Charles Darwin: His Life in an Autobiographical Chapter Part 28

I do not state this to fill s.p.a.ce (though I believe that Nature does abhor a vacuum), but to prove that my reply and my thanks are sent to you by the earliest leisure I have, though that is but a very contracted opportunity. If I did not think you a good-tempered and truth-loving man, I should not tell you that (spite of the great knowledge, store of facts, capital views of the correlation of the various parts of organic nature, admirable hints about the diffusion, through wide regions, of many related organic beings, &c. &c.) I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have _deserted_--after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth--the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon a.s.sumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction? As to your grand principle--_natural selection_--what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts? Development is a better word, because more close to the cause of the fact? For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of G.o.d; and I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study and comprehend. Acting by law, and under what is called final causes, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of "natural selection" as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent. 'Tis but a consequence of the pre-supposed development, and the subsequent battle for life. This view of nature you have stated admirably, though admitted by all naturalists and denied by no one of common-sense. We all admit development as a fact of history: but how came it about? Here, in language, and still more in logic, we are point-blank at issue. There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.

'Tis the crown and glory of organic science that it _does_ through _final cause_, link material and moral; and yet _does not_ allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, and our cla.s.sification of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or the other. You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which, thank G.o.d, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history. Take the case of the bee-cells.

If your development produced the successive modification of the bee and its cells (which no mortal can prove), final cause would stand good as the directing cause under which the successive generations acted and gradually improved. Pa.s.sages in your book, like that to which I have alluded (and there are others almost as bad), greatly shocked my moral taste. I think, in speculating on organic descent, you _over_-state the evidence of geology; and that you _under_-state it while you are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree: but my paper is nearly done, and I must go to my lecture-room. Lastly, then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter--not as a summary, for in that light it appears good--but I dislike it from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a tone I condemned in the author of the _Vestiges_) and prophesy of things not yet in the womb of time, nor (if we are to trust the acc.u.mulated experience of human sense and the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found anywhere but in the fertile womb of man's imagination. And now to say a word about a son of a monkey and an old friend of yours: I am better, far better, than I was last year. I have been lecturing three days a week (formerly I gave six a week) without much fatigue, but I find by the loss of activity and memory, and of all productive powers, that my bodily frame is sinking slowly towards the earth. But I have visions of the future. They are as much a part of myself as my stomach and my heart, and these visions are to have their anti-type in solid fruition of what is best and greatest.

But on one condition only--that I humbly accept G.o.d's revelation of Himself both in His works and in His word, and do my best to act in conformity with that knowledge which He only can give me, and He only can sustain me in doing. If you and I do all this, we shall meet in heaven.

I have written in a hurry, and in a spirit of brotherly love, therefore forgive any sentence you happen to dislike; and believe me, spite of any disagreement in some points of the deepest moral interest, your true-hearted old friend,

A. SEDGWICK.

The following extract from a note to Lyell (Nov. 24) gives an idea of the conditions under which the second edition was prepared: "This morning I heard from Murray that he sold the whole edition[179] the first day to the trade. He wants a new edition instantly, and this utterly confounds me. Now, under water-cure, with all nervous power directed to the skin, I cannot possibly do head-work, and I must make only actually necessary corrections. But I will, as far as I can without my ma.n.u.script, take advantage of your suggestions: I must not attempt much. Will you send me one line to say whether I must strike out about the secondary whale,[180] it goes to my heart. About the rattle-snake, look to my Journal, under Trigonocephalus, and you will see the probable origin of the rattle, and generally in transitions it is the _premier pas qui coute_."

Here follows a hint of the coming storm (from a letter to Lyell, Dec.

2):--

"Do what I could, I fear I shall be greatly abused. In answer to Sedgwick's remark that my book would be 'mischievous,' I asked him whether truth can be known except by being victorious over all attacks.

But it is no use. H. C. Watson tells me that one zoologist says he will read my book, 'but I will never believe it.' What a spirit to read any book in! Crawford[181] writes to me that his notice will be hostile, but that 'he will not calumniate the author.' He says he has read my book, 'at least such parts as he could understand.'[182] He sent me some notes and suggestions (quite unimportant), and they show me that I have unavoidably done harm to the subject, by publis.h.i.+ng an abstract.... I have had several notes from ----, very civil and less decided. Says he shall not p.r.o.nounce against me without much reflection, _perhaps will say nothing_ on the subject. X. says he will go to that part of h.e.l.l, which Dante tells us is appointed for those who are neither on G.o.d's side nor on that of the devil."

But his friends were preparing to fight for him. Huxley gave, in _Macmillan's Magazine_ for December, an a.n.a.lysis of the _Origin_, together with the substance of his Royal Inst.i.tution lecture, delivered before the publication of the book.

Carpenter was preparing an essay for the _National Review_, and negotiating for a notice in the _Edinburgh_ free from any taint of _odium theologic.u.m_.

_C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down [December 12th, 1859].

... I had very long interviews with ----, which perhaps you would like to hear about.... I infer from several expressions that, at bottom, he goes an immense way with us....

He said to the effect that my explanation was the best ever published of the manner of formation of species. I said I was very glad to hear it.

He took me up short: "You must not at all suppose that I agree with you in all respects." I said I thought it no more likely that I should be right in nearly all points, than that I should toss up a penny and get heads twenty times running. I asked him what he thought the weakest part. He said he had no particular objection to any part. He added:--

"If I must criticise, I should say, we do not want to know what Darwin believes and is convinced of, but what he can prove." I agreed most fully and truly that I have probably greatly sinned in this line, and defended my general line of argument of inventing a theory and seeing how many cla.s.ses of facts the theory would explain. I added that I would endeavour to modify the "believes" and "convinceds." He took me up short: "You will then spoil your book, the charm of it is that it is Darwin himself." He added another objection, that the book was too _teres atque rotundus_--that it explained everything, and that it was improbable in the highest degree that I should succeed in this. I quite agree with this rather queer objection, and it comes to this that my book must be very bad or very good....

I have heard, by a roundabout channel, that Herschel says my book "is the law of higgledy-piggledy." What this exactly means I do not know, but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is a great blow and discouragement.

_J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin_. Kew [1859].

DEAR DARWIN,--You have, I know, been drenched with letters since the publication of your book, and I have hence forborne to add my mite.[183]

I hope now that you are well through Edition II., and I have heard that you were flouris.h.i.+ng in London. I have not yet got half-through the book, not from want of will, but of time--for it is the very hardest book to read, to full profits, that I ever tried--it is so cram-full of matter and reasoning.[184] I am all the more glad that you have published in this form, for the three volumes, unprefaced by this, would have choked any Naturalist of the nineteenth century, and certainly have softened my brain in the operation of a.s.similating their contents. I am perfectly tired of marvelling at the wonderful amount of facts you have brought to bear, and your skill in marshalling them and throwing them on the enemy; it is also extremely clear as far as I have gone, but very hard to fully appreciate. Somehow it reads very different from the MS., and I often fancy that I must have been very stupid not to have more fully followed it in MS. Lyell told me of his criticisms. I did not appreciate them all, and there are many little matters I hope one day to talk over with you. I saw a highly flattering notice in the _English Churchman_, short and not at all entering into discussion, but praising you and your book, and talking patronizingly of the doctrine!... Bentham and Henslow will still shake their heads, I fancy....

Ever yours affectionately.

_C. D. to T. H. Huxley._ Down, Dec. 28th [1859].

MY DEAR HUXLEY,--Yesterday evening, when I read the _Times_ of a previous day, I was amazed to find a splendid essay and review of me.

Who can the author be? I am intensely curious. It included an eulogium of me which quite touched me, though I am not vain enough to think it all deserved. The author is a literary man, and German scholar. He has read my book very attentively; but, what is very remarkable, it seems that he is a profound naturalist. He knows my Barnacle-book, and appreciates it too highly. Lastly, he writes and thinks with quite uncommon force and clearness; and what is even still rarer, his writing is seasoned with most pleasant wit. We all laughed heartily over some of the sentences.... Who can it be? Certainly I should have said that there was only one man in England who could have written this essay, and that _you_ were the man. But I suppose I am wrong, and that there is some hidden genius of great calibre. For how could you influence Jupiter Olympus and make him give three and a half columns to pure science? The old fogies will think the world will come to an end. Well, whoever the man is, he has done great service to the cause, far more than by a dozen reviews in common periodicals. The grand way he soars above common religious prejudices, and the admission of such views into the _Times_, I look at as of the highest importance, quite independently of the mere question of species. If you should happen to be _acquainted_ with the author, for Heaven-sake tell me who he is?

My dear Huxley, yours most sincerely.

There can be no doubt that this powerful essay, appearing in the leading daily Journal, must have had a strong influence on the reading public.

Mr. Huxley allows me to quote from a letter an account of the happy chance that threw into his hands the opportunity of writing it:--

"The _Origin_ was sent to Mr. Lucas, one of the staff of the _Times_ writers at that day, in what I suppose was the ordinary course of business. Mr. Lucas, though an excellent journalist, and, at a later period, editor of _Once a Week_, was as innocent of any knowledge of science as a babe, and bewailed himself to an acquaintance on having to deal with such a book. Whereupon he was recommended to ask me to get him out of his difficulty, and he applied to me accordingly, explaining, however, that it would be necessary for him formally to adopt anything I might be disposed to write, by prefacing it with two or three paragraphs of his own.

"I was too anxious to seize upon the opportunity thus offered of giving the book a fair chance with the mult.i.tudinous readers of the _Times_ to make any difficulty about conditions; and being then very full of the subject, I wrote the article faster, I think, than I ever wrote anything in my life, and sent it to Mr. Lucas, who duly prefixed his opening sentences.

"When the article appeared, there was much speculation as to its authors.h.i.+p. The secret leaked out in time, as all secrets will, but not by my aid; and then I used to derive a good deal of innocent amus.e.m.e.nt from the vehement a.s.sertions of some of my more acute friends, that they knew it was mine from the first paragraph!

"As the _Times_ some years since referred to my connection with the review, I suppose there will be no breach of confidence in the publication of this little history, if you think it worth the s.p.a.ce it will occupy."

FOOTNOTES:

[163] In his next letter to Lyell my father writes: "The omission of 'living' before 'eminent' naturalists was a dreadful blunder." In the first edition, as published, the blunder is corrected by the addition of the word "living."

[164] Darwin wrote to Asa Gray in 1860:--"The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder."

[165] Jean Louis Rodolphe Aga.s.siz, born at Mortier, on the lake of Morat in Switzerland, on May 28th, 1807. He emigrated to America in 1846, where he spent the rest of his life, and died Dec. 14th, 1873. His _Life_, written by his widow, was published in 1885. The following extract from a letter to Aga.s.siz (1850) is worth giving, as showing how my father regarded him, and it may be added that his cordial feeling towards the great American naturalist remained strong to the end of his life:--

"I have seldom been more deeply gratified than by receiving your most kind present of _Lake Superior_. I had heard of it, and had much wished to read it, but I confess that it was the very great honour of having in my possession a work with your autograph as a presentation copy, that has given me such lively and sincere pleasure. I cordially thank you for it. I have begun to read it with uncommon interest, which I see will increase as I go on."

[166] Mr. Wallace was in the Malay Archipelago.

[167] Nov. 19, 1859.

[168] The Reviewer speaks of the author's "evident self-satisfaction,"

and of his disposing of all difficulties "more or less confidently."

[169] A review of the fourth volume of Watson's _Cybele Britannica_, _Gard. Chron._, 1859, p. 911.

[170] See the _Origin_, first edition, p. 3, where Sir J. D. Hooker's help is conspicuously acknowledged.

[171] This refers to the review in the _Athenaeum_, Nov. 19th, 1859, where the reviewer, after touching on the theological aspects of the book, leaves the author to "the mercies of the Divinity Hall, the College, the Lecture Room, and the Museum."

[172] It appears from Sir Charles Lyell's published letters that he intended to admit the doctrine of evolution in a new edition of the _Manual_, but this was not published till 1865. He was, however, at work on the _Antiquity of Man_ in 1860, and had already determined to discuss the Origin at the end of the book.

[173] In a letter written in October, my father had said, "I am intensely curious to hear Huxley's opinion of my book. I fear my long discussion on cla.s.sification will disgust him, for it is much opposed to what he once said to me." He may have remembered the following incident told by Mr. Huxley in his chapter of the _Life and Letters_, ii. p.

196:--"I remember, in the course of my first interview with Mr. Darwin, expressing my belief in the sharpness of the lines of demarcation between natural groups and in the absence of transitional forms, with all the confidence of youth and imperfect knowledge. I was not aware, at that time, that he had then been many years brooding over the species question; and the humorous smile which accompanied his gentle answer, that such was not altogether his view, long haunted and puzzled me."

[174] Karl Ernst von Baer, b. 1792, d. at Dorpat 1876--one of the most distinguished biologists of the century. He practically founded the modern science of embryology.

[175] In the first edition of the _Origin_, Chap. IX. is on the 'Imperfection of the Geological Record;' Chap. X., on the 'Geological Succession of Organic Beings;' Chaps. XI. and XII., on 'Geographical Distribution;' Chap. XIII., on 'Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings; Morphology; Embryology; Rudimentary Organs.'

[176] His brother.

[177] Dr., afterwards Sir Henry, Holland.