"I shall be glad to hear when you have decided how many copies you will print off--the more the better for me in all ways, as far as compatible with safety; for I hope never again to make so many corrections, or rather additions, which I have made in hopes of making my many rather stupid reviewers at least understand what is meant. I hope and think I shall improve the book considerably."
An interesting feature in the new edition was the "Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species" (The Historical Sketch had already appeared in the first German edition (1860) and the American edition. Bronn states in the German edition (footnote, page 1) that it was his critique in the "N. Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie" that suggested the idea of such a sketch to my father.) which now appeared for the first time, and was continued in the later editions of the work.
It bears a strong impress of the author"s personal character in the obvious wish to do full justice to all his predecessors,--though even in this respect it has not escaped some adverse criticism.
Towards the end of the present year (1861), the final arrangements for the first French edition of the "Origin" were completed, and in September a copy of the third English edition was despatched to Mdlle.
Clemence Royer, who undertook the work of translation. The book was now spreading on the Continent, a Dutch edition had appeared, and, as we have seen, a German translation had been published in 1860. In a letter to Mr. Murray (September 10, 1861), he wrote, "My book seems exciting much attention in Germany, judging from the number of discussions sent me." The silence had been broken, and in a few years the voice of German science was to become one of the strongest of the advocates of evolution.
During all the early part of the year (1861) he was working at the ma.s.s of details which are marshalled in order in the early chapter of "Animals and Plants." Thus in his Diary occur the laconic entries, "May 16, Finished Fowls (eight weeks); May 31, Ducks."
On July 1, he started, with his family, for Torquay, where he remained until August 27--a holiday which he characteristically enters in his diary as "eight weeks and a day." The house he occupied was in Hesketh Crescent, a pleasantly placed row of houses close above the sea, somewhat removed from what was then the main body of the town, and not far from the beautiful cliffed coast-line in the neighbourhood of Anstey"s Cove.
During the Torquay holiday, and for the remainder of the year, he worked at the fertilisation of orchids. This part of the year 1861 is not dealt with in the present chapter, because (as explained in the preface) the record of his life, as told in his letters, seems to become clearer when the whole of his botanical work is placed together and treated separately. The present series of chapters will, therefore, include only the progress of his works in the direction of a general amplification of the "Origin of Species"--e.g., the publication of "Animals and Plants,"
"Descent of Man," etc.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 15 [1861].
My dear Hooker,
The sight of your handwriting always rejoices the very c.o.c.kles of my heart...
I most fully agree to what you say about Huxley"s Article ("Natural History Review," 1861, page 67, "On the Zoological Relations of Man with the Lower Animals." This memoir had its origin in a discussion at the previous meeting of the British a.s.sociation, when Professor Huxley felt himself "compelled to give a diametrical contradiction to certain a.s.sertions respecting the differences which obtain between the brains of the higher apes and of man, which fell from Professor Owen." But in order that his criticisms might refer to deliberately recorded words, he bases them on Professor Owen"s paper, "On the Characters, etc., of the Cla.s.s Mammalia," read before the Linnean Society in February and April, 1857, in which he proposed to place man not only in a distinct order, but in "a distinct su-cla.s.s of the Mammalia"--the Archencephala.), and the power of writing... The whole review seems to me excellent. How capitally Oliver has done the resume of botanical books. Good Heavens, how he must have read!...
I quite agree that Phillips ("Life on the Earth" (1860), by Prof.
Phillips, containing the substance of the Rede Lecture (May 1860).) is unreadably dull. You need not attempt Bree. (The following sentence (page 16) from "Species not Trans.m.u.table," by Dr. Bree, ill.u.s.trates the degree in which he understood the "Origin of Species": "The only real difference between Mr. Darwin and his two predecessors" [Lamarck and the "Vestiges"] "is this:--that while the latter have each given a mode by which they conceive the great changes they believe in have been brought about, Mr. Darwin does no such thing." After this we need not be surprised at a pa.s.sage in the preface: "No one has derived greater pleasure than I have in past days from the study of Mr. Darwin"s other works, and no one has felt a greater degree of regret that he should have imperilled his fame by the publication of his treatise upon the "Origin of Species."")...
If you come across Dr. Freke on "Origin of Species by means of Organic Affinity," read a page here and there... He tells the reader to observe [that his result] has been arrived at by "induction," whereas all my results are arrived at only by "a.n.a.logy." I see a Mr. Neale has read a paper before the Zoological Society on "Typical Selection;" what it means I know not. I have not read H. Spencer, for I find that I must more and more husband the very little strength which I have. I sometimes suspect I shall soon entirely fail... As soon as this dreadful weather gets a little milder, I must try a little water cure. Have you read the "Woman in White"? the plot is wonderfully interesting. I can recommend a book which has interested me greatly, viz. Olmsted"s "Journey in the Back Country." It is an admirably lively picture of man and slavery in the Southern States...
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. February 2, 1861.
My dear Lyell,
I have thought you would like to read the enclosed pa.s.sage in a letter from A. Gray (who is printing his reviews as a pamphlet ("Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology," from the "Atlantic Monthly" for July, August, and October, 1860; published by Trubner.), and will send copies to England), as I think his account is really favourable in high degree to us:--
"I wish I had time to write you an account of the lengths to which Bowen and Aga.s.siz, each in their own way, are going. The first denying all heredity (all transmission except specific) whatever. The second coming near to deny that we are genetically descended from our great-grea-grandfathers; and insisting that evidently affiliated languages, e.g. Latin, Greek, Sanscrit, owe none of their similarities to a community of origin, are all autochthonal; Aga.s.siz admits that the derivation of languages, and that of species or forms, stand on the same foundation, and that he must allow the latter if he allows the former, which I tell him is perfectly logical."
Is not this marvellous?
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 4 [1861].
My dear Hooker,
I was delighted to get your long chatty letter, and to hear that you are thawing towards science. I almost wish you had remained frozen rather longer; but do not thaw too quickly and strongly. No one can work long as you used to do. Be idle; but I am a pretty man to preach, for I cannot be idle, much as I wish it, and am never comfortable except when at work. The word holiday is written in a dead language for me, and much I grieve at it. We thank you sincerely for your kind sympathy about poor H. [his daughter]... She has now come up to her old point, and can sometimes get up for an hour or two twice a day... Never to look to the future or as little as possible is becoming our rule of life. What a different thing life was in youth with no dread in the future; all golden, if baseless, hopes.
... With respect to the "Natural History Review" I can hardly think that ladies would be so very sensitive about "lizards" guts;" but the publication is at present certainly a sort of hybrid, and original ill.u.s.trated papers ought hardly to appear in a review. I doubt its ever paying; but I shall much regret if it dies. All that you say seems very sensible, but could a review in the strict sense of the word be filled with readable matter?
I have been doing little, except finishing the new edition of the "Origin," and crawling on most slowly with my volume of "Variation under Domestication"...
[The following letter refers to Mr. Bates"s paper, "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley," in the "Transactions of the Entomological Society," vol.5, N.S. (The paper was read November 24, 1860.) Mr. Bates points out that with the return, after the glacial period, of a warmer climate in the equatorial regions, the "species then living near the equator would retreat north and south to their former homes, leaving some of their congeners, slowly modified subsequently... to re-people the zone they had forsaken." In this case the species now living at the equator ought to show clear relationship to the species inhabiting the regions about the 25th parallel, whose distant relatives they would of course be. But this is not the case, and this is the difficulty my father refers to. Mr. Belt has offered an explanation in his "Naturalist in Nicaragua" (1874), page 266. "I believe the answer is that there was much extermination during the glacial period, that many species (and some genera, etc., as, for instance, the American horse), did not survive it... but that a refuge was found for many species on lands now below the ocean, that were uncovered by the lowering of the sea, caused by the immense quant.i.ty of water that was locked up in frozen ma.s.ses on the land."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 27th [March 1861].
My dear Hooker,
I had intended to have sent you Bates"s article this very day. I am so glad you like it. I have been extremely much struck with it. How well he argues, and with what crushing force against the glacial doctrine. I cannot wriggle out of it: I am dumbfounded; yet I do believe that some explanation some day will appear, and I cannot give up equatorial cooling. It explains so much and harmonises with so much. When you write (and much interested I shall be in your letter) please say how far floras are generally uniform in generic character from 0 to 25 degrees N. and S.
Before reading Bates, I had become thoroughly dissatisfied with what I wrote to you. I hope you may get Bates to write in the "Linnean."
Here is a good joke: H.C. Watson (who, I fancy and hope, is going to review the new edition (third edition of 2000 copies, published in April, 1861.) of the "Origin") says that in the first four paragraphs of the introduction, the words "I," "me," "my," occur forty-three times!
I was dimly conscious of the accursed fact. He says it can be explained phrenologically, which I suppose civilly means, that I am the most egotistically self-sufficient man alive; perhaps so. I wonder whether he will print this pleasing fact; it beats hollow the parentheses in Wollaston"s writing.
_I_ am, MY dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--Do not spread this pleasing joke; it is rather too biting.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [April] 23? [1861].
... I quite agree with what you say on Lieutenant Hutton"s Review (In the "Geologist," 1861, page 132, by Lieutenant Frederick Wollaston Hutton, now Professor of Biology and Geology at Canterbury College, New Zealand.) (who he is I know not); it struck me as very original. He is one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be directly proved, and that the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains phenomena. It is really curious how few judge it in this way, which is clearly the right way. I have been much interested by Bentham"s paper ("On the Species and Genera of Plants, etc.," "Natural History Review," 1861, page 133.) in the N.H.R., but it would not, of course, from familiarity strike you as it did me. I liked the whole; all the facts on the nature of close and varying species. Good Heavens! to think of the British botanists turning up their noses, and saying that he knows nothing of British plants! I was also pleased at his remarks on cla.s.sification, because it showed me that I wrote truly on this subject in the "Origin." I saw Bentham at the Linnean Society, and had some talk with him and Lubbock, and Edgeworth, Wallich, and several others. I asked Bentham to give us his ideas of species; whether partially with us or dead against us, he would write EXCELLENT matter. He made no answer, but his manner made me think he might do so if urged; so do you attack him. Every one was speaking with affection and anxiety of Henslow.
(Prof. Henslow was in his last illness.) I dined with Bell at the Linnean Club, and liked my dinner... Dining out is such a novelty to me that I enjoyed it. Bell has a real good heart. I liked Rolleston"s paper, but I never read anything so obscure and not sel-evident as his "Canons." (George Rolleston, M.D., F.R.S., 1829-1881. Linacre Professor of Anatomy and Physiology at Oxford. A man of much learning, who left but few published works, among which may be mentioned his handbook "Forms of Animal Life." For the "Canons," see "Nat. Hist. Review," 1861, page 206.)... I called on R. Chambers, at his very nice house in St.
John"s Wood, and had a very pleasant half-hour"s talk; he is really a capital fellow. He made one good remark and chuckled over it, that the laymen universally had treated the controversy on the "Essays and Reviews" as a merely professional subject, and had not joined in it, but had left it to the clergy. I shall be anxious for your next letter about Henslow. (Sir Joseph Hooker was Prof. Henslow"s son-in-law.) Farewell, with sincere sympathy, my old friend,
C. DARWIN.
P.S.--We are very much obliged for the "London Review." We like reading much of it, and the science is incomparably better than in the "Athenaeum". You shall not go on very long sending it, as you will be ruined by pennies and trouble, but I am under a horrid spell to the "Athenaeum" and the "Gardener"s Chronicle", but I have taken them in for so many years, that I CANNOT give them up.
[The next letter refers to Lyell"s visit to the Biddenham gravel-pits near Bedford in April 1861. The visit was made at the invitation of Mr.
James Wyatt, who had recently discovered two stone implements "at the depth of thirteen feet from the surface of the soil," resting "immediately on solid beds of oolitic-limestone." ("Antiquity of Man,"
fourth edition, page 214.) Here, says Sir C. Lyell, "I... for the first time, saw evidence which satisfied me of the chronological relations of those three phenomena--the antique tools, the extinct mammalia, and the glacial formation."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, April 12 [1861].
My dear Lyell,
I have been most deeply interested by your letter. You seem to have done the grandest work, and made the greatest step, of any one with respect to man.
It is an especial relief to hear that you think the French superficial deposits are deltoid and semi-marine; but two days ago I was saying to a friend, that the unknown manner of the acc.u.mulation of these deposits, seemed the great blot in all the work done. I could not stomach debacles or lacustrine beds. It is grand. I remember Falconer told me that he thought some of the remains in the Devonshire caverns were pre-glacial, and this, I presume, is now your conclusion for the older celts with hyena and hippopotamus. It is grand. What a fine long pedigree you have given the human race!
I am sure I never thought of parallel roads having been acc.u.mulated during subsidence. I think I see some difficulties on this view, though, at first reading your note, I jumped at the idea. But I will think over all I saw there. I am (stomacho volente) coming up to London on Tuesday to work on c.o.c.ks and hens, and on Wednesday morning, about a quarter before ten, I will call on you (unless I hear to the contrary), for I long to see you. I congratulate you on your grand work.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.