He wrote from Caerdeon to Sir J.D. Hooker (June 22nd):--
"We have been here for ten days, how I wish it was possible for you to pay us a visit here; we have a beautiful house with a terraced garden, and a really magnificent view of Cader, right opposite. Old Cader is a grand fellow, and shows himself off superbly with every changing light.
We remain here till the end of July, when the H. Wedgwoods have the house. I have been as yet in a very poor way; it seems as soon as the stimulus of mental work stops, my whole strength gives way. As yet I have hardly crawled half a mile from the house, and then have been fearfully fatigued. It is enough to make one wish oneself quiet in a comfortable tomb."
With regard to the fifth edition of the "Origin," he wrote to Mr.
Wallace (January 22, 1869):--
"I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing a new edition of the "Origin," which has cost me much labour, and which I hope I have considerably improved in two or three important points. I always thought individual differences more important than single variations, but now I have come to the conclusion that they are of paramount importance, and in this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin"s arguments have convinced me."
This somewhat obscure sentence was explained, February 2, in another letter to Mr. Wallace:--
"I must have expressed myself atrociously; I meant to say exactly the reverse of what you have understood. F. Jenkin argued in the "North British Review" against single variations ever being perpetuated, and has convinced me, though not in quite so broad a manner as here put. I always thought individual differences more important; but I was blind and thought that single variations might be preserved much oftener than I now see is possible or probable. I mentioned this in my former note merely because I believed that you had come to a similar conclusion, and I like much to be in accord with you. I believe I was mainly deceived by single variations offering such simple ill.u.s.trations, as when man selects."
The late Mr. Fleeming Jenkin"s review, on the "Origin of Species,"
was published in the "North British Review" for June 1867. It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms, which my father, as I believe, felt to be the most valuable ever made on his views should have come, not from a professed naturalist but from a Professor of Engineering.
It is impossible to give in a short compa.s.s an account of Fleeming Jenkin"s argument. My father"s copy of the paper (ripped out of the volume as usual, and tied with a bit of string) is annotated in pencil in many places. I may quote one pa.s.sage opposite which my father has written "good sneers"--but it should be remembered that he used the word "sneer" in rather a special sense, not as necessarily implying a feeling of bitterness in the critic, but rather in the sense of "banter."
Speaking of the "true believer," Fleeming Jenkin says, page 293:--
"He can invent trains of ancestors of whose existence there is no evidence; he can marshal hosts of equally imaginary foes; he can call up continents, floods, and peculiar atmospheres; he can dry up oceans, split islands, and parcel out eternity at will; surely with these advantages he must be a dull fellow if he cannot scheme some series of animals and circ.u.mstances explaining our a.s.sumed difficulty quite naturally. Feeling the difficulty of dealing with adversaries who command so huge a domain of fancy, we will abandon these arguments, and trust to those which at least cannot be a.s.sailed by mere efforts of imagination."
In the fifth edition of the "Origin," my father altered a pa.s.sage in the Historical Sketch (fourth edition page xviii.). He thus practically gave up the difficult task of understanding whether or no Sir R. Owen claims to have discovered the principle of Natural Selection. Adding, "As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us... were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr.
Matthew."
A somewhat severe critique on the fifth edition, by Mr. John Robertson, appeared in the "Athenaeum", August 14, 1869. The writer comments with some little bitterness on the success of the "Origin:" "Attention is not acceptance. Many editions do not mean real success. The book has sold; the guess has been talked over; and the circulation and discussion sum up the significance of the editions." Mr. Robertson makes the true, but misleading statement: "Mr. Darwin prefaces his fifth English edition with an Essay, which he calls "An Historical Sketch," etc." As a matter of fact the Sketch appeared in the third edition in 1861.
Mr. Robertson goes on to say that the Sketch ought to be called a collection of extracts antic.i.p.atory or corroborative of the hypothesis of Natural Selection. "For no account is given of any hostile opinions.
The fact is very significant. This historical sketch thus resembles the histories of the reign of Louis XVIII., published after the Restoration, from which the Republic and the Empire, Robespierre and Buonaparte were omitted."
The following letter to Prof. Victor Carus gives an idea of the character of the new edition of the "Origin:"]
CHARLES DARWIN TO VICTOR CARUS. Down, May 4, 1869.
... I have gone very carefully through the whole, trying to make some parts clearer, and adding a few discussions and facts of some importance. The new edition is only two pages at the end longer than the old; though in one part nine pages in advance, for I have condensed several parts and omitted some pa.s.sages. The translation I fear will cause you a great deal of trouble; the alterations took me six weeks, besides correcting the press; you ought to make a special agreement with M. Koch [the publisher]. Many of the corrections are only a few words, but they have been made from the evidence on various points appearing to have become a little stronger or weaker.
Thus I have been led to place somewhat more value on the definite and direct action of external conditions; to think the lapse of time, as measured by years, not quite so great as most geologists have thought; and to infer that single variations are of even less importance, in comparison with individual differences, than I formerly thought. I mention these points because I have been thus led to alter in many places A FEW WORDS; and unless you go through the whole new edition, one part will not agree with another, which would be a great blemish...
[The desire that his views might spread in France was always strong with my father, and he was therefore justly annoyed to find that in 1869 the Editor of the first French edition had brought out a third edition without consulting the author. He was accordingly glad to enter into an arrangement for a French translation of the fifth edition; this was undertaken by M. Reinwald, with whom he continued to have pleasant relations as the publisher of many of his books into French.
He wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:--
"I must enjoy myself and tell you about Mdlle. C. Royer, who translated the "Origin" into French, and for whose second edition I took infinite trouble. She has now just brought out a third edition without informing me, so that all the corrections, etc., in the fourth and fifth English editions are lost. Besides her enormously long preface to the first edition, she has added a second preface abusing me like a pick-pocket for Pangenesis, which of course has no relation to the "Origin." So I wrote to Paris; and Reinwald agrees to bring out at once a new translation from the fifth English edition, in compet.i.tion with her third edition... This fact shows that "evolution of species" must at last be spreading in France."
With reference to the spread of Evolution among the orthodox, the following letter is of some interest. In March he received, from the author, a copy of a lecture by Rev. T.R.R. Stebbing, given before the Torquay Natural History Society, February 1, 1869, bearing the t.i.tle "Darwinism." My father wrote to Mr. Stebbing:]
Dear Sir,
I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in sending me your spirited and interesting lecture; if a layman had delivered the same address, he would have done good service in spreading what, as I hope and believe, is to a large extent the truth; but a clergyman in delivering such an address does, as it appears to me, much more good by his power to shake ignorant prejudices, and by setting, if I may be permitted to say so, an admirable example of liberality.
With sincere respect, I beg leave to remain, Dear Sir, yours faithfully and obliged, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The references to the subject of expression in the following letter are explained by the fact that my father"s original intention was to give his essay on this subject as a chapter in the "Descent of Man," which in its turn grew, as we have seen, out of a proposed chapter in "Animals and Plants:"]
CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Down, February 22 [1869?].
... Although you have aided me to so great an extent in many ways, I am going to beg for any information on two other subjects. I am preparing a discussion on "s.e.xual Selection," and I want much to know how low down in the animal scale s.e.xual selection of a particular kind extends.
Do you know of any lowly organised animals, in which the s.e.xes are separated, and in which the male differs from the female in arms of offence, like the horns and tusks of male mammals, or in gaudy plumage and ornaments, as with birds and b.u.t.terflies? I do not refer to secondary s.e.xual characters, by which the male is able to discover the female, like the plumed antennae of moths, or by which the male is enabled to seize the female, like the curious pincers described by you in some of the lower Crustaceans. But what I want to know is, how low in the scale s.e.xual differences occur which require some degree of self-consciousness in the males, as weapons by which they fight for the female, or ornaments which attract the opposite s.e.x. Any differences between males and females which follow different habits of life would have to be excluded. I think you will easily see what I wish to learn.
A priori, it would never have been antic.i.p.ated that insects would have been attracted by the beautiful colouring of the opposite s.e.x, or by the sounds emitted by the various musical instruments of the male Orthoptera. I know no one so likely to answer this question as yourself, and should be grateful for any information, however small.
My second subject refers to expression of countenance, to which I have long attended, and on which I feel a keen interest; but to which, unfortunately, I did not attend when I had the opportunity of observing various races of man. It has occurred to me that you might, without much trouble, make a FEW observations for me, in the course of some months, on Negroes, or possibly on native South Americans, though I care most about Negroes; accordingly I enclose some questions as a guide, and if you could answer me even one or two I should feel truly obliged. I am thinking of writing a little essay on the Origin of Mankind, as I have been taunted with concealing my opinions, and I should do this immediately after the completion of my present book. In this case I should add a chapter on the cause or meaning of expression...
[The remaining letters of this year deal chiefly with the books, reviews, etc., which interested him.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO H. THIEL. Down, February 25, 1869.
Dear Sir,
On my return home after a short absence, I found your very courteous note, and the pamphlet ("Ueber einige Formen der Landwirthschaftlichen Genossenschaften." by Dr. H. Thiel, then of the Agricultural Station at Poppelsdorf.), and I hasten to thank you for both, and for the very honourable mention which you make of my name. You will readily believe how much interested I am in observing that you apply to moral and social questions a.n.a.logous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different, and most important, subjects. With much respect, I beg leave to remain, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully and obliged, CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, March 19 [1869].
My dear Huxley,
Thanks for your "Address." (In his "Anniversary Address" to the Geological Society, 1869, Mr. Huxley criticised Sir William Thomson"s paper ("Trans. Geol. Soc., Glasgow," volume iii.) "On Geological Time.") People complain of the unequal distribution of wealth, but it is a much greater shame and injustice that any one man should have the power to write so many brilliant essays as you have lately done. There is no one who writes like you... If I were in your shoes, I should tremble for my life. I agree with all you say, except that I must think that you draw too great a distinction between the evolutionists and the uniformitarians.
I find that the few sentences which I have sent to press in the "Origin"
about the age of the world will do fairly well...
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, March 22 [1869].
My dear Wallace,
I have finished your book ("The Malay Archipelago," etc., 1869.); it seems to me excellent, and at the same time most pleasant to read. That you ever returned alive is wonderful after all your risks from illness and sea voyages, especially that most interesting one to Waigiou and back. Of all the impressions which I have received from your book, the strongest is that your perseverance in the cause of science was heroic.
Your descriptions of catching the splendid b.u.t.terflies have made me quite envious, and at the same time have made me feel almost young again, so vividly have they brought before my mind old days when I collected, though I never made such captures as yours. Certainly collecting is the best sport in the world. I shall be astonished if your book has not a great success; and your splendid generalizations on Geographical Distribution, with which I am familiar from your papers, will be new to most of your readers. I think I enjoyed most the Timor case, as it is best demonstrated; but perhaps Celebes is really the most valuable. I should prefer looking at the whole Asiatic continent as having formerly been more African in its fauna, than admitting the former existence of a continent across the Indian Ocean...