"M. Darwin continue: Aucune distinction absolue n"a ete et ne peut etre etablie entre les especes et les varietes! Je vous ai deja dit que vous vous trompiez; une distinction absolue separe les varietes d"avec les especes." Mr. Huxley remarks on this, "Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated in this way even by a Perpetual Secretary." After demonstrating M.
Flourens" misapprehension of Natural Selection, Mr. Huxley says, "How one knows it all by heart, and with what relief one reads at p. 65, "Je laisse M. Darwin.""
The deterrent effect of the Academie on the spread of Evolution in France has been most striking. Even at the present day a member of the Inst.i.tute does not feel quite happy in owning to a belief in Darwinism.
We may indeed be thankful that we are "devoid of such a blessing."
Among the Germans, he was fast gaining supporters. In 1865 he began a correspondence with the distinguished Naturalist, Fritz Muller, then, as now, resident in Brazil. They never met, but the correspondence with Muller, which continued to the close of my father"s life, was a source of very great pleasure to him. My impression is that of all his unseen friends Fritz Muller was the one for whom he had the strongest regard.
Fritz Muller is the brother of another distinguished man, the late Hermann Muller, the author of _Die Befruchtung der Blumen_ (The Fertilisation of Flowers), and of much other valuable work.
The occasion of writing to Fritz Muller was the latter"s book, _Fur Darwin_, which was afterwards translated by Mr. Dallas at my father"s suggestion, under the t.i.tle _Facts and Arguments for Darwin_.
Shortly afterwards, in 1866, began his connection with Professor Victor Carus, of Leipzig, who undertook the translation of the 4th edition of the _Origin_. From this time forward Professor Carus continued to translate my father"s books into German. The conscientious care with which this work was done was of material service, and I well remember the admiration (mingled with a tinge of vexation at his own shortcomings) with which my father used to receive the lists of oversights, &c., which Professor Carus discovered in the course of translation. The connection was not a mere business one, but was cemented by warm feelings of regard on both sides.
About this time, too, he came in contact with Professor Ernst Haeckel, whose influence on German science has been so powerful.
The earliest letter which I have seen from my father to Professor Haeckel, was written in 1865, and from that time forward they corresponded (though not, I think, with any regularity) up to the end of my father"s life. His friendship with Haeckel was not merely the growth of correspondence, as was the case with some others, for instance, Fritz Muller. Haeckel paid more than one visit to Down, and these were thoroughly enjoyed by my father. The following letter will serve to show the strong feeling of regard which he entertained for his correspondent--a feeling which I have often heard him emphatically express, and which was warmly returned. The book referred to is Haeckel"s _Generelle Morphologie_, published in 1866, a copy of which my father received from the author in January, 1867.
Dr. E. Krause[242] has given a good account of Professor Haeckel"s services in the cause of Evolution. After speaking of the lukewarm reception which the _Origin_ met with in Germany on its first publication, he goes on to describe the first adherents of the new faith as more or less popular writers, not especially likely to advance its acceptance with the professorial or purely scientific world. And he claims for Haeckel that it was his advocacy of Evolution in his _Radiolaria_ (1862), and at the "Versammlung" of Naturalists at Stettin in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the first time publicly before the forum of German science, and his enthusiastic propagandism that chiefly contributed to its success.
Mr. Huxley, writing in 1869, paid a high tribute to Professor Haeckel as the Coryphaeus of the Darwinian movement in Germany. Of his _Generelle Morphologie_, "an attempt to work out the practical applications" of the doctrine of Evolution to their final results, he says that it has the "force and suggestiveness, and ... systematising power of Oken without his extravagance." Mr. Huxley also testifies to the value of Haeckel"s _Schopfungs-Geschichte_ as an exposition of the _Generelle Morphologie_ "for an educated public."
Again, in his _Evolution in Biology_,[243] Mr. Huxley wrote: "Whatever hesitation may not unfrequently be felt by less daring minds, in following Haeckel in many of his speculations, his attempt to systematise the doctrine of Evolution and to exhibit its influence as the central thought of modern biology, cannot fail to have a far-reaching influence on the progress of science."
In the following letter my father alludes to the somewhat fierce manner in which Professor Haeckel fought the battle of "Darwinismus," and on this subject Dr. Krause has some good remarks (p. 162). He asks whether much that happened in the heat of the conflict might not well have been otherwise, and adds that Haeckel himself is the last man to deny this.
Nevertheless he thinks that even these things may have worked well for the cause of Evolution, inasmuch as Haeckel "concentrated on himself by his _Ursprung des Menschen-Geschlechts_, his _Generelle Morphologie_, and _Schopfungs-Geschichte_, all the hatred and bitterness which Evolution excited in certain quarters," so that, "in a surprisingly short time it became the fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone should be abused, while Darwin was held up as the ideal of forethought and moderation."
_C. D. to E. Haeckel._ Down, May 21, 1867.
DEAR HAECKEL,--Your letter of the 18th has given me great pleasure, for you have received what I said in the most kind and cordial manner. You have in part taken what I said much stronger than I had intended. It never occurred to me for a moment to doubt that your work, with the whole subject so admirably and clearly arranged, as well as fortified by so many new facts and arguments, would not advance our common object in the highest degree. All that I think is that you will excite anger, and that anger so completely blinds every one that your arguments would have no chance of influencing those who are already opposed to our views.
Moreover, I do not at all like that you, towards whom I feel so much friendship, should unnecessarily make enemies, and there is pain and vexation enough in the world without more being caused. But I repeat that I can feel no doubt that your work will greatly advance our subject, and I heartily wish it could be translated into English, for my own sake and that of others. With respect to what you say about my advancing too strongly objections against my own views, some of my English friends think that I have erred on this side; but truth compelled me to write what I did, and I am inclined to think it was good policy. The belief in the descent theory is slowly spreading in England,[244] even amongst those who can give no reason for their belief. No body of men were at first so much opposed to my views as the members of the London Entomological Society, but now I am a.s.sured that, with the exception of two or three old men, all the members concur with me to a certain extent. It has been a great disappointment to me that I have never received your long letter written to me from the Canary Islands. I am rejoiced to hear that your tour, which seems to have been a most interesting one, has done your health much good.
... I am very glad to hear that there is some chance of your visiting England this autumn, and all in this house will be delighted to see you here.
Believe me, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely.
I place here an extract from a letter of later date (Nov. 1868), which refers to one of Haeckel"s later works.[245]
"Your chapters on the affinities and genealogy of the animal kingdom strike me as admirable and full of original thought. Your boldness, however, sometimes makes me tremble, but as Huxley remarked, some one must be bold enough to make a beginning in drawing up tables of descent.
Although you fully admit the imperfection of the geological record, yet Huxley agreed with me in thinking that you are sometimes rather rash in venturing to say at what periods the several groups first appeared. I have this advantage over you, that I remember how wonderfully different any statement on this subject made 20 years ago, would have been to what would now be the case, and I expect the next 20 years will make quite as great a difference."
The following extract from a letter to Professor W. Preyer, a well-known physiologist, shows that he estimated at its true value the help he was to receive from the scientific workers of Germany:--
March 31, 1868.
... I am delighted to hear that you uphold the doctrine of the Modification of Species, and defend my views. The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail. To the present day I am continually abused or treated with contempt by writers of my own country; but the younger naturalists are almost all on my side, and sooner or later the public must follow those who make the subject their special study. The abuse and contempt of ignorant writers hurts me very little....
I must now pa.s.s on to the publication, in 1868, of his book on _The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_. It was begun two days after the appearance of the second edition of the _Origin_, on Jan.
9, 1860, and it may, I think, be reckoned that about half of the eight years that elapsed between its commencement and completion was spent on it. The book did not escape adverse criticism: it was said, for instance, that the public had been patiently waiting for Mr. Darwin"s _pieces justicatives_, and that after eight years of expectation, all they got was a ma.s.s of detail about pigeons, rabbits and silk-worms. But the true critics welcomed it as an expansion with unrivalled wealth of ill.u.s.tration of a section of the _Origin_. Variation under the influence of man was the only subject (except the question of man"s origin) which he was able to deal with in detail so as to utilise his full stores of knowledge. When we remember how important for his argument is a knowledge of the action of artificial selection, we may well rejoice that this subject was chosen by him for amplification.
In 1864, he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker:
"I have begun looking over my old MS., and it is as fresh as if I had never written it; parts are astonishingly dull, but yet worth printing, I think; and other parts strike me as very good. I am a complete millionaire in odd and curious little facts, and I have been really astounded at my own industry whilst reading my chapters on Inheritance and Selection. G.o.d knows when the book will ever be completed, for I find that I am very weak, and on my best days cannot do more than one or one and a half hours" work. It is a good deal harder than writing about my dear climbing plants."
In Aug. 1867, when Lyell was reading the proofs of the book, my father wrote:--
"I thank you cordially for your last two letters. The former one did me _real_ good, for I had got so wearied with the subject that I could hardly bear to correct the proofs, and you gave me fresh heart. I remember thinking that when you came to the Pigeon chapter you would pa.s.s it over as quite unreadable. I have been particularly pleased that you have noticed Pangenesis. I do not know whether you ever had the feeling of having thought so much over a subject that you had lost all power of judging it. This is my case with Pangenesis (which is 26 or 27 years old), but I am inclined to think that if it be admitted as a probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in Biology."
His theory of Pangenesis, by which he attempted to explain "how the characters of the parents are "photographed" on the child, by means of material atoms derived from each cell in both parents, and developed in the child," has never met with much acceptance. Nevertheless, some of his contemporaries felt with him about it. Thus in February 1868, he wrote to Hooker:--
"I heard yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid vanity), "I can hardly tell you how much I admire the chapter on _Pangenesis_. It is a _positive comfort_ to me to have any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting me, and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one supplies its place, and that I think hardly possible." Now his foregoing [italicised] words express my sentiments exactly and fully: though perhaps I feel the relief extra strongly from having during many years vainly attempted to form some hypothesis. When you or Huxley say that a single cell of a plant, or the stump of an amputated limb, has the "potentiality" of reproducing the whole--or "diffuses an influence," these words give me no positive idea;--but, when it is said that the cells of a plant, or stump, include atoms derived from every other cell of the whole organism and capable of development, I gain a distinct idea."
Immediately after the publication of the book, he wrote:
Down, February 10 [1868].
MY DEAR HOOKER,--What is the good of having a friend, if one may not boast to him? I heard yesterday that Murray has sold in a week the whole edition of 1500 copies of my book, and the sale so pressing that he has agreed with Clowes to get another edition in fourteen days! This has done me a world of good, for I had got into a sort of dogged hatred of my book. And now there has appeared a review in the _Pall Mall_ which has pleased me excessively, more perhaps than is reasonable. I am quite content, and do not care how much I may be pitched into. If by any chance you should hear who wrote the article in the _Pall Mall_, do please tell me; it is some one who writes capitally, and who knows the subject. I went to luncheon on Sunday, to Lubbock"s, partly in hopes of seeing you, and, be hanged to you, you were not there.
Your c.o.c.k-a-hoop friend, C. D.
Independently of the favourable tone of the able series of notices in the _Pall Mall Gazette_ (Feb. 10, 15, 17, 1868), my father may well have been gratified by the following pa.s.sages:--
"We must call attention to the rare and n.o.ble calmness with which he expounds his own views, undisturbed by the heats of polemical agitation which those views have excited, and persistently refusing to retort on his antagonists by ridicule, by indignation, or by contempt. Considering the amount of vituperation and insinuation which has come from the other side, this forbearance is supremely dignified."
And again in the third notice, Feb. 17:--
"Nowhere has the author a word that could wound the most sensitive self-love of an antagonist; nowhere does he, in text or note, expose the fallacies and mistakes of brother investigators ... but while abstaining from impertinent censure, he is lavish in acknowledging the smallest debts he may owe; and his book will make many men happy."
I am indebted to Messrs. Smith and Elder for the information that these articles were written by Mr. G. H. Lewes.
The following extract from a letter (Feb. 1870) to his friend Professor Newton, the well-known ornithologist, shows how much he valued the appreciation of his colleagues.
"I suppose it would be universally held extremely wrong for a defendant to write to a Judge to express his satisfaction at a judgment in his favour; and yet I am going thus to act. I have just read what you have said in the "Record"[246] about my pigeon chapters, and it has gratified me beyond measure. I have sometimes felt a little disappointed that the labour of so many years seemed to be almost thrown away, for you are the first man capable of forming a judgment (excepting partly Quatref.a.ges), who seems to have thought anything of this part of my work. The amount of labour, correspondence, and care, which the subject cost me, is more than you could well suppose. I thought the article in the _Athenaeum_ was very unjust; but now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for your sympathy and too warm praise."
WORK ON MAN.
In February 1867, when the ma.n.u.script of _Animals and Plants_ had been sent to Messrs. Clowes to be printed, and before the proofs began to come in, he had an interval of spare time, and began a "Chapter on Man,"
but be soon found it growing under his hands, and determined to publish it separately as a "very small volume."
It is remarkable that only four years before this date, namely in 1864, he had given up hope of being able to work out this subject. He wrote to Mr. Wallace:--