P.S.--Tell Lady Lyell that I was unable to digest the funereal ceremonies of the ants, notwithstanding that Erasmus has often told me that I should find some day that they have their bishops. After a battle I have always seen the ants carry away the dead for food. Ants display the utmost economy, and always carry away a dead fellow-creature as food. But I have just forwarded two most extraordinary letters to Busk, from a backwoodsman in Texas, who has evidently watched ants carefully, and declares most positively that they plant and cultivate a kind of gra.s.s for store food, and plant other bushes for shelter! I do not know what to think, except that the old gentleman is not fibbing intentionally. I have left the responsibility with Busk whether or no to read the letters. (I.e. to read them before the Linnean Society.)
CHARLES DARWIN TO THOMAS DAVIDSON. (Thomas Davidson, F.R.S., born in Edinburgh, May 17, 1817; died 1885. His researches were chiefly connected with the sciences of geology and palaeontology, and were directed especially to the elucidation of the characters, cla.s.sification, history, geological and geographical distribution of recent and fossil Brachiopoda. On this subject he brought out an important work, "British Fossil Brachiopoda," 5 vols. 4to. (Cooper, "Men of the Time," 1884.)) Down, April 26, 1861.
My dear Sir,
I hope that you will excuse me for venturing to make a suggestion to you which I am perfectly well aware it is a very remote chance that you would adopt. I do not know whether you have read my "Origin of Species"; in that book I have made the remark, which I apprehend will be universally admitted, that AS A WHOLE, the fauna of any formation is intermediate in character between that of the formations above and below. But several really good judges have remarked to me how desirable it would be that this should be exemplified and worked out in some detail and with some single group of beings. Now every one will admit that no one in the world could do this better than you with Brachiopods.
The result might turn out very unfavourable to the views which I hold; if so, so much the better for those who are opposed to me. ("Mr.
Davidson is not at all a full believer in great changes of species, which will make his work all the more valuable.--C. Darwin to R.
Chambers (April 30, 1861).) But I am inclined to suspect that on the whole it would be favourable to the notion of descent with modification; for about a year ago, Mr. Salter (John William Salter; 1820- 1869. He entered the service of the Geological Survey in 1846, and ultimately became its Palaeontologist, on the retirement of Edward Forbes, and gave up the office in 1863. He was a.s.sociated with several well-known naturalists in their work--with Sedgwick, Murchison, Lyell, Ramsay, and Huxley. There are sixty entries under his name in the Royal Society Catalogue. The above facts are taken from an obituary notice of Mr.
Salter in the "Geological Magazine," 1869.) in the Museum in Jermyn Street, glued on a board some Spirifers, etc., from three palaeozoic stages, and arranged them in single and branching lines, with horizontal lines marking the formations (like the diagram in my book, if you know it), and the result seemed to me very striking, though I was too ignorant fully to appreciate the lines of affinities. I longed to have had these sh.e.l.ls engraved, as arranged by Mr. Salter, and connected by dotted lines, and would have gladly paid the expense: but I could not persuade Mr. Salter to publish a little paper on the subject. I can hardly doubt that many curious points would occur to any one thoroughly instructed in the subject, who would consider a group of beings under this point of view of descent with modification. All those forms which have come down from an ancient period very slightly modified ought, I think, to be omitted, and those forms alone considered which have undergone considerable change at each successive epoch. My fear is whether brachiopods have changed enough. The absolute amount of difference of the forms in such groups at the opposite extremes of time ought to be considered, and how far the early forms are intermediate in character between those which appeared much later in time. The antiquity of a group is not really diminished, as some seem vaguely to think, because it has transmitted to the present day closely allied forms.
Another point is how far the succession of each genus is unbroken, from the first time it appeared to its extinction, with due allowance made for formations poor in fossils. I cannot but think that an important essay (far more important than a hundred literary reviews) might be written by one like yourself, and without very great labour. I know it is highly probable that you may not have leisure, or not care for, or dislike the subject, but I trust to your kindness to forgive me for making this suggestion. If by any extraordinary good fortune you were inclined to take up this notion, I would ask you to read my Chapter X.
on Geological Succession. And I should like in this case to be permitted to send you a copy of the new edition, just published, in which I have added and corrected somewhat in Chapters IX. and X.
Pray excuse this long letter, and believe me, My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--I write so bad a hand that I have had this note copied.
CHARLES DARWIN TO THOMAS DAVIDSON. Down, April 30, 1861.
My dear Sir,
I thank you warmly for your letter; I did not in the least know that you had attended to my work. I a.s.sure you that the attention which you have paid to it, considering your knowledge and the philosophical tone of your mind (for I well remember one remarkable letter you wrote to me, and have looked through your various publications), I consider one of the highest, perhaps the very highest, compliments which I have received. I live so solitary a life that I do not often hear what goes on, and I should much like to know in what work you have published some remarks on my book. I take a deep interest in the subject, and I hope not simply an egotistical interest; therefore you may believe how much your letter has gratified me; I am perfectly contented if any one will fairly consider the subject, whether or not he fully or only very slightly agrees with me. Pray do not think that I feel the least surprise at your demurring to a ready acceptance; in fact, I should not much respect anyone"s judgment who did so: that is, if I may judge others from the long time which it has taken me to go round. Each stage of belief cost me years. The difficulties are, as you say, many and very great; but the more I reflect, the more they seem to me to be due to our underestimating our ignorance. I belong so much to old times that I find that I weigh the difficulties from the imperfection of the geological record, heavier than some of the younger men. I find, to my astonishment and joy, that such good men as Ramsay, Jukes, Geikie, and one old worker, Lyell, do not think that I have in the least exaggerated the imperfection of the record. (Professor Sedgwick treated this part of the "Origin of Species" very differently, as might have been expected from his vehement objection to Evolution in general. In the article in the "Spectator" of March 24, 1860, already noticed, Sedgwick wrote: "We know the complicated organic phenomena of the Mesozoic (or Oolitic) period.
It defies the trans.m.u.tationist at every step. Oh! but the doc.u.ment, says Darwin, is a fragment; I will interpolate long periods to account for all the changes. I say, in reply, if you deny my conclusion, grounded on positive evidence, I toss back your conclusion, derived from negative evidence,--the inflated cushion on which you try to bolster up the defects of your hypothesis." [The punctuation of the imaginary dialogue is slightly altered from the original, which is obscure in one place.]) If my views ever are proved true, our current geological views will have to be considerably modified. My greatest trouble is, not being able to weigh the direct effects of the long-continued action of changed conditions of life without any selection, with the action of selection on mere accidental (so to speak) variability. I oscillate much on this head, but generally return to my belief that the direct action of the conditions of life has not been great. At least this direct action can have played an extremely small part in producing all the numberless and beautiful adaptations in every living creature. With respect to a person"s belief, what does rather surprise me is that any one (like Carpenter) should be willing TO GO SO VERY FAR as to believe that all birds may have descended from one parent, and not go a little farther and include all the members of the same great division; for on such a scale of belief, all the facts in Morphology and in Embryology (the most important in my opinion of all subjects) become mere Divine mockeries... I cannot express how profoundly glad I am that some day you will publish your theoretical view on the modification and endurance of Brachiopodous species; I am sure it will be a most valuable contribution to knowledge.
Pray forgive this very egotistical letter, but you yourself are partly to blame for having pleased me so much. I have told Murray to send a copy of my new edition to you, and have written your name.
With cordial thanks, pray believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
[In Mr. Davidson"s Monograph on British Brachiopoda, published shortly afterwards by the Palaeontographical Society, results such as my father antic.i.p.ated were to some extent obtained. "No less than fifteen commonly received species are demonstrated by Mr. Davidson by the aid of a long series of transitional forms to appertain to... one type." "Lyell, "Antiquity of Man," first edition, page 428.)
In the autumn of 1860, and the early part of 1861, my father had a good deal of correspondence with Professor Asa Gray on a subject to which reference has already been made--the publication in the form of a pamphlet, of Professor Gray"s three articles in the July, August, and October numbers of the "Atlantic Monthly," 1860. The pamphlet was published by Messrs. Trubner, with reference to whom my father wrote, "Messrs. Trubner have been most liberal and kind, and say they shall make no charge for all their trouble. I have settled about a few advertis.e.m.e.nts, and they will gratuitously insert one in their own periodicals."
The reader will find these articles republished in Dr. Gray"s "Darwiniana," page 87, under the t.i.tle "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology." The pamphlet found many admirers among those most capable of judging of its merits, and my father believed that it was of much value in lessening opposition, and making converts to Evolution. His high opinion of it is shown not only in his letters, but by the fact that he inserted a special notice of it in a most prominent place in the third edition of the "Origin." Lyell, among others, recognised its value as an antidote to the kind of criticism from which the cause of Evolution suffered. Thus my father wrote to Dr.
Gray:--"Just to exemplify the use of your pamphlet, the Bishop of London was asking Lyell what he thought of the review in the "Quarterly," and Lyell answered, "Read Asa Gray in the "Atlantic."". It comes out very clearly that in the case of such publications as Dr. Gray"s, my father did not rejoice over the success of his special view of Evolution, viz.
that modification is mainly due to Natural Selection; on the contrary, he felt strongly that the really important point was that the doctrine of Descent should be accepted. Thus he wrote to Professor Gray (May 11, 1863), with reference to Lyell"s "Antiquity of Man":--
"You speak of Lyell as a judge; now what I complain of is that he declines to be a judge... I have sometimes almost wished that Lyell had p.r.o.nounced against me. When I say "me," I only mean CHANGE OF SPECIES BY DESCENT. That seems to me the turning-point. Personally, of course, I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant, compared to the question of Creation OR Modification."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, April 11 [1861].
My dear Gray,
I was very glad to get your photograph: I am expecting mine, which I will send off as soon as it comes. It is an ugly affair, and I fear the fault does not lie with the photographer... Since writing last, I have had several letters full of the highest commendation of your Essay; all agree that it is by far the best thing written, and I do not doubt it has done the "Origin" much good. I have not yet heard how it has sold.
You will have seen a review in the "Gardeners" Chronicle". Poor dear Henslow, to whom I owe much, is dying, and Hooker is with him. Many thanks for two sets of sheets of your Proceedings. I cannot understand what Aga.s.siz is driving at. You once spoke, I think, of Professor Bowen as a very clever man. I should have thought him a singularly un.o.bservant man from his writings. He never can have seen much of animals, or he would have seen the difference of old and wise dogs and young ones.
His paper about hereditariness beats everything. Tell a breeder that he might pick out his worst INDIVIDUAL animals and breed from them, and hope to win a prize, and he would think you... insane.
[Professor Henslow died on May 16, 1861, from a complication of bronchitis, congestion of the lungs, and enlargement of the heart. His strong const.i.tution was slow in giving way, and he lingered for weeks in a painful condition of weakness, knowing that his end was near, and looking at death with fearless eyes. In Mr. Blomefield"s (Jenyns) "Memoir of Henslow" (1862) is a dignified and touching description of Prof. Sedgwick"s farewell visit to his old friend. Sedgwick said afterwards that he had never seen "a human being whose soul was nearer heaven."
My father wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker on hearing of Henslow"s death, "I fully believe a better man never walked this earth."
He gave his impressions of Henslow"s character in Mr. Blomefield"s "Memoir." In reference to these recollections he wrote to Sir J.D.
Hooker (May 30, 1861):--
"This morning I wrote my recollections and impressions of character of poor dear Henslow about the year 1830. I liked the job, and so have written four or five pages, now being copied. I do not suppose you will use all, of course you can chop and change as much as you like. If more than a sentence is used, I should like to see a proof-page, as I never can write decently till I see it in print. Very likely some of my remarks may appear too trifling, but I thought it best to give my thoughts as they arose, for you or Jenyns to use as you think fit.
"You will see that I have exceeded your request, but, as I said when I began, I took pleasure in writing my impression of his admirable character."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 5 [1861].
My dear Gray,
I have been rather extra busy, so have been slack in answering your note of May 6th. I hope you have received long ago the third edition of the "Origin."... I have heard nothing from Trubner of the sale of your Essay, hence fear it has not been great; I wrote to say you could supply more. I send a copy to Sir J. Herschel, and in his new edition of his "Physical Geography" he has a note on the "Origin of Species,"
and agrees, to a certain limited extent, but puts in a caution on design--much like yours... I have been led to think more on this subject of late, and grieve to say that I come to differ more from you. It is not that designed variation makes, as it seems to me, my deity "Natural Selection" superfluous, but rather from studying, lately, domestic variation, and seeing what an enormous field of undesigned variability there is ready for natural selection to appropriate for any purpose useful to each creature.
I thank you much for sending me your review of Phillips. ("Life on the Earth," 1860.) I remember once telling you a lot of trades which you ought to have followed, but now I am convinced that you are a born reviewer. By Jove, how well and often you hit the nail on the head! You rank Phillips"s book higher than I do, or than Lyell does, who thinks it fearfully retrograde. I amused myself by parodying Phillips"s argument as applied to domestic variation; and you might thus prove that the duck or pigeon has not varied because the goose has not, though more anciently domesticated, and no good reason can be a.s.signed why it has not produced many varieties ...
I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. North America does not do England justice; I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to G.o.d, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in! Ma.s.sachusetts seems to show n.o.ble enthusiasm. Great G.o.d! How I should like to see the greatest curse on earth--slavery--abolished!
Farewell. Hooker has been absorbed with poor dear revered Henslow"s affairs. Farewell.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
HUGH FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN. 31 Sackville St., W., June 23, 1861.
My dear Darwin,
I have been to Adelsberg cave and brought back with me a live Proteus anguinus, designed for you from the moment I got it; i.e. if you have got an aquarium and would care to have it. I only returned last night from the continent, and hearing from your brother that you are about to go to Torquay, I lose no time in making you the offer. The poor dear animal is still alive--although it has had no appreciable means of sustenance for a month--and I am most anxious to get rid of the responsibility of starving it longer. In your hands it will thrive and have a fair chance of being developed without delay into some type of the Columbidae--say a Pouter or a Tumbler.
My dear Darwin, I have been rambling through the north of Italy, and Germany lately. Everywhere have I heard your views and your admirable essay canva.s.sed--the views of course often dissented from, according to the special bias of the speaker--but the work, its honesty of purpose, grandeur of conception, felicity of ill.u.s.tration, and courageous exposition, always referred to in terms of the highest admiration. And among your warmest friends no one rejoiced more heartily in the just appreciation of Charles Darwin than did
Yours very truly, H. FALCONER.
CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH FALCONER. Down [June 24, 1861].
My dear Falconer,
I have just received your note, and by good luck a day earlier than properly, and I lose not a moment in answering you, and thanking you heartily for your offer of the valuable specimen; but I have no aquarium and shall soon start for Torquay, so that it would be a thousand pities that I should have it. Yet I should certainly much like to see it, but I fear it is impossible. Would not the Zoological Society be the best place? and then the interest which many would take in this extraordinary animal would repay you for your trouble.