My dear Dr. Ogle,
You will think me a horrid bore, but I beg you, IN RELATION TO A NEW POINT FOR OBSERVATION, to imagine as well as you can that you suddenly come across some dreadful object, and act with a sudden little start, a SHUDDER OF HORROR; please do this once or twice, and observe yourself as well as you can, and AFTERWARDS read the rest of this note, which I have consequently pinned down. I find, to my surprise, whenever I act thus my platysma contracts. Does yours? (N.B.--See what a man will do for science; I began this note with a horrid fib, namely, that I want you to attend to a new point. (The point was doubtless described as a new one, to avoid the possibility of Dr. Ogle"s attention being directed to the platysma, a muscle which had been the subject of discussion in other letters.)) I will try and get some persons thus to act who are so lucky as not to know that they even possess this muscle, so troublesome for any one making out about expression. Is a shudder akin to the rigor or shivering before fever? If so, perhaps the platysma could be observed in such cases. Paget told me that he had attended much to shivering, and had written in MS. on the subject, and been much perplexed about it. He mentioned that pa.s.sing a catheter often causes shivering. Perhaps I will write to him about the platysma. He is always most kind in aiding me in all ways, but he is so overworked that it hurts my conscience to trouble him, for I have a conscience, little as you have reason to think so.
Help me if you can, and forgive me. Your murderer case has come in splendidly as the acme of prostration from fear.
Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO DR. OGLE. Down, April 29 [1871].
My dear Dr. Ogle,
I am truly obliged for all the great trouble which you have so kindly taken. I am sure you have no cause to say that you are sorry you can give me no definite information, for you have given me far more than I ever expected to get. The action of the platysma is not very important for me, but I believe that you will fully understand (for I have always fancied that our minds were very similar) the intolerable desire I had not to be utterly baffled. Now I know that it sometimes contracts from fear and from shuddering, but not apparently from a prolonged state of fear such as the insane suffer...
[Mr. Mivart"s "Genesis of Species,"--a contribution to the literature of Evolution, which excited much attention--was published in 1871, before the appearance of the "Descent of Man." To this book the following letter (June 21, 1871) from the late Chauncey Wright to my father refers. (Chauncey Wright was born at Northampton, Ma.s.sachusetts, September 20, 1830, and came of a family settled in that town since 1654. He became in 1852 a computer in the Nautical Almanac office at Cambridge, Ma.s.s., and lived a quiet uneventful life, supported by the small stipend of his office, and by what he earned from his occasional articles, as well as by a little teaching. He thought and read much on metaphysical subjects, but on the whole with an outcome (as far as the world was concerned) not commensurate to the power of his mind. He seems to have been a man of strong individuality, and to have made a lasting impression on his friends. He died in September, 1875.)]:
"I send... revised proofs of an article which will be published in the July number of the "North American Review," sending it in the hope that it will interest or even be of greater value to you. Mr. Mivart"s book ["Genesis of Species"] of which this article is substantially a review, seems to me a very good background from which to present the considerations which I have endeavoured to set forth in the article, in defence and ill.u.s.tration of the theory of Natural Selection. My special purpose has been to contribute to the theory by placing it in its proper relations to philosophical enquiries in general." ("Letters of Chauncey Wright," by J.B. Thayer. Privately printed, 1878, page 230.)
With regard to the proofs received from Mr. Wright, my father wrote to Mr. Wallace:]
Down, July 9 [1871].
My dear Wallace,
I send by this post a review by Chauncey Wright, as I much want your opinion of it as soon as you can send it. I consider you an incomparably better critic than I am. The article, though not very clearly written, and poor in parts from want of knowledge, seems to me admirable.
Mivart"s book is producing a great effect against Natural Selection, and more especially against me. Therefore if you think the article even somewhat good I will write and get permission to publish it as a shilling pamphlet, together with the MS. additions (enclosed), for which there was not room at the end of the review...
I am now at work at a new and cheap edition of the "Origin," and shall answer several points in Mivart"s book, and introduce a new chapter for this purpose; but I treat the subject so much more concretely, and I dare say less philosophically, than Wright, that we shall not interfere with each other. You will think me a bigot when I say, after studying Mivart, I was never before in my life so convinced of the GENERAL (i.e.
not in detail) truth of the views in the "Origin." I grieve to see the omission of the words by Mivart, detected by Wright. ("North American Review," volume 113, pages 83, 84. Chauncey Wright points out that the words omitted are "essential to the point on which he [Mr. Mivart] cites Mr. Darwin"s authority." It should be mentioned that the pa.s.sage from which words are omitted is not given within inverted commas by Mr.
Mivart.) I complained to Mivart that in two cases he quotes only the commencement of sentences by me, and thus modifies my meaning; but I never supposed he would have omitted words. There are other cases of what I consider unfair treatment. I conclude with sorrow that though he means to be honourable he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly...
CHARLES DARWIN TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, July 14, 1871.
My dear Sir,
I have hardly ever in my life read an article which has given me so much satisfaction as the review which you have been so kind as to send me.
I agree to almost everything which you say. Your memory must be wonderfully accurate, for you know my works as well as I do myself, and your power of grasping other men"s thoughts is something quite surprising; and this, as far as my experience goes, is a very rare quality. As I read on I perceived how you have acquired this power, viz.
by thoroughly a.n.a.lyzing each word.
... Now I am going to beg a favour. Will you provisionally give me permission to reprint your article as a shilling pamphlet? I ask only provisionally, as I have not yet had time to reflect on the subject. It would cost me, I fancy, with advertis.e.m.e.nts, some 20 or 30 pounds; but the worst is that, as I hear, pamphlets never will sell. And this makes me doubtful. Should you think it too much trouble to send me a t.i.tle FOR THE CHANCE? The t.i.tle ought, I think, to have Mr. Mivart"s name on it.
... If you grant permission and send a t.i.tle, you will kindly understand that I will first make further enquiries whether there is any chance of a pamphlet being read.
Pray believe me yours very sincerely obliged, CH. DARWIN.
[The pamphlet was published in the autumn, and on October 23 my father wrote to Mr. Wright:--
"It pleases me much that you are satisfied with the appearance of your pamphlet. I am sure it will do our cause good service; and this same opinion Huxley has expressed to me. ("Letters of Chauncey Wright," page 235."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, July 12 [1871].
... I feel very doubtful how far I shall succeed in answering Mivart, it is so difficult to answer objections to doubtful points, and make the discussion readable. I shall make only a selection. The worst of it is, that I cannot possibly hunt through all my references for isolated points, it would take me three weeks of intolerably hard work. I wish I had your power of arguing clearly. At present I feel sick of everything, and if I could occupy my time and forget my daily discomforts, or rather miseries, I would never publish another word. But I shall cheer up, I dare say, soon, having only just got over a bad attack. Farewell; G.o.d knows why I bother you about myself. I can say nothing more about missing-links than what I have said. I should rely much on pre-silurian times; but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre. Farewell.
... There is a most cutting review of me in the "Quarterly" (July 1871.); I have only read a few pages. The skill and style make me think of Mivart. I shall soon be viewed as the most despicable of men. This "Quarterly Review" tempts me to republish Ch. Wright, even if not read by any one, just to show some one will say a word against Mivart, and that his (i.e. Mivart"s) remarks ought not to be swallowed without some reflection... G.o.d knows whether my strength and spirit will last out to write a chapter versus Mivart and others; I do so hate controversy and feel I shall do it so badly.
[The above-mentioned "Quarterly" review was the subject of an article by Mr. Huxley in the November number of the "Contemporary Review." Here, also, are discussed Mr. Wallace"s "Contribution to the Theory of Natural Selection," and the second edition of Mr. Mivart"s "Genesis of Species."
What follows is taken from Mr. Huxley"s article. The "Quarterly"
reviewer, though being to some extent an evolutionist, believes that Man "differs more from an elephant or a gorilla, than do these from the dust of the earth on which they tread." The reviewer also declares that my father has "with needless opposition, set at naught the first principles of both philosophy and religion." Mr. Huxley pa.s.ses from the "Quarterly"
reviewer"s further statement, that there is no necessary opposition between evolution and religion, to the more definite position taken by Mr. Mivart, that the orthodox authorities of the Roman Catholic Church agree in distinctly a.s.serting derivative creation, so that "their teachings harmonise with all that modern science can possibly require."
Here Mr. Huxley felt the want of that "study of Christian philosophy"
(at any rate, in its Jesuitic garb), which Mr. Mivart speaks of, and it was a want he at once set to work to fill up. He was then staying at St.
Andrews, whence he wrote to my father:--
"By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with a good copy of Suarez (The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies.), in a dozen big folios. Among these I dived, to the great astonishment of the librarian, and looking into them "as the careful robin eyes the delver"s toil" (vide "Idylls"), I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes which were most promising." Even those who know Mr. Huxley"s unrivalled power of tearing the heart out of a book must marvel at the skill with which he has made Suarez speak on his side. "So I have come out," he wrote, "in the new character of a defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and upset Mivart out of the mouth of his own prophet."
The remainder of Mr. Huxley"s critique is largely occupied with a dissection of the "Quarterly" reviewer"s psychology, and his ethical views. He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace"s objections to the doctrine of Evolution by natural causes when applied to the mental faculties of Man.
Finally, he devotes a couple of pages to justifying his description of the "Quarterly" reviewer"s "treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike unjust and unbecoming."
It will be seen that the two following letters were written before the publication of Mr. Huxley"s article.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 21 [1871].
My dear Huxley,
Your letter has pleased me in many ways, to a wonderful degree... What a wonderful man you are to grapple with those old metaphysico-divinity books. It quite delights me that you are going to some extent to answer and attack Mivart. His book, as you say, has produced a great effect; yesterday I perceived the reverberations from it, even from Italy. It was this that made me ask Chauncey Wright to publish at my expense his article, which seems to me very clever, though ill-written. He has not knowledge enough to grapple with Mivart in detail. I think there can be no shadow of doubt that he is the author of the article in the "Quarterly Review"... I am preparing a new edition of the "Origin," and shall introduce a new chapter in answer to miscellaneous objections, and shall give up the greater part to answer Mivart"s cases of difficulty of incipient structures being of no use: and I find it can be done easily.
He never states his case fairly, and makes wonderful blunders... The pendulum is now swinging against our side, but I feel positive it will soon swing the other way; and no mortal man will do half as much as you in giving it a start in the right direction, as you did at the first commencement. G.o.d forgive me for writing so long and egotistical a letter; but it is your fault, for you have so delighted me; I never dreamed that you would have time to say a word in defence of the cause which you have so often defended. It will be a long battle, after we are dead and gone... Great is the power of misrepresentation...
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 30 [1871].
My dear Huxley,
It was very good of you to send the proof-sheets, for I was VERY anxious to read your article. I have been delighted with it. How you do smash Mivart"s theology: it is almost equal to your article versus Comte ("Fortnightly Review," 1869. With regard to the relations of Positivism to Science my father wrote to Mr. Spencer in 1875: "How curious and amusing it is to see to what an extent the Positivists hate all men of science; I fancy they are dimly conscious what laughable and gigantic blunders their prophet made in predicting the course of science."),--that never can be transcended... But I have been preeminently glad to read your discussion on [the "Quarterly"
reviewer"s] metaphysics, especially about reason and his definition of it. I felt sure he was wrong, but having only common observation and sense to trust to, I did not know what to say in my second edition of my "Descent." Now a footnote and reference to you will do the work... For me, this is one of the most IMPORTANT parts of the review. But for PLEASURE, I have been particularly glad that my few words ("Descent of Man," volume i. page 87. A discussion on the question whether an act done impulsively or instinctively can be called moral.) on the distinction, if it can be so called, between Mivart"s two forms of morality, caught your attention. I am so pleased that you take the same view, and give authorities for it; but I searched Mill in vain on this head. How well you argue the whole case. I am mounting climax on climax; for after all there is nothing, I think, better in your whole review than your arguments v. Wallace on the intellect of savages. I must tell you what Hooker said to me a few years ago. "When I read Huxley, I feel quite infantile in intellect." By Jove I have felt the truth of this throughout your review. What a man you are. There are scores of splendid pa.s.sages, and vivid flashes of wit. I have been a good deal more than merely pleased by the concluding part of your review; and all the more, as I own I felt mortified by the accusation of bigotry, arrogance, etc., in the "Quarterly Review." But I a.s.sure you, he may write his worst, and he will never mortify me again.
My dear Huxley, yours gratefully, CHARLES DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER. Haredene, Albury, August 2 [1871].
My dear Sir,
Your last letter has interested me greatly; it is wonderfully rich in facts and original thoughts. First, let me say that I have been much pleased by what you say about my book. It has had a VERY LARGE sale; but I have been much abused for it, especially for the chapter on the moral sense; and most of my reviewers consider the book as a poor affair. G.o.d knows what its merits may really be; all that I know is that I did my best. With familiarity I think naturalists will accept s.e.xual selection to a greater extent than they now seem inclined to do. I should very much like to publish your letter, but I do not see how it could be made intelligible, without numerous coloured ill.u.s.trations, but I will consult Mr. Wallace on this head. I earnestly hope that you keep notes of all your letters, and that some day you will publish a book: "Notes of a Naturalist in S. Brazil," or some such t.i.tle. Wallace will hardly admit the possibility of s.e.xual selection with Lepidoptera, and no doubt it is very improbable. Therefore, I am very glad to hear of your cases (which I will quote in the next edition) of the two sets of Hesperiadae, which display their wings differently, according to which surface is coloured. I cannot believe that such display is accidental and purposeless...