[The following letter is of interest in connection with the mention of Mr. Bentham in the last letter:]
G. BENTHAM TO FRANCIS DARWIN. 25 Wilton Place, S.W., May 30th, 1882.
My dear Sir,
In compliance with your note which I received last night, I send herewith the letters I have from your father. I should have done so on seeing the general request published in the papers, but that I did not think there were any among them which could be of any use to you. Highly flattered as I was by the kind and friendly notice with which Mr. Darwin occasionally honoured me, I was never admitted into his intimacy, and he therefore never made any communications to me in relation to his views and labours. I have been throughout one of his most sincere admirers, and fully adopted his theories and conclusions, notwithstanding the severe pain and disappointment they at first occasioned me. On the day that his celebrated paper was read at the Linnean Society, July 1st, 1858, a long paper of mine had been set down for reading, in which, in commenting on the British Flora, I had collected a number of observations and facts ill.u.s.trating what I then believed to be a fixity in species, however difficult it might be to a.s.sign their limits, and showing a tendency of abnormal forms produced by cultivation or otherwise, to withdraw within those original limits when left to themselves. Most fortunately my paper had to give way to Mr.
Darwin"s and when once that was read, I felt bound to defer mine for reconsideration; I began to entertain doubts on the subject, and on the appearance of the "Origin of Species," I was forced, however reluctantly, to give up my long-cherished convictions, the results of much labour and study, and I cancelled all that part of my paper which urged original fixity, and published only portions of the remainder in another form, chiefly in the "Natural History Review." I have since acknowledged on various occasions my full adoption of Mr. Darwin"s views, and chiefly in my Presidential Address of 1863, and in my thirteenth and last address, issued in the form of a report to the British a.s.sociation at its meeting at Belfast in 1874.
I prize so highly the letters that I have of Mr. Darwin"s, that I should feel obliged by your returning them to me when you have done with them.
Unfortunately I have not kept the envelopes, and Mr. Darwin usually only dated them by the month not by the year, so that they are not in any chronological order.
Yours very sincerely, GEORGE BENTHAM.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down [March] 12th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
Thinking over what we talked about, the high state of intellectual development of the old Grecians with the little or no subsequent improvement, being an apparent difficulty, it has just occurred to me that in fact the case harmonises perfectly with our views. The case would be a decided difficulty on the Lamarckian or Vestigian doctrine of necessary progression, but on the view which I hold of progression depending on the conditions, it is no objection at all, and harmonises with the other facts of progression in the corporeal structure of other animals. For in a state of anarchy, or despotism, or bad government, or after irruption of barbarians, force, strength, or ferocity, and not intellect, would be apt to gain the day.
We have so enjoyed your and Lady Lyell"s visit.
Good-night. C. DARWIN.
P.S.--By an odd chance (for I had not alluded even to the subject) the ladies attacked me this evening, and threw the high state of old Grecians into my teeth, as an unanswerable difficulty, but by good chance I had my answer all pat, and silenced them. Hence I have thought it worth scribbling to you...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J. PRESTWICH. (Now Professor of Geology in the University of Oxford.) Down, March 12th [1860].
... At some future time, when you have a little leisure, and when you have read my "Origin of Species," I should esteem it a SINGULAR favour if you would send me any general criticisms. I do not mean of unreasonable length, but such as you could include in a letter. I have always admired your various memoirs so much that I should be eminently glad to receive your opinion, which might be of real service to me.
Pray do not suppose that I expect to CONVERT or PERVERT you; if I could stagger you in ever so slight a degree I should be satisfied; nor fear to annoy me by severe criticisms, for I have had some hearty kicks from some of my best friends. If it would not be disagreeable to you to send me your opinion, I certainly should be truly obliged...
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, April 3rd [1860].
... I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peac.o.c.k"s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!...
You may like to hear about reviews on my book. Sedgwick (as I and Lyell feel CERTAIN from internal evidence) has reviewed me savagely and unfairly in the "Spectator". (See the quotations which follow the present letter.) The notice includes much abuse, and is hardly fair in several respects. He would actually lead any one, who was ignorant of geology, to suppose that I had invented the great gaps between successive geological formations, instead of its being an almost universally admitted dogma. But my dear old friend Sedgwick, with his n.o.ble heart, is old, and is rabid with indignation. It is hard to please every one; you may remember that in my last letter I asked you to leave out about the Weald denudation: I told Jukes this (who is head man of the Irish geological survey), and he blamed me much, for he believed every word of it, and thought it not at all exaggerated! In fact, geologists have no means of gauging the infinitude of past time. There has been one prodigy of a review, namely, an OPPOSED one (by Pictet (Francois Jules Pictet, in the "Archives des Sciences de la Bibliotheque Universelle," Mars 1860. The article is written in a courteous and considerate tone, and concludes by saying that the "Origin" will be of real value to naturalists, especially if they are not led away by its seductive arguments to believe in the dangerous doctrine of modification. A pa.s.sage which seems to have struck my father as being valuable, and opposite which he has made double pencil marks and written the word "good," is worth quoting: "La theorie de M. Darwin s"accorde mal avec l"histoire des types a formes bien tranchees et definies qui paraissent n"avoir vecu que pendant un temps limite. On en pourrait citer des centaines d"exemples, tel que les reptiles volants, les ichthyosaures, les belemnites, les ammonites, etc." Pictet was born in 1809, died 1872; he was Professor of Anatomy and Zoology at Geneva.), the palaeontologist, in the Bib. Universelle of Geneva) which is PERFECTLY fair and just, and I agree to every word he says; our only difference being that he attaches less weight to arguments in favour, and more to arguments opposed, than I do. Of all the opposed reviews, I think this the only quite fair one, and I never expected to see one.
Please observe that I do not cla.s.s your review by any means as opposed, though you think so yourself! It has done me MUCH too good service ever to appear in that rank in my eyes. But I fear I shall weary you with so much about my book. I should rather think there was a good chance of my becoming the most egotistical man in all Europe! What a proud pre-eminence! Well, you have helped to make me so and therefore you must forgive me if you can.
My dear Gray, ever yours most gratefully, C. DARWIN.
[In a letter to Sir Charles Lyell reference is made to Sedgwick"s review in the "Spectator", March 24:
"I now feel certain that Sedgwick is the author of the article in the "Spectator". No one else could use such abusive terms. And what a misrepresentation of my notions! Any ignoramus would suppose that I had FIRST broached the doctrine, that the breaks between successive formations marked long intervals of time. It is very unfair. But poor dear old Sedgwick seems rabid on the question. "Demoralised understanding!" If ever I talk with him I will tell him that I never could believe that an inquisitor could be a good man: but now I know that a man may roast another, and yet have as kind and n.o.ble a heart as Sedgwick"s."
The following pa.s.sages are taken from the review:
"I need hardly go on any further with these objections. But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism;--because it has deserted the inductive track, the only track that leads to physical truth;--because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralised understanding on the part of its advocates."
"Not that I believe that Darwin is an atheist; though I cannot but regard his materialism as atheistical. I think it untrue, because opposed to the obvious course of nature, and the very opposite of inductive truth. And I think it intensely mischievous."
"Each series of facts is laced together by a series of a.s.sumptions, and repet.i.tions of the one false principle. You cannot make a good rope out of a string of air bubbles."
"But any startling and (supposed) novel paradox, maintained very boldly and with something of imposing plausibility, produces in some minds a kind of pleasing excitement which predisposes them in its favour; and if they are unused to careful reflection, and averse to the labour of accurate investigation, they will be likely to conclude that what is (apparently) ORIGINAL, must be a production of original GENIUS, and that anything very much opposed to prevailing notions must be a grand DISCOVERY,--in short, that whatever comes from the "bottom of a well"
must be the "truth" supposed to be hidden there."
In a review in the December number of "Macmillan"s Magazine," 1860, Fawcett vigorously defended my father from the charge of employing a false method of reasoning; a charge which occurs in Sedgwick"s review, and was made at the time ad nauseam, in such phrases as: "This is not the true Baconian method." Fawcett repeated his defence at the meeting of the British a.s.sociation in 1861. (See an interesting letter from my father in Mr. Stephen"s "Life of Henry Fawcett," 1886, page 101.)]
CHARLES DARWIN TO W.B CARPENTER. Down, April 6th [1860].
My dear Carpenter,
I have this minute finished your review in the "Med. Chirurg. Review."
(April 1860.) You must let me express my admiration at this most able essay, and I hope to G.o.d it will be largely read, for it must produce a great effect. I ought not, however, to express such warm admiration, for you give my book, I fear, far too much praise. But you have gratified me extremely; and though I hope I do not care very much for the approbation of the non-scientific readers, I cannot say that this is at all so with respect to such few men as yourself. I have not a criticism to make, for I object to not a word; and I admire all, so that I cannot pick out one part as better than the rest. It is all so well balanced. But it is impossible not to be struck with your extent of knowledge in geology, botany, and zoology. The extracts which you give from Hooker seem to me EXCELLENTLY chosen, and most forcible. I am so much pleased in what you say also about Lyell. In fact I am in a fit of enthusiasm, and had better write no more. With cordial thanks,
Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April 10th [1860].
My dear Lyell,
Thank you much for your note of the 4th; I am very glad to hear that you are at Torquay. I should have amused myself earlier by writing to you, but I have had Hooker and Huxley staying here, and they have fully occupied my time, as a little of anything is a full dose for me... There has been a plethora of reviews, and I am really quite sick of myself.
There is a very long review by Carpenter in the "Medical and Chirurg.
Review," very good and well balanced, but not brilliant. He discusses Hooker"s books at as great length as mine, and makes excellent extracts; but I could not get Hooker to feel the least interest in being praised.
Carpenter speaks of you in thoroughly proper terms. There is a BRILLIANT review by Huxley ("Westminster Review," April 1860.), with capital hits, but I do not know that he much advances the subject. I THINK I have convinced him that he has hardly allowed weight enough to the case of varieties of plants being in some degrees sterile.
To diverge from reviews: Asa Gray sends me from Wyman (who will write), a good case of all the pigs being black in the Everglades of Virginia.
On asking about the cause, it seems (I have got capital a.n.a.logous cases) that when the BLACK pigs eat a certain nut their bones become red, and they suffer to a certain extent, but that the WHITE pigs lose their hoofs and perish, "and we aid by SELECTION, for we kill most of the young white pigs." This was said by men who could hardly read. By the way, it is a great blow to me that you cannot admit the potency of natural selection. The more I think of it, the less I doubt its power for great and small changes. I have just read the "Edinburgh"
("Edinburgh Review," April 1860.), which without doubt is by --. It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear will be very damaging. He is atrociously severe on Huxley"s lecture, and very bitter against Hooker.
So we three ENJOYED it together. Not that I really enjoyed it, for it made me uncomfortable for one night; but I have got quite over it to-day. It requires much study to appreciate all the bitter spite of many of the remarks against me; indeed I did not discover all myself.
It scandalously misrepresents many parts. He misquotes some pa.s.sages, altering words within inverted commas...
It is painful to be hated in the intense degree with which -- hates me.
Now for a curious thing about my book, and then I have done. In last Sat.u.r.day"s "Gardeners" Chronicle" (April 7th, 1860.), a Mr. Patrick Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely antic.i.p.ates the theory of Natural Selection. I have ordered the book, as some few pa.s.sages are rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed antic.i.p.ation! Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the case some day. Anyhow, one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on Naval Timber.
I heartily hope that your Torquay work may be successful. Give my kindest remembrances to Falconer, and I hope he is pretty well. Hooker and Huxley (with Mrs. Huxley) were extremely pleasant. But poor dear Hooker is tired to death of my book, and it is a marvel and a prodigy if you are not worse tired--if that be possible. Farewell, my dear Lyell,
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [April 13th, 1860].