C.D.-- -- Thinks this applies to me; I do not think so--i.e., as far as eccentricity. I suppose that I have shown originality in science, as I have made discoveries with regard to common objects. R.D.--Original character, had great personal influence and power of producing fear of himself in others. He kept his accounts with great care in a peculiar way, in a number of separate little books, without any general ledger.
SPECIAL TALENTS?
C.D.--None, except for business as evinced by keeping accounts, replies to correspondence, and investing money very well. Very methodical in all my habits. R.D.--Practical business--made a large fortune and incurred no losses.
STRONGLY MARKED MENTAL PECULIARITIES, BEARING ON SCIENTIFIC SUCCESS, AND NOT SPECIFIED ABOVE?
C.D.--Steadiness--great curiosity about facts and their meaning. Some love of the new and marvellous. R.D.--Strong social affection and great sympathy in the pleasures of others. Sceptical as to new things. Curious as to facts. Great foresight. Not much public spirit--great generosity in giving money and a.s.sistance.
N.B.--I find it quite impossible to estimate my character by your degrees.
The following letter refers inter alia to a letter which appeared in "Nature" (September 25, 1873), "On the Males and Complemental Males of certain Cirripedes, and on Rudimentary Organs:"]
CHARLES DARWIN TO E. HAECKEL. Down, September 25, 1873.
My dear Haeckel,
I thank you for the present of your book ("Schopfungs-geschichte," 4th edition. The translation ("The History of Creation") was not published until 1876.), and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so many original observations. I have read the new preface with very great interest. The delay in the appearance of the English translation vexes and surprises me, for I have never been able to read it thoroughly in German, and I shall a.s.suredly do so when it appears in English. Has the problem of the later stages of reduction of useless structures ever perplexed you? This problem has of late caused me much perplexity. I have just written a letter to "Nature" with a hypothetical explanation of this difficulty, and I will send you the paper with the pa.s.sage marked. I will at the same time send a paper which has interested me; it need not be returned. It contains a singular statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish that this latter question could be settled, but I see no prospect of it. If it could be proved true this would be most important to us...
Wishing you every success in your admirable labours,
I remain, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
CHAPTER 2.VIII. -- MISCELLANEA
INCLUDING SECOND EDITIONS OF "CORAL REEFS," THE "DESCENT OF MAN," AND THE "VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS."
1874 AND 1875.
[The year 1874 was given up to "Insectivorous Plants," with the exception of the months devoted to the second edition of the "Descent of Man," and with the further exception of the time given to a second edition of his "Coral Reefs" (1874). The Preface to the latter states that new facts have been added, the whole book revised, and "the latter chapters almost rewritten." In the Appendix some account is given of Professor Semper"s objections, and this was the occasion of correspondence between that naturalist and my father. In Professor Semper"s volume, "Animal Life" (one of the International Series), the author calls attention to the subject in the following pa.s.sage which I give in German, the published English translation being, as it seems to me, incorrect: "Es scheint mir als ob er in der zweiten Ausgabe seines allgemein bekannten Werks uber Korallenriffe einem Irrthume uber meine Beobachtungen zum Opfer gefallen ist, indem er die Angaben, die ich allerdings bisher immer nur sehr kurz gehalten hatte, vollstandig falsch wiedergegeben hat."
The proof-sheets containing this pa.s.sage were sent by Professor Semper to my father before "Animal Life" was published, and this was the occasion for the following letter, which was afterwards published in Professor Semper"s book.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER. Down, October 2, 1879.
My dear Professor Semper,
I thank you for your extremely kind letter of the 19th, and for the proo-sheets. I believe that I understand all, excepting one or two sentences, where my imperfect knowledge of German has interfered. This is my sole and poor excuse for the mistake which I made in the second edition of my "Coral" book. Your account of the Pellew Islands is a fine addition to our knowledge on coral reefs. I have very little to say on the subject, even if I had formerly read your account and seen your maps, but had known nothing of the proofs of recent elevation, and of your belief that the islands have not since subsided. I have no doubt that I should have considered them as formed during subsidence. But I should have been much troubled in my mind by the sea not being so deep as it usually is round atolls, and by the reef on one side sloping so gradually beneath the sea; for this latter fact, as far as my memory serves me, is a very unusual and almost unparalleled case. I always foresaw that a bank at the proper depth beneath the surface would give rise to a reef which could not be distinguished from an atoll, formed during subsidence. I must still adhere to my opinion that the atolls and barrier reefs in the middle of the Pacific and Indian Oceans indicate subsidence; but I fully agree with you that such cases as that of the Pellew Islands, if of at all frequent occurrence, would make my general conclusions of very little value. Future observers must decide between us. It will be a strange fact if there has not been subsidence of the beds of the great oceans, and if this has not affected the forms of the coral reefs.
In the last three pages of the last sheet sent I am extremely glad to see that you are going to treat of the dispersion of animals. Your preliminary remarks seem to me quite excellent. There is nothing about M. Wagner, as I expected to find. I suppose that you have seen Moseley"s last book, which contains some good observations on dispersion.
I am glad that your book will appear in English, for then I can read it with ease. Pray believe me,
Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The most recent criticism on the Coral-reef theory is by Mr. Murray, one of the staff of the "Challenger", who read a paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, April 5, 1880. (An abstract is published in volume x. of the "Proceedings," page 505, and in "Nature," August 12, 1880.) The chief point brought forward is the possibility of the building up of submarine mountains, which may serve as foundations for coral reefs. Mr.
Murray also seeks to prove that "the chief features of coral reefs and islands can be accounted for without calling in the aid of great and general subsidence." The following letter refers to this subject:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A. AGa.s.sIZ. Down, May 5, 1881.
... You will have seen Mr. Murray"s views on the formation of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was known of the mult.i.tude of minute oceanic organisms.
I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the "Beagle", in the south temperate regions, I concluded that sh.e.l.ls, the smaller corals, etc., decayed, and were dissolved, when not protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could not acc.u.mulate in the open ocean. Certainly, sh.e.l.ls, etc., were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but you will know well whether this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute oceanic organisms could have acc.u.mulated to the thickness of many hundred feet... Pray forgive me for troubling you at such length, but it has occurred [to me] that you might be disposed to give, after your wide experience, your judgment. If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much, and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great oceans.
I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet...
[The second edition of the "Descent of Man" was published in the autumn of 1874. Some severe remarks on the "monistic hypothesis" appeared in the July (The review necessarily deals with the first edition of the "Descent of Man.") number of the "Quarterly Review" (page 45). The Reviewer expresses his astonishment at the ignorance of certain elementary distinctions and principles (e.g. with regard to the verb.u.m mentale) exhibited, among others, by Mr. Darwin, who does not exhibit the faintest indication of having grasped them, yet a clear perception of them, and a direct and detailed examination of his facts with regard to them, "was a sine qua non for attempting, with a chance of success, the solution of the mystery as to the descent of man."
Some further criticisms of a later date may be here alluded to. In the "Academy," 1876 (pages 562, 587), appeared a review of Mr. Mivart"s "Lessons from Nature," by Mr. Wallace. When considering the part of Mr. Mivart"s book relating to Natural and s.e.xual Selection, Mr. Wallace says: "In his violent attack on Mr. Darwin"s theories our author uses unusually strong language. Not content with mere argument, he expresses "reprobation of Mr. Darwin"s views"; and a.s.serts that though he (Mr.
Darwin) has been obliged, virtually, to give up his theory, it is still maintained by Darwinians with "unscrupulous audacity," and the actual repudiation of it concealed by the "conspiracy of silence."" Mr. Wallace goes on to show that these charges are without foundation, and points out that, "if there is one thing more than another for which Mr. Darwin is pre-eminent among modern literary and scientific men, it is for his perfect literary honesty, his self-abnegation in confessing himself wrong, and the eager haste with which he proclaims and even magnifies small errors in his works, for the most part discovered by himself."
The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th) refers to Mr. Mivart"s statement ("Lessons from Nature," page 144) that Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views as to the "b.e.s.t.i.a.lity of man":--
"I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the Academy. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the "Origin" I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, I went out of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted in my "Descent of Man." Therefore it is very unjust,... of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment."
The letter which here follows is of interest in connection with the discussion, in the "Descent of Man," on the origin of the musical sense in man:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO E. GURNEY. (Author of "The Power of Sound.") Down, July 8, 1876.
My dear Mr. Gurney,
I have read your article ("Some disputed Points in Music."--"Fortnightly Review," July, 1876.) with much interest, except the latter part, which soared above my ken. I am greatly pleased that you uphold my views to a certain extent. Your criticism of the rasping noise made by insects being necessarily rhythmical is very good; but though not made intentionally, it may be pleasing to the females from the nerve cells being nearly similar in function throughout the animal kingdom. With respect to your letter, I believe that I understand your meaning, and agree with you. I never supposed that the different degrees and kinds of pleasure derived from different music could be explained by the musical powers of our semi-human progenitors. Does not the fact that different people belonging to the same civilised nation are very differently affected by the same music, almost show that these diversities of taste and pleasure have been acquired during their individual lives? Your simile of architecture seems to me particularly good; for in this case the appreciation almost must be individual, though possibly the sense of sublimity excited by a grand cathedral, may have some connection with the vague feelings of terror and superst.i.tion in our savage ancestors, when they entered a great cavern or gloomy forest. I wish some one could a.n.a.lyse the feeling of sublimity. It amuses me to think how horrified some high flying aesthetic men will be at your encouraging such low degraded views as mine.
Believe me, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous interest. The first extract (from a letter, January 18, 1874) refers to a spiritualistic seance, held at Erasmus Darwin"s house, 6 Queen Anne Street, under the auspices of a well-known medium:]
"... We had grand fun, one afternoon, for George hired a medium, who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery points jump about in my brother"s diningroom, in a manner that astounded every one, and took away all their breaths. It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh Wedgwood held the medium"s hands and feet on both sides all the time. I found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these astounding miracles, or jugglery, took place. How the man could possibly do what was done pa.s.ses my understanding. I came downstairs, and saw all the chairs, etc., on the table, which had been lifted over the heads of those sitting round it.
The Lord have mercy on us all, if we have to believe in such rubbish. F.
Galton was there, and says it was a good seance..."
The Seance in question led to a smaller and more carefully organised one being undertaken, at which Mr. Huxley was present, and on which he reported to my father:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO PROFESSOR T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 29 [1874].
My dear Huxley,