The further history of the book is given in the next chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[147] _Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist._, 1855.
[148] After the death, from scarlet fever, of his infant child.
[149] "Abstract" is here used in the sense of "extract;" in this sense also it occurs in the _Linnean Journal_, where the sources of my father"s paper are described.
[150] "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection."--_Linnean Society"s Journal_, iii. p. 53.
[151] This pa.s.sage was published as a footnote in a review of the _Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_ which appeared in the _Quarterly Review_, Jan. 1888. In the new edition (1891) of _Natural Selection and Tropical Nature_ (p. 20), Mr. Wallace has given the facts above narrated. There is a slight and quite unimportant discrepancy between the two accounts, viz. that in the narrative of 1891 Mr. Wallace speaks of the "cold fit"
instead of the "hot fit" of his ague attack.
[152] That is to say, he would help to pay for the printing, if it should prove too long for the Linnean Society.
[153] W. H. Harvey, born 1811, died 1866: a well-known botanist.
[154] See a discussion on the date of the earliest sketch of the _Origin_ in the _Life and Letters_, ii. p. 10.
[155] _The Origin of Species._
[156] Miss Tollett was an old friend of the family.
[157] In the first edition Chapter iv. was on Natural Selection.
[158] The following characteristic acknowledgment of the help he received occurs in a letter to Hooker, of about this time: "I never did pick any one"s pocket, but whilst writing my present chapter I keep on feeling (even when differing most from you) just as if I were stealing from you, so much do I owe to your writings and conversation, so much more than mere acknowledgments show."
[159] Feb. 9th, 1858.
[160] "When I go over the chapter I will see what I can do, but I hardly know how I am obscure, and I think we are somehow in a mutual muddle with respect to each other, from starting from some fundamentally different notions."--Letter of May 6th, 1859.
[161] Of Hooker"s _Flora of Australia_.
[162] _Origin of Species_, 6th edition, vol. ii. p. 357. "But with the working ant we have an insect differing greatly from its parents, yet absolutely sterile, so that it could never have transmitted successively acquired modifications of structure or instinct to its progeny. It may well be asked how is it possible to reconcile this case with the theory of natural selection?"
CHAPTER XII.
THE PUBLICATION OF THE "ORIGIN OF SPECIES."
"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 sh.e.l.ls having been thought to have been created as we now see them."--From a letter to Lyell, Sept.
1859.
OCTOBER 3RD, 1859, TO DECEMBER 31ST, 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."
In October he was, as we have seen in the last chapter, at Ilkley, near Leeds: there 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; mult.i.tude 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 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 substantial 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 statements of facts for granted, that I do not think the "pieces justificatives" when published will make much difference, and I have long seen most clearly that if any concession is made, all that you claim in your concluding pages will follow. It is this which has made me so long hesitate, always feeling that the case of Man and his races, and of other animals, and that of plants is one and the same, and that if a "vera causa" be admitted for one, instead of a purely unknown and imaginary one, such as the word "Creation," all the consequences must follow.
I fear I have not time to-day, as I am just leaving this place to indulge in a variety of comments, and to say how much I was delighted with Oceanic Islands--Rudimentary Organs--Embryology--the genealogical key to the Natural System, Geographical Distribution, and if I went on I should be copying the heads of all your chapters. But I will say a word of the Recapitulation, in case some slight alteration, or, at least, omission of a word or two be still possible in that.
In the first place, at p. 480, it cannot surely be said that the most eminent naturalists have rejected the view of the mutability of species?
You do not mean to ignore G. St. Hilaire and Lamarck. As to the latter, you may say, that in regard to animals you subst.i.tute 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 domesticated varieties. (Do you mean _living_ naturalists?)[163]
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,"[164] not by means a.n.a.logous 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.
... But these are small matters, mere spots on the sun. Your comparison of the letters retained in words, when no longer wanted for the sound, to rudimentary organs is excellent, as both are truly genealogical....
You enclose your sheets in old MS., so the Post Office very properly charge them, as letters, 2_d._ extra. I wish all their fines on MS. were worth as much. I paid 4_s._ 6_d._ 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.
_C. D. to L. Aga.s.siz._[165] Down, November 11th [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 a.s.sure you that I act under a wholly different frame of mind. I hope that you will at least give me credit, however erroneous 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.
He sent copies of the _Origin_, accompanied by letters similar to the last, to M. De Candolle, Dr. Asa Gray, Falconer and Mr. Jenyns (Blomefield).
To Henslow he wrote (Nov. 11th, 1859):--
"I have told Murray to send a copy of my book on Species to you, my dear old master in Natural History; I fear, however, that you will not approve of your pupil in this case. The book in its present state does not show the amount of labour which I have bestowed on the subject.
"If you have time to read it carefully, and would take the trouble to point out what parts seem weakest to you and what best, it would be a most material aid to me in writing my bigger book, which I hope to commence in a few months. You know also how highly I value your judgment. But I am not so unreasonable as to wish or expect you to write detailed and lengthy criticisms, but merely a few general remarks, pointing out the weakest parts.
"If you are _in ever 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."