
both as a man and a naturalist ;
and the more so, because in the
remarks which will follow in the
second part of this Essay we shall
be found to differ widely from him
as regards many of his conclusions
and the reasonings on which he

has founded them, and shall claim
the full right to express such differ-
ences of opinion with all that free-
dom which the interests of scientific
truth demands, and which we are
sure Mr. Darwin would be one of
the last to refuse to any one pre-
pared to exercise it with candour
and courtesy." Speaking of this
review, my father wrote to Dr. Asa
Gray : " I have remonstrated with
him [Hopkins] for so coolly saying
that I base my views on what I
reckon as great difficulties. Any
one, by taking these difficulties
alone, can make a most strong case
against me. I could myself write
a more damning review than has
as yet appeared ! " A second notice
by Hopkins appeared in the July
number of ' Fraser's Magazine.'

t May i860.

% Edward Blyth, born 1810, died
1873. His indomitable love of
natural history made him neglect
the druggist's business with which
he started in life, and he soon got
into serious difficulties. After sup-

316

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

much disappointed at hearing that Lord Canning will not
grant any money ; so I much fear that all your great pains
will be thrown away. Blyth says (and he is in many
respects a very good judge) that his ideas on Species are
quite revolutionized ....

C. Darwin to J. D. Hookei'.

Down, June 5th [i860].

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

Have you seen 's abusive article on me ? ... It outdoes

even the ' North British ' and ' Edinburgh ' in misapprehension
and misrepresentation. I never knew anything so unfair as
in discussing cells of bees, his ignoring the case of Melipona,
which builds combs almost exactly intermediate between hive

and humble bees. What has done that he feels so

immeasurably superior to all us wretched naturalists, and
to all political economists, including that great philosopher
Malthus? This review, however, and Harvey's letter have
convinced me that I must be a very bad explainer. Neither

porting himself for a few years as a
writer on Field Natural History,
he ultimately went out to India as
Curator of the Museum of the R.
Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, where the
greater part of his working life was
spent. His chief publications were
the monthly reports made as part
of his duty to the Society. He had
stored in his remarkable memory a
wonderful wealth of knowledge,
especially with regard to the mam-
malia and birds of India — know-

ledge of which he freely gave to
those who asked. His letters to my
father give evidence of having been
carefully studied, and the long list
of entries after his name in the
index to ' Animals and Plants/
show how much help was received
from him. His life was an unpros-
perous and unhappy one, full of
money difficulties and darkened by
the death of his wife after a few
years of marriage.

1 86a] ATTACKS. 317

really understand what I mean by Natural Selection. I am
inclined to give up the attempt as hopeless. Those who do
not understand, it seems, cannot be made to understand.

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

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

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, June 6th [i860].

... It consoles me that sneers at Malthus, for that

clearly shows, mathematician though he may be, he cannot
understand common reasoning. By the way what a dis-
couraging example Malthus is, to show during what long
years the plainest case may be misrepresented and mis-
understood. I have read the ' Future ' ; how curious it is
that several of my reviewers should advance such wild
arguments, as that varieties of dogs and cats do not
mingle ; and should bring up the old exploded doctrine of
definite analogies ... I am beginning to despair of ever
making the majority understand my notions. Even Hopkins

3i3

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

does not thoroughly. By the way, I have been so much
pleased by the way he personally alludes to me. I must
be a very bad explainer. I hope to Heaven that you will
succeed better. Several reviews and several letters have
shown me too clearly how little I am understood. I suppose
" natural selection " was a bad term ; but to change it now,
I think, would make confusion worse confounded, nor can I
think of a better ; " Natural Preservation " would not imply
a preservation of particular varieties, and would seem a
truism, and would not bring man's and nature's selection
under one point of view. I can only hope by reiterated
explanations finally to make the matter clearer. If my MS.
spreads out, I think I shall publish one volume exclusively
on variation of animals and plants under domestication.
I want to show that I have not been quite so rash as many
suppose.

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

* The late J. A. Lowell in the
1 Christian Examiner ' (Boston,

U. S.), May, i860.

t See footnote, ante, p. 261.

i860.] schaaffhausen. 319

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

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down [June 14th, i860].

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

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

I have expressly stated that I believe physical conditions
have a more direct effect on plants than on animals. But the

V

* J. A. Lowell in the 'Christian Examiner,' May iS6o.

320 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860..

more I study, the more I am led to think that natural selec-
tion regulates, in a state of nature, most trifling differences.
As squared stone, or bricks, or timber, are the indispensable
materials for a building, and influence its character, so is
variability not only indispensable but influential. Yet in the
same manner as the architect is the all important person,
in a building, so is selection with organic bodies

[The meeting of the British Association at Oxford in i860
is famous for two pitched battles over the ' Origin of Species/
Both of them originated in unimportant papers. On Thurs-
day, June 28, Dr. Daubeny of Oxford made a communication,
to Section D : " On the final causes of the sexuality of plants,
with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on the ' Origin
of Species.' " Mr. Huxley was called on by the President, but
tried (according to the Athenseum report) to avoid a discus-
sion, on the ground "that a general audience, in which senti-
ment would unduly interfere with intellect, was not the public
before which such a discussion should be carried on." How-
ever, the subject was not allowed to drop. Sir R. Owen
(I quote from the Athenseiun, July 7, i860), who "wished to
approach this subject in the spirit of the philosopher," ex-
pressed his " conviction that there were facts by which the
public could come to some conclusion with regard to the pro-
babilities of the truth of Mr. Darwin's theory." He went on to
say that the brain of the gorilla " presented more differences,
as compared with the brain of man, than it did when com-
pared with the brains of the very lowest and most proble-
matical of the Quadrumana." Mr. Huxley replied, and
gave these assertions a "direct and unqualified contradic-
tion," pledging himself to "justify that unusual procedure
elsewhere," * a pledge which he amply fulfilled.f On Friday
there was peace, but on Saturday 30th, the battle arose with

* ' Man's Place in Nature,' by f See the ' Nat. Hist. Review/

T. H. Huxley, 1863, p. 114. 1861.

i860.] BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 321

redoubled fury over a paper by Dr. Draper of New York,
on the ' Intellectual development of Europe considered with
reference to the views of Mr. Darwin.'

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

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

"The Bishop was up to time, and spoke for full half-an-
hour with inimitable spirit, emptiness and unfairness. It was
evident from his handling of the subject that he had been
* crammed ' up to the throat, and that he knew nothing at first
hand ; in fact, he used no argument not to be found in his
' Quarterly ' article. He ridiculed Darwin badly, and Huxley
savagely, but all in such dulcet tones, so persuasive a manner,
and in such well-turned periods, that I who had been inclined
to blame the President for allowing a discussion that could
serve no scientific purpose, now forgave him from the bottom
of my heart. Unfortunately the Bishop, hurried along on the
current of his own eloquence, so far forgot himself as to push
his attempted advantage to the verge of personality in a tell-
ing passage in which he turned round and addressed Huxley :
I forget the precise words, and quote from Lyell. ' The
Bishop asked whether Huxley was related by his grand-

VOL. II. Y

322 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

father's or grandmother's side to an ape.'* Huxley replied to
the scientific argument of his opponent with force and elo-
quence, and to the personal allusion with a self-restraint, that
gave dignity to his crushing rejoinder."

Many versions of Mr. Huxley's speech were current : the
following report of his conclusion is from a letter addressed
by the late John Richard Green, then an undergraduate, to
a fellow-student, now Professor Boyd Dawkins. " I asserted,
and I repeat, that a man has no reason to be ashamed of
having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor
whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a man, a
man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with
an equivocal f success in his own sphere of activity, plunges
into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaint-
ance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and dis-
tract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue
by eloquent digressions, and skilled appeals to religious
prejudice." %

The letter above quoted continues :

" The excitement was now at its height ; a lady fainted and
had to be carried out, and it was some time before the dis-
cussion was resumed. Some voices called for Hooker, and
his name having been handed up, the President invited him to
give his view of the theory from the Botanical side. This he
did, demonstrating that the Bishop, by his own showing, had
never grasped the principles of the ' Origin,' and that he was
absolutely ignorant of the elements of botanical science. The
Bishop made no reply, and the meeting broke up.

" There was a crowded conversazione in the evening at the

* Lyell's ' Letters,' vol. ii. p. 335. % Mr. Favvcett wrote (' Mac-

f Professor Victor Cams, who millan's Magazine,' i860) :

has a distinct recollection of the "The retort was so justly deserved

scene, does not remember the word and so inimitable in its manner ,

equivocal. He believes, too, that that no one who was present can

Lyeli's version of the ape sentence ever forget the impression that it

is slightly incorrect. made."

1 86a] BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 323

rooms of the hospitable and genial Professor of Botany, Dr.
Daubeny, where the almost sole topic was the battle of the
' Origin,' and I was much struck with the fair and unpre-
judiced way in which the black coats and white cravats of
Oxford discussed the question, and the frankness with which
they offered their congratulations to the winners in the
combat."]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Sudbrook Park, Monday night

[July 2nd, i860].

My dear Hooker, — I have just received your letter. I
have been very poorly, with almost continuous bad headache
for forty-eight hours, and I was low enough, and thinking
what a useless burthen I was to myself and all others, when
your letter came, and it has so cheered me ; your kindness
and affection brought tears into my eyes. Talk of fame,
honour, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with affection ;
and this is a doctrine with which, I know, from your letter,
that you will agree with from the bottom of your heart.
. . . How I should have liked to have wandered about
Oxford with you, if I had been well enough ; and how still
more I should have liked to have heard you triumphing
over the Bishop. I am astonished at your success and
audacity. It is something unintelligible to me how any one
can argue in public like orators do. I had no idea you had
this power. I have read lately so many hostile views, that I
was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the

wrong, and that was right when he said the whole subject

would be forgotten in ten years ; but now that I hear that you
and Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I never
could do), I fully believe that our cause will, in the long-
run, prevail. I am glad I was not in Oxford, for I should
have been overwhelmed, with my [health] in its present state.

Y 2

324 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

C. Darwin to T. H Huxley.

Sudbrook Park, Richmond,

July 3rd (i860).

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

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

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

[July i860.]

I have just read the ' Quarterly.' * It is uncom-
monly clever ; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural

• • •

* 'Quarterly Review,' July i860. terly Review,' 1874." The passage

The article in question was by from the 'Anti-Jacobin' gives the

Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and history of the evolution of space

was afterwards published in his from the " primaeval point or

" Essays Contributed to the ' Ouar- punctum saliens of the universe,"

1 86a]

'QUARTERLY REVIEW.'

325

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

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

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

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

which is conceived to have moved
" forward in a right line, ad infini-
tum, till it grew tired ; after which
the right line, which it had gene-
rated, would begin to put itself in
motion in a lateral direction, de-
scribing an area of infinite extent.
This area, as soon as it became
conscious of its own existence,
would begin to ascend or descend
according as its specific gravity
would determine it, forming an
immense solid space filled with
vacuum, and capable of containing
the present universe."

The following (p. 263) may serve
as an example of the passages in
which the reviewer refers to Sir
Charles Lyell : — "That Mr. Darwin
should have wandered from this
broad highway of nature's works
into the jungle of fanciful assump-
tion is no small evil. We trust
that he is mistaken in believing
that he may count Sir C. Lyell as
one of his converts. We know,
indeed, the strength of the tempta-
tions which he can bring to bear
upon his geological brother. . . .
Yet no man has been more distinct
and more logical in the denial of the

transmutation of species than Sir
C. Lyell, and that not in the infancy
of his scientific life, but in its full
vigour and maturity." The Bishop
goes on to appeal to Lyell, in order
that with his help " this flimsy
speculation may be as completely
put down as was what in spite of all
denials we must venture to call its
twin though less instructed brother,
the ' Vestiges of Creation.' "

With reference to this article,
Mr. Brodie Innes, my father's old
friend and neighbour, writes : —
" Most men would have been an-
noyed by an article written with
the Bishop's accustomed vigour, a
mixture of argument and ridicule.
Mr. Darwin was writing on some
parish matter, and put a postscript
— ' If you have not seen the last
1 Quarterly,' do get it ; the Bishop
of Oxford has made such capital
fun of me and my grandfather.
By a curious coincidence, when I
received the letter, I was staying
in the same house with the Bishop,
and showed it to him. He said, ' I
am very glad he takes it in that
way, he is such a capital fellow.' "

326 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES. [i860.

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

"Considering his age, his former views and position in so-
ciety, I think his conduct has been heroic on this subject."]

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

[Hartfield, Sussex] July 22nd [i860].

My DEAR Gray, — Owing to absence from home at water-
cure and then having to move my sick girl to whence I am
now writing, I have only lately read the discussion in Proc.
American Acad.,* and now I cannot resist expressing my
sincere admiration of your most clear powers of reasoning.
As Hooker lately said in a note to me, you are more than
any one else the thorough master of the subject. I declare
that you know my book as well as I do myself; and bring
to the question new lines of illustration and argument in a
manner which excites my astonishment and almost my envy !
I admire these discussions, I think, almost more than your
article in Silliman's Journal. Every single word seems
weighed carefully, and tells like a 32-pound shot. It makes
me much wish (but I know that you have not time) that
you could write more in detail, and give, for instance, the
facts on the variability of the American wild fruits. The
Athenaeum has the largest circulation, and I have sent my
copy to the editor with a request that he would republish
the first discussion ; I much fear he will not, as he reviewed
the subject in so hostile a spirit ... I shall be curious (and
will order) the August number, as soon as I know that it
contains your review of Reviews. My conclusion is that
you have made a mistake in being a botanist, you ought
to have been a lawyer.

* April 10, i860. Dr. Gray Bowen and Prof. Agassiz." It was

criticised in detail " several of the reprinted in the Athenceum, Aug. 4,

positions taken at the preceding i860,
meeting by Mr. [J. A.] Lowell, Prof.

i860.]

■ ->5

HOPKINS S REVIEW.

327

.... Henslow* and Daubeny are shaken. I hear from
Hooker that he hears from Hochstetter that my views are
making very considerable progress in Germany, and the good
workers are discussing the question. Bronn at the end of his
translation has a chapter of criticism, but it is such difficult
German that I have not yet read it. Hopkins's review in
* Fraser ' is thought the best which has appeared against us.
I believe that Hopkins is so much opposed because his course
of study has never led him to reflect much on such subjects
as geographical distribution, classification, homologies, &c,
so that he does not feel it a relief to have some kind of
explanation.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Hartfield [Sussex], July 30th [i860].

I had lots of pleasant letters about the Brit.

Assoc, and our side seems to have got on very well. There
has been as much discussion on the other side of the Atlantic
as on this. No one I think understands the whole case better
than Asa Gray, and he has been fighting nobly. He is a
capital reasoner. I have sent one of his printed discussions
to our Athenseum, and the editor says he will print it. The
' Quarterly ' has been out some time. It contains no malice,
which is wonderful. ... It makes me say many things which

* Professor Henslow was men-
tioned in the December number of
1 Macmillan's Magazine' as being
an adherent of Evolution. In con-
sequence of this he published, in
the February number of the follow-
ing year, a letter defining his posi-
tion. This he did by means of an
extract from a letter addressed to
him by the Rev. L. Jenyns (Blome-
field) which " very nearly," as he
says, expressed his views. Mr.
Blomefield wrote, " I was not
aware that you had become a

convert to his (Darwin's) theory,

and can hardly suppose you have

accepted it as a whole, though, like

myself, you may go to the length of

imagining that many of the smaller

groups, both of animals and plants,

may at some remote period have

had a common parentage. I do not

with some say that the whole of his

theory cannot be true— but that it

is very far from proved ; and I

doubt its ever being possible to

prove it."

328 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

I do not say. At the end it quotes all your conclusions against
Lamarck, and makes a solemn appeal to you to keep firm in

the true faith. I fancy it will make you quake a little.

has ingeniously primed the Bishop (with Murchison) against
you as head of the uniformitarians. The only other review
worth mentioning, which I can think of, is in the third No. of
the ' London Review,' by some geologist, and favourable for a
wonder. It is very ably done, and I should like much to
know who is the author. I shall be very curious to hear on
your return whether Bronn's German translation of the
1 Origin ' has drawn any attention to the subject. Huxley
is eager about a ' Natural History Review,' which he and
others are going to edit, and he has got so many first-rate
assistants, that I really believe he will make it a first-rate
production. I have been doing nothing, except a little
botanical work as amusement. I shall hereafter be very
anxious to hear how your tour has answered. I expect your
book on the geological history of Man will, with a vengeance,
be a bomb-shell. I hope it will not be very long delayed.
Our kindest remembrances to Lady Lyell. This is not
worth sending, but I have nothing better to say.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to F. Watkins. *

Down, July 30th, [i860}.

My DEAR WATKINS, — Your note gave me real pleasure.
Leading the retired life which I do, with bad health, I oftener
think of old times than most men probably do ; and your
face now rises before me, with the pleasant old expression, as
vividly as if I saw you.

My book has been well abused, praised, and splendidly
quizzed by the Bishop of Oxford ; but from what I see of its

* See Vol. I. p. 168.

1 86a] von baer. 329

influence on really good workers in science, I feel confident
that, in the main, I am on the right road. With respect to
your question, I think the arguments are valid, showing that
all animals have descended from four or five primordial
forms ; and that analogy and weak reasons go to show that
all have descended from some single prototype.

Farewell, my old friend. I look back to old Cambridge
days with unalloyed pleasure.

Believe me, yours most sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

T. H. Huxley to C. Darwin.

August 6th, i860.

My DEAR Darwin, — I have to announce a new and great
ally for you

Von Bar writes to me thus : — " Et outre cela, je trouve que
vous ecrivez encore des redactions. Vous avez ecrit sur
l'ouvrage de M. Darwin une critique dont je n'ai trouve que des
debris dans un journal allemand. J'ai oublie le nom terrible
du journal anglais dans lequel se trouve votre recension. En
tout cas aussi je ne peux pas trouver le journal ici. Comme je
m'interesse beaucoup pour les idees de M. Darwin, sur les-
quelles j'ai parle publiquement et sur lesquelles je ferai peut-
etre imprimer quelque chose — vous m'obligeriez infiniment si
vous pourriez me faire parvenir ce que vous avez ecrit sur ces
idees.

"J'ai enonce les memes idees sur la transformation des types
ou origine d'especes que M. Darwin.* Mais c'est seulement sur
la geographie zoologique que je m'appuie. Vous trouverez,
dans le dernier chapitre du traite ' Ueber Papuas und
Alfuren,' que j'en parle tres decidement sans savoir que
M. Darwin s'occupait de cet objet."

The treatise to which Von Bar refers he gave me when over

* See footnote, Vol. II. p. 186.

33o

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

[i860.

here, but I have not been able to lay hands on it since this
letter reached me two days ago. When I find it I will let you
know what there is in it.

Ever yours faithfully,

T. H. Huxley.

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, August 8 [i860].

My dear Huxley — Your note contained magnificent
news, and thank you heartily for sending it me. Von
Baer weighs down with a vengeance all the virulence of [the
* Edinburgh' reviewer] and weak arguments of Agassiz. If
you write to Von Baer, for heaven's sake tell him that we
should think one nod of approbation on our side, of the
greatest value ; and if he does write anything, beg him to
send us a copy, for I would try and get it translated and
published in the Atheuseum and in ' Silliman ' to touch up

Agassiz Have you seen Agassiz's weak metaphysical

and theological attack on the ' Origin ' in the last ' Silliman ' ?*
I would send it you, but apprehend it would be less trouble
for you to look at it in London than return it to me. R.
Wagner has sent me a German pamphlet, f giving an abstract
of Agassiz's ' Essay on Classification,' " mit Riicksicht auf
Darwins Ansichten," &c. &c. He won't go very " dangerous
lengths," but thinks the truth lies half-way between Agassiz
and the ' Origin.' As he goes thus far he will, nolens

* The ' American Journal of
Science and Arts' (commonly called
i Silliman's Journal'), July i860.
Printed from advanced sheets of
vol. iii. of ' Contributions to the
Nat. Hist, of the U. S.' My father's
copy has a pencilled " Truly ':
opposite the following passage : —
" Unless Darwin and his followers
succeed in showing that the struggle

for life tends to something beyond
favouring the existence of certain
individuals over that of other indi-
viduals, they will soon find that
they are following a shadow."

f ' Louis Agassiz's Prinzipien der
Classification, &c, mit Riicksicht
auf Darwins Ansichten. Separat-
Abdruck aus den Gottingischen
gelehrten Anzeigen,' 1860.

i860.] AGASSIZ, WAGNER. 33 1

volens, have to go further. He says he is going to review
me in [his] yearly Report. My good and kind agent for the
propagation of the Gospel — i. e. the devil's gospel.

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, August nth [i860].

... I have laughed at Woodward thinking that you were
a man who could be influenced in your judgment by the voice
of the public ; and yet after mortally sneering at him, I was
obliged to confess to myself, that I had had fears, what the
effect might be of so many heavy guns fired by great men.
As I have (sent by Murray) a spare ' Quarterly Review,' I
send it by this post, as it may amuse you. The Anti-Jacobin
part amused me. It is full of errors, and Hooker is thinking
of answering it. There has been a cancelled page ; I should
like to know what gigantic blunder it contained. Hooker

says that has played on the Bishop, and made him

strike whatever note he liked ; he has wished to make the
article as disagreeable to you as possible. I will send the
AtJienseum in a day or two.

As you wish to hear what reviews have appeared, I may
mention that Agassiz has fired off a shot in the last ' Silliman/
not good at all, denies variations and rests on the perfection
of Geological evidence. Asa Gray tells me that a very clever
friend has been almost converted to our side by this review
of Agassiz's . . . Professor Parsons * has published in
the same ' Silliman ' a speculative paper correcting my
notions, worth nothing. In the ' Highland Agricultural
Journal ' there is a review by some Entomologist, not worth
much. This is all that I can remember. . . . As Huxley
says, the platoon firing must soon cease. Hooker and

* Theophilus Parsons, Professor of Law in Harvard University.

332 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

Huxley, and Asa Gray, I see, are determined to stick to the
battle and not give in ; I am fully convinced that whenever
you publish, it will produce a great effect on all trimmers, and
on many others. By the way I forgot to mention Daubeny's
pamphlet,* very liberal and candid, but scientifically weak.
I believe Hooker is going nowhere this summer ; he is ex-
cessively busy . . . He has written me many, most nice
letters. I shall be very curious to hear on your return some
account of your Geological doings. Talking of Geology, you
used to be interested about the " pipes " in the chalk. About
three years ago a perfectly circular hole suddenly appeared
in a flat grass field to everyone's astonishment, and was filled
up with many waggon loads of earth ; and now two or three
days ago, again it has circularly subsided about two feet
more. How clearly this shows what is still slowly going on.
This morning I recommenced work, and am at dogs ; when
I have written my short discussion on them, I will have it
copied, and if you like, you can then see how the argument
stands, about their multiple origin. As you seemed to think
this important, it might be worth your reading ; though I do
not feel sure that you will come to the same probable con-
elusion that I have done. By the way, the Bishop makes a
very telling case against me, by accumulating several instances
where I speak very doubtfully ; but this is very unfair, as in
such cases as this of the dog, the evidence is and must be
very doubtful. . . .

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, August u [i860].

My DEAR Gray, — On my return home from Sussex about
a week ago, I found several articles sent by you. The first

* ' Remarks on the final causes work on the " Origin of Species." '
of the sexuality of plants with par- — Brit. Assoc. Report, i860,
ticular reference to Mr. Darwin's

i860.] agassiz. 333

article, from the 'Atlantic Monthly,' I am very glad to
possess. By the way, the editor of the AtJienseum* has
inserted your answer to Agassiz, Bowen, and Co., and when
I therein read them, I admired them even more than at first.
They really seemed to me admirable in their condensation,
force, clearness and novelty.

I am surprised that Agassiz did not succeed in writing
something better. How absurd that logical quibble — " if
species do not exist, how can they vary ? " As if any one
doubted their temporary existence. How coolly he assumes
that there is some clearly defined distinction between indi-
vidual differences and varieties. It is no wonder that a man
who calls identical forms, when found in two countries, dis-
tinct species, cannot find variation in nature. Again, how
unreasonable to suppose that domestic varieties selected by
man for his own fancy (p. 147) should resemble natural
varieties or species. The whole article seems to me poor ; it
seems to me hardly worth a detailed answer (even if I could
do it, and I much doubt whether I possess your skill in
picking out salient points and driving a nail into them), and
indeed you have already answered several points. Agassiz's
name, no doubt, is a heavy weight against us. . . .

If you see Professor Parsons, will you thank him for the
extremely liberal and fair spirit in which his Essay f is written.
Please tell him that I reflected much on the chance of favour-
able monstrosities (i.e. great and sudden variation) arising. I
have, of course, no objection to this, indeed it would be a great
aid, but I did not allude to the subject, for, after much labour,
I could find nothing which satisfied me of the probability of
such occurrences. There seems to me in almost every case
too much, too complex, and too beautiful adaptation, in every
structure to believe in its sudden production. I have alluded
under the head of beautifully hooked seeds to such possi-
bility. Monsters are apt to be sterile, or not to transmit

* Aug. 4, i860. f ' Silliman's Journal/ July i860.

334 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

monstrous peculiarities. Look at the fineness of gradation in
the shells of successive sub-stages of the same great forma-
tion ; I could give many other considerations which made me
doubt such view. It holds, to a certain extent, with domestic
productions no doubt, where man preserves some abrupt
change in structure. It amused me to see Sir R. Murchison
quoted as a judge of affinities of animals, and it gave me a
cold shudder to hear of any one speculating about a true
crustacean giving birth to a true fish ! *

Yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, September 1st [i860].

My DEAR LYELL, — I have been much interested by your
letter of the 28th, received this morning. It has delighted me,
because it demonstrates that you have thought a good deal
lately on Natural Selection. Few things have surprised me
more than the entire paucity of objections and difficulties
new to' me in the published reviews. Your remarks are of
a different stamp and new to me. I will run through them,
and make a few pleadings such as occur to me.

I put in the possibility of the Galapagos having been con-
tinuously joined to America, out of mere subservience to the
many who believe in Forbes's doctrine, and did not see the
danger of admission, about small mammals surviving there
in such case. The case of the Galapagos, from certain facts
on littoral sea-shells (viz. Pacific Ocean and South American
littoral species), in fact convinced me more than in any other
case of other islands, that the Galapagos had never been

* Parsons, loc. cit. p. 5, speaking nearly a fish that some of its ova

of Pterichthys and Cephalaspis, may have become fish ; or, if itself

sayS: — " Now is it too much to infer a fish, was so nearly a crustacean

from these facts that either of these that it may have been born from

animals, if a crustacean, was so the ovum of a crustacean ? "

i860.] lyell's criticisms. 335

continuously united with the mainland ; it was mere base
subservience, and terror of Hooker and Co.

With respect to atolls, I think mammals would hardly
survive very long, even if the main islands (for as I have
said in the Coral Book, the outline of groups of atolls
do not look like a former continent) had been tenanted by
mammals, from the extremely small area, the very peculiar
conditions, and the probability that during subsidence all or
nearly all atolls have been breached and flooded by the sea
many times during their existence as atolls.

I cannot conceive any existing reptile being converted into
a mammal. From homologies I should look at it as certain
that all mammals had descended from some single pro-
genitor. What its nature was, it is impossible to speculate.
More like, probably, the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna than any
known form ; as these animals combine reptilian characters
(and in a lesser degree bird character) with mammalian. We
must imagine some form as intermediate, as is Lepidosiren
now, between reptiles and fish, between mammals and
birds on the one hand (for they retain longer the same em-
bryological character) and reptiles on the other hand. With
respect to a mammal not being developed on any island,
besides want of time for so prodigious a development, there
must have arrived on the island the necessary and peculiar
progenitor, having a character like the embryo of a mammal ;
and not an already developed reptile, bird or fish.

We might give to a bird the habits of a mammal, but
inheritance would retain almost for eternity some of the bird-
like structure, and prevent a new creature ranking as a true
mammal.

I have often speculated on antiquity of islands, but not
with your precision, or at all under the point of view of
Natural Selection not having done what might have been
anticipated. The argument of littoral Miocene shells at the
Canary Islands is new to me. I was deeply impressed (from

336 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.* [i860.

the amount of the denudation) [with the] antiquity of St.
Helena, and its age agrees with the peculiarity of the flora.
With respect to bats at New Zealand (N.B. There are two or
three European bats in Madeira, and I think in the Canary
Islands) not having given rise to a group of non-volant bats,
it is, now you put the case, surprising ; more especially as
the genus of bats in New Zealand is very peculiar, and there-
fore has probably been long introduced, and they now speak
of Cretacean fossils there. But the first necessary step has to
be shown, namely, of a bat taking to feed on the ground, or
anyhow, and anywhere, except in the air. I am bound to
confess I do know one single such fact, viz. of an Indian species
killing frogs. Observe, that in my wretched Polar Bear case,
I do show the first step by which conversion into a whale
•"would be easy," "would offer no difficulty"!! So with seals,
I know of no fact showing any the least incipient variation of
seals feeding on the shore. Moreover, seals wander much ;
I searched in vain, and could not find one case of any species
of seal confined to any islands. And hence wanderers would
be apt to cross with individuals undergoing any change on an
island, as in the case of land birds of Madeira and Bermuda.
The same remark applies even to bats, as they frequently
come to Bermuda from the mainland, though about 600 miles
•distant. With respect to the Amblyrhynchus of the Gala-
pagos, one may infer as probable, from marine habits being
so rare with Saurians, and from the terrestrial species being
confined to a few central islets, that its progenitor first arrived
at the Galapagos ; from what country it is impossible to say,
as its affinity I believe is not very clear to any known species.
The offspring of the terrestrial species was probably rendered
marine. Now in this case I do not pretend I can show
variation in habits ; but we have in the terrestrial species a
vegetable feeder (in itself a rather unusual circumstance),
largely on .lichens, and it would not be a great change for
its offspring to feed first on littoral algae and then on sub-

i860.] lyell's criticisms. 337

marine algae. I have said what I can in defence, but yours
is a good line of attack. We should, however, always re-
member that no change will ever be effected till a variation
in the habits or structure or of both chance to occur in the
right direction, so as to give the organism in question an
advantage over other already established occupants of land
or water, and this may be in any particular case indefinitely
long. I am very glad you will read my dogs MS., for it will
be important to me to see what you think of the balance of
evidence. After long pondering on a subject it is often
hard to judge. With hearty thanks for your most interesting
letter. Farewell.

My dear old master,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, September 2nd [1S60].

My DEAR HOOKER, — I am astounded at your news re-
ceived this morning. I am become such an old fogy that I
am amazed at your spirit. For God's sake do not go and get
your throat cut. Bless my soul, I think you must be a little
insane. I must confess it will be a most interesting tour ;
and, if you get to the top of Lebanon, I suppose extremely
interesting — you ought to collect any beetles under stones
there ; but the Entomologists are such slow coaches. I
dare say no result could be made out of them. [They] have
never worked the Alpines of Britain.

If you come across any Brine lakes, do attend to their
minute flora and fauna ; I have often been surprised how
little this has been attended to.

I have had a long letter from Lyell, who starts ingenious
difficulties opposed to Natural Selection, because it has not
done more than it has. This is very good, as it shows that
he has thoroughly mastered the subject ; and shows he is in

VOL. II. Z

33S THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

earnest. Very striking letter altogether and it rejoices the
cockles of my heart.

.... How I shall miss you, my best and kindest of
friends. God bless you.

Yours ever affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, Sept. 10 [i860].

.... You will be weary of my praise, but it * does strike
me as quite admirably argued, and so well and pleasantly
written. Your many metaphors are inimitably good. I said
in a former letter that you were a lawyer, but I made a gross
mistake, I am sure that you are a poet. No, by Jove, I will
tell you what you are, a hybrid, a complex cross of lawyer,
poet, naturalist and theologian ! Was there ever such a
monster seen before ?

I have just looked through the passages which I have
marked as appearing to me extra good, but I see that they
are too numerous to specify, and this is no exaggeration. My
eye just alights on the happy comparison of the colours of
the prism and our artificial groups. I see one little error of
fossil cattle in South America.

It is curious how each one, I suppose, weighs arguments in
a different balance : embryology is to me by far the strongest
single class of facts in favour of change of forms, and not one,
I think, of my reviewers has alluded to this. Variation not
coming on at a very early age, and being inherited at not
a very early corresponding period, explains, as it seems to
me, the grandest of all facts in natural history, or rather in
zoology, viz. the resemblance of embryos.

[Dr. Gray wrote three articles in the 'Atlantic Monthly ' for
* Dr. Gray in the ' Atlantic Monthly ' for July, i860.

i860.] lyell's criticisms. 339

July, August, and October, which were reprinted as a pam-
phlet in 1861, and now form chapter iii. in ' Darwiniana ' (1876),
with the heading 'Natural Selection not inconsistent with
Natural Theology.']

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, September 12th [i860].

My DEAR LYELL, — I never thought of showing your letter
to any one. I mentioned in a letter to Hooker that I had
been much interested by a letter of yours with original objec
tions, founded chiefly on Natural Selection not having done

so much as might have been expected In your letter

just received, you have improved your case versus Natural
Selection ; and it would tell with the public (do not be
tempted by its novelty to make it too strong) ; yet it seems
to me, not really very killing, though I cannot answer your
case, especially, why Rodents have not become highly de-
veloped in Australia. You must assume that they have
inhabited Australia for a very long period, and this may or
may not be the case. But I feel that our ignorance is so
profound, why one form is preserved with nearly the same
structure, or advances in organisation or even retrogrades, or
becomes extinct, that I cannot put very great weight on the
difficulty. Then, as you say often in your letter, we know
not how many geological ages it may have taken to make any
great advance in organisation. Remember monkeys in the
Eocene formations : but I admit that you have made out an
excellent objection and difficulty, and I can give only un-
satisfactory and quite vague answers, such as you have
yourself put ; however, you hardly put weight enough on
the absolute necessity of variations first arising in the right
direction, videlicet, of seals beginning to feed on the shore.

I entirely agree with what you say about only one species
of many becoming modified. I remember this struck me

z 2

340 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

much when tabulating the varieties of plants, and I have a
discussion somewhere on this point. It is absolutely implied
in my ideas of classification and divergence that only one or
two species, of even large genera, give birth to new species ;
and many whole genera become wholly extinct .... Please
see p. 341 of the 'Origin.' But I cannot remember that I
have stated in the ' Origin ' the fact of only very few species
in each genus varying. You have put the view much better
in your letter. Instead of saying as I often have, that very
few species vary at the same time, I ought to have said, that
very few species of a genus ever vary so as to become modified ;
for this is the fundamental explanation of classification, and
is shown in my engraved diagram. . . .

I quite agree with you on the strange and inexplicable fact
of Ornithorhynchus having been preserved, and Australian
Trigonia, or the Silurian Lingula. I always repeat to myself
that we hardly know why any one single species is rare or
common in the best-known countries. I have got a set of
notes somewhere on the inhabitants of fresh water ; and it
is singular how many of these are ancient, or intermediate
forms ; which I think is explained by the competition having
been less severe, and the rate of change of organic forms
having been slower in small confined areas, such as all the
fresh waters make compared with sea or land.

I see that you do allude in the last page, as a difficulty, to
Marsupials not having become Placentals in Australia ; but
this I think you have no right at all to expect ; for we ought
to look at Marsupials and Placentals as having descended
from some intermediate and lower form. The argument of
Rodents not having become highly developed in Australia
(supposing that they have long existed there) is much stronger.
I grieve to see you hint at the creation " of distinct successive
types, as well as of a certain number of distinct aboriginal
types." Remember, if you admit this, you give up the em-
bryological argument (the weightiest of all to me), and the

i860.] pedigree of mammalia. 341

morphological or homological argument. You cut my throat,
and your own throat ; and I believe will live to be sorry for it.
So much for species.

The striking extract which E. copied was your own writing ! !
in a note to me, many long years ago — which she copied and
sent to Mme. Sismondi ; and lately my aunt, in sorting her

letters, found E.'s and returned them to her I have

been of late shamefully idle, i.e. observing * instead of writing,
and how much better fun observing is than writing.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,

Sunday [September 23rd, i860].

My DEAR Lyell, — I got your letter of the 18th just before
starting here. You speak of saving me trouble in answering
Never think of this, for I look at every letter of yours as an
honour and pleasure, which is a pretty deal more than I can
say of some of the letters which I receive. I have now one
of 13 closely written folio pages to answer on species ! . . . .

I have a very decided opinion that all mammals must have
descended from a single parent. Reflect on the multitude of
details, very many of thern of extremely little importance to
their habits (as the number of bones of the head, &c, covering
of hair, Identical embryological development, &c. &c). Now
this large amount of similarity I must look at as certainly
due to inheritance from a common stock. I am aware that
some cases occur in which a similar or nearly similar organ
has been acquired by independent acts of natural selection.
But in most of such cases of these apparently so closely
similar organs, some important homological difference may be
detected. Please read p. 193, beginning, " The electric organs,"

* Drosera.

342 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

and trust me that the sentence, " In all these cases of two very-
distinct species/' &c. &c., was not put in rashly, for I went
carefully into every case. Apply this argument to the whole
frame, internal and external, of mammifers, and you will see
why I think so strongly that all have descended from one
progenitor. I have just re-read your letter, and I am not
perfectly sure that I understand your point.

I enclose two diagrams showing the sort of manner I conjec-
ture that mammals have been developed. I thought a little
on this when writing page 429, beginning, " Mr. Waterhouse."
(Please read the paragraph.) I have not knowledge enough
to choose between these two diagrams. If the brain of Mar-
supials in embryo closely resembles that of Placentals, I
should strongly prefer No. 2, and this agrees with the anti-
quity of Microlestes. As a general rule I should prefer No. 1
diagram ; whether or not Marsupials have gone on being
developed, or rising in rank, from a very early period would
depend on circumstances too complex for even a conjecture.
Lingula has not risen since the Silurian epoch, whereas other
molluscs may have risen.

A, in the following diagrams, represents an unknown form,
probably intermediate between Mammals, Reptiles and Birds,
as intermediate as Lepidosiren now is between Fish and
Batrachians. This unknown form is probably more closely
related to Ornithorhynchus than to any other known form.

I do not think that the multiple origin of dogs goes against

the single origin of man All the races of man are so

infinitely closer together than to any ape, that (as in the case
of descent of all mammals from one progenitor), I should look
at all races of men as having certainly descended from one
parent. I should look at it as probable that the races of men
were less numerous and less divergent formerly than now,
unless, indeed, some lower and more aberrant race even than
the Hottentot has become extinct. Supposing, as I do for
one believe, that our dogs have descended from two or three

i860.]

PEDIGREE OF MAMMALIA.

• A i

wolves, jackals, &c. ; yet these have, on our vieiv, descended
from a single remote unknown progenitor. With domestic
dogs the question is simply whether the whole amount of
difference has been produced since man domesticated a single
species ; or whether part of the difference arises in the state

DIAGRAM I.
A

MAMMALS,
NOT TRUE MARSUPIALS NOR TRUE PLACENTALS.

TRUE

TRUE

PLACENTAL.

MARSUPIAL.

*
/

/

\

A \

* \

V i

/I \

/ 1

I \

it \

■ »

\

' 1 1

i *

ft

' 1 *

t *

i\

' I 1

\ ?

1

; \

/ / h

i o

1
1

* 1

/

• \

u <*

•
1

f

1 1 '
1 1

'. 2 *,

1

• ', ».

/

Q U

1

1
•

1

« I \

DIDELPHYS

/

1 ^

o u

$

KANGAROO
FAM.

fam:

a
or
c

Cr

&

Q

<J

or
ui
O
>-

o

c

z

o

DIAGRAM II.

PLACENTALS

3
O

a
n

z
-(
e/1

A

TRUE MAiRSUPIALS

LOWLY developed:

TRUE MARSUPIALS
HIGHLY DEVELOPED:

A

PRESENT.
MARSUPIALS

KANGAROO
FAM:

(' 1

1 1
1 1
1 1
• 1

\
\

\
1
1

1

DIDb'LPHYS

fam;

of nature. Agassiz and Co. think the negro and Caucasian
are now distinct species, and it is a mere vain discussion
whether, when they were rather less distinct, they would, on
this standard of specific value, deserve to be called species.

344 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

I agree with your answer which you give to yourself on this
point ; and the simile of man now keeping down any new
man which might be developed, strikes me as good and new.
The white man is " improving off the face of the earth " even
races nearly his equals. With respect to islands, I think I would
trust to want of time alone, and not to bats and rodents.

N.B. — I know of no rodents on oceanic islands (except my
Galapagos mouse, which may have been introduced by man)
keeping down the development of other classes. Still much
more weight I should attribute to there being now, neither
in islands nor elsewhere, [any] known animals of a grade of
organisation intermediate between mammals, fish, reptiles,
&c, whence a new mammal could be developed. If every
vertebrate were destroyed throughout the world, except our
nozv well-established reptiles, millions of ages might elapse
before reptiles could become highly developed on a scale
equal to mammals ; and, on the principle of inheritance,
they would make some quite neiv class, and not mammals ;
though possibly more intellectual ! I have not an idea that
you will care for this letter, so speculative.

Most truly yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, Sept. 26 [i860].

.... I have had a letter of fourteen folio pages from
Harvey against my book, with some ingenious and new
remarks ; but it is an extraordinary fact that he does not
understand at all what I mean by Natural Selection. I have
begged him to read the Dialogue in next ' Silliman,' as you
never touch the subject without making it clearer. I look at
it as even more extraordinary that you never say a word or
use an epithet which does not express fully my meaning.
Now Lyell, Hooker, and others, who perfectly understand my

i860.] cirripedes. 345

book, yet sometimes use expressions to which I demur. Well,
your extraordinary labour is over ; if there is any fair amount
of truth in my view, I am well assured that your great labour
has not been thrown away. . . .

I yet hope and almcst believe, that the time will come
when you will go further, in believing a very large amount of
modification of species, than you did at first or do now. Can
you tell me whether you believe further or more firmly than
you did at first ? I should really like to know this. I can
perceive in my immense correspondence with Lyell, who
objected to much at first, that he has, perhaps unconsciously
to himself, converted himself very much during the last six
months, and I think this is the case even with Hooker. This
fact gives me far more confidence than any other fact.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,

Friday evening [September 28th, i860].

.... I am very glad to hear about the Germans reading
my book. No one will be converted who has not independ-
ently begun to doubt about species. Is not Krohn * a good
fellow ? I have long meant to write to him. He has been
working at Cirripedes, and has detected two or three
gigantic blunders, .... about which, I thank Heaven, I
spoke rather doubtfully. Such difficult dissection that even
Huxley failed. It is chiefly the interpretation which I put on
parts that is so wrong, and not the parts which I describe.
But they were gigantic blunders, and why I say all this is be-
cause Krohn, instead of crowing at all, pointed out my errors
with the utmost gentleness and pleasantness. I have always

* There are two papers by Aug. xxv. and xxvi. My father has re-

Krohn, one on the Cement Glands, marked that he " blundered dread-

and the other on the development fully about the cement glands,"

of Cirripedes, ' Wiegmann's Archiv,' ' Autobiography,' p. 81.

346 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

meant to write to him and thank him. I suppose Dr.
Krohn, Bonn, would reach him.

I cannot see yet how the multiple origin of dog can be
properly brought as argument for the multiple origin of man.
Is not your feeling a remnant of the deeply impressed one on
all our minds, that a species is an entity, something quite dis-
tinct from a variety ? Is it not that the dog case injures the
argument from fertility, so that one main argument that the
races of man are varieties and not species — i.e.y because they
are fertile inter se, is much weakened ?

I quite agree with what Hooker says, that whatever varia-
tion is possible under culture, is possible under nature ; not that
the same form wouLd ever be accumulated and arrived at by
selection for man's pleasure, and by natural selection for the
organism's own good.

Talking of " natural selection ;" if I had to commence de

novo, I would have used " natural preservation." For I find

men like Harvey of Dublin cannot understand me, though he

has read the book twice. Dr. Gray of the British Museum

remarked to me that, "selection was obviously impossible with

plants ! No one could tell him how it could be possible ! "

And he may now add that the author did not attempt it to

him !

Yours ever affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darzvin to C. Lyell.

15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne,

October 8th [i860].

My DEAR Lyell, — I send the [English] translation of
Bronn,* the first part of the chapter with generalities and praise
is not translated. There are some good hits. He makes an
apparently, and in part truly, telling case against me, says

* A MS. translation of Bronn's his German translation of the
chapter of objections at the end of ' Origin of Species.'

i860.] bronn's objections. 347

that I cannot explain why one rat has a longer tail and
another longer ears, &c. But he seems to muddle in assuming
that these parts did not all vary together, or one part so
insensibly before the other, as to be in fact contemporaneous.
I might ask the creationist whether he thinks these differences
in the two rats of any use, or as standing in some relation from
laws of growth ; and if he admits this, selection might come
into play. He who thinks that God created animals unlike
for mere sport or variety, as man fashions his clothes, will
not admit any force in my argumentum ad hominem.

Bronn blunders about my supposing several Glacial periods,
whether or no such ever did occur.

He blunders about my supposing that development goes on
at the same rate in all parts of the world. I presume that he
has misunderstood this from the supposed migration into all
regions of the more dominant forms.

I have ordered Dr. Bree,* and will lend it to you, if you like,
and if it turns out good.

I am very glad that I misunderstood you about

species not having the capacity to vary, though in fact few do
give birth to new species. It seems that I am very apt to mis-
understand you ; I suppose I am always fancying objections.
Your case of the Red Indian shows me that we agree
entirely

I had a letter yesterday from Thwaites of Ceylon, who was
much opposed to me. He now says, " I find that the more
familiar I become with your views in connection with the
various phenomena of nature, the more they commend them-
selves to my mind."

* e

Species not Transmutable,' by C. R. Bree, 1S60.

34§ THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

C. Darwin to J. M. RodwelL

*

15 Marine Parade, Eastbourne.

November 5th [i860].

My DEAR Sir, — I am extremely much obliged for your
letter, which I can compare only to a plum-pudding, so full
it is of good things. I have been rash about the cats : f yet
I spoke on what seemed to me, good authority. The Rev.
W. D. Fox gave me a list of cases of various foreign breeds in
which he had observed the correlation, and for years he had
vainly sought an exception. A French paper also gives
numerous cases, and one very curious case of a kitten which
gradually lost the blue colour in its eyes and as gradually
acquired its power of hearing. I had not heard of your uncle,
Mr. Kirby's case % (whom I, for as long as I can remember,
have venerated) of care in breeding cats. I do not know
whether Mr. Kirby was your uncle by marriage, but your
letters show me that you ought to have Kirby blood in your
veins, and that if you had not taken to languages you would
have been a first-rate naturalist.

I sincerely hope that you will be able to carry out your in-
tention of writing on the " Birth, Life, and Death of Words."
Anyhow, you have a capital title, and some think this the
most difficult part of a book. I remember years ago at the
Cape of Good Hope, Sir J. Herschell saying to me, I wish
some one would treat language as Lyell has treated geology.
What a linguist you must be to translate the Koran ! Having
a vilely bad head for languages, I feel an awful respect for
linguists.

* Rev. J. M. Rodwell, who was corner of which she is scratching."

at Cambridge with my father, re- f " Cats with blue eyes are in-

members him saying : — " It strikes variably deaf," ' Origin of Species,'

me that all our knowledge about ed. i. p. 12.

the structure of our earth is very % William Kirby, joint author

much like what an old hen would with Spence, of the well-known ' In-

know of a hundred acre field, in a troduction to Entomology,' 181S.

1 860.] REVIEWS. 349

I do not know whether my brother-in-law, Hensleigh
Wedgwood's ' Etymological Dictionary ' would be at all in
your line ; but he treats briefly on the genesis of words ; and,
as it seems to me, very ingeniously. You kindly say that
you would communicate any facts which might occur to you,
and I am sure that I should be most grateful. Of the multi-
tude of letters which I receive, not one in a thousand is like
yours in value.

With my cordial thanks, and apologies for this untidy letter
written in haste, pray believe me, my dear Sir,

Yours sincerely obliged,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. LyelL

November 20th [1S60].
.... I have not had heart to read Phillips * yet, or a
tremendous long hostile review by Professor Bowen in the
4to Mem. of the American Academy of Sciences.f (By the
way, I hear Agassiz is going to thunder against me in the
next part of the ' Contributions.') Thank you for telling me of
the sale of the 'Origin,' of which I had not heard. There will
be some time, I presume, a new edition, and I especially want
your advice on one point, and you know I think you the
wisest of men, and I shall be absolutely guided by your advice.
It has occurred to me, that it would perhaps be a good plan
to put a set of notes (some twenty to forty or fifty) to the
1 Origin,' which now has none, exclusively devoted to errors
of my reviewers. It has occurred to me that where a reviewer
has erred, a common reader might err. Secondly, it will
show the reader that he must not trust implicitly to reviewers.
Thirdly, when any special fact has been attacked, I should like

* ( Life on the Earth.' Religion and Moral Philosophy, at

f "Remarks on the latest form Harvard University. 'American

of the Development Theory." By Academy of Arts and Sciences,'

Francis Bowen, Professor of Natural vol. viii.

35o

THE ' ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

to defend it. I would show no sort of anger. I enclose a
mere rough specimen, done without any care or accuracy —
done from memory alone — to be torn up, just to show the
sort of thing that has occurred to me. Will yon do me the
great kindness to consider this well ?

It seems to me it would have a good effect, and give some
confidence to the reader. It would [be] a horrid bore going
through all the reviews.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

[Here follow samples of foot-notes, the references to volume
and page being left blank. It will be seen that in some cases
he seems to have forgotten that he was writing foot-notes, and
to have continued as if writing to Lyell : —

* Dr. Bree (p. ) asserts that
I explain the structure of the cells
of the Hive Bee by " the exploded
doctrine of pressure." But I do
not say one word which directly or
indirectly can be interpreted into
any reference to pressure.

* The ' Edinburgh ' Reviewer
(vol. , p. ) quotes my work as
saying that the "dorsal vertebrae
of pigeons vary in number, and
disputes the fact." I nowhere even
allude to the dorsal vertebrae, only
to the sacral and caudal vertebras.

* The ' Edinburgh ' Reviewer
throws a doubt on these organs
being the Branchiae of Cirripedes.
But Professor Owen in 1854 admits,
without hesitation, that they are
Branchiae, as did John Hunter long
ago.

* The confounded Wealden Cal-
culation to be struck out, and a
note to be inserted to the effect
that I am convinced of its inac-
curacy from a review in the

Saturday Review, and from
Phillips, as I see in his Table of
Contents that he alludes to it.

* Mr. Hopkins (' Fraser,' vol. ,
p. ) states — I am quoting only
from vague memory — that, "I argue
in favour of my views from the
extreme imperfection of the Geo-
logical Record," and says this is
the first time in the History of
Science he has ever heard of igno-
rance being adduced as an argu-
ment. But I repeatedly admit, in
the most emphatic language which
I can use, that the imperfect evi-
dence which Geology offers in re-
gard to transitorial forms is most
strongly opposed to my views.
Surely there is a wide difference in
fully admitting an objection, and
then in endeavouring to show that
it is not so strong as it at first ap-
pears, and in Mr. Hopkins's asser-
tion that I found my argument on
the Objection.

* I would also put a note to

i860.]

REVIEWS.

351

..

Natural Selection," and show how
variously it has been misunder-
stood.

* A writer in the ' Edinburgh
Philosophical Journal ' denies my
statement that the Woodpecker of
La Plata never frequents trees. I
observed its habits during two
years, but, what is more to the
purpose, Azara, whose accuracy all
admit, is more emphatic than I am
in regard to its never frequenting
trees. Mr. A. Murray denies that
it ought to be called a woodpecker ;
it has two toes in front and two
behind, pointed tail feathers, a long

pointed tongue, and the same
general form of body, the same
manner of flight, colouring and
voice. It was classed, until re-
cently, in the same genus — Picus —
with all other woodpeckers, but
now has been ranked as a distinct
genus amongst the Picidse. It
differs from the typical Picus only
in the beak, not being quite so
strong, and in the upper mandible
being slightly arched. I think
these facts fully justify my state-
ment that it is " in all essential
parts of its organisation " a Wood-
pecker.]

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, Nov. 22 [i860].

My dear Huxley, — For heaven's sake don't write an
anti-Darwinian article ; you would do it so confoundedly
well. I have sometimes amused myself with thinking how
I could best pitch into myself, and I believe I could give two

or three good digs ; but I will see you first, before I will

try. I shall be very impatient to see the Review.* If it
succeeds it may really do much, very much good

I heard to-day from Murray that I must set to work at
once on a new edition \ of the ' Origin.' [Murray] says the
Reviews have not improved the sale. I shall always think
those early reviews, almost entirely yours, did the subject an
enormous service. If you have any important suggestions or
criticisms to make on any part of the ' Origin,' I should, of
course, be very grateful for [them]. For I mean to correct as far
as I can, but not enlarge. How you must be wearied with
and hate the subject, and it is God's blessing if you do not
eret to hate me. Adios.

* The first number of the new appeared in 1861.
series of the 'Nat. Hist. Review' \ The 3rd edition.

352

THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[i860.

C. Danviu to C. Lyell.

Down, November 24th [i860].

My DEAR LYELL, — I thank you much for your letter. I
had got to take pleasure in thinking how I could best snub
my reviewers ; but I was determined, in any case, to follow
your advice, and, before I had got to the end of your letter, I
was convinced of the wisdom of your advice.* What an
advantage it is to me to have such friends as you. I shall
follow every hint in your letter exactly.

I have just heard from Murray ; he says he sold 700 copies
at his sale, and that he has not half the number to supply ; so
that I must begin at once, j . . . .

P.S. — I must tell you one little fact which has pleased me.
You may remember that I adduce electrical organs of fish as
one of the greatest difficulties which have occurred to me, and

notices the passage in a singularly disingenuous spirit.

Well, McDonnell, of Dublin (a first-rate man), writes to me
that he felt the difficulty of the whole case as overwhelming
against me. Not only are the fishes which have electric
organs very remote in scale, but the organ is near the head in
some, and near the tail in others, and supplied by wholly
different nerves. It seems impossible that there could be any
transition. Some friend, who is much opposed to me, seems
to have crowed over McDonnell, who reports that he said to
himself, that if Darwin is right, there must be homologous
organs both near the head and tail in other non-electric fish.

* "I get on slowly with my new
edition. I find that your advice
was excellent. I can answer all
reviews, without any direct notice
of them, by a little enlargement
here and there, with here and there
a new paragraph. Broun alone I
shall treat with the respect of

giving

his objections with his
name. I think I shall improve my
book a good deal, and add only
some twenty pages." — From a
letter to Lyell, December 4th, i860,
t On the third edition of the
' Origin of Species,' published in
April 1 86 1.

i860.] design. 353

He set to work, and, by Jove, he has found them ! * so that
some of the difficulty is removed ; and is it not satisfactory
that my hypothetical notions should have led to pretty dis-
coveries ? McDonnell seems very cautious ; he says, years
must pass before he will venture to call himself a believer in
my doctrine, but that on the subjects which he knows well,
viz. Morphology and Embryology, my views accord well, and
throw light on the whole subject.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, November 26th, i860.

My DEAR GRAY, — I have to thank you for two letters. The
latter with corrections, written before you received my letter
asking for an American reprint, and saying that it was
hopeless to print your reviews as a pamphlet, owing to the
impossibility of getting pamphlets known. I am very glad
to say that the August or second ' Atlantic ' article has been
reprinted in the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural History ' ;
but I have not yet seen it there. Yesterday I read over with
care the third article ; and it seems to me, as before, admi-
rable. But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far
as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an
utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as
we see it, is the result of chance ; and yet I cannot look at
each separate thing as the result of Design. To take a
crucial example, you lead me to infer (p. 414) that you believe
" that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines." I
cannot believe this ; and I think you would have to believe,
that the tail of the Fantail was led to vary in the number
and direction of its feathers in order to gratify the caprice of
a few men. Yet if the Fantail had been a wild bird, and had

* ' On an organ in the Skate, pedo,' by R. McDonnell, ' Nat.
which appears to be the homologue Hist Review,' 1861, p. 57.
of the electrical organ of the Tor-

VOL. II. 2 A

354 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i860.

used its abnormal tail for some special end, as to sail before
the wind, unlike other birds, every one would have said,
" What a beautiful and designed adaptation." Again, I say
I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle.

Thank you much for Bowen's 4to. review.* The coolness
with which he makes all animals to be destitute of reason is
simply absurd. It is monstrous at p. 103, that he should
argue against the possibility of accumulative variation, and
actually leave out, entirely, selection ! The chance that an
improved Short-horn, or improved Pouter-pigeon, should
be produced by accumulative variation without man's selec-
tion, is as almost infinity to nothing ; so with natural species
without natural selection. How capitally in the ' Atlantic ' you
show that Geology and Astronomy are, according to Bowen,
Metaphysics ; but he leaves out this in the 4to Memoir.

I have not much to tell you about my Book. I have just
heard that Du Bois-Reymond agrees with me. The sale of my
book goes on well, and the multitude of reviews has not
stopped the sale . . . ; so I must begin at once on a new
corrected edition. I will send you a copy for the chance of
your ever re-reading ; but, good Heavens, how sick you must
be of it !

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, Dec. 2nd [i860].

.... I have got fairly sick of hostile reviews. Neverthe-
less, they have been of use in showing me when to expatiate
a little and to introduce a few new discussions. Of coitrse
I will send you a copy of the new edition

I entirely agree with you, that the difficulties on my
notions are terrific, yet having seen what all the Reviews have
said against me, I have far more confidence in the general
truth of the doctrine than I formerly had. Another thing

* (

Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,' vol. viii.

i860.] dr. gray's pamphlet. 355

gives me confidence, viz. that some who went half an inch

with me now go further, and some who were bitterly opposed

are now less bitterly opposed. And this makes me feel a

little disappointed that you are not inclined to think the

general view in some slight degree more probable than you

did at first. This I consider rather ominous. Otherwise I

should be more contented with your degree of belief. I can

pretty plainly see that, if my view is ever to be generally

adopted, it will be by young men growing up and replacing

the old workers, and then young ones finding that they can

group facts and search out new lines of investigation better

on the notion of descent, than on that of creation. But

forgive me for running on so egotistically. Living so solitary

as I do, one gets to think in a silly manner of one's own

work.

Ever yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker

Down, December nth [i36o].

I heard from A. Gray this morning ; at my sug-
gestion he is going to reprint the three ' Atlantic ' articles as a
pamphlet, and send 250 copies to England, for which I intend
to pay half the cost of the whole edition, and shall give away,
and try to sell by getting a few advertisements put in, and if
possible notices in Periodicals.

David Forbes has been carefully working the

Geology of Chile, and as I value praise for accurate observa-
tion far higher than for any other quality, forgive (if you can)
the insufferable vanity of my copying the last sentence in his
note : " I regard your Monograph on Chile as, without ex-
ception, one of the finest specimens of Geological enquiry."
I feel inclined to strut like a Turkey-cock !

2 A 2

35$ SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

I86I-I862.

[The beginning of the year 1861 saw my father with the
third chapter of 'The Variation of Animals and Plants' still
on his hands. It had been begun in the previous August,
and was not finished until March 1 861. He was, however, for
part of this time (I believe during December i860 and
January 1861) engaged in a new edition (3000 copies) of the
1 Origin/ which was largely corrected and added to, and was
published in April 1861.

With regard to this, the third edition, he wrote to Mr. Murray
in December i860 : —

" I shall be glad to hear when you have decided how many
copies you will print off — the more the better for me in all
ways, as far as compatible with safety ; for I hope never again
to make so many corrections, or rather additions, which I
have made in hopes of making my many rather stupid
reviewers at least understand what is meant. I hope and
think I shall improve the book considerably."

An interesting feature in the new edition was the " His-
torical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin
of Species " * which now appeared for the first time, and was
continued in the later editions of the work. It bears a strong

* The Historical Sketch had al- man edition (footnote, p. 1) that it

ready appeared in the first German was his critique in the ' N. Jahrbuch

edition (i860) and the American fur Mineralogie ' that suggested the

edition. Bronn states in the Ger- idea of such a sketch to my father.

l86l.] TRANSLATIONS. 357

impress of the author's personal character in the obvious wish
to do full justice to all his predecessors, — though even in
this respect it has not escaped some adverse criticism.

Towards the end of the present year (1861), the final
arrangements for the first French edition of the ' Origin ' were
completed, and in September a copy of the third English
edition was despatched to Mdlle. Clemence Royer, who under-
took the work of translation. The book was now spreading
on the Continent, a Dutch edition had appeared, and, as we
have seen, a German translation had been published in i860.
In a letter to Mr. Murray (September 10, 1861), he wrote,
" My book seems exciting much attention in Germany,
judging from the number of discussions sent me." The
silence had been broken, and in a few years the voice of
German science was to become one of the strongest of the
advocates of evolution.

During all the early part of the year (1861) he was working
at the mass of details which are marshalled in order in the early
chapters of ' Animals and Plants.' Thus in his Diary occur
the laconic entries, "May 16, Finished Fowls (eight weeks);
May 31, Ducks."

On July 1, he started, with his family, for Torquay, where
he remained until August 27 — a holiday which he characteris-
tically enters in his diary as " eight weeks and a day." The
house he occupied was in Hesketh Crescent, a pleasantly
placed row of houses close above the sea, somewhat removed
from what was then the main body of the town, and not far
from the beautiful cliffed coast-line in the neighbourhood of
Anstey's Cove.

During the Torquay holiday, and for the remainder of the
year, he worked at the fertilisation of orchids. This part of
the year 1861 is not dealt with in the present chapter, because
(as explained in the preface) the record of his life, as told in
his letters, seems to become clearer when the whole of his
botanical work is placed together and treated separately.

35%

SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

[1861..

The present series of chapters will, therefore, include only
the progress of his works in the direction of a general
amplification of the ' Origin of Species ' — e.g., the publication,
of 'Animals and Plants,' ' Descent of Man,' &c]

C, Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Jan. 15 [1861].

My DEAR HOOKER, — The sight of your handwriting always
rejoices the very cockles of my heart

I most fully agree to what you say about Huxley's Article,*

and the power of writing The whole review seems to

me excellent. How capitally Oliver has done the resume
of botanical books. Good Heavens, how he must have
read ! . . . .

I quite agree that Phillips | is unreadably dull. You need
not attempt Bree. J . . . .

* ' Natural History Review,' 1861,
p. 67, " On the Zoological Relations
of Man with the Lower Animals."
This memoir had its origin in a
discussion at the previous meeting
of the British Association, when
Professor Huxley felt himself " com-
pelled to give a diametrical contra-
diction to certain assertions respect-
ing the differences which obtain
between the brains of the higher
apes and of man, which fell from
Professor Owen." But in order
that his criticisms might refer to
deliberately recorded words, he
bases them on Professor Owen's
paper, " On the Characters, &c, of
the Class Mammalia," read before
the Linnean Society in February
and April, 1857, in which he pro-
posed to place man not only in a
distinct order, but in " a distinct
sub-class of the Mammalia" — the
Archencephala.

t ' Life on the Earth ' (i860), by

Prof. Phillips, containing the sub-
stance of the Rede Lecture (May
i860).

t The following sentence (p. 16)
from l Species not Transmutable,'
by Dr. Bree, illustrates the degree in
which he understood the ' Origin of
Species': "The only real difference
between Mr. Darwin and his two
predecessors" [Lamarck and the
'Vestiges'] "is this: — that while
the latter have each given a mode
by which they conceive the great
changes they believe in have been
brought about, Mr. Darwin does no
such thing." After this we need
not be surprised at a passage in
the preface : "No one has derived
greater pleasure than I have in past
days from the study of Mr. Darwin's
other works, and no one has felt a.
greater degree of regret that he
should have imperilled his fame by
the publication of his treatise upon,
the ' Origin of Species.' "

iS6i.] criticism. 359

If you come across Dr. Freke on the ' Origin of Species by
means of Organic Affinity/ read a page here and there. . . .
He tells the reader to observe [that his result] has been
arrived at by " induction," whereas all my results are arrived
at only by " analogy." I see a Mr. Neale has read a paper
before the Zoological Society on ' Typical Selection ; ' what it
means I know not. I have not read H. Spencer, for I find
that I must more and more husband the very little strength
which I have. I sometimes suspect I shall soon entirely fail
. , . . As soon as this dreadful weather gets a little milder, I
must try a little water cure. Have you read the ' Woman in
White ' ? the plot is wonderfully interesting. I can recom-
mend a book which has interested me greatly, viz. Olmsted's
'Journey in the Back Country.' It is an admirably lively
picture of man and slavery in the Southern States

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

February 2, 1861.

My DEAR LYELL, — I have thought you would like to read
the enclosed passage in a letter from A. Gray (who is printing
his reviews as a pamphlet,* and will send copies to England),
as I think his account is really favourable in a high degree
to us : —

" I wish I had time to write you an account of the lengths
to which Bowen and Agassiz, each in their own way, are
going. The first denying all heredity (all transmission except
specific) whatever. The second coming near to deny that we
are genetically descended from our great-great-grandfathers ;
and insisting that evidently affiliated languages, e.g. Latin,
Greek, Sanscrit, owe none of their similarities to a com-
munity of origin, are all autochthonal ; Agassiz admits that

* " Natural Selection not incon- August, and October, i860; pub-
sistent with Natural Theology," from lished by Triibner.
the 'Atlantic Monthly' for July,

360 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [1861.

the derivation of languages, and that of species or forms,
stand on the same foundation, and that he must allow the
latter if he allows the former, which I tell him is perfectly-
logical."

Is not this marvellous ?

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Feb. 4 [1861].

My DEAR Hooker, — I was delighted to get your long
chatty letter, and to hear that you are thawing towards
science. I almost wish you had remained frozen rather
longer ; but do not thaw too quickly and strongly. No one
can work long as you used to do. Be idle ; but I am a
pretty man to preach, for I cannot be idle, much as I wish it,
and am never comfortable except when at work. The word
holiday is written in a dead language for me, and much I
grieve at it. We thank you sincerely for your kind sympathy

about poor H. [his daughter] She has now come up to

her old point, and can sometimes get up for an hour or two
twice a day .... Never to look to the future or as little as
possible is becoming our rule of life. What a different thing
life was in youth with no dread in the future ; all golden, if
baseless, hopes.

.... With respect to the ' Natural History Review ' I can
hardly think that ladies would be so very sensitive about
" lizards' guts ;" but the publication is at present certainly
a sort of hybrid, and original illustrated papers ought hardly
to appear in a review. I doubt its ever paying ; but I shall
much regret if it dies. All that you say seems very sensible,
but could a review in the strict sense of the word be filled
vvith readable matter ?

I have been doing little, except finishing the new edition

l86l.] MR. BATES. 36l

of the ' Origin/ and crawling on most slowly with my
volume of 'Variation under Domestication.' ....

[The following letter refers to Mr. Bates's paper, " Contri-
butions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley," in the
4 Transactions] of the Entomological Society.' vol. 5, N.S.*
Mr. Bates points out that with the return, after the glacial
period, of a warmer climate in the equatorial regions, the
4t species then living near the equator would retreat north
and south to their former homes, leaving some of their con-
geners, slowly modified subsequently ... to re-people the zone
they had forsaken." In this case the species now living at
the equator ought to show clear relationship to the species
inhabiting the regions about the 25th parallel, whose distant
relatives they would of course be. But this is not the case,
and this is the difficulty my father refers to. Mr. Belt has
offered an explanation in his ' Naturalist in Nicaragua '
(1874), p. 266. "I believe the answer is that there was much
extermination during the glacial period, that many species
(and some genera, &c, as, for instance, the American horse),
did not survive it ... . but that a refuge was found for
many species on lands now below the ocean, that were
uncovered by the lowering of the sea, caused by the immense
quantity of water that was locked up in frozen masses on the
land."]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, 27th [March 1861].

MY DEAR HOOKER, — I had intended to have sent you
Bates's article this very day. I am so glad you like it. I have
been extremely much struck with it. How well he argues,
and with what crushing force against the glacial doctrine.
I cannot wriggle out of it : I am dumbfounded ; yet I do
believe that some explanation some day will appear, and I

* The paper was read Nov. 24, i860.

362 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

cannot give up equatorial cooling. It explains so much and
harmonises with so much. When you write (and much in-
terested I shall be in your letter) please say how far floras
are generally uniform in generic character from o° to
250 N. and S.

Before reading Bates, I had become thoroughly dissatisfied
with what I wrote to you. I hope you may get Bates to
write in the ' Linnean.'

Here is a good joke : H. C. Watson (who, I fancy and hope,
is going to review the new edition * of the ' Origin ') says that
in the first four paragraphs of the introduction, the words " I,"
" me," " my," occur forty-three times ! I was dimly conscious
of the accursed fact. He says it can be explained phreno-
logically, which I suppose civilly means, that I am the most
egotistically self-sufficient man alive ; perhaps so. I wonder
whether he will print this pleasing fact ; it beats hollow the
parentheses in Wollaston's writing.

/ am, my dear Hooker, ever yours,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — Do not spread this pleasing joke ; it is rather too
biting.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, [April] 23? [1861.]

.... I quite agree with what you say on Lieutenant
Hutton's Review f (who he is I know not) ; it struck me as
very original. He is one of the very few who see that the
change of species cannot be directly proved, and that the
doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and
explains phenomena. It is really curious how few judge it in
this way, which is clearly the right way. I have been much

* Third edition of 2000 copies, Hutton, of the Staff College. The

published in April 1861. ' Geologist' was afterwards merged

t In the ' Geologist,' 1861, p. 132, in the ' Geological Magazine.'
by Lieutenant Frederick Wollaston

iS6i.]

ROLLESTON, HENSLOW.

63.

interested by Bentham's paper* in the N. H. R., but it
would not, of course, from familiarity, strike you as it did me.
I liked the whole ; all the facts on the nature of close and
varying species. Good Heavens ! to think of the British
botanists turning up their noses, and saying that he knows
nothing of British plants ! I was also pleased at his remarks
on classification, because it showed me that I wrote truly on
this subject in the ' Origin.' I saw Bentham at the Linnean
Society, and had some talk with him and Lubbock, and
Edgeworth, Wallich, and several others. I asked Bentham
to give us his ideas of species ; whether partially with us or
dead against us, he would write excellent matter. He made
no answer, but his manner made me think he might do so if
urged ; so do you attack him. Every one was speaking with
affection and anxiety of Henslow.j I dined with Bell at the

Linnean Club, and liked my dinner Dining out is

such a novelty to me that I enjoyed it. Bell has a real good
heart. I liked Rolleston's paper, but I never read anything
so obscure and not self-evident as his ' Canons.' { . . . . I
called on R. Chambers, at his very nice house in St. John's
Wood, and had a very pleasant half-hour's talk ; he is really
a capital fellow. He made one good remark and chuckled
over it, that the laymen universally had treated the contro-
versy on the ' Essays and Reviews ' as a merely professional
subject, and had not joined in it, but had left it to the clergy.
I shall be anxious for your next letter about Henslow.§ Fare-
well, with sincere sympathy, my old friend,

C. Darwin.

* a

On the Species and Genera
of Plants, &c," 'Natural History
Review,' 1861, p. 133.

f Prof. Henslow was in his last
illness.

t George Rolleston,M.D., F.R.S.,
b. 1829, d. 1 88 1. Linacre Professor
of Anatomy and Physiology at Ox-

ford. A man of much learning,
who left but few published works,
among which may be mentioned
his handbook, ' Forms of Animal
Life.' For the ' Canons,' see ' Nat.
Hist. Review,' 1861, p. 206.

§ Sir Joseph Hooker was Prof.
Henslow's son-in-law.

364 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

P.S. — We are very much obliged for the ' London Review.'
We like reading much of it, and the science is incomparably
better than in the Athencenm. You shall not go on very
long sending it, as you will be ruined by pennies and trouble,
but I am under a horrid spell to the Athenaeum and the
Gardeners" Chronicle, but I have taken them in for so many
years, that I cannot give them up.

[The next letter refers to Lyell's visit to the Bidden-
ham gravel-pits near Bedford in April 1861. The visit
was made at the invitation of Mr. James Wyatt, who had
recently discovered two stone implements " at the depth of
thirteen feet from the surface of the soil," resting " imme-
diately on solid beds of oolitic-limestone." * Here, says Sir
C Lyell, " I .... for the first time, saw evidence which
satisfied me of the chronological relations of those three phe-
nomena— the antique tools, the extinct mammalia, and the
glacial formation."]

C. Darwin to C Lyell.

Down, April 12 [1861].

My DEAR Lyell, — I have been most deeply interested
by your letter. You seem to have done the grandest work,
and made the greatest step, of any one with respect to
man.

It is an especial relief to hear that you think the French
superficial deposits are deltoid and semi-marine ; but two days
ago I was saying to a friend, that the unknown manner of the
accumulation of these deposits, seemed the great blot in all
the work done. I could not stomach debacles or lacustrine
beds. It is grand. I remember Falconer told me that he

* i

Antiquity of Man,' fourth edition, p. 214.

l86l.] LYELL'S WORK. 365

thought some of the remains in the Devonshire caverns were
pre-glacial, and this, I presume, is now your conclusion for the
older celts with hyena and hippopotamus. It is grand.
What a fine long pedigree you have given the human
race !

I am sure I never thought of parallel roads having been
accumulated during subsidence. I think I see some diffi-
culties on this view, though, at first reading your note, I
jumped at the idea. But I will think over all I saw there. I
am (stomacho volente) coming up to London on Tuesday to
work on cocks and hens, and on Wednesday morning, about
a quarter before ten, I will call on you (unless I hear to the
contrary), for I long to see you. I congratulate you on your
grand work.

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — Tell Lady Lyell that I was unable to digest the
funereal ceremonies of the ants, notwithstanding that Erasmus
has often told me that I should find some day that they have
their bishops. After a battle I have always seen the ants
carry away the dead for food. Ants display the utmost
economy, and always carry away a dead fellow-creature as
food. But I have just forwarded two most extraordinary
letters to Busk, from a backwoodsman in Texas, who has evi-
dently watched ants carefully, and declares most positively
that they plant and cultivate a kind of grass for store food,
and plant other bushes for shelter ! I do not know what to
think, except that the old gentleman is not fibbing inten-
tionally. I have left the responsibility with Busk whether or
no to read the letters.*

* I.e. to read them before the Linnean Society.

366

SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

[l86l.

C. Darwin to Thomas Davidson*

Down, April 26, 1861.

My DEAR Sir, — I hope that you will excuse me for ven-
turing to make a suggestion to you which I am perfectly well
aware it is a very remote chance that you would adopt I do
not know whether you have read my ' Origin of Species ' ; in
that book I have made the remark, which I apprehend will
be universally admitted, that" as a whole, the fauna of any
formation is intermediate in character between that of the
formations above and below. But several really good judges
have remarked to me how desirable it would be that this
should be exemplified and worked out in some detail
and with some single group of beings. Now every one will
admit that no one in the world could do this better than you
with Brachiopods. The result might turn out very unfavour-
able to the views which I hold ; if so, so much the better for
those who are opposed to me.f But I am inclined to suspect
that on the whole it would be favourable to the notion of
descent with modification ; for about a year ago, Mr. Salter %
in the museum in Jermyn Street, glued on a board some

* Thomas Davidson, F.R.S.,
born in Edinburgh, May 17, 18 17 ;
died 1885. His researches were
chiefly connected with the sciences
of geology and palaeontology, and
were directed especially to the
elucidation of the characters, classi-
fication, history, geological and
geographical distribution of recent
and fossil Brachiopoda. On this
subject he brought out an important
work, ' British Fossil Brachiopoda,'
5 vols. 4to. (Cooper, ' Men of the
Time,' 1884.)

f " Mr. Davidson is not at all a
full believer in great changes of
species, which will make his work
all the more valuable." — C. Dar-

win to R. Chambers (April 30,
1861).

% John William Salter; b. 1820,
d. 1869. He entered the service of
the Geological Survey in 1846, and
ultimately became its Palaeonto-
logist, on the retirement of Edward
Forbes, and gave up the office
in 1863. He was associated with
several well-known naturalists in
their work — with Sedgwick, Mur-
chison, Lyell, Ramsay, and Huxley.
There are sixty entries under his
name in the Royal Society Cata-
logue. The above facts are taken
from an obituary notice of Mr.
Salter in the ' Geological Maga-
zine,' 1S69.

lS6l.] DAVIDSON ON BRACHIOPODA. 367

Spirifers, &c, from three palaeozoic stages, and arranged them
in single and branching lines, with horizontal lines marking
the formations (like the diagram in my book, if you know
it), and the result seemed to me very striking, though I was
too ignorant fully to appreciate the lines of affinities. I
longed to have had these shells engraved, as arranged by
Mr. Salter, and connected by dotted lines, and would have
gladly paid the expense : but I could not persuade Mr. Salter
to publish a little paper on the subject. I can hardly doubt
that many curious points would occur to any one thoroughly
instructed in the subject, who would consider a group of
beings under this point of view of descent with modification.
All those forms which have come down from an ancient
period very slightly modified ought, I think, to be omitted,
and those forms alone considered which have undergone
considerable change at each successive epoch. My fear is
whether brachiopods have changed enough. The absolute
amount of difference of the forms in such groups at the
opposite extremes of time ought to be considered, and how
far the early forms are intermediate in character between
those which appeared much later in time. The antiquity of
a group is not really diminished, as some seem vaguely to
think, because it has transmitted to the present day closely
allied forms. Another point is how far the succession of each
genus is unbroken, from the first time it appeared to its
extinction, with due allowance made for formations poor in
fossils. I cannot but think that an important essay (far more
important than a hundred literary reviews) might be written
by one like yourself, and without very great labour. I know
it is highly probable that you may not have leisure, or not
care for, or dislike the subject, but I trust to your kindness
to forgive me for making this suggestion. If by any extra-
ordinary good fortune you were inclined to take up this
notion, I would ask you to read my Chapter X. on Geo-
logical Succession. And I should like in this case to be

368 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

permitted to send you a copy of the new edition, just pub-
lished, in which I have added and corrected somewhat in
Chapters IX. and X.

Pray excuse this long letter, and believe me,

My dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — I write so bad a hand that I have had this note-
copied.

C. Darwin to Thomas Davidson.

Down, April 30, 1861.

My DEAR Sir, — I thank you warmly for your letter ; I did
not in the least know that you had attended to my work. I
assure you that the attention which you have paid to it, con-
sidering your knowledge and the philosophical tone of your
mind (for I well remember one remarkable letter you wrote
to me, and have looked through your various publications),
I consider one of the highest, perhaps the very highest, com-
pliments which I have received. I live so solitary a life that
I do not often hear what goes on, and I should much like to
know in what work you have published some remarks on my
book. I take a deep interest in the subject, and I hope not
simply an egotistical interest ; therefore you may believe how
much your letter has gratified me ; I am perfectly contented
if any one will fairly consider the subject, whether or not he
fully or only very slightly agrees with me. Pray do not
think that I feel the least surprise at your demurring to a
ready acceptance ; in fact, I should not much respect anyone's
judgment who did so : that is, if I may judge others from
the long time which it has taken me to go round. Each
stage of belief cost me years. The difficulties are, as you say,
many and very great ; but the more I reflect, the more they
seem to me to be due to our underestimating our ignorance.
I belong so much to old times that I find that I weigh

l86l.] CONDITIONS OF LIFE. 369

the difficulties from the imperfection of the geological
record, heavier than some of the younger men. I find, to
my astonishment and joy, that such good men as Ramsay,
Jukes, Geikie, and one old worker, Lyell, do not think that
I have in the least exaggerated the imperfection of the
record.* If my views ever are proved true, our current geo-
logical views will have to be considerably modified. My
greatest trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct effects
of the long-continued action of changed conditions of life
without any selection, with the action of selection on mere
accidental (so to speak) variability. I oscillate much on this
head, but generally return to my belief that the direct action
of the conditions of life have not been great. At least
this direct action can have played an extremely small part
in producing all the numberless and beautiful adaptations in
every living creature. With respect to a person's belief, what
does rather surprise me is that any one (like Carpenter)
should be willing to go so very far as to believe that all birds
may have descended from one parent, and not go a little
farther and include all the members of the same great division ;
for on such a scale of belief, all the facts in Morphology and
in Embryology (the most important in my opinion of all sub-
jects) become mere Divine mockeries I cannot express

how profoundly glad I am that some day you will publish
your theoretical view on the modification and endurance of

* Professor Sedgwick treated this I will interpolate long periods to
part of the ' Origin of Species ' account for all the changes. I say,
very differently, as might have in reply, if you deny my conclusion,
been expected from his vehement grounded on positive evidence, I
objection to Evolution in general. toss back your conclusion, derived
In the article in the Spectator of from negative evidence, — the in-
March 24, i860, already noticed, flated cushion on which you try to
Sedgwick wrote : "We know the bolster up the defects of your hypo-
complicated organic phenomena of thesis." [The punctuation of the
the Mesozoic (or Oolitic) period. imaginary dialogue is slightly al-
It defies the transmutationist at tered from the original, which is
every step. Oh ! but the docu- obscure in one place.]
ment, says Darwin, is a fragment ;

VOL. II. 2 B

370 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [1861.

Brachiopodous species ; I am sure it will be a most valuable
contribution to knowledge.

Pray forgive this very egotistical letter, but you yourself
are partly to blame for having pleased me so much. I have
told Murray to send a copy of my new edition to you, and
have written your name.

With cordial thanks, pray believe me, my dear Sir,

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

[In Mr. Davidson's Monograph on British Brachiopoda
published shortly afterwards by the Palaeontographical Society,
results such as my father anticipated were to some extent
obtained. " No less than fifteen commonly received species
are demonstrated by Mr. Davidson by the aid of a long series
of transitional forms to appertain to . . . one type.'

In the autumn of i860, and the early part of 1861, my
father had a good deal of correspondence with Professor
Asa Gray on a subject to which reference has already been
made — the publication, in the form of a pamphlet, of Pro-
fessor Gray's three articles in the July, August, and October
numbers of the 'Atlantic Monthly,' i860. The pamphlet was
published by Messrs. Triibner, with reference to whom my
father wrote, " Messrs. Triibner have been most liberal and
kind, and say they shall make no charge for all their trouble.
I have settled about a few advertisements, and they will
gratuitously insert one in their own periodicals."

The reader will find these articles republished in Dr. Gray's
' Darwiniana,' p. 87, under the title "Natural Selection not
inconsistent with Natural Theology." The pamphlet found
many admirers among those most capable of judging of its
merits, and my father believed that it was of much value in
lessening opposition, and making converts to Evolution. His

* Lyell, ' Antiquity of Man,' first edition, p. 428.

i36l] dr. gray's pamphlet — descent theory. 371

high opinion of it is shown not only in his letters, but by the
fact that he inserted a special notice of it in a most prominent
place in the third edition of the ' Origin.' Lyell, among
others, recognised its value as an antidote to the kind of
criticism from which the cause of Evolution suffered. Thus
my father wrote to Dr. Gray : — " Just to exemplify the use
of your pamphlet, the Bishop of London was asking Lyell
what he thought of the review in the ' Quarterly,' and Lyell
answered, ' Read Asa Gray in the ' Atlantic' " It comes out
very clearly that in the case of such publications as Dr. Gray's,
my father did not rejoice over the success of his special view
of Evolution, viz. that modification is mainly due to Natural
Selection ; on the contrary, he felt strongly that the really
important point was that the doctrine of Descent should be
accepted. Thus he wrote to Professor Gray (May 1 1, 1863),
with reference to Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man ' : —

" You speak of Lyell as a judge ; now what I complain of
is that he declines to be a judge .... I have sometimes
almost wished that Lyell had pronounced against me. When
I say ' me,' I only mean change of species by descent. That
seems to me the turning-point. Personally, of course, I care
much about Natural Selection ; but that seems to me utterly
unimportant, compared to the question of Creation or Modifi-
cation."]

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, April 11 [1861].

My DEAR Gray, — I was very glad to get your photograph :
I am expecting mine, which I will send off as soon as it
comes. It is an ugly affair, and I fear the fault does not lie

with the photographer Since writing last, I have had

several letters full of the highest commendation of your Essay;
all agree that it is by far the best thing written, and I do not
doubt it has done the ' Origin ' much good. I have not yet
heard how it has sold. You will have seen a review in the

2 B 2

372 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

Gardeners Chronicle. Poor dear Henslow, to whom I owe
much, is dying, and Hooker is with him. Many thanks for
two sets of sheets of your Proceedings. I cannot understand
what Agassiz is driving at. You once spoke, I think, of
Professor Bowen as a very clever man. I should have thought
him a singularly unobservant man from his writings. He
never can have seen much of animals, or he would have seen
the difference of old and wise dogs and young ones. His
paper about hereditariness beats everything. Tell a breeder
that he might pick out his worst i?idividual animals and
breed from them, and hope to win a prize, and he would think
you . . . insane.

[Professor Henslow died on May 16, 1861, from a complica-
tion of bronchitis, congestion of the lungs, and enlargement
of the heart. His strong constitution was slow in giving way,
and he lingered for weeks in a painful condition of weakness,
knowing that his end was near, and looking at death with
fearless eyes. In Mr. Blomefield's (Jenyns) ' Memoir of
Henslow' (1862) is a dignified and touching description of
Prof. Sedgwick's farewell visit to his old friend. Sedgwick
said afterwards that he had never seen "a human beinsr

o

whose soul was nearer heaven."

My father wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker on hearing of Henslow's
death, " I fully believe a better man never walked this earth."

He gave his impressions of Henslow's character in Mr.
Blomefield's ' Memoir.' In reference to these recollections he
wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (May 30, 1861) : —

" This morning I wrote my recollections and impressions of
character of poor dear Henslow about the year 1830. I liked
the job, and so have written four or five pages, now being
copied. I do not suppose you will use all, of course you can
chop and change as much as you like. If more than a sen-
tence is used, I should like to see a proof-page, as I never
can write decently till I see it in print. Very likely some of
my remarks may appear too trifling, but I thought it best to

l86l.] HENSLOW'S DEATH — DESIGN. 373

give my thoughts as they arose, for you or Jenyns to use as
you think fit.

" You will see that I have exceeded your request, but, as I
said when I began, I took pleasure in writing my impression
of his admirable character."]

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, June 5 [1861].

My DEAR GRAY, — I have been rather extra busy, so have
been slack in answering your note of May 6th. I hope you
have received long ago the third edition of the * Origin.' ....
I have heard nothing from Triibner of the sale of your Essay,
hence fear it has not been great ; I wrote to say you could
supply more. I sent a copy to Sir J. Herschel, and in his
new edition of his * Physical Geography ' he has a note on
the ' Origin of Species,' and agrees, to a certain limited extent,

but puts in a caution on design — much like yours

I have been led to think more on this subject of late, and
grieve to say that I come to differ more from you. It is not
that designed variation makes, as it seems to me, my deity
" Natural Selection " superfluous, but rather from studying,
lately, domestic variation, and seeing what an enormous field
of undesigned variability there is ready for natural selection
to appropriate for any purpose useful to each creature.

I thank you much for sending me your review of Phillips.*
I remember once telling you a lot of trades which you ought
to have followed, but now I am convinced that you are a born
reviewer. By Jove, how well and often you hit the nail on
the head ! You rank Phillips's book higher than I do, or than
Lyell does, who thinks it fearfully retrograde. I amused
myself by parodying Phillips's argument as applied to do-
mestic variation ; and you might thus prove that the duck or

* i

Life on the Earth,' i860.

J

74 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

pigeon has not varied because the goose has not, though more
anciently domesticated, and no good reason can be assigned
why it has not produced many varieties

I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting.
North America does not do England justice ; I have not
seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some
few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the
loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a
crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid
deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity.
What wonderful times we live in ! Massachusetts seems to
show noble enthusiasm. Great God ! how I should like to
see the greatest curse on earth — slavery — abolished !

Farewell. Hooker has been absorbed with poor dear
revered Henslow's affairs. Farewell.

Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

Hugh Falconer to C. Darwin.

31 Sackville St., W., June 23, 1861.

My DEAR DARWIN. — I have been to Adelsberg cave and
brought back with me a live Proteus anguinusi designed for
you from the moment I got it ; i.e. if you have got an
aquarium and would care to have it. I only returned last
night from the Continent, and hearing from your brother that
you are about to go to Torquay, I lose no time in making
you the offer. The poor dear animal is still alive — although
it has had no appreciable means of sustenance for a month —
and I am most anxious to get rid of the responsibility of
starving it longer. In your hands it will thrive and have a
fair chance of being developed without delay into some type
of the Columbidae — say a Pouter or a Tumbler.

My dear Darwin, I have been rambling through the north
of Italy, and Germany lately. Everywhere have I heard
your views and your admirable essay canvassed — the views of

l86l.] DR. FALCONER — HARVEY. 375

course often dissented from, according to the special bias of
the speaker — but the work, its honesty of purpose, grandeur
of conception, felicity of illustration, and courageous exposi-
tion, always referred to in terms of the highest admiration.
And among your warmest friends no one rejoiced more
heartily in the just appreciation of Charles Darwin than did,

Yours very truly,

H. Falconer.

C. Darwin to Hugh Falconer.

Down [June 24, 1861].
My DEAR FALCONER. — I have just received your note, and
by good luck a day earlier than properly, and I lose not a
moment in answering you, and thanking you heartily for your
offer of the valuable specimen ; but I have no aquarium and
shall soon start for Torquay, so that it would be a thousand
pities that I should 'have it. Yet I should certainly much
like to see it, but I fear it is impossible. Would not the Zoo-
logical Society be the best place ? and then the interest which
many would take in this extraordinary animal would repay
you for your trouble.

Kind as you have been in taking this trouble and offering
me this specimen, to tell the truth I value your note more
than the specimen. I shall keep your note amongst a very
few precious letters. Your kindness has quite touched me.

Yours affectionately and gratefully,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Darwin to jf. D. Hooker.

2 Hesketh Crescent, Torquay,

July 13 [1861].

... I hope Harvey is better ; I got his review * of me a

■day or two ago, from which I infer he must be convalescent ;

* The ' Dublin Hospital Gazette,'
May 15, 1 86 1. The passage re-

ferred to is at p. 150.

376 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

it's very good and fair ; but it is funny to see a man argue on
the succession of animals from Noah's Deluge ; as God did
not then wholly destroy man, probably he did not wholly
destroy the races of other animals at each geological period t
I never expected to have a helping hand from the Old
Testament. . . .

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

2, Hesketh Crescent, Torquay,

July 20 [1861].

My DEAR Lyell. — I sent you two or three days ago a
duplicate of a good review of the ' Origin ' by a Mr. Maw,*
evidently a thoughtful man, as I thought you might like to
have it, as you have so many. . . .

This is a quite charming place, and I have actually walked,
I believe, good two miles out and back, which is a grand feat.

I saw Mr. Pengelly f the other day, and was pleased at
his enthusiasm. I do not in the least know whether you are
in London. Your illness must have lost you much time, but
I hope you have nearly got your great job of the new edition
finished. You must be very busy, if in London, so I will be
generous, and on honour bright do not expect any answer to
this dull little note. . . .

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, September 17 [1861 ?]

MY DEAR Gray. —I thank you sincerely for your very long
and interesting letter, political and scientific, of August 27th

* Mr. George Maw, of Benthall pretentious notices, on which fre-

Hall. The review was published quently occur my father's brief o/-,

in the 'Zoologist,' July, 1861. On or " nothing new."

the back of my father's copy f William Pengelly, the geo-

is written, " Must be consulted logist, and well-known explorer of

before new edit, of Origin ' " — words the Devonshire caves,
which are wanting on many more

l86l.] AMERICAN WAR — DESIGN. 377

and 29th, and Sept. 2nd received this morning. I agree with
much of what you say, and I hope to God we English are
utterly wrong in doubting (1) whether the N. can conquer
the S. ; (2) whether the N. has many friends in the South, and
(3) whether you noble men of Massachusetts are right in
transferring your own good feelings to the men of Washing-
ton. Again I say I hope to God we are wrong in doubting
on these points. It is number (3) which alone causes Eng-
land not to be enthusiastic with you. What it may be in
Lancashire I know not, but in S. England cotton has nothing
whatever to do with our doubts. If abolition does follow
with your victory, the whole world will look brighter in my
eyes, and in many eyes. It would be a great gain even to
stop the spread of slavery into the Territories ; if that be
possible without abolition, which I should have doubted.
You ought not to wonder so much at England's coldness,
when you recollect at the commencement of the war how
many propositions were made to get things back to the old
state with the old line of latitude. But enough of this, all
I can say is that Massachusetts and the adjoining States
have the full sympathy of every good man whom I see ;
and this sympathy would be extended to the whole Federal
States, if we could be persuaded that your feelings were at
all common to them. But enough of this. It is out of my
line, though I read every word of news, and formerly

well studied Olmsted

Your question what would convince me of Design is a
poser. If I saw an angel come down to teach us good, and I
was convinced from others seeing him that I was not mad, I
should believe in design. If I could be convinced thoroughly
that life and mind was in an unknown way a function of other
imponderable force, I should be convinced. If man was
made of brass or iron and no way connected with any other
organism which had ever lived, I should perhaps be con-
vinced. But this is childish writing.

.378 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think,
adopts your idea of the stream of variation having been led
or designed. I have asked him (and he says he will hereafter
reflect and answer me) whether he believes that the shape of
my nose was designed. If he does I have nothing more to
say. If not, seeing what Fanciers have done by selecting
individual differences in the nasal bones of pigeons, I must
think that it is illogical to suppose that the variations, which
natural selection preserves for the good of any being, have
been designed. But I know that I am in the same sort of
muddle (as I have said before) as all the world seems to be
in with respect to free will, yet with everything supposed to
have been foreseen or pre-ordained.

Farewell, my dear Gray, with many thanks for your
interesting letter.

Your unmerciful correspondent,

C. Darwin.

C. Darzvin to H. W. Bates.

Down, Dec. 3 [1861].

My DEAR Sir. — I thank you for your extremely interesting
letter, and valuable references, though God knows when I
shall come again to this part of my subject. One cannot of
course judge of style when one merely hears a paper,* but
yours seemed to me very clear and good. Believe me that I
estimate its value most highly. Under a general point of view,
I am quite convinced (Hooker and Huxley took the same
view some months ago) that a philosophic view of nature can
solely be driven into naturalists by treating special subjects
as you have done. Under a special point of view, I think you
have solved one of the most perplexing problems which
could be given to solve. I am glad to hear from Hooker

* On Mimetic Butterflies, read 1861. For my father's opinion of
•before the Linnean Soc, Nov. 21, it when published, see p. 391.

1 86 1.] MR. BATES. 379

that the Linnean Society will give plates if you can get
drawings. . . .

Do not complain of want of advice during your travels ; I
dare say part of your great originality of views may be due to
the necessity of self-exertion of thought. I can understand
that your reception at the British Museum would damp
you ; they are a very good set of men, but not the sort to
appreciate your work. In fact I have long thought that
too much systematic work [and] description somehow blunts
the faculties. The general public appreciates a good dose of
reasoning, or generalisation, with new and curious remarks
on habits, final causes, &c. &c, far more than do the regular
naturalists.

I am extremely glad to hear that you have begun your
travels ... I am very busy, but I shall be truly glad to
render any aid which I can by reading your first chapter or
two. I do not think I shall be able to correct style, for this
reason, that after repeated trials I find I cannot correct my
own style till I see the MS. in type. Some are born with a
power of good writing, like Wallace ; others like myself and
Lyell have to labour very hard and slowly at every sentence.
I find it a very good plan, when I cannot get a difficult
discussion to please me, to fancy that some one comes into
the room and asks me what I am doing ; and then try at
once and explain to the imaginary person what it is all
about. I have done this for one paragraph to myself several
times, and sometimes to Mrs. Darwin, till I see how the
subject ought to go. It is, I think, good to read one's MS.
aloud. But style to me is a great difficulty ; yet some good
judges think I have succeeded, and I say this to encourage
you.

What / think I can do will be to tell you whether parts
had better be shortened. It is good, I think, to dash "in
medias res," and work in later any descriptions of country, or
any historical details which may be necessary. Murray likes

380 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

lots of wood-cuts — give some by all means of ants. The
public appreciate monkeys — our poor cousins. What sexual
differences are there in monkeys ? Have you kept them
tame? if so, about their expression. I fear that you will
hardly read my vile hand-writing, but I cannot without killing,
trouble write better.

You shall have my candid opinion on your MS., but
remember it is hard to judge from MS., one reads slowly, and
heavy parts seem much heavier. A first-rate judge thought
my Journal very poor ; now that it is in print, I happen to
know, he likes it. I am sure you will understand why I am
so egotistical.

I was a little disappointed in Wallace's book * on the.
Amazon ; hardly facts enough. On other hand, in Gosse's
book f there is not reasoning enough to my taste. Heaven
knows whether you will care to read all this scribbling. . . .

I am glad you had a pleasant day with Hooker,J he is an
admirably good man in every sense.

[The following extract from a letter to Mr. Bates on the
same subject is interesting as giving an idea of the plan
followed by my father in writing his ' Naturalist's Voyage : '

" As an old hackneyed author, let me give you a bit of
advice, viz. to strike out every word which is not quite
necessary to the current subject, and which could not interest
a stranger. I constantly asked myself, Would a stranger
care for this ? and struck out or left in accordingly. I think
too much pains cannot be taken in making the style trans-
parently clear and throwing eloquence to the dogs."

Mr. Bates's book, ' The Naturalist in the Amazons,' was
published in 1863, but the following letter may be given here
rather than in its due chronological position : ]

* 'Travels on the Amazon and (Dec. 1861), my father wrote: "I

Rio Negro,' 1853. am very glad to hear that you like

f Probably the ' Naturalist's So- Bates. I have seldom in my life

journ in Jamaica/ 185 1. been more struck with a man's

% In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker power of mind."

l86l.] BATES'S BOOK — AMERICAN WAR. 38 1

C. Darwin to H. W. Bates.

Down, April 18, 1863.

Dear Bates, — I have finished vol. i. My criticisms may
be condensed into a single sentence, namely, that it is the
best work of Natural History Travels ever published in
England. Your style seems to me admirable. Nothing can
be better than the discussion on the struggle for existence,
and nothing better than the description of the Forest
scenery.* It is a grand book, and whether or not it sells
quickly, it will last. You have spoken out boldly on Species ;
and boldness on the subject seems to get rarer and rarer.
How beautifully illustrated it is. The cut on the back is
most tasteful. I heartily congratulate you on its publication.

The Athencenm\ was rather cold, as it always is, and inso-
lent in the highest degree about your leading facts. Have
you seen the Reader ? I can send it to you if you have not
seen it. . . .

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, Dec. 11 [1861].
My DEAR Gray, — Many and cordial thanks for your two
last most valuable notes. What a thing it is that when you
receive this we may be at war, and we two be bound, as good
patriots, to hate each other, though I shall find this hating
you very hard work. How curious it is to see two countries,
just like two angry and silly men, taking so opposite a view
of the same transaction ! I fear there is no shadow of
doubt we shall fight, if the two Southern rogues are not given

* In a letter to Lyell my father Travels ever published in England.

wrote : " He [i.e. Mr. Bates] is He is bold about Species, &c,

second only to Humboldt in de- and the Athenesum coolly says

scribing a tropical forest." ' he bends his facts ' for this pur-

t "I have read the first volume pose.;' — (From a letter to Sir J. D.

of Bates's Book ; it is capital, and Hooker.)
I think the best Natural History

382 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l86l.

up.* And what a wretched thing it will be if we fight on the
side of slavery. No doubt it will be said that we fight to get
cotton ; but I fully believe that this has not entered into the
motive in the least. Well, thank Heaven, we private indi-
viduals have nothing to do with so awful a responsibility.
Again, how curious it is that you seem to think that you can
conquer the South ; and I never meet a soul, even those who
would most wish it, who thinks it possible — that is, to conquer
and retain it. I do not suppose the mass of people in your
country will believe it, but I feel sure if we do go to war it
will be with the utmost reluctance by all classes, Ministers of
Government and all. Time will show, and it is no use writing
or thinking about it. I called the other day on Dr. Boott,
and was pleased to find him pretty well and cheerful. I see,
by the way, he takes quite an English opinion of American
affairs, though an American in heart.f Buckle might write
a chapter on opinion being entirely dependent on longitude !

. . . With respect to Design, I feel more inclined to show
a white flag than to fire my usual long-range shot. I like to
try and ask you a puzzling question, but when you return the
compliment I have great doubts whether it is a fair way of"
arguing. If anything is designed, certainly man must be :
one's " inner consciousness " (though a false guide) tells one
so ; yet I cannot admit that man's rudimentary mammae . . .
were designed. If I was to say I believed this, I should
believe it in the same incredible manner as the orthodox
believe the Trinity in Unity. You say that you are in a
haze ; I am in thick mud ; the orthodox would say in fetid,
abominable mud ; yet I cannot keep out of the question.
My dear Gray, I have written a deal of nonsense.

Yours most cordially,

C. Darwin.

* The Confederate Commis- Nov. 8, 1861. The news that the

sioners Slidell and Mason were U.S. agreed to release them reached

forcibly removed from the Trent, England on Jan. 8, 1862.

a West India mail steamer, on f Dr. Boott was born in the U.S..

1 862.] BOURNEMOUTH. 383;

1862.

[Owing to the illness from scarlet fever of one of his boys,
he took a house at Bournemouth in the autumn. He wrote
to Dr. Gray from Southampton (Aug. 21, 1862) : —

"We are a wretched family, and ought to be exterminated.
We slept here to rest our poor boy on his journey to Bourne-
mouth, and my poor dear wife sickened with scarlet fever,
and has had it pretty sharply, but is recovering well. There,
is no end of trouble in this weary world. I shall not feel safe
till we are all at home together, and when that will be I know
not. But it is foolish complaining."

Dr. Gray used to send postage stamps to the scarlet fever
patient ; with regard to this good-natured deed my father
wrote —

" I must just recur to stamps ; my little man has calculated
that he will now have 6 stamps which no other boy in the
school has. Here is a triumph. Your last letter was.
plaistered with many coloured stamps, and he long surveyed-
the envelope in bed with much quiet satisfaction."

The greater number of the letters of 1862 deal with the
Orchid work, but the wave of conversion to Evolution was.
still spreading, and reviews and letters bearing on the subject
still came in numbers. As an example of the odd letters
he received may be mentioned one which arrived in January
of this year " from a German homoeopathic doctor, an ardent
admirer of the 'Origin.' Had himself published nearly
the same sort of book, but goes much deeper. Explains
the origin of plants and animals on the principles of ho-
moeopathy or by the law of spirality. Book fell dead in
Germany. Therefore would I translate it and publish it in
England."]

3§4 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [1862

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, [Jan. ?] 14 [1862].

My DEAR HUXLEY, — I am heartily glad of your success in
the North,* and thank you for your note and slip. By Jove
you have attacked Bigotry in its stronghold. I thought you
would have been mobbed. I am so glad that you will
publish your Lectures. You seem to have kept a due medium
between extreme boldness and caution. I am heartily glad
that all went off so well. I hope Mrs. Huxley is pretty well.
. . . . I must say one word on the Hybrid question. No
doubt you are right that here is a great hiatus in the argu-
ment ; yet I think you overrate it — you never allude to the
excellent evidence of varieties of Verbascum and Nicotiana
being partially sterile together. It is curious to me to read
(as I have to-day) the greatest crossing Gardener utterly
pooh-poohing the distinction which Botanists make on this
head, and insisting how frequently crossed varieties produce
sterile offspring. Do oblige me by reading the latter half of
my Primula paper in the ' Linn. Journal,' for it leads me to
suspect that sterility will hereafter have to be largely viewed
as an acquired or selected character — a view which I wish I
had had facts to maintain in the ' Origin.' f . . . .

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Jan. 25 [1862].

MY DEAR HOOKER, — Many thanks for your last Sunday's
letter, which was one of the pleasantest I ever received in my
life. We are all pretty well redivivus, and I am at work
again. I thought it best to make a clean breast to Asa

* This refers to two of Mr. Nature.'
Huxley's lectures, given before the \ The view here given will be

Philosophical Institution of Edin- discussed in the chapter on hetero-

burgh in 1862. The substance of styled plants,
them is given in ' Man's Place in

1 862.]

EVOLUTION AND TORYISM.

35

Gray ; and told him that the Boston dinner, &c. &c, had
quite turned my stomach, that I almost thought it would be
good for the peace of the world if the United States were
split up ; on the other hand, I said that I groaned to think of
the slave-holders being triumphant, and that the difficulties
of making a line of separation were fearful. I wonder what
he will say Your notion of the Aristocrat being ken-
speckle, and the best men of a good lot being thus easily
selected is new to me, and striking. The ' Origin ' having made
you in fact a jolly old Tory, made us all laugh heartily. I
have sometimes speculated on this subject ; primogeniture* is
dreadfully opposed to selection ; suppose the first-born bull
was necessarily made by each farmer the begetter of his
stock ! On the other hand, as you say, ablest men are con-
tinually raised to the peerage, and get crossed with the older
Lord-breeds, and the Lords continually select the most
beautiful and charming women out of the lower ranks ; so
that a good deal of indirect selection improves the Lords.
Certainly I agree with you the present American row has a
very Torifying influence on us all. I am very glad to hear
you are beginning to print the ' Genera ;' it is a wonderful
satisfaction to be thus brought to bed, indeed it is one's chief
satisfaction, I think, though one knows that another bantling
will soon be developing. . . .

C. Darwin to Maxwell Masters.]

Down, Feb. 26 [1862].
My DEAR Sir, — I am much obliged to you for sending me

* My father had a strong feeling
as to the injustice of primogeniture,
and in a similar spirit was often
indignant over the unfair wills that
appear from time to time. He
would declare energetically that if
he were law-giver no will should be
valid that was not published in the

VOL. II.

testator's lifetime ; and this he
maintained would prevent much of
the monstrous injustice and mean-
ness apparent in so many wills.

f Dr. Masters is a well-known
vegetable teratologist, and has been
for many years the editor of the
Gardeners' Chronicle.

2 C

">

86 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [1862

your article,* which I have just read with much interest. The
History, and a good deal besides, was quite new to me. It
seems to me capitally done, and so clearly written. You
really ought to write your larger work. You speak too
generously of my book ; but I must confess that you have
pleased me not a little ; for no one, as far as I know, has ever
remarked on what I say on classification, — a part, which
when I wrote it, pleased me, With many thanks to you for
sending me your article, pray believe me,

My dear Sir, yours sincerely,

C. Darwin.

[In the spring of this year (1862) my father read the
second volume of Buckle's 'History of Civilization.' The
following strongly expressed opinion about it may be worth
quoting : —

" Have you read Buckle's second volume ? it has interested
me greatly ; I do not care whether his views are right or
wrong, but I should think they contained much truth. There
is a noble love of advancement and truth throughout ; and to
my taste he is the very best writer of the English language
that ever lived, let the other be who he may."]

C. Dar iv in to Asa Gray.

Down, March 15 [1862].

My DEAR Gray, — Thanks for the newspapers (though they
did contain digs at England), and for your note of Feb. 1 8th.
It is really almost a pleasure to receive stabs from so smooth,
polished and sharp a dagger as your pen. I heartily wish I
could sympathise more fully with you, instead of merely
hating the South. We cannot enter into your feelings ; if
Scotland were to rebel, I presume we should be very wrath,
but I do not think we should care a penny what other nations

* A paper on "Vegetable Mor- 'British and Foreign Medico-Chi-
phology," by Dr. Masters, in the rurgical Review ' for 1862.

1 362.]

SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

337

thought. The millennium must come before nations love each
other ; but try and do not hate me. Think of me, if you will
as a poor blinded fool. I fear the dreadful state of affairs

must dull your interest in Science

I believe that your pamphlet has done my book great good ;
and I thank you from my heart for myself; and believing
that the views arc in large part true, I must think that you
have done natural science a good turn. Natural Selection
seems to be making a little progress in England and on
the Continent ; a new German edition is called for, and a
French * one has just appeared. One of the best men,
though at present unknown, who has taken up these views,
is Mr. Bates ; pray read his ' Travels in Amazonia,' when they
appear ; they will be very good, judging from MS. of the first
two chapters.

Again I say, do not hate me.

Ever yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

t • •

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

1 Carlton Terrace, Southampton,!
Aug. 22 [1862].

.... I heartily hope that you ± will be out in October.
. . . . You say that the Bishop and Owen will be down on
you ; the latter hardly can, for I was assured that Owen
in his Lectures this spring advanced as a new idea that

* In June, 1862, my father wrote
to Dr. Gray : " I received, 2 or 3
days ago, a French translation of
the ' Origin,' by a Madlle. Royer,
who must be one of the cleverest
and oddest women in Europe : is
an ardent Deist, and hates Chris-
tianity, and declares that natural
selection and the struggle for life
will explain all morality, nature of
man, politics, &c. &c! She makes

some very curious and good hits,
and says she shall publish a book
on these subjects." Madlle. Royer
added foot-notes to her translation,
and in many places where the author
expresses great doubt, she explains
the difficulty, or points out that no
real difficulty exists.

f The house of his son William.

% I.e. ' The Antiquity of Man.'

388 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [1862.

wingless birds had lost their wings by disuse, also that
magpies stole spoons, &c., from a remnant of some instinct
like that of the Bower-Bird, which ornaments its playing-
passage with pretty feathers. Indeed, I am told that he
hinted plainly that all birds are descended from one ....

Your P.S. touches on, as it seems to me, very difficult
points. I am glad to see [that] in the ' Origin,' I only say
that the naturalists generally consider that low organisms
vary more than high ; and this I think certainly is the
general opinion. I put the statement this way to show that
I considered it only an opinion probably true. I must own
that I do not at all trust even Hooker's contrary opinion, as
I feel pretty sure that he has not tabulated any result. I
have some materials at home, I think I attempted to make
this point out, but cannot remember the result.

Mere variability, though the necessary foundation of all
modifications, I believe to be almost always present, enough
to allow of any amount of selected change ; so that it does
not seem to me at all incompatible that a group which at any
one period (or during all successive periods) varies less, should
in the long course of time have undergone more modification
than a group which is generally more variable.

Placental animals, e.g. might be at each period less variable
than Marsupials, and nevertheless have undergone more
differentiation and development than marsupials, owing to
some advantage, probably brain development.

I am surprised, but do not pretend to form an opinion at
Hooker's statement that higher species, genera, &c, are best
limited. It seems to me a bold statement.

Looking to the ' Origin,' I see that I state that the pro-
ductions of the land seem to change quicker than those of
the sea (Chapter X., p. 339, 3rd edition), and I add there is
some reason to believe that organisms considered high in the
scale change quicker than those that are low. I remember
writing these sentences after much deliberation I

1 862.] FALCONER ON SPECIES. 389

remember well feeling much hesitation about putting in even

the guarded sentences which I did. My doubts, I remember,

related to the rate of change of the Radiata in the Secondary

formation, and of the Foraminifera in the oldest Tertiary

beds

Good night,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, Oct. 1 [1862].

.... I found here * a short and very kind note of Fal-
coner, with some pages of his ' Elephant Memoir,' which will
be published, in which he treats admirably on long persistence
of type. I thought he was going to make a good and crush-
ing attack on me, but, to my great satisfaction, he ends by
pointing out a loophole, and adds,t "with him I have no faith
that the mammoth and other extinct elephants made their

appearance suddenly The most rational view seems

to be that they are the modified descendants of earlier pro-
genitors, &c." This is capital. There will not be soon one
good palaeontologist who believes in immutability. Falconer
does not allow for the Proboscidean group being a failing one,
and therefore not likely to be giving off new races.

He adds that he does not think Natural Selection suffices.
I do not quite see the force of his argument, and he appa-
rently overlooks that I say over and over again that Natural
Selection can do nothing without variability, and that varia-
bility is subject to the most complex fixed laws

[In his letters to Sir J. D. Hooker, about the end of this

* On his return from Bourne- clearer. The passage begins as

mouth. follows : " The inferences which I

f Falconer, " On the American draw from these facts are not op-
Fossil Elephant," in the ' Nat. Hist. posed to one of the leading pro-
Review,' 1863, p. 81. The words positions of Darwin's theory. With
preceding those cited by my father him," &c. (Sec.
make the meaning of his quotation

390 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [1862.

year, are occasional notes on the progress of the 'Variation
of Animals and Plants.' Thus on November 24th he wrote :
" I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present
work is leading me to believe rather more direct in the action
of physical conditions. I presume I regret it, because it
lessens the glory of Natural Selection, and is so confoundedly
doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get all my
facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this
will be."

Again, on December 22nd, " To-day I have begun to
think of arranging my concluding chapters on Inheritance,
Reversion, Selection, and such things, and am fairly paralysed
how to begin and how to end, and what to do, with my huge
piles of materials."]

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, Nov. 6 [1862].

My DEAR Gray, — When your note of October 4th and 13th
(chiefly about Max Miiller) arrived, I was nearly at the end
of the same book,* and had intended recommending you to
read it. I quite agree that it is extremely interesting, but the
latter part about the first origin of language much the least
satisfactory. It is a marvellous problem. .... [There are]
covert sneers at me, which he seems to get the better of
towards the close of the book. I cannot quite see how it
will forward " my cause," as you call it ; but I can see how
any one with literary talent (I do not feel up to it) could
make great use of the subject in illustration.! What pretty
metaphors you would make from it ! I wish some one would

* 'Lectures on the Science of Also by Prof. Schleicher, whose

Language,' 1st edit. 1861. pamphlet was fully noticed in the

t Language was treated in the Reader, Feb. 27, 1864 (as I learn

manner here indicated by Sir C. from one of Prof. Huxley's 'Lay

Lyell in the ' Antiquity of Man.' Sermons ').

1 862.]

BOOKS — MIMICRY.

391

keep a lot of the most noisy monkeys, half free, and study
their means of communication !

A book has just appeared here which will, I suppose, make
a noise, by Bishop Colenso,* who, judging from extracts,
smashes most of the Old Testament. Talking of books, I am
in the middle of one which pleases me, though it is very
innocent food, viz. Miss Cooper's 'Journal of a Naturalist.'
Who is she ? She seems a very clever woman, and gives a
capital account of the battle between our and your weeds.
Does it not hurt your Yankee pride that we thrash you so
confoundedly ? I am sure Mrs. Gray will stick up for your
own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more honest,
downright good sort of weeds. The book gives an extremely
pretty picture of one of your villages ; but I see your autumn,
though so much more gorgeous than ours, comes on sooner,
and that is one comfort

C. Darwin to H. IV. Bates.

Down, Nov. 20, [1862].

Dear BATES, — I have justf finished, after several reads, your
paper, f In my opinion it is one of the most remarkable and

* ' The Pentateuch and Book of
Joshua critically examined,' six
parts, 1862-71.

t This refers to Mr. Bates's
paper, " Contributions to an Insect
Fauna of the Amazons Valley ':
(' Linn. Soc. Trans.' xxiii., 1862), in
which the now familiar subject of
mimicry was founded. My father
wrote a short review of it in the
'Natural History Review,' 1863,
p. 219, parts of which occur almost
verbatim in the later editions of
the ' Origin of Species.' A striking
passage occurs showing the difficul-
ties of the case from a creationist's
point of view : —

" By what means, it may be
asked, have so many butterflies of
the Amazonian region acquired
their deceptive dress ? Most natur-
alists will answer that they were
thus clothed from the hour of their
creation — an answer which will
generally be so far triumphant that
it can be met only by long-drawn
arguments ; but it is made at the
expense of putting an effectual bar
to all further inquiry. In this par-
ticular case, moreover, the crea-
tionist will meet with special diffi-
culties ; for many of the mimicking
forms of Leptalis can be shown by
a graduated series to be merely

392

SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

[1862.

admirable papers I ever read in my life. The mimetic cases
are truly marvellous, and you connect excellently a host of
analogous facts. The illustrations are beautiful, and seem
very well chosen ; but it would have saved the reader not a
little trouble, if the name of each had been engraved below
each separate figure. No doubt this would have put the
engraver into fits, as it would have destroyed the beauty of the
plate. I am not at all surprised at such a paper having con-
sumed much time. I am rejoiced that I passed over the
whole subject in the ' Origin,' for I should have made a pre-
cious mess of it. You have most clearly stated and solved
a wonderful problem. No doubt with most people this will
be the cream of the paper ; but I am not sure that all your
facts and reasonings on variation, and on the segregation of
complete and semi-complete species, is not really more, or
at least as valuable, a part. I never conceived the process
nearly so clearly before ; one feels present at the creation of
new forms. I wish, however, you had enlarged a little more
on the pairing of similar varieties ; a rather more numerous
body of facts seems here wanted. Then, again, what a host
of curious miscellaneous observations there are — as on related

varieties of one species ; other mi-
mickers are undoubtedly distinct
species, or even distinct genera.
So again, some of the mimicked
forms can be shown to be merely
varieties ; but the greater number
must be ranked as distinct species.
Hence the creationist will have to
admit that some of these forms
have become imitators, by means
of the laws of variation, whilst
others he must look at as separately
created under their present guise ;
he will further have to admit that
some have been created in imita-
tion of forms not themselves created
as we now see them, but due to the

laws of variation ! Prof. Agassiz,
indeed, would think nothing of this
difficulty ; for he believes that not
only each species and each variety,
but that groups of individuals,
though identically the same, when
inhabiting distinct countries, have
been all separately created in due
proportional numbers to the wants
of each land. Not many natur-
alists will be content thus to be-
lieve that varieties and individuals
have been turned out all ready
made, almost as a manufacturer
turns out toys according to the
temporary demand of the market."

1 862.] mimicry. 393

sexual and individual variability : these will some day, if I
live, be a treasure to me.

With respect to mimetic resemblance being so common
with insects, do you not think it may be connected with their
small size ; they cannot defend themselves ; they cannot
escape by flight, at least, from birds, therefore they escape
by trickery and deception ?

I have one serious criticism to make, and that is about the
title of the paper ; I cannot but think that you ought to have
called prominent attention in it to the mimetic resemblances.
Your paper is too good to be largely appreciated by the mob
of naturalists without souls ; but, rely on it, that it will have
lasting value, and I cordially congratulate you on your first
great work. You will find, I should think, that Wallace will
fully appreciate it. How gets on your book ? Keep your
spirits up. A book is no light labour, I have been better
lately, and working hard, but my health is very indifferent.
How is your health ? Believe me, dear Bates,

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

END OF VOL. II.

2 D

LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Limited,

STAMFORD STREET AND CHARtNG CROSS,

■

■

hb ■■'■/.'

■

#/**>

■

■ ■

.' ■ ■ I I I <r

''■•'. ■ ■ 1

I

^M

m
1 1 1 1 1

■

'.'ks.il

■ I

nr

■ ' I

^v*-" vi-

53

m

tmm

^••;*--x*.x

m

■

■

■

■

■

■

I ■ ■

■■ i i *i

* -. ■ I I

■

SUB H

I * .St H "-X.

I .

^H_

nUk-w iMFYfM

■

■ ■ RMS *Ii

■ ■ ■ ftfi

■■ -: ■ ' - I

■■■■■ BB San

■■ aW>;- ■■ I Buy Shi

■ ■ ■ ■ SI

5fc ^H :?■"', I I •>

fan i^H H HHH ■ H
£ WBni BR* §19 'oft

En
!••» ■■■■■ EK^

.HIM .■ ■ ■ s*

■

■■■■ ■■ ■■■« K*¥? ;•- Bol

■■1 ■■ 1 1 I I : I I

■HI SSI ^^BmmB S8

■* ;

I

■