[15] Josiah Wedgwood, the son of the founder of the Etruria Works.
[16]
Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium, Non vultus instantis tyranni Mente quat.i.t solida.
[17] Tenth in the list of January 1831.
[18] I gather from some of my father"s contemporaries that he has exaggerated the Baccha.n.a.lian nature of those parties.--F. D.
[19] Rev. C. Whitley, Hon. Canon of Durham, formerly Reader in Natural Philosophy in Durham University.
[20] The late John Maurice Herbert, County Court Judge of Cardiff and the Monmouth Circuit.
[21] Afterwards Sir H. Thompson, first baronet.
[22] The _Cambridge Ray Club_, which in 1887 attained its fiftieth anniversary, is the direct descendant of these meetings, having been founded to fill the blank caused by the discontinuance, in 1836, of Henslow"s Friday evenings. See Professor Babington"s pamphlet, _The Cambridge Ray Club_, 1887.
[23] Mr. Jenyns (now Blomefield) described the fish for the _Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle_; and is author of a long series of papers, chiefly Zoological. In 1887 he printed, for private circulation, an autobiographical sketch, _Chapters in my Life_, and subsequently some (undated) addenda. The well-known Soame Jenyns was cousin to Mr. Jenyns"
father.
[24] In connection with this tour my father used to tell a story about Sedgwick: they had started from their inn one morning, and had walked a mile or two, when Sedgwick suddenly stopped, and vowed that he would return, being certain "that d.a.m.ned scoundrel" (the waiter) had not given the chambermaid the sixpence intrusted to him for the purpose. He was ultimately persuaded to give up the project, seeing that there was no reason for suspecting the waiter of perfidy.--F. D.
[25] _Philosophical Magazine_, 1842.
[26] Josiah Wedgwood.
[27] The Count d"Albanie"s claim to Royal descent has been shown to be baaed on a myth. See the _Quarterly Review_, 1847, vol. lx.x.xi. p. 83; also Hayward"s _Biographical and Critical Essays_, 1873, vol. ii. p.
201.
[28] Read at the meeting held November 16, 1835, and printed in a pamphlet of 31 pp. for distribution among the members of the Society.
[29] In Fitzwilliam Street.
[30] _Geolog. Soc. Proc._ ii. 1838, pp. 416-449.
[31] 1839, pp. 39-82.
[32] _Geolog. Soc. Proc._ iii. 1842.
[33] _Geolog. Trans._ v. 1840.
[34] _Geolog. Soc. Proc._ ii. 1838.
[35] _Philosophical Magazine_, 1842.
[36] The slight repet.i.tion here observable is accounted for by the notes on Lyell, &c., having been added in April, 1881, a few years after the rest of the _Recollections_ were written.--F. D.
[37] A pa.s.sage referring to X. is here omitted.--F. D.
[38] _Geological Observations_, 2nd Edit. 1876. _Coral Reefs_, 2nd Edit.
1874
[39] Published by the Ray Society.
[40] Miss Bird is mistaken, as I learn from Professor Mitsukuri.--F. D.
[41] _Geolog. Survey Mem._, 1846.
[42] Between November 1881 and February 1884, 8500 copies were sold.--F.
D.
[43] The falseness of the published statements on which Mr. Huth relied were pointed out in a slip inserted in all the unsold copies of his book, _The Marriage of near Kin_.--F. D.
CHAPTER III.
RELIGION.
My father in his published works was reticent on the matter of religion, and what he has left on the subject was not written with a view to publication.[44]
I believe that his reticence arose from several causes. He felt strongly that a man"s religion is an essentially private matter, and one concerning himself alone. This is indicated by the following extract from a letter of 1879:--[45]
"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates.... In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a G.o.d. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
He naturally shrank from wounding the sensibilities of others in religious matters, and he was also influenced by the consciousness that a man ought not to publish on a subject to which he has not given special and continuous thought. That he felt this caution to apply to himself in the matter of religion is shown in a letter to Dr. F. E.
Abbott, of Cambridge, U.S. (September 6, 1871). After explaining that the weakness arising from bad health prevented him from feeling "equal to deep reflection, on the deepest subject which can fill a man"s mind,"
he goes on to say: "With respect to my former notes to you, I quite forget their contents. I have to write many letters, and can reflect but little on what I write; but I fully believe and hope that I have never written a word, which at the time I did not think; but I think you will agree with me, that anything which is to be given to the public ought to be maturely weighed and cautiously put. It never occurred to me that you would wish to print any extract from my notes: if it had, I would have kept a copy. I put "private" from habit, only as yet partially acquired, from some hasty notes of mine having been printed, which were not in the least degree worth printing, though otherwise un.o.bjectionable. It is simply ridiculous to suppose that my former note to you would be worth sending to me, with any part marked which you desire to print; but if you like to do so, I will at once say whether I should have any objection. I feel in some degree unwilling to express myself publicly on religious subjects, as I do not feel that I have thought deeply enough to justify any publicity."
What follows is from another letter to Dr. Abbott (November 16, 1871), in which my father gives more fully his reasons for not feeling competent to write on religious and moral subjects:--
"I can say with entire truth that I feel honoured by your request that I should become a contributor to the _Index_, and am much obliged for the draft. I fully, also, subscribe to the proposition that it is the duty of every one to spread what he believes to be the truth; and I honour you for doing so, with so much devotion and zeal. But I cannot comply with your request for the following reasons; and excuse me for giving them in some detail, as I should be very sorry to appear in your eyes ungracious. My health is very weak: I _never_ pa.s.s 24 hours without many hours of discomfort, when I can do nothing whatever. I have thus, also, lost two whole consecutive months this season. Owing to this weakness, and my head being often giddy, I am unable to master new subjects requiring much thought, and can deal only with old materials. At no time am I a quick thinker or writer: whatever I have done in science has solely been by long pondering, patience and industry.
"Now I have never systematically thought much on religion in relation to science, or on morals in relation to society; and without steadily keeping my mind on such subjects for a long period, I am really incapable of writing anything worth sending to the _Index_."
He was more than once asked to give his views on religion, and he had, as a rule, no objection to doing so in a private letter. Thus, in answer to a Dutch student, he wrote (April 2, 1873):--
"I am sure you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home for rest.
"It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of G.o.d; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a First Cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in G.o.d; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man"s intellect; but man can do his duty."
Again in 1879 he was applied to by a German student, in a similar manner. The letter was answered by a member of my father"s family, who wrote:--
"Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters, that he cannot answer them all.
"He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a G.o.d; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by G.o.d."
This, however, did not satisfy the German youth, who again wrote to my father, and received from him the following reply:--