Down, November 19th, 1881.
I saw in some paper that there would probably be a subscription to pay Dr. Ferrier"s legal expenses in the late absurd and wicked prosecution.
As I live so retired I might not hear of the subscription, and I should regret beyond measure not to have the pleasure and honour of showing my sympathy [with] and admiration of Dr. Ferrier"s researches. I know that you are his friend, as I once met him at your house; so I earnestly beg you to let me hear if there is any means of subscribing, as I should much like to be an early subscriber. I am sure that you will forgive me for troubling you under these circ.u.mstances.
P.S.--I finished reading a few days ago the several physiological and medical papers which you were so kind as to send me. (769/3. Some of Lauder Brunton"s publications.) I was much interested by several of them, especially by that on night-sweating, and almost more by others on digestion. I have seldom been made to realise more vividly the wondrous complexity of our whole system. How any one of us keeps alive for a day is a marvel!
LETTER 770. T. LAUDER BRUNTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 50, Welbeck Street, London, November 21st, 1881.
I thank you most sincerely for your kind letter and your offer of a.s.sistance to Dr. Ferrier. There is at present no subscription list, as the British Medical a.s.sociation have taken up the case, and ought to pay the expenses. Should these make such a call upon the funds of the a.s.sociation as to interfere with its other objects, the whole or part of the expenses will be paid by those who have subscribed to a guarantee fund. To this fund there are already a number of subscribers, whose names are taken by Professor Gerald Yeo, one of the secretaries of the Physiological Society. They have not subscribed a definite sum, but have simply fixed a maximum which they will subscribe, if necessary, on the understanding that only so much as is required shall be asked from each subscriber in proportion to his subscription. It is proposed to send by-and-by a list of the most prominent members of this guarantee fund to the "Times" and other papers, and not only every scientific man, but every member of the medical profession, will rejoice to see your name in the list. Dr. Ferrier has been quite worn out by the worry of this prosecution, or, as it might well be called, persecution, and has gone down to Shanklin for a couple of days. He returns this afternoon, and I have sent on your letter to await his arrival, knowing as I do that it will be to him like cold water to a thirsty soul.
LETTER 771. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON. Down, November 22nd, 1881.
Many thanks for your very kind and interesting letter...
I write now to beg a favour. I do not in the least know what others have guaranteed in relation to Dr. Ferrier. (771/1. In a letter dated November 27th, 1881, Sir Lauder Brunton wrote in reply to Mr. Darwin"s inquiry as to the amount of the subscriptions: "When I ascertain what they intend to give under the new conditions--viz., that the subscriptions are not to be applied to Ferrier"s defence, but to the defence of others who may be attacked and to a diffusion of knowledge regarding the nature and purposes of vivisection, I will let you know...") Would twenty guineas be sufficient? If not, will you kindly take the trouble to have my name put down for thirty or forty guineas, as you may think best. If, on the other hand, no one else has guaranteed for as much as twenty guineas, will you put me down for ten or fifteen guineas, though I should like to give twenty best.
You can understand that I do not wish to be conspicuous either by too little or too much; so I beg you to be so very kind as to act for me. I have a mult.i.tude of letters which I must answer, so excuse haste.
LETTER 772. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON.
(772/1. The following letter was written in reply to Sir T. Lauder Brunton"s suggestion that Mr. Darwin should be proposed as President of the Science Defence a.s.sociation.)
4, Bryanston Street, Portman Square, December 17th, 1881.
I have been thinking a good deal about the suggestion which you made to me the other day, on the supposition that you could not get some man like the President of the College of Physicians to accept the office. My wife is strongly opposed to my accepting the office, as she feels sure that the anxiety thus caused would tell heavily on my health. But there is a much stronger objection suggested to me by one of my relations--namely, no man ought to allow himself to be placed at the head (though only nominally so) of an a.s.sociated movement, unless he has the means of judging of the acts performed by the a.s.sociation, after hearing each point discussed. This occurred to me when you spoke to me, and I think that I said something to this effect. Anyhow, I have in several a.n.a.logous cases acted on this principle.
Take, for instance, any preliminary statement which the a.s.sociation may publish. I might feel grave doubts about the wisdom or justice of some points, and this solely from my not having heard them discussed. I am therefore inclined to think that it would not be right in me to accept the nominal Presidency of your a.s.sociation, and thus have to act blindly.
As far as I can at present see, I fear that I must confine my a.s.sistance to subscribing as large a sum to the a.s.sociation as any member gives.
I am sorry to trouble you, but I have thought it best to tell you at once of the doubts which have arisen in my mind.
LETTER 773. TO LAUDER BRUNTON.
(773/1. Sir T. Lauder Brunton had written (February 12th) to Mr. Darwin explaining that two opinions were held as to the const.i.tution of the proposed Science Defence a.s.sociation: one that it should consist of a small number of representative men; the other that it should, if possible, embrace every medical pract.i.tioner in the country. Sir Lauder Brunton adds: "I should be very greatly obliged if you would kindly say what you think of the two schemes.")
Down, February 14th, 1882.
I am very much obliged for your information in regard to the a.s.sociation, about which I feel a great interest. It seems to me highly desirable that the a.s.sociation should include as many medical and scientific men as possible throughout the whole country, who could illumine those capable of illumination on the necessity of physiological research; but that the a.s.sociation should be governed by a council of powerful men, not too many in number. Such a council, as representing a large body of medical men, would have more power in the eyes of vote-hunting politicians than a small body representing only themselves.
From what I see of country pract.i.tioners, I think that their annual subscription ought to be very small. But would it not be possible to add to the rules some such statement as the following one: "That by a donation of... pounds, or of any larger sum, from those who feel a deep interest in the progress of medical science, the donor shall become a life member." I, for one, would gladly subscribe 50 or 100 pounds. If such a plan were approved by the leading medical men of London, two or three thousand pounds might at once be collected; and if any such sum could be announced as already subscribed, when the program of the a.s.sociation is put forth, it would have, as I believe, a considerable influence on the country, and would attract the attention of country pract.i.tioners. The Anti-Corn Law League owed much of its enormous power to several wealthy men laying down 1,000 pounds; for the subscription of a good sum of money is the best proof of earnest conviction. You asked for my opinion on the above points, and I have given it freely, though well aware that from living so retired a life my judgment cannot be worth much.
Have you read Mr. Gurney"s articles in the "Fortnightly" and "Cornhill?"
(773/2. "Fortnightly Review," x.x.x., page 778; "Cornhill Magazine," XLV., page 191. The articles are by the late Edmund Gurney, author of "The power of Sound," 1880.) They seem to me very clever, though obscurely written; and I agree with almost everything he says, except with some pa.s.sages which appear to imply that no experiments should be tried unless some immediate good can be predicted, and this is a gigantic mistake contradicted by the whole history of science.
P.S.--That is a curious fact about babies. I remember hearing on good authority that very young babies when moved are apt to clutch hold of anything, and I thought of your explanation; but your case during sleep is a much more interesting one. Very many thanks for the book, which I much wanted to see; it shall be sent back to-day, as from you, to the Society.
2.XII.II. MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, 1867-1882.
LETTER 774. TO CANON FARRAR.
(774/1. The lecture which forms the subject of this letter was one delivered by Canon Farrar at the Royal Inst.i.tution, "On Some Defects in Public School Education.")
Down, March 5th, 1867.
I am very much obliged for your kind present of your lecture. We have read it aloud with the greatest interest, and I agree to every word. I admire your candour and wonderful freedom from prejudice; for I feel an inward conviction that if I had been a great cla.s.sical scholar I should never have been able to have judged fairly on the subject. As it is, I am one of the root and branch men, and would leave cla.s.sics to be learnt by those alone who have sufficient zeal and the high taste requisite for their appreciation. You have indeed done a great public service in speaking out so boldly. Scientific men might rail forever, and it would only be said that they railed at what they did not understand. I was at school at Shrewsbury under a great scholar, Dr. Butler; I learnt absolutely nothing, except by amusing myself by reading and experimenting in chemistry. Dr. Butler somehow found this out, and publicly sneered at me before the whole school for such gross waste of time; I remember he called me a Pococurante (774/2. Told in "Life and Letters," I., page 35.), which, not understanding, I thought was a dreadful name. I wish you had shown in your lecture how science could practically be taught in a great school; I have often heard it objected that this could not be done, and I never knew what to say in answer.
I heartily hope that you may live to see your zeal and labour produce good fruit.
LETTER 775. TO HERBERT SPENCER. Down, December 9th [1867].
I thank you very sincerely for your kind present of your "First Principles." (775/1. "This must have been the second edition." (Note by Mr. Spencer.)) I earnestly hope that before long I may have strength to study the work as it ought to be studied, for I am certain to find or re-find much that is deeply interesting. In many parts of your "Principles of Biology" I was fairly astonished at the prodigality of your original views. (775/2. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 55, 56.) Most of the chapters furnished suggestions for whole volumes of future researches. As I have heard that you have changed your residence, I am forced to address this to Messrs. Williams & Norgate; and for the same reason I gave some time ago the same address to Mr. Murray for a copy of my book on variation, etc., which is now finished, but delayed by the index-maker.
LETTER 776. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(776/1. This letter refers to a movement set on foot at a meeting held at the Freemasons" Tavern, on November 16th, 1872, of which an account is given in the "Times" of November 23rd, 1872, at which Mark Pattison, Mr. Henry Sidgwick, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Professors Rolleston, Seeley, Huxley, etc., were present. The "Times" says that the meeting was held "by members of the Universities and others interested in the promotion of mature study and scientific research in England." One of the headings of the "Program of Discussion" was "The Abolition of Prize Fellowships.")
Sevenoaks, October 22nd [1872].
I have been glad to sign and forward the paper, for I have very long thought it a sin that the immense funds of the Universities should be wasted in Fellowships, except a few for paying for education. But when I was at Cambridge it would have been an unjustifiable sneer to have spoken of the place as one for education, always excepting the men who went in for honours. You speak of another resolution "in the interest of the anti-letter-writing a.s.sociation"--but alas, this never arrived!
I should like a society formed so that every one might receive pleasant letters and never answer them.
We return home on Sat.u.r.day, after three weeks of the most astounding dullness, doing nothing and thinking of nothing. I hope my Brain likes it--as for myself, it is dreadful doing nothing. (776/2. Darwin returned to Down from Sevenoaks on Sat.u.r.day, October 26th, 1872, which fixes the date of the letter.)
LETTER 777. TO LADY DERBY. Down, Sat.u.r.day [1874?].
If you had called here after I had read the article you would have found a much perplexed man. (777/1. Probably Sir W. Crookes" "Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism" (reprinted from the "Quarterly Journal of Science"), London, 1874. Other papers by Crookes are in the "Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.") I cannot disbelieve Mr.
Crooke"s statement, nor can I believe in his result. It has removed some of my difficulty that the supposed power is not an anomaly, but is common in a lesser degree to various persons. It is also a consolation to reflect that gravity acts at any distance, in some wholly unknown manner, and so may nerve-force. Nothing is so difficult to decide as where to draw a just line between scepticism and credulity. It was a very long time before scientific men would believe in the fall of aerolites; and this was chiefly owing to so much bad evidence, as in the present case, being mixed up with the good. All sorts of objects were said to have been seen falling from the sky. I very much hope that a number of men, such as Professor Stokes, will be induced to witness Mr.
Crooke"s experiments.
(778/1. The two following extracts may be given in further ill.u.s.tration of Darwin"s guiding principle in weighing evidence. He wrote to Robert Chambers, April 30th, 1861: "Thanks also for extract out of newspaper about rooks and crows; I wish I dared trust it. I see in cutting the pages [of Chambers" book, "Ice and Water"]...that you fulminate against the scepticism of scientific men. You would not fulminate quite so much if you had had so many wild-goose chases after facts stated by men not trained to scientific accuracy. I often vow to myself that I will utterly disregard every statement made by any one who has not shown the world he can observe accurately." In a letter to Dr. Dohrn, of Naples, January 4th, 1870, Darwin wrote: "Forgive me for suggesting one caution; as Demosthenes said, "Action, action, action," was the soul of eloquence, so is caution almost the soul of science.")
LETTER 778. TO J. BURDON SANDERSON. Down, July 16th, 1875.
Some little time ago Mr. Simon (778/1. Now Sir John Simon) sent me the last Report, and your statements about contagion deeply interested me.
By the way, if you see Mr. Simon, and can remember it, will you thank him for me; I was so busy at the time that I did not write. Having been in correspondence with Paget lately on another subject, I mentioned to him an a.n.a.logy which has struck me much, now that we know that sheep-pox is fungoid; and this a.n.a.logy pleased him. It is that of fairy rings, which are believed to spread from a centre, and when they intersect the intersecting portion dies out, as the mycelium cannot grow where it has grown during previous years. So, again, I have never seen a ring within a ring; this seems to me a parallel case to a man commonly having the smallpox only once. I imagine that in both cases the mycelium must consume all the matter on which it can subsist.