[The following letter refers to Mr. Wallace"s article in the April number of the "Quarterly Review" (My father wrote to Mr. Murray: "The article by Wallace is inimitably good, and it is a great triumph that such an article should appear in the "Quarterly," and will make the Bishop of Oxford and --gnash their teeth."), 1869, which to a large extent deals with the tenth edition of Sir Charles Lyell"s "Principles,"
published in 1867 and 1868. The review contains a striking pa.s.sage on Sir Charles Lyell"s confession of evolutionary faith in the tenth edition of his "Principles," which is worth quoting: "The history of science hardly presents so striking an instance of youthfulness of mind in advanced life as is shown by this abandonment of opinions so long held and so powerfully advocated; and if we bear in mind the extreme caution, combined with the ardent love of truth which characterise every work which our author has produced, we shall be convinced that so great a change was not decided on without long and anxious deliberation, and that the views now adopted must indeed be supported by arguments of overwhelming force. If for no other reason than that Sir Charles Lyell in his tenth edition has adopted it, the theory of Mr. Darwin deserves an attentive and respectful consideration from every earnest seeker after truth."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 14, 1869.
My dear Wallace,
I have been wonderfully interested by your article, and I should think Lyell will be much gratified by it. I declare if I had been editor, and had the power of directing you, I should have selected for discussion the very points which you have chosen. I have often said to younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) that they did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected; nevertheless, your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me. Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put more confidence in Croll than you seem to do; but I have been much struck by many of your remarks on degradation. Thomson"s views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles, and so I have been glad to read what you say. Your exposition of Natural Selection seems to me inimitably good; there never lived a better expounder than you. I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference between our views and Lamarck"s. One sometimes sees the odious expression, "Justice to myself compels me to say," etc., but you are the only man I ever heard of who persistently does himself an injustice, and never demands justice. Indeed, you ought in the review to have alluded to your paper in the "Linnean Journal," and I feel sure all our friends will agree in this. But you cannot "Burke" yourself, however much you may try, as may be seen in half the articles which appear. I was asked but the other day by a German professor for your paper, which I sent him. Altogether I look at your article as appearing in the "Quarterly" as an immense triumph for our cause. I presume that your remarks on Man are those to which you alluded in your note. If you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added by some one else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it. I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and proximate cause in regard to man. (Mr. Wallace points out that any one acquainted merely with the "unaided productions of nature," might reasonably doubt whether a dray-horse, for example, could have been developed by the power of man directing the "action of the laws of variation, multiplication, and survival, for his own purpose. We know, however, that this has been done, and we must therefore admit the possibility that in the development of the human race, a higher intelligence has guided the same laws for n.o.bler ends.") But the subject is too long for a letter. I have been particularly glad to read your discussion because I am now writing and thinking much about man.
I hope that your Malay book sells well; I was extremely pleased with the article in the "Quarterly Journal of Science," inasmuch as it is thoroughly appreciative of your work: alas! you will probably agree with what the writer says about the uses of the bamboo.
I hear that there is also a good article in the "Sat.u.r.day Review", but have heard nothing more about it. Believe me my dear Wallace,
Yours ever sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, May 4 [1869].
My dear Lyell,
I have been applied to for some photographs (carte de visite) to be copied to ornament the diplomas of honorary members of a new Society in Servia! Will you give me one for this purpose? I possess only a full-length one of you in my own alb.u.m, and the face is too small, I think, to be copied.
I hope that you get on well with your work, and have satisfied yourself on the difficult point of glacier lakes. Thank heaven, I have finished correcting the new edition of the "Origin," and am at my old work of s.e.xual Selection.
Wallace"s article struck me as ADMIRABLE; how well he brought out the revolution which you effected some 30 years ago. I thought I had fully appreciated the revolution, but I was astounded at the extracts from Cuvier. What a good sketch of natural selection! but I was dreadfully disappointed about Man, it seems to me incredibly strange...; and had I not known to the contrary, would have sworn it had been inserted by some other hand. But I believe that you will not agree quite in all this.
My dear Lyell, ever yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.L.A. DE QUATREf.a.gES. Down, May 28 [1869 or 1870].
Dear Sir,
I have received and read your volume (Essays reprinted from the "Revue des Deux Mondes," under the t.i.tle "Histoire Naturelle Generale," etc., 1869.), and am much obliged for your present. The whole strikes me as a wonderfully clear and able discussion, and I was much interested by it to the last page. It is impossible that any account of my views could be fairer, or, as far as s.p.a.ce permitted, fuller, than that which you have given. The way in which you repeatedly mention my name is most gratifying to me. When I had finished the second part, I thought that you had stated the case so favourably that you would make more converts on my side than on your own side. On reading the subsequent parts I had to change my sanguine view. In these latter parts many of your strictures are severe enough, but all are given with perfect courtesy and fairness. I can truly say I would rather be criticised by you in this manner than praised by many others. I agree with some of your criticisms, but differ entirely from the remainder; but I will not trouble you with any remarks. I may, however, say, that you must have been deceived by the French translation, as you infer that I believe that the Parus and the Nuthatch (or Sitta) are related by direct filiation. I wished only to show by an imaginary ill.u.s.tration, how either instincts or structures might first change. If you had seen Canis Magellanicus alive you would have perceived how foxlike its appearance is, or if you had heard its voice, I think that you would never have hazarded the idea that it was a domestic dog run wild; but this does not much concern me. It is curious how nationality influences opinion; a week hardly pa.s.ses without my hearing of some naturalist in Germany who supports my views, and often puts an exaggerated value on my works; whilst in France I have not heard of a single zoologist, except M.
Gaudry (and he only partially), who supports my views. But I must have a good many readers as my books are translated, and I must hope, notwithstanding your strictures, that I may influence some embryo naturalists in France.
You frequently speak of my good faith, and no compliment can be more delightful to me, but I may return you the compliment with interest, for every word which you write bears the stamp of your cordial love for the truth. Believe me, dear Sir, with sincere respect,
Yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 14 [1869].
My dear Huxley,
I have been delighted to see your review of Haeckel (A review of Haeckel"s "Schopfungs-Geschichte." The "Academy", 1869. Reprinted in "Critiques and Addresses," page 303.), and as usual you pile honours high on my head. But I write now (REQUIRING NO ANSWER) to groan a little over what you have said about rudimentary organs. (In discussing Teleology and Haeckel"s "Dysteleology," Prof. Huxley says:--"Such cases as the existence of lateral rudiments of toes, in the foot of a horse, place us in a dilemma. For either these rudiments are of no use to the animals, in which case... they surely ought to have disappeared; or they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no use as arguments against Teleology."--("Critiques and Addresses," page 308.) Many heretics will take advantage of what you have said. I cannot but think that the explanation given at page 541 of the last edition of the "Origin" of the long retention of rudimentary organs and of their greater relative size during early life, is satisfactory. Their final and complete abortion seems to me a much greater difficulty. Do look in my "Variations under Domestication," volume ii. page 397, at what Pangenesis suggests on this head, though I did not dare to put in the "Origin." The pa.s.sage bears also a little on the struggle between the molecules or gemmules. ("It is a probable hypothesis, that what the world is to organisms in general, each organism is to the molecules of which it is composed. Mult.i.tudes of these having diverse tendencies, are competing with one another for opportunity to exist and multiply; and the organism, as a whole, is as much the product of the molecules which are victorious as the Fauna, or Flora, of a country is the product of the victorious organic beings in it."--("Critiques and Addresses," page 309.) There is likewise a word or two indirectly bearing on this subject at pages 394-395. It won"t take you five minutes, so do look at these pa.s.sages. I am very glad that you have been bold enough to give your idea about Natural Selection amongst the molecules, though I can not quite follow you.
1870 AND BEGINNING OF 1871.
[My father wrote in his Diary:--"The whole of this year [1870] at work on the "Descent of Man."... Went to Press August 30, 1870."
The letters are again of miscellaneous interest, dealing, not only with his work, but also serving to indicate the course of his reading.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO E. RAY LANKESTER. Down, March 15 [1870].
My dear Sir,
I do not know whether you will consider me a very troublesome man, but I have just finished your book ("Comparative Longevity."), and can not resist telling you how the whole has much interested me. No doubt, as you say, there must be much speculation on such a subject, and certain results can not be reached; but all your views are highly suggestive, and to my mind that is high praise. I have been all the more interested as I am now writing on closely allied though not quite identical points.
I was pleased to see you refer to my much despised child, "Pangenesis,"
who I think will some day, under some better nurse, turn out a fine stripling. It has also pleased me to see how thoroughly you appreciate (and I do not think that this is general with the men of science) H.
Spencer; I suspect that hereafter he will be looked at as by far the greatest living philosopher in England; perhaps equal to any that have lived. But I have no business to trouble you with my notions. With sincere thanks for the interest which your work has given me,
I remain, yours very faithfully, CH. DARWIN.
[The next letter refers to Mr. Wallace"s "Natural Selection" (1870), a collection of essays reprinted with certain alterations of which a list is given in the volume:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 20 [1870].
My dear Wallace,
I have just received your book, and read the preface. There never has been pa.s.sed on me, or indeed on any one, a higher eulogium than yours.
I wish that I fully deserved it. Your modesty and candour are very far from new to me. I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect--and very few things in my life have been more satisfactory to me--that we have never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in one sense rivals.
I believe that I can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is true of you.
You have been a good Christian to give a list of your additions, for I want much to read them, and I should hardly have had time just at present to have gone through all your articles. Of course I shall immediately read those that are new or greatly altered, and I will endeavour to be as honest as can reasonably be expected. Your book looks remarkably well got up.
Believe me, my dear Wallace, to remain, Yours very cordially, CH.
DARWIN.
[Here follow one or two letters indicating the progress of the "Descent of Man;" the woodcuts referred to were being prepared for that work:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A. GUNTHER. (Dr. Gunther, Keeper of Zoology in the British Museum.) March 23, [1870?].
Dear Gunther,
As I do not know Mr. Ford"s address, will you hand him this note, which is written solely to express my unbounded admiration of the woodcuts.
I fairly gloat over them. The only evil is that they will make all the other woodcuts look very poor! They are all excellent, and for the feathers I declare I think it the most wonderful woodcut I ever saw; I can not help touching it to make sure that it is smooth. How I wish to see the two other, and even more important, ones of the feathers, and the four [of] reptiles, etc. Once again accept my very sincere thanks for all your kindness. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Ford. Engravings have always. .h.i.therto been my greatest misery, and now they are a real pleasure to me.
Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--I thought I should have been in press by this time, but my subject has branched off into sub-branches, which have cost me infinite time, and heaven knows when I shall have all my MS. ready, but I am never idle.