"I conclude with sorrow that though he means to be honourable, he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly."
In July 1871, my father wrote to Mr. Wallace:--
"I feel very doubtful how far I shall succeed in answering Mivart, it is so difficult to answer objections to doubtful points, and make the discussion readable. I shall make only a selection. The worst of it is, that I cannot possibly hunt through all my references for isolated points, it would take me three weeks of intolerably hard work. I wish I had your power of arguing clearly. At present I feel sick of everything, and if I could occupy my time and forget my daily discomforts, or rather miseries, I would never publish another word. But I shall cheer up, I dare say, soon, having only just got over a bad attack. Farewell; G.o.d knows why I bother you about myself. I can say nothing more about missing-links than what I have said. I should rely much on pre-silurian times; but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre.[253]
Farewell.
" ... There is a most cutting review of me in the [July] _Quarterly_; I have only read a few pages. The skill and style make me think of Mivart.
I shall soon be viewed as the most despicable of men. This _Quarterly Review_ tempts me to republish Ch. Wright,[254] even if not read by any one, just to show some one will say a word against Mivart, and that his (_i.e._ Mivart"s) remarks ought not to be swallowed without some reflection.... G.o.d knows whether my strength and spirit will last out to write a chapter versus Mivart and others; I do so hate controversy and feel I shall do it so badly."
The _Quarterly_ review was the subject of an article by Mr. Huxley in the November number of the _Contemporary Review_. Here, also, are discussed Mr. Wallace"s _Contribution to the Theory of Natural Selection_, and the second edition of Mr. Mivart"s _Genesis of Species_. What follows is taken from Mr. Huxley"s article. The _Quarterly_ reviewer, though to some extent an evolutionist, believes that Man "differs more from an elephant or a gorilla, than do these from the dust of the earth on which they tread." The reviewer also declares that Darwin has "with needless opposition, set at naught the first principles of both philosophy and religion." Mr. Huxley pa.s.ses from the _Quarterly_ reviewer"s further statement, that there is no necessary opposition between evolution and religion, to the more definite position taken by Mr. Mivart, that the orthodox authorities of the Roman Catholic Church agree in distinctly a.s.serting derivative creation, so that "their teachings harmonize with all that modern science can possibly require."
Here Mr. Huxley felt the want of that "study of Christian philosophy"
(at any rate, in its Jesuitic garb), which Mr. Mivart speaks of, and it was a want he at once set to work to fill up. He was then staying at St.
Andrews, whence he wrote to my father:--
"By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with a good copy of Suarez,[255] in a dozen big folios. Among these I dived, to the great astonishment of the librarian, and looking into them "as careful robins eye the delver"s toil" (_vide Idylls_), I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes which were most promising." Even those who know Mr.
Huxley"s unrivalled power of tearing the heart out of a book must marvel at the skill with which he has made Suarez speak on his side. "So I have come out," he wrote, "in the new character of a defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and upset Mivart out of the mouth of his own prophet."
The remainder of Mr. Huxley"s critique is largely occupied with a dissection of the _Quarterly_ reviewer"s psychology, and his ethical views. He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace"s objections to the doctrine of Evolution by natural causes when applied to the mental faculties of Man.
Finally, he devotes a couple of pages to justifying his description of the _Quarterly_ reviewer"s treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike "unjust and unbecoming."[256]
In the sixth edition my father also referred to the "direct action of the conditions of life" as a subordinate cause of modification in living things: On this subject he wrote to Dr. Moritz Wagner (Oct. 13, 1876): "In my opinion the greatest error which I have committed, has been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment, _i.e._ food, climate, &c., independently of natural selection.
Modifications thus caused, which are neither of advantage nor disadvantage to the modified organism, would be especially favoured, as I can now see chiefly through your observations, by isolation, in a small area, where only a few individuals lived under nearly uniform conditions."
It has been supposed that such statements indicate a serious change of front on my father"s part. As a matter of fact the first edition of the _Origin_ contains the words, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." Moreover, any alteration that his views may have undergone was due not to a change of opinion, but to change in the materials on which a judgment was to be formed. Thus he wrote to Wagner in the above quoted letter:--
"When I wrote the _Origin_, and for some years afterwards, I could find little good evidence of the direct action of the environment; now there is a large body of evidence."
With the possibility of such action of the environment he had of course been familiar for many years. Thus he wrote to Mr. Davidson in 1861:--
"My greatest trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct effects of the long-continued action of changed conditions of life without any selection, with the action of selection on mere accidental (so to speak) variability. I oscillate much on this head, but generally return to my belief that the direct action of the conditions of life has not been great. At least this direct action can have played an extremely small part in producing all the numberless and beautiful adaptations in every living creature."
And to Sir Joseph Hooker in the following year:--
"I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading me to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I presume I regret it, because it lessens the glory of Natural Selection, and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will be."
Reference has already been made to the growth of his book on the _Expression of the Emotions_ out of a projected chapter in the _Descent of Man_.
It was published in the autumn of 1872. The edition consisted of 7000, and of these 5267 copies were sold at Mr. Murray"s sale in November. Two thousand were printed at the end of the year, and this proved a misfortune, as they did not afterwards sell so rapidly, and thus a ma.s.s of notes collected by the author was never employed for a second edition during his lifetime.[257]
As usual he had no belief in the possibility of the book being generally successful. The following pa.s.sage in a letter to Haeckel serves to show that he had felt the writing of this book as a somewhat severe strain:--
"I have finished my little book on Expression, and when it is published in November I will of course send you a copy, in case you would like to read it for amus.e.m.e.nt. I have resumed some old botanical work, and perhaps I shall never again attempt to discuss theoretical views.
"I am growing old and weak, and no man can tell when his intellectual powers begin to fail. Long life and happiness to you for your own sake and for that of science."
A good review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the _Quarterly Journal of Science_, Jan. 1873. Mr. Wallace truly remarks that the book exhibits certain "characteristics of the author"s mind in an eminent degree,"
namely, "the insatiable longing to discover the causes of the varied and complex phenomena presented by living things." He adds that in the case of the author "the restless curiosity of the child to know the "what for?" the "why?" and the "how?" of everything" seems "never to have abated its force."
The publication of the Expression book was the occasion of the following letter to one of his oldest friends, the late Mrs. Haliburton, who was the daughter of a Shropshire neighbour, Mr. Owen of Woodhouse, and became the wife of the author of _Sam Slick_.
Nov. 1, 1872.
MY DEAR MRS. HALIBURTON,--I dare say you will be surprised to hear from me. My object in writing now is to say that I have just published a book on the _Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals_; and it has occurred to me that you might possibly like to read some parts of it; and I can hardly think that this would have been the case with any of the books which I have already published. So I send by this post my present book. Although I have had no communication with you or the other members of your family for so long a time, no scenes in my whole life pa.s.s so frequently or so vividly before my mind as those which relate to happy old days spent at Woodhouse. I should very much like to hear a little news about yourself and the other members of your family, if you will take the trouble to write to me. Formerly I used to glean some news about you from my sisters.
I have had many years of bad health and have not been able to visit anywhere; and now I feel very old. As long as I pa.s.s a perfectly uniform life, I am able to do some daily work in Natural History, which is still my pa.s.sion, as it was in old days, when you used to laugh at me for collecting beetles with such zeal at Woodhouse. Excepting from my continued ill-health, which has excluded me from society, my life has been a very happy one; the greatest drawback being that several of my children have inherited from me feeble health. I hope with all my heart that you retain, at least to a large extent, the famous "Owen const.i.tution." With sincere feelings of grat.i.tude and affection for all bearing the name of Owen, I venture to sign myself,
Yours affectionately.
CHARLES DARWIN.
FOOTNOTES:
[221] The Historical Sketch had already appeared in the first German edition (1860) and the American edition. Bronn states in the German edition (footnote, p. 1) that it was his critique in the _N. Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie_ that suggested to my father the idea of such a sketch.
[222] Hugh Falconer, born 1809, died 1865. Chiefly known as a palaeontologist, although employed as a botanist during his whole career in India, where he was a medical officer in the H.E.I.C. Service.
[223] In his letters to Gray there are also numerous references to the American war. I give a single pa.s.sage. "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 G.o.d, 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! Ma.s.sachusetts seems to show n.o.ble enthusiasm. Great G.o.d! how I should like to see the greatest curse on earth--slavery--abolished!"
[224] This refers to the remarkable fact that many introduced European weeds have spread over large parts of the United States.
[225] _Geologist_, 1861, p. 132.
[226] The letter is published in a lecture by Professor Hutton given before the Philosoph. Inst.i.tute, Canterbury, N.Z., Sept 12th, 1887.
[227] Mr. Bates is perhaps most widely known through his delightful _The Naturalist on the Amazons_. It was with regard to this book that my father wrote (April 1863) to the author:--"I have finished vol. i. My criticisms may be condensed into a single sentence, namely, that it is the best work of Natural History Travels ever 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 ill.u.s.trated it is."
[228] Mr. Bates" paper, "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazons Valley" (_Linn. Soc. Trans._ xxiii. 1862), in which the now familiar subject of mimicry was founded. My father wrote a short review of it in the _Natural History Review_, 1863, p. 219, parts of which occur almost verbatim in the later editions of the _Origin of Species_. A striking pa.s.sage occurs in the review, showing the difficulties of the case from a creationist"s point of view:--
"By what means, it may be asked, have so many b.u.t.terflies of the Amazonian region acquired their deceptive dress? Most naturalists will answer that they were thus clothed from the hour of their creation--an answer which will generally be so far triumphant that it can be met only by long-drawn arguments; but it is made at the expense of putting an effectual bar to all further inquiry. In this particular case, moreover, the creationist will meet with special difficulties; for many of the mimicking forms of _Leptalis_ can be shown by a graduated series to be merely varieties of one species; other mimickers are undoubtedly distinct species, or even distinct genera. So again, some of the mimicked forms can be shown to be merely 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 imitation of forms not themselves created as we now see them, but due to the laws of variation! Professor Aga.s.siz, indeed, would think nothing of this difficulty; for he believes that not only each species and each variety, but that groups of individuals, though identically the same, when inhabiting distinct countries, have been all separately created in due proportional numbers to the wants of each land. Not many naturalists will be content thus to believe that varieties and individuals have been turned out all ready made, almost as a manufacturer turns out toys according to the temporary demand of the market."
[229] Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating the growing tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth in the _Origin of Species_. He gave a series of lectures to working men at the School of Mines in November, 1862. These were printed in 1863 from the shorthand notes of Mr. May, as six little blue books, price 4_d._ each, under the t.i.tle, _Our Knowledge of the Causes of Organic Nature_.
[230] Kingsley"s _Life_, vol. ii. p. 171.
[231] In the _Antiquity of Man_, first edition, p. 480, Lyell criticised somewhat severely Owen"s account of the difference between the Human and Simian brains. The number of the _Athenaeum_ here referred to (1863, p.
262) contains a reply by Professor Owen to Lyell"s strictures. The surprise expressed by my father was at the revival of a controversy which every one believed to be closed. Professor Huxley (_Medical Times_, Oct. 25th, 1862, quoted in _Man"s Place in Nature_, p. 117) spoke of the "two years during which this preposterous controversy has dragged its weary length." And this no doubt expressed a very general feeling.
[232] The italics are not Lyell"s.
[233] _The Antiquity of Man._
[234] "Falconer, whom I [Lyell] referred to oftener than to any other author, says I have not done justice to the part he took in resuscitating the cave question, and says he shall come out with a separate paper to prove it. I offered to alter anything in the new edition, but this he declined."--C. Lyell to C. Darwin, March 11, 1863; Lyell"s _Life_, vol ii. p. 364.
[235] _Man"s Place in Nature_, 1863.
[236] This refers to a pa.s.sage in which the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter"s book speaks of "an operation of force," or "a concurrence of forces which have now no place in nature," as being, "a creative force, in fact, which Darwin could only express in Pentateuchal terms as the primordial form "into which life was first breathed."" The conception of expressing a creative force as a primordial form is the reviewer"s.
[237] _Public Opinion_, April 23, 1863, A lively account of a police case, in which the quarrels of scientific men are satirised. Mr. John Bull gives evidence that--