CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, August 10 [1865].
My dear Sir,
I have been for a long time so ill that I have only just finished hearing read aloud your work on species. And now you must permit me to thank you cordially for the great interest with which I have read it.
You have done admirable service in the cause in which we both believe.
Many of your arguments seem to me excellent, and many of your facts wonderful. Of the latter, nothing has surprised me so much as the two forms of males. I have lately investigated the cases of dimorphic plants, and I should much like to send you one or two of my papers if I knew how. I did send lately by post a paper on climbing plants, as an experiment to see whether it would reach you. One of the points which has struck me most in your paper is that on the differences in the air-breathing apparatus of the several forms. This subject appeared to me very important when I formerly considered the electric apparatus of fishes. Your observations on Cla.s.sification and Embryology seem to me very good and original. They show what a wonderful field there is for enquiry on the development of crustacea, and nothing has convinced me so plainly what admirable results we shall arrive at in Natural History in the course of a few years. What a marvellous range of structure the crustacea present, and how well adapted they are for your enquiry! Until reading your book I knew nothing of the Rhizocephala; pray look at my account and figures of Anelasma, for it seems to me that this latter cirripede is a beautiful connecting link with the Rhizocephala.
If ever you have any opportunity, as you are so skilful a dissector, I much wish that you would look to the orifice at the base of the first pair of cirrhi in cirripedes, and at the curious organ in it, and discover what its nature is; I suppose I was quite in error, yet I cannot feel fully satisfied at Krohn"s (See vol. ii., pages 138, 187.) observations. Also if you ever find any species of Scalpellum, pray look for complemental males; a German author has recently doubted my observations for no reason except that the facts appeared to him so strange.
Permit me again to thank you cordially for the pleasure which I have derived from your work and to express my sincere admiration for your valuable researches.
Believe me, dear Sir, with sincere respect, Yours very faithfully, CH.
DARWIN.
P.S.--I do not know whether you care at all about plants, but if so, I should much like to send you my little work on the "Fertilization of Orchids," and I think I have a German copy.
Could you spare me a photograph of yourself? I should much like to possess one.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday, 27th [September, 1865].
My dear Hooker,
I had intended writing this morning to thank Mrs. Hooker most sincerely for her last and several notes about you, and now your own note in your hand has rejoiced me. To walk between five and six miles is splendid, with a little patience you must soon be well. I knew you had been very ill, but I hardly knew how ill, until yesterday, when Bentham (from the Cranworths (Robert Rolfe, Lord Cranworth, and Lord Chancellor of England, lived at Holwood, near Down.)) called here, and I was able to see him for ten minutes. He told me also a little about the last days of your father (Sir William Hooker; 1785-1865. He took charge of the Royal Gardens at Kew, in 1840, when they ceased to be the private gardens of the Royal Family. In doing so, he gave up his professorship at Glasgow--and with it half of his income. He founded the herbarium and library, and within ten years he succeeded in making the gardens the first in the world. It is, thus, not too much to say that the creation of the establishment at Kew is due to the abilities and self-devotion of Sir William Hooker. While, for the subsequent development of the gardens up to their present magnificent condition, the nation must thank Sir Joseph Hooker, in whom the same qualities are so conspicuous.); I wish I had known your father better, my impression is confined to his remarkably cordial, courteous, and frank bearing. I fully concur and understand what you say about the difference of feeling in the loss of a father and child. I do not think any one could love a father much more than I did mine, and I do not believe three or four days ever pa.s.s without my still thinking of him, but his death at eight-four caused me nothing of that insufferable grief (I may quote here a pa.s.sage from a letter of November, 1863. It was written to a friend who had lost his child: "How well I remember your feeling, when we lost Annie. It was my greatest comfort that I had never spoken a harsh word to her. Your grief has made me shed a few tears over our poor darling; but believe me that these tears have lost that unutterable bitterness of former days.") which the loss of our poor dear Annie caused. And this seems to me perfectly natural, for one knows for years previously that one"s father"s death is drawing slowly nearer and nearer, while the death of one"s child is a sudden and dreadful wrench. What a wonderful deal you read; it is a horrid evil for me that I can read hardly anything, for it makes my head almost immediately begin to sing violently. My good womenkind read to me a great deal, but I dare not ask for much science, and am not sure that I could stand it. I enjoyed Tylor ("Researches into the Early History of Mankind," by E.B. Tylor. 1865.) EXTREMELY, and the first part of Lecky "The Rise of Rationalism in Europe," by W.E.H.
Lecky. 1865.); but I think the latter is often vague, and gives a false appearance of throwing light on his subject by such phrases as "spirit of the age," "spread of civilization," etc. I confine my reading to a quarter or half hour per day in skimming through the back volumes of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, and find much that interests me.
I miss my climbing plants very much, as I could observe them when very poorly.
I did not enjoy the "Mill on the Floss" so much as you, but from what you say we will read it again. Do you know "Silas Marner"? it is a charming little story; if you run short, and like to have it, we could send it by post... We have almost finished the first volume of Palgrave (William Gifford Palgrave"s "Travels in Arabia," published in 1865.), and I like it much; but did you ever see a book so badly arranged? The frequency of the allusions to what will be told in the future are quite laughable... By the way, I was very much pleased with the foot-note (The pa.s.sage which seems to be referred to occurs in the text (page 479) of "Prehistoric Times." It expresses admiration of Mr. Wallace"s paper in the "Anthropological Review" (May, 1864), and speaks of the author"s "characteristic unselfishness" in ascribing the theory of Natural Selection "unreservedly to Mr. Darwin." about Wallace in Lubbock"s last chapter. I had not heard that Huxley had backed up Lubbock about Parliament... Did you see a sneer some time ago in the "Times" about how incomparably more interesting politics were compared with science even to scientific men? Remember what Trollope says, in "Can you Forgive her," about getting into Parliament, as the highest earthly ambition.
Jeffrey, in one of his letters, I remember, says that making an effective speech in Parliament is a far grander thing than writing the grandest history. All this seems to me a poor short-sighted view.
I cannot tell you how it has rejoiced me once again seeing your handwriting-- my best of old friends.
Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
[In October he wrote Sir J.D. Hooker:--
"Talking of the "Origin," a Yankee has called my attention to a paper attached to Dr. Wells"s famous "Essay on Dew," which was read in 1813 to the Royal Society, but not [then] printed, in which he applies most distinctly the principle of Natural Selection to the Races of Man. So poor old Patrick Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put on his t.i.tle-pages, "Discoverer of the principle of Natural Selection"!"]
CHARLES DARWIN TO F.W. FARRAR. (Canon of Westminster.) Down, November 2 [1865?].
Dear Sir,
As I have never studied the science of language, it may perhaps seem presumptuous, but I cannot resist the pleasure of telling you what interest and pleasure I have derived from hearing read aloud your volume ("Chapters on Language," 1865.)
I formerly read Max Muller, and thought his theory (if it deserves to be called so) both obscure and weak; and now, after hearing what you say, I feel sure that this is the case, and that your cause will ultimately triumph. My indirect interest in your book has been increased from Mr.
Hensleigh Wedgwood, whom you often quote, being my brother-in-law.
No one could dissent from my views on the modification of species with more courtesy than you do. But from the tenor of your mind I feel an entire and comfortable conviction (and which cannot possibly be disturbed) that if your studies led you to attend much to general questions in natural history you would come to the same conclusion that I have done.
Have you ever read Huxley"s little book of Lectures? I would gladly send a copy if you think you would read it.
Considering what Geology teaches us, the argument from the supposed immutability of specific types seems to me much the same as if, in a nation which had no old writings, some wise old savage was to say that his language had never changed; but my metaphor is too long to fill up.
Pray believe me, dear Sir, yours very sincerely obliged, C. DARWIN.
1866.
[The year 1866 is given in my father"s Diary in the following words:--
"Continued correcting chapters of "Domestic Animals."
March 1st.--Began on 4th edition of "Origin" of 1250 copies (received for it 238 pounds), making 7500 copies altogether.
May 10th.--Finished "Origin," except revises, and began going over Chapter XIII. of "Domestic Animals."
November 21st.--Finished "Pangenesis."
December 21st.--Finished re-going over all chapters, and sent them to printers.
December 22nd.--Began concluding chapter of book."
He was in London on two occasions for a week at a time, staying with his brother, and for a few days (May 29th-June 2nd) in Surrey; for the rest of the year he was at Down.
There seems to have been a gradual mending in his health; thus he wrote to Mr. Wallace (January 1866):--"My health is so far improved that I am able to work one or two hours a day."
With respect to the 4th edition he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:--
"The new edition of the "Origin" has caused me two great vexations. I forgot Bates"s paper on variation (This appears to refer to "Notes on South American b.u.t.terflies," Trans. Entomolog. Soc., vol. v. (N.S.).), but I remembered in time his mimetic work, and now, strange to say, I find I have forgotten your Arctic paper! I know how it arose; I indexed for my bigger work, and never expected that a new edition of the "Origin" would be wanted.
"I cannot say how all this has vexed me. Everything which I have read during the last four years I find is quite washy in my mind." As far as I know, Mr. Bates"s paper was not mentioned in the later editions of the "Origin," for what reason I cannot say.
In connection with his work on "The Variation of Animals and Plants," I give here extracts from three letters addressed to Mr. Huxley, which are of interest as giving some idea of the development of the theory of "Pangenesis," ultimately published in 1868 in the book in question:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, May 27, [1865?].
... I write now to ask a favour of you, a very great favour from one so hard worked as you are. It is to read thirty pages of MS., excellently copied out and give me, not lengthened criticism, but your opinion whether I may venture to publish it. You may keep the MS. for a month or two. I would not ask this favour, but I REALLY know no one else whose judgment on the subject would be final with me.
The case stands thus: in my next book I shall publish long chapters on bud- and seminal-variation, on inheritance, reversion, effects of use and disuse, etc. I have also for many years speculated on the different forms of reproduction. Hence it has come to be a pa.s.sion with me to try to connect all such facts by some sort of hypothesis. The MS. which I wish to send you gives such a hypothesis; it is a very rash and crude hypothesis, yet it has been a considerable relief to my mind, and I can hang on it a good many groups of facts. I well know that a mere hypothesis, and this is nothing more, is of little value; but it is very useful to me as serving as a kind of summary for certain chapters. Now I earnestly wish for your verdict given briefly as, "Burn it"--or, which is the most favourable verdict I can hope for, "It does rudely connect together certain facts, and I do not think it will immediately pa.s.s out of my mind." If you can say this much, and you do not think it absolutely ridiculous, I shall publish it in my concluding chapter.
Now will you grant me this favour? You must refuse if you are too much overworked.
I must say for myself that I am a hero to expose my hypothesis to the fiery ordeal of your criticism.
July 12, [1865?].
My dear Huxley,