Charles Darwin: His Life in an Autobiographical Chapter Part 36

"I have collected a few notes on man, but I do not suppose that I shall ever use them. Do you intend to follow out your views, and if so, would you like at some future time to have my few references and notes? I am sure I hardly know whether they are of any value, and they are at present in a state of chaos. There is much more that I should like to write, but I have not strength." But this was at a period of ill-health; not long before, in 1863, he had written in the same depressed tone about his future work generally:--

"I have been so steadily going downhill, I cannot help doubting whether I can ever crawl a little uphill again. Unless I can, enough to work a little, I hope my life may be very short, for to lie on a sofa all day and do nothing but give trouble to the best and kindest of wives and good dear children is dreadful."

The "Chapter on Man," which afterwards grew into the _Descent of Man_, was interrupted by the necessity of correcting the proofs of _Animals and Plants_, and by some botanical work, but was resumed with unremitting industry on the first available day in the following year.

He could not rest, and he recognised with regret the gradual change in his mind that rendered continuous work more and more necessary to him as he grew older. This is expressed in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, June 17, 1868, which repeats to some extent what is given in the _Autobiography_:--

"I am glad you were at the _Messiah_, it is the one thing that I should like to hear again, but I dare say I should find my soul too dried up to appreciate it as in old days; and then I should feel very flat, for it is a horrid bore to feel as I constantly do, that I am a withered leaf for every subject except Science. It sometimes makes me hate Science, though G.o.d knows I ought to be thankful for such a perennial interest, which makes me forget for some hours every day my accursed stomach."

_The Descent of Man_ (and this is indicated on its t.i.tle-page) consists of two separate books, namely on the pedigree of mankind, and on s.e.xual selection in the animal kingdom generally. In studying this latter part of the subject he had to take into consideration the whole subject of colour. I give the two following characteristic letters, in which the reader is as it were present at the birth of a theory.

_C. D. to A. R. Wallace._ Down, February 23 [1867].

DEAR WALLACE,--I much regretted that I was unable to call on you, but after Monday I was unable even to leave the house. On Monday evening I called on Bates, and put a difficulty before him, which he could not answer, and, as on some former similar occasion, his first suggestion was, "You had better ask Wallace." My difficulty is, why are caterpillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically coloured? Seeing that many are coloured to escape danger, I can hardly attribute their bright colour in other cases to mere physical conditions. Bates says the most gaudy caterpillar he ever saw in Amazonia (of a sphinx) was conspicuous at the distance of yards, from its black and red colours, whilst feeding on large green leaves. If any one objected to male b.u.t.terflies having been made beautiful by s.e.xual selection, and asked why should they not have been made beautiful as well as their caterpillars, what would you answer? I could not answer, but should maintain my ground. Will you think over this, and some time, either by letter or when we meet, tell me what you think?...

He seems to have received an explanation by return of post, for a day or two afterwards he could write to Wallace:--

"Bates was quite right; you are the man to apply to in a difficulty. I never heard anything more ingenious than your suggestion, and I hope you may be able to prove it true. That is a splendid fact about the white moths; it warms one's very blood to see a theory thus almost proved to be true."

Mr. Wallace's suggestion was that conspicuous caterpillars or perfect insects (_e.g._ white b.u.t.terflies), which are distasteful to birds, benefit by being promptly recognised and therefore easily avoided.[247]

The letter from Darwin to Wallace goes on: "The reason of my being so much interested just at present about s.e.xual selection is, that I have almost resolved to publish a little essay on the origin of Mankind, and I still strongly think (though I failed to convince you, and this, to me, is the heaviest blow possible) that s.e.xual selection has been the main agent in forming the races of man.

"By the way, there is another subject which I shall introduce in my essay, namely, expression of countenance. Now, do you happen to know by any odd chance a very good-natured and acute observer in the Malay Archipelago, who you think would make a few easy observations for me on the expression of the Malays when excited by various emotions?"

The reference to the subject of expression in the above letter is explained by the fact, that my father's original intention was to give his essay on this subject as a chapter in the _Descent of Man_, which in its turn grew, as we have seen, out of a proposed chapter in _Animals and Plants_.

He got much valuable help from Dr. Gunther, of the Natural History Museum, to whom he wrote in May 1870:--

"As I crawl on with the successive cla.s.ses I am astonished to find how similar the rules are about the nuptial or 'wedding dress' of all animals. The subject has begun to interest me in an extraordinary degree; but I must try not to fall into my common error of being too speculative. But a drunkard might as well say he would drink a little and not too much! My essay, as far as fishes, batrachians and reptiles are concerned, will be in fact yours, only written by me."

The last revise of the _Descent of Man_ was corrected on January 15th, 1871, so that the book occupied him for about three years. He wrote to Sir J. Hooker: "I finished the last proofs of my book a few days ago; the work half-killed me, and I have not the most remote idea whether the book is worth publis.h.i.+ng."

He also wrote to Dr. Gray:--

"I have finished my book on the _Descent of Man_, &c., and its publication is delayed only by the Index: when published, I will send you a copy, but I do not know that you will care about it. Parts, as on the moral sense, will, I dare say, aggravate you, and if I hear from you, I shall probably receive a few stabs from your polished stiletto of a pen."

The book was published on February 24, 1871. 2500 copies were printed at first, and 6000 more before the end of the year. My father notes that he received for this edition 1470.

Nothing can give a better idea (in a small compa.s.s) of the growth of Evolutionism, and its position at this time, than a quotation from Mr.

Huxley[248]:--

"The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more than a decade from the date of the publication of the _Origin of Species_; and whatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the manner in which he has propounded them, this much is certain, that in a dozen years the _Origin of Species_ has worked as complete a revolution in Biological Science as the _Principia_ did in Astronomy;" and it had done so, "because in the words of Helmholtz, it contains 'an essentially new creative thought.' And, as time has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin's critics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which at first characterised a large proportion of the attacks with which he was a.s.sailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti-Darwinian criticism."

A pa.s.sage in the Introduction to the _Descent of Man_ shows that the author recognised clearly this improvement in the position of Evolutionism. "When a naturalist like Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address, as President of the National Inst.i.tution of Geneva (1869), 'personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation independante et de toutes pieces, des especes,' it is manifest that at least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good with the younger and rising naturalists.... Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural science, many, unfortunately, are still opposed to Evolution in every form."

In Mr. James Hague's pleasantly written article, "A Reminiscence of Mr.

Darwin" (_Harper's Magazine_, October 1884), he describes a visit to my father "early in 1871," shortly after the publication of the _Descent of Man_. Mr. Hague represents my father as "much impressed by the general a.s.sent with which his views had been received," and as remarking that "everybody is talking about it without being shocked."

Later in the year the reception of the book is described in different language in the _Edinburgh Review_: "On every side it is raising a storm of mingled wrath, wonder and admiration."

Haeckel seems to have been one of the first to write to my father about the _Descent of Man_. I quote from Darwin's reply:--

"I must send you a few words to thank you for your interesting, and I may truly say, charming letter. I am delighted that you approve of my book, as far as you have read it. I felt very great difficulty and doubt how often I ought to allude to what you have published; strictly speaking every idea, although occurring independently to me, if published by you previously ought to have appeared as if taken from your works, but this would have made my book very dull reading; and I hoped that a full acknowledgment at the beginning would suffice.[249] I cannot tell you how glad I am to find that I have expressed my high admiration of your labours with sufficient clearness; I am sure that I have not expressed it too strongly."

In March he wrote to Professor Ray Lankester:--

"I think you will be glad to hear, as a proof of the increasing liberality of England, that my book has sold wonderfully ... and as yet no abuse (though some, no doubt, will come, strong enough), and only contempt even in the poor old _Athenaeum_."

About the same time he wrote to Mr. Murray:--

"Many thanks for the _Nonconformist_ [March 8, 1871]. I like to see all that is written, and it is of some real use. If you hear of reviewers in out-of-the-way papers, especially the religious, as _Record_, _Guardian_, _Tablet_, kindly inform me. It is wonderful that there has been no abuse as yet. On the whole, the reviews have been highly favourable."

The following extract from a letter to Mr. Murray (April 13, 1871) refers to a review in the _Times_[250]:--

"I have no idea who wrote the _Times'_ review. He has no knowledge of science, and seems to me a wind-bag full of metaphysics and cla.s.sics, so that I do not much regard his adverse judgment, though I suppose it will injure the sale."

A striking review appeared in the _Sat.u.r.day Review_ (March 4 and 11, 1871) in which the position of Evolution is well stated.

"He claims to have brought man himself, his origin and const.i.tution, within that unity which he had previously sought to trace through all lower animal forms. The growth of opinion in the interval, due in chief measure to his own intermediate works, has placed the discussion of this problem in a position very much in advance of that held by it fifteen years ago. The problem of Evolution is hardly any longer to be treated as one of first principles: nor has Mr. Darwin to do battle for a first hearing of his central hypothesis, upborne as it is by a phalanx of names full of distinction and promise in either hemisphere."

We must now return to the history of the general principle of Evolution.

At the beginning of 1869[251] he was at work on the fifth edition of the _Origin_. The most important alterations were suggested by a remarkable paper in the _North British Review_ (June, 1867) written by the late Fleeming Jenkin.

It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms, which my father, as I believe, felt to be the most valuable ever made on his views should have come, not from a professed naturalist but from a Professor of Engineering.

The point on which Fleeming Jenkin convinced my father is the extreme difficulty of believing that _single individuals_ which differ from their fellows in the possession of some useful character can be the starting point of a new variety. Thus the origin of a new variety is more likely to be found in a species which presents the incipient character in a large number of its individuals. This point of view was of course perfectly familiar to him, it was this that induced him to study "unconscious selection," where a breed is formed by the long-continued preservation by Man of all those individuals which are best adapted to his needs: not as in the art of the professed breeder, where a single individual is picked out to breed from.

It is impossible to give in a short compa.s.s an account of Fleeming Jenkin's argument. My father's copy of the paper (ripped out of the volume as usual, and tied with a bit of string) is annotated in pencil in many places. I quote a pa.s.sage opposite which my father has written "good sneers"--but it should be remembered that he used the word "sneer"

in rather a special sense, not as necessarily implying a feeling of bitterness in the critic, but rather in the sense of "banter." Speaking of the "true believer," Fleeming Jenkin says, p. 293:--

"He can invent trains of ancestors of whose existence there is no evidence; he can marshal hosts of equally imaginary foes; he can call up continents, floods, and peculiar atmospheres; he can dry up oceans, split islands, and parcel out eternity at will; surely with these advantages he must be a dull fellow if he cannot scheme some series of animals and circ.u.mstances explaining our a.s.sumed difficulty quite naturally. Feeling the difficulty of dealing with adversaries who command so huge a domain of fancy, we will abandon these arguments, and trust to those which at least cannot be a.s.sailed by mere efforts of imagination."

In the fifth edition of the _Origin_, my father altered a pa.s.sage in the Historical Sketch (fourth edition, p. xviii.). He thus practically gave up the difficult task of understanding whether or not Sir R. Owen claims to have discovered the principle of Natural Selection. Adding, "As far as the more enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us ... were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr.

Matthew."

The desire that his views might spread in France was always strong with my father, and he was therefore justly annoyed to find that in 1869 the publisher of the French edition had brought out a third edition without consulting the author. He was accordingly glad to enter into an arrangement for a French translation of the fifth edition; this was undertaken by M. Reinwald, with whom he continued to have pleasant relations as the publisher of many of his books in French.

He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker:--

"I must enjoy myself and tell you about Mdlle. C. Royer, who translated the _Origin_ into French, and for whose second edition I took infinite trouble. She has now just brought out a third edition without informing me, so that all the corrections, &c., in the fourth and fifth English editions are lost. Besides her enormously long preface to the first edition, she has added a second preface abusing me like a pickpocket for Pangenesis, which of course has no relation to the _Origin_. So I wrote to Paris; and Reinwald agrees to bring out at once a new translation from the fifth English edition, in compet.i.tion with her third edition.... This fact shows that 'evolution of species' must at last be spreading in France."

It will be well perhaps to place here all that remains to be said about the _Origin of Species_. The sixth or final edition was published in January 1872 in a smaller and cheaper form than its predecessors. The chief addition was a discussion suggested by Mr. Mivart's _Genesis of Species_, which appeared in 1871, before the publication of the _Descent of Man_. The following quotation from a letter to Wallace (July 9, 1871) may serve to show the spirit and method in which Mr. Mivart dealt with the subject. "I grieve to see the omission of the words by Mivart, detected by Wright.[252] I complained to Mivart that in two cases he quotes only the commencement of sentences by me, and thus modifies my meaning; but I never supposed he would have omitted words. There are other cases of what I consider unfair treatment."

My father continues, with his usual charity and moderation:--