Perhaps if I had been contented with my hyacinth bulbs being merely bound together without any true adhesion or rather growth together, I should have succeeded like the old Dutchman.
There is a deal of superfluous verbiage in the doc.u.ments, but I have marked with pencil where the important part begins. The attestations are in duplicate. Now, after reading them will you give me your opinion whether the main parts are worthy of publication in "Nature": I am inclined to think so, and it is good to encourage science in out-of-the-way parts of the world.
Keep this note till you receive the doc.u.ments or hear from me. I wonder whether two varieties of wheat could be similarly treated? No, I suppose not--from the want of lateral buds. I was extremely interested by your abstract on suicide.
LETTER 303. TO K. SEMPER. Down, February 6th, 1881.
Owing to all sorts of work, I have only just now finished reading your "Natural Conditions of Existence." (303/1. Semper"s "Natural Conditions of Existence as they affect Animal Life" (International Science Series), 1881.) Although a book of small size, it contains an astonishing amount of matter, and I have been particularly struck with the originality with which you treat so many subjects, and at your scrupulous accuracy. In far the greater number of points I quite follow you in your conclusions, but I differ on some, and I suppose that no two men in the world would fully agree on so many different subjects. I have been interested on so many points, I can hardly say on which most. Perhaps as much on Geographical Distribution as on any other, especially in relation to M.
Wagner. (No! no! about parasites interested me even more.) How strange that Wagner should have thought that I meant by struggle for existence, struggle for food. It is curious that he should not have thought of the endless adaptations for the dispersal of seeds and the fertilisation of flowers.
Again I was much interested about Branchipus and Artemia. (303/2. The reference is to Schmankewitsch"s experiments, page 158: he kept Artemia salina in salt-water, gradually diluted with fresh-water until it became practically free from salt; the crustaceans gradually changed in the course of generations, until they acquired the characters of the genus Branchipus.) When I read imperfectly some years ago the original paper I could not avoid thinking that some special explanation would hereafter be found for so curious a case. I speculated whether a species very liable to repeated and great changes of conditions, might not acquire a fluctuating condition ready to be adapted to either conditions. With respect to Arctic animals being white (page 116 of your book) it might perhaps be worth your looking at what I say from Pallas" and my own observations in the "Descent of Man" (later editions) Chapter VIII., page 229, and Chapter XVIII., page 542.
I quite agree with what I gather to be your judgment, viz., that the direct action of the conditions of life on organisms, or the cause of their variability, is the most important of all subjects for the future. For some few years I have been thinking of commencing a set of experiments on plants, for they almost invariably vary when cultivated.
I fancy that I see my way with the aid of continued self-fertilisation.
But I am too old, and have not strength enough. Nevertheless the hope occasionally revives.
Finally let me thank you for the very kind manner in which you often refer to my works, and for the even still kinder manner in which you disagree with me.
With cordial thanks for the pleasure and instruction which I have derived from your book, etc.
LETTER 304. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, February 13th, 1881.
I received a week or two ago the work which you and Prof. Marion have been so kind as to send me. (304/1. Probably "L"Evolution du Regne vegetal," I. "Cryptogames," Saporta & Marion, Paris, 1881.) When it arrived I was much engaged, and this must be my excuse for not having sooner thanked you for it, and it will likewise account for my having as yet read only the preface.
But I now look forward with great pleasure to reading the whole immediately. If I then have any remarks worth sending, which is not very probable, I will write again. I am greatly pleased to see how boldly you express your belief in evolution, in the preface. I have sometimes thought that some of your countrymen have been a little timid in publishing their belief on this head, and have thus failed in aiding a good cause.
LETTER 305. TO R.G. WHITEMAN. Down, May 5th, 1881.
In the first edition of the "Origin," after the sentence ending with the words "...insects in the water," I added the following sentence:--
"Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted compet.i.tors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by Natural Selection more and more aquatic in their structures and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." (305/1. See Letters 110 and 120.)
This sentence was omitted in the subsequent editions, owing to the advice of Prof. Owen, as it was liable to be misinterpreted; but I have always regretted that I followed this advice, for I still think the view quite reasonable.
LETTER 306. TO A. HYATT. Down, May 8th, 1881.
I am much obliged for your kind gift of "The Genesis, etc." (306/1. "The Genesis of the Tertiary Species of Planorbis," in the "Boston Soc. Nat.
Hist. Anniversary Mem." 1880.), which I shall be glad to read, as the case has always seemed to me a very curious one. It is all the kinder in you to send me this book, as I am aware that you think that I have done nothing to advance the good cause of the Descent-theory. (306/2. The above caused me to write a letter expressing a feeling of regret and humiliation, which I hope is still preserved, for certainly such a feeling, caused undoubtedly by my writings, which dealt too exclusively with disagreements upon special points, needed a strong denial. I have used the Darwinian theory in many cases, especially in explaining the preservation of differences; and have denied its application only in the preservation of fixed and hereditary characteristics, which have become essentially h.o.m.ologous similarities. (Note by Prof. Hyatt.))
(306/3. We have ventured to quote the pa.s.sage from Prof. Hyatt"s reply, dated May 23rd, 1881:--
"You would think I was insincere, if I wrote you what I really felt with regard to what you have done for the theory of Descent. Perhaps this essay will lead you to a more correct view than you now have of my estimate, if I can be said to have any claim to make an estimate of your work in this direction. You will not take offence, however, if I tell you that your strongest supporters can hardly give you greater esteem and honour. I have striven to get a just idea of your theory, but no doubt have failed to convey this in my publications as it ought to be done."
We find other equally strong and genuine expressions of respect in Prof.
Hyatt"s letters.)
LETTER 307. TO LORD FARRER.
(307/1. Mr. Graham"s book, the "Creed of Science," is referred to in "Life and Letters," I., page 315, where an interesting letter to the author is printed. With regard to chance, Darwin wrote: "You have expressed my inward conviction, though far more clearly and vividly than I could have done, that the universe is not the result of chance.")
Down, August 28th, 1881.
I have been much interested by your letter, and am glad that you like Mr. Graham"s book...(307/2. In Lord Farrer"s letter of August 27th he refers to the old difficulty, in relation to design, of the existence of evil.)
Everything which I read now soon goes out of my head, and I had forgotten that he implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks the more one feels the hopeless immensity of man"s ignorance. Though it does make one proud to see what science has achieved during the last half-century. This has been brought vividly before my mind by having just read most of the proofs of Lubbock"s Address for York (307/3. Lord Avebury was President of the British a.s.sociation in 1881.), in which he will attempt to review the progress of all branches of science for the last fifty years.
I entirely agree with what you say about "chance," except in relation to the variations of organic beings having been designed; and I imagine that Mr. Graham must have used "chance" in relation only to purpose in the origination of species. This is the only way I have used the word chance, as I have attempted to explain in the last two pages of my "Variation under Domestication."
On the other hand, if we consider the whole universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of chance--that is, without design or purpose. The whole question seems to me insoluble, for I cannot put much or any faith in the so-called intuitions of the human mind, which have been developed, as I cannot doubt, from such a mind as animals possess; and what would their convictions or intuitions be worth? There are a good many points on which I cannot quite follow Mr. Graham.
With respect to your last discussion, I dare say it contains very much truth; but I cannot see, as far as happiness is concerned, that it can apply to the infinite sufferings of animals--not only those of the body, but those of the mind--as when a mother loses her offspring or a male his female. If the view does not apply to animals, will it suffice for man? But you may well complain of this long and badly-expressed note in my dreadfully bad handwriting.
The death of my brother Erasmus is a very heavy loss to all of us in this family. He was so kind-hearted and affectionate. Nor have I ever known any one more pleasant. It was always a very great pleasure to talk with him on any subject whatever, and this I shall never do again.
The clearness of his mind always seemed to me admirable. He was not, I think, a happy man, and for many years did not value life, though never complaining. I am so glad that he escaped very severe suffering during his last few days. I shall never see such a man again.
Forgive me for scribbling this way, my dear Farrer.
LETTER 308. TO G.J. ROMANES.
(308/1. Romanes had reviewed Roux"s "Struggle of Parts in the Organism"
in "Nature," September 20th, 1881, page 505. This led to an attack by the Duke of Argyll (October 20th, page 581), followed by a reply by Romanes (October 27th, page 604), a rejoinder by the Duke (November 3rd, page 6), and finally by the letter of Romanes (November 10th, page 29) to which Darwin refers. The Duke"s "flourish" is at page 7: "I wish Mr.
Darwin"s disciples would imitate a little of the dignified reticence of their master. He walks with a patient and a stately step along the paths of conscientious observation, etc., etc.")
Down, November 12th, 1881.
I must write to say how very much I admire your letter in the last "Nature." I subscribe to every word that you say, and it could not be expressed more clearly or vigorously. After the Duke"s last letter and flourish about me I thought it paltry not to say that I agreed with what you had said. But after writing two folio pages I find I could not say what I wished to say without taking up too much s.p.a.ce; and what I had written did not please me at all, so I tore it up, and now by all the G.o.ds I rejoice that I did so, for you have put the case incomparably better than I had done or could do.
Moreover, I hate controversy, and it wastes much time, at least with a man who, like myself, can work for only a short time in a day. How in the world you get through all your work astonishes me.
Now do not make me feel guilty by answering this letter, and losing some of your time.
You ought not to swear at Roux"s book, which has led you into this controversy, for I am sure that your last letter was well worth writing--not that it will produce any effect on the Duke.
LETTER 309. TO J. JENNER WEIR.
(309/1. On December 27th, 1881, Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Mr. Darwin: "After some hesitation in lieu of a Christmas card, I venture to give you the return of some observations on mules made in Spain during the last two years...It is a fact that the sire has the prepotency in the offspring, as has been observed by most writers on that subject, including yourself. The mule is more a.s.s-like, and the hinny more horse-like, both in the respective lengths of the ears and the shape of the tail; but one point I have observed which I do not remember to have met with, and that is that the coat of the mule resembles that of its dam the mare, and that of the hinny its dam the a.s.s, so that in this respect the prepotency of the s.e.xes is reversed." The hermaphroditism in lepidoptera, referred to below, is said by Mr. Weir to occur notably in the case of the hybrids of Smerinthus populi-ocellatus.)
Down, December 29th, 1881.
I thank you for your "Christmas card," and heartily return your good wishes. What you say about the coats of mules is new to me, as is the statement about hermaphroditism in hybrid moths. This latter fact seems to me particularly curious; and to make a very wild hypothesis, I should be inclined to account for it by reversion to the primordial condition of the two s.e.xes being united, for I think it certain that hybridism does lead to reversion.