CHARLES DARWIN TO A. GUNTHER. May 15 [1870].
My dear Dr. Gunther,
Sincere thanks. Your answers are wonderfully clear and complete. I have some a.n.a.logous questions on reptiles, etc., which I will send in a few days, and then I think I shall cause no more trouble. I will get the books you refer me to. The case of the Solenostoma (In most of the Lophobranchii the male has a marsupial sack in which the eggs are hatched, and in these species the male is slightly brighter coloured than the female. But in Solenostoma the female is the hatcher, and is also the more brightly coloured.--"Descent of Man," ii. 21.) is magnificent, so exactly a.n.a.logous to that of those birds in which the female is the more gay, but ten times better for me, as she is the incubator. As I crawl on with the successive cla.s.ses I am astonished to find how similar the rules are about the nuptial or "wedding dress" of all animals. The subject has begun to interest me in an extraordinary degree; but I must try not to fall into my common error of being too speculative. But a drunkard might as well say he would drink a little and not too much! My essay, as far as fishes, batrachians and reptiles are concerned, will be in fact yours, only written by me. With hearty thanks.
Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
[The following letter is of interest, as showing the excessive care and pains which my father took in forming his opinion on a difficult point:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, September 23 [undated].
My dear Wallace,
I am very much obliged for all your trouble in writing me your long letter, which I will keep by me and ponder over. To answer it would require at least 200 folio pages! If you could see how often I have re-written some pages you would know how anxious I am to arrive as near as I can to the truth. I lay great stress on what I know takes place under domestication; I think we start with different fundamental notions on inheritance. I find it is most difficult, but not I think impossible, to see how, for instance, a few red feathers appearing on the head of a male bird, and which ARE AT FIRST TRANSMITTED TO BOTH s.e.xES, could come to be transmitted to males alone. It is not enough that females should be produced from the males with red feathers, which should be dest.i.tute of red feathers; but these females must have a LATENT TENDENCY to produce such feathers, otherwise they would cause deterioration in the red head-feathers of their male offspring. Such latent tendency would be shown by their producing the red feathers when old, or diseased in their ovaria. But I have no difficulty in making the whole head red if the few red feathers in the male from the first tended to be s.e.xually transmitted. I am quite willing to admit that the female may have been modified, either at the same time or subsequently, for protection by the acc.u.mulation of variations limited in their transmission to the female s.e.x. I owe to your writings the consideration of this latter point. But I cannot yet persuade myself that females ALONE have often been modified for protection. Should you grudge the trouble briefly to tell me whether you believe that the plainer head and less bright colours of a female chaffinch, the less red on the head and less clean colours of the female goldfinch, the much less red on the breast of the female bull-finch, the paler crest of golden-crested wren, etc., have been acquired by them for protection. I cannot think so any more than I can that the considerable differences between female and male house sparrow, or much greater brightness of the male Parus coeruleus (both of which build under cover) than of the female Parus, are related to protection. I even mis-doubt much whether the less blackness of the female blackbird is for protection.
Again, can you give me reasons for believing that the moderate differences between the female pheasant, the female Gallus bankiva, the female black grouse, the pea-hen, the female partridge, [and their respective males,] have all special references to protection under slightly different conditions? I, of course, admit that they are all protected by dull colours, derived, as I think, from some dull-ground progenitor; and I account partly for their difference by partial transference of colour from the male and by other means too long to specify; but I earnestly wish to see reason to believe that each is specially adapted for concealment to its environment.
I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me and makes me constantly distrust myself. I fear we shall never quite understand each other. I value the cases of bright-coloured, incubating male fishes, and brilliant female b.u.t.terflies, solely as showing that one s.e.x may be made brilliant without any necessary transference of beauty to the other s.e.x; for in these cases I cannot suppose that beauty in the other s.e.x was checked by selection.
I fear this letter will trouble you to read it. A very short answer about your belief in regard to the female finches and gallinaceae would suffice.
Believe me, my dear Wallace, Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 25 [1870].
... Last Friday we all went to the Bull Hotel at Cambridge to see the boys, and for a little rest and enjoyment. The backs of the Colleges are simply paradisaical. On Monday I saw Sedgwick, who was most cordial and kind; in the morning I thought his brain was enfeebled; in the evening he was brilliant and quite himself. His affection and kindness charmed us all. My visit to him was in one way unfortunate; for after a long sit he proposed to take me to the museum, and I could not refuse, and in consequence he utterly prostrated me; so that we left Cambridge next morning, and I have not recovered the exhaustion yet. Is it not humiliating to be thus killed by a man of eighty-six, who evidently never dreamed that he was killing me? As he said to me, "Oh, I consider you as a mere baby to me!" I saw Newton several times, and several nice friends of F."s. But Cambridge without dear Henslow was not itself; I tried to get to the two old houses, but it was too far for me...
CHARLES DARWIN TO B.J. SULIVAN. (Admiral Sir James Sulivan was a lieutenant on board the "Beagle".) Down, June 30 [1870].
My dear Sulivan,
It was very good of you to write to me so long a letter, telling me much about yourself and your children, which I was extremely glad to hear.
Think what a benighted wretch I am, seeing no one and reading but little in the newspapers, for I did not know (until seeing the paper of your Natural History Society) that you were a K.C.B. Most heartily glad I am that the Government have at last appreciated your most just claim for this high distinction. On the other hand, I am sorry to hear so poor an account of your health; but you were surely very rash to do all that you did and then pa.s.s through so exciting a scene as a ball at the Palace.
It was enough to have tired a man in robust health. Complete rest will, however, I hope, quite set you up again. As for myself, I have been rather better of late, and if nothing disturbs me I can do some hours"
work every day. I shall this autumn publish another book partly on man, which I dare say many will decry as very wicked. I could have travelled to Oxford, but could no more have withstood the excitement of a commemoration (This refers to an invitation to receive the honorary degree of D.C.L. He was one of those nominated for the degree by Lord Salisbury on a.s.suming the office of Chancellor of the University of Oxford. The fact that the honour was declined on the score of ill-health was published in the "Oxford University Gazette", June 17, 1870.) than I could a ball at Buckingham Palace. Many thanks for your kind remarks about my boys. Thank G.o.d, all give me complete satisfaction; my fourth stands second at Woolwich, and will be an Engineer Officer at Christmas.
My wife desires to be very kindly remembered to Lady Sulivan, in which I very sincerely join, and in congratulation about your daughter"s marriage. We are at present solitary, for all our younger children are gone a tour in Switzerland. I had never heard a word about the success of the T. del Fuego mission. It is most wonderful, and shames me, as I always prophesied utter failure. It is a grand success. I shall feel proud if your Committee think fit to elect me an honorary member of your society. With all good wishes and affectionate remembrances of ancient days,
Believe me, my dear Sulivan, Your sincere friend, CH. DARWIN.
[My father"s connection with the South American Mission, which is referred to in the above letter, has given rise to some public comment, and has been to some extent misunderstood. The Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking at the annual meeting of the South American Missionary Society, April 21st, 1885 (I quote a "Leaflet," published by the Society.), said that the Society "drew the attention of Charles Darwin, and made him, in his pursuit of the wonders of the kingdom of nature, realise that there was another kingdom just as wonderful and more lasting." Some discussion on the subject appeared in the "Daily News" of April 23rd, 24th, 29th, 1885, and finally Admiral Sir James Sulivan, on April 24th, wrote to the same journal, giving a clear account of my father"s connection with the Society:--
"Your article in the "Daily News" of yesterday induces me to give you a correct statement of the connection between the South American Missionary Society and Mr. Charles Darwin, my old friend and shipmate for five years. I have been closely connected with the Society from the time of Captain Allen Gardiner"s death, and Mr. Darwin has often expressed to me his conviction that it was utterly useless to send Missionaries to such a set of savages as the Fuegians, probably the very lowest of the human race. I had always replied that I did not believe any human beings existed too low to comprehend the simple message of the Gospel of Christ. After many years, I think about 1869 (It seems to have been in 1867.), but I cannot find the letter, he wrote to me that the recent accounts of the Mission proved to him that he had been wrong and I right in our estimates of the native character, and the possibility of doing them good through Missionaries; and he requested me to forward to the Society an enclosed cheque for 5 pounds, as a testimony of the interest he took in their good work. On June 6th, 1874, he wrote: "I am very glad to hear so good an account of the Fuegians, and it is wonderful." On June 10th, 1879: "The progress of the Fuegians is wonderful, and had it not occurred would have been to me quite incredible." On January 3rd, 1880: "Your extracts" [from a journal]
"about the Fuegians are extremely curious, and have interested me much.
I have often said that the progress of j.a.pan was the greatest wonder in the world, but I declare that the progress of Fuegia is almost equally wonderful. On March 20th, 1881: "The account of the Fuegians interested not only me, but all my family. It is truly wonderful what you have heard from Mr. Bridges about their honesty and their language. I certainly should have predicted that not all the Missionaries in the world could have done what has been done." On December 1st, 1881, sending me his annual subscription to the Orphanage at the Mission Station, he wrote: "Judging from the "Missionary Journal", the Mission in Tierra del Fuego seems going on quite wonderfully well.""]
CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Down, July 17, 1870.
My dear Lubbock,
As I hear that the Census will be brought before the House to-morrow, I write to say how much I hope that you will express your opinion on the desirability of queries in relation to consanguineous marriages being inserted. As you are aware, I have made experiments on the subject during several years; AND IT IS MY CLEAR CONVICTION THAT THERE IS NOW AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A GREAT PHYSIOLOGICAL LAW, RENDERING AN ENQUIRY WITH REFERENCE TO MANKIND OF MUCH IMPORTANCE. IN ENGLAND AND MANY PARTS OF EUROPE THE MARRIAGES OF COUSINS ARE OBJECTED TO FROM THEIR SUPPOSED INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES; BUT THIS BELIEF RESTS ON NO DIRECT EVIDENCE. IT IS THEREFORE MANIFESTLY DESIRABLE THAT THE BELIEF SHOULD EITHER BE PROVED FALSE, OR SHOULD BE CONFIRMED, so that in this latter case the marriages of cousins might be discouraged. If the proper queries are inserted, the returns would show whether married cousins have in their households on the night of the census as many children as have parents of who are not related; and should the number prove fewer, we might safely infer either lessened fertility in the parents, or which is more probable, lessened vitality in the offspring.
It is, moreover, much to be wished that the truth of the often repeated a.s.sertion that consanguineous marriages lead to deafness, and dumbness, blindness, etc., should be ascertained; and all such a.s.sertions could be easily tested by the returns from a single census.
Believe me, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
[When the Census Act was pa.s.sing through the House of Commons, Sir John Lubbock and Dr. Playfair attempted to carry out this suggestion. The question came to a division, which was lost, but not by many votes.
The subject of cousin marriages was afterwards investigated by my brother. ("Marriages between First Cousins in England, and their Effects." By George Darwin. "Journal of the Statistical Society," June, 1875.) The results of this laborious piece of work were negative; the author sums up in the sentence:--
"My paper is far from giving any thing like a satisfactory solution of the question as to the effects of consanguineous marriages, but it does, I think, show that the a.s.sertion that this question has already been set at rest, cannot be substantiated."]
CHAPTER 2.VII. -- PUBLICATION OF THE "DESCENT OF MAN."
WORK ON "EXPRESSION."
1871-1873.
[The last revise of the "Descent of Man" was corrected on January 15th, 1871, so that the book occupied him for about three years. He wrote to Sir J. Hooker: "I finished the last proofs of my book a few days ago, the work half-killed me, and I have not the most remote idea whether the book is worth publishing."
He also wrote to Dr. Gray:--
"I have finished my book on the "Descent of Man," etc., and its publication is delayed only by the Index: when published, I will send you a copy, but I do not know that you will care about it. Parts, as on the moral sense, will, I dare say, aggravate you, and if I hear from you, I shall probably receive a few stabs from your polished stiletto of a pen."
The book was published on February 24, 1871. 2500 copies were printed at first, and 5000 more before the end of the year. My father notes that he received for this edition 1470 pounds. The letters given in the present chapter deal with its reception, and also with the progress of the work on Expression. The letters are given, approximately, in chronological order, an arrangement which necessarily separates letters of kindred subjec-matter, but gives perhaps a truer picture of the mingled interests and labours of my father"s life.
Nothing can give a better idea (in small compa.s.s) of the growth of Evolutionism and its position at this time, than a quotation from Mr.
Huxley ("Contemporary Review," 1871.):--
"The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more than a decade from the date of the publication of the "Origin of Species;" and whatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin"s doctrines, or the manner in which he has propounded them, this much is certain, that in a dozen years the "Origin of Species" has worked as complete a revolution in Biological Science as the "Principia" did in Astronomy;" and it has done so, "because, in the words of Helmholtz, it contains "an essentially new creative thought." And, as time has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin"s critics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which at first characterised a large proportion of the attacks with which he was a.s.sailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti-Darwinian criticism."
A pa.s.sage in the Introduction to the "Descent of Man" shows that the author recognised clearly this improvement in the position of Evolution.
"When a naturalist like Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address, as President of the National Inst.i.tution of Geneva (1869), "personne en Europe au moins, n"ose plus soutenir la creation independante et de toutes pieces, des especes," it is manifest that at least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good with the younger and rising naturalists... Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural science, many, unfortunately, are still opposed to Evolution in every form."
In Mr. James Hague"s pleasantly written article, "A Reminiscence of Mr.
Darwin" ("Harper"s Magazine," October 1884), he describes a visit to my father "early in 1871" (it must have been at the end of February, within a week after the publication of the book.), shortly after the publication of the "Descent of Man." Mr. Hague represents my father as "much impressed by the general a.s.sent with which his views had been received," and as remarking that "everybody is talking about it without being shocked."
Later in the year the reception of the book is described in different language in the "Edinburgh Review" (July 1871. An adverse criticism.
The reviewer sums up by saying that: "Never perhaps in the history of philosophy have such wide generalisations been derived from such a small basis of fact."): "On every side it is raising a storm of mingled wrath, wonder, and admiration."