Volume I Part 18 (1/2)
LETTER 92. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(92/1. The point here discussed is one to which Mr. Huxley attached great, in our opinion too great, importance.)
Down, January 11th [1860?].
I fully agree that the difficulty is great, and might be made much of by a mere advocate. Will you oblige me by reading again slowly from pages 267 to 272. (92/2. The reference is to the ”Origin,” Edition I.: the section on ”The Fertility of Varieties when crossed, and of their Mongrel Offspring” occupies pages 267-72.) I may add to what is there said, that it seems to me quite hopeless to attempt to explain why varieties are not sterile, until we know the precise cause of sterility in species.
Reflect for a moment on how small and on what very peculiar causes the unequal reciprocity of fertility in the same two species must depend.
Reflect on the curious case of species more fertile with foreign pollen than their own. Reflect on many cases which could be given, and shall be given in my larger book (independently of hybridity) of very slight changes of conditions causing one species to be quite sterile and not affecting a closely allied species. How profoundly ignorant we are on the intimate relation between conditions of life and impaired fertility in pure species!
The only point which I might add to my short discussion on this subject, is that I think it probable that the want of adaptation to uniform conditions of life in our domestic varieties has played an important part in preventing their acquiring sterility when crossed. For the want of uniformity, and changes in the conditions of life, seem the only cause of the elimination of sterility (when crossed) under domestication. (92/3. The meaning which we attach to this obscure sentence is as follows: Species in a state of nature are closely adapted to definite conditions of life, so that the s.e.xual const.i.tution of species A is attuned, as it were, to a condition different from that to which B is attuned, and this leads to sterility. But domestic varieties are not strictly adapted by Natural Selection to definite conditions, and thus have less specialised s.e.xual const.i.tutions.) This elimination, though admitted by many authors, rests on very slight evidence, yet I think is very probably true, as may be inferred from the case of dogs. Under nature it seems improbable that the differences in the reproductive const.i.tution, on which the sterility of any two species when crossed depends, can be acquired directly by Natural Selection; for it is of no advantage to the species. Such differences in reproductive const.i.tution must stand in correlation with some other differences; but how impossible to conjecture what these are! Reflect on the case of the variations of Verbasc.u.m, which differ in no other respect whatever besides the fluctuating element of the colour of the flower, and yet it is impossible to resist Gartner's evidence, that this difference in the colour does affect the mutual fertility of the varieties.
The whole case seems to me far too mysterious to rest (92/4. The word ”rest” seems to be used in place of ”to serve as a foundation for.”) a valid attack on the theory of modification of species, though, as you say, it offers excellent ground for a mere advocate.
I am surprised, considering how ignorant we are on very many points, [that] more weak parts in my book have not as yet been pointed out to me. No doubt many will be. H.C. Watson founds his objection in MS. on there being no limit to infinite diversification of species: I have answered this, I think, satisfactorily, and have sent attack and answer to Lyell and Hooker. If this seems to you a good objection, I would send papers to you. Andrew Murray ”disposes of” the whole theory by an ingenious difficulty from the distribution of blind cave insects (92/5.
See ”Life and Letters, Volume II., page 265. The reference here is to Murray's address before the Botanical Society, Edinburgh. Mr. Darwin seems to have read Murray's views only in a separate copy reprinted from the ”Proc. R. Soc. Edin.” There is some confusion about the date of the paper; the separate copy is dated January 16th, while in the volume of the ”Proc. R. Soc.” it is February 20th. In the ”Life and Letters,” II., page 261 it is erroneously stated that these are two different papers.); but it can, I think, be fairly answered.
LETTER 93. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, [February] 2nd [1860].
I have had this morning a letter from old Bronn (93/1. See ”Life and Letters, II., page 277.) (who, to my astonishment, seems slightly staggered by Natural Selection), and he says a publisher in Stuttgart is willing to publish a translation, and that he, Bronn, will to a certain extent superintend. Have you written to Kolliker? if not, perhaps I had better close with this proposal--what do you think? If you have written, I must wait, and in this case will you kindly let me hear as soon as you hear from Kolliker?
My poor dear friend, you will curse the day when you took up the ”general agency” line; but really after this I will not give you any more trouble.
Do not forget the three tickets for us for your lecture, and the ticket for Baily, the poulterer.
Old Bronn has published in the ”Year-book for Mineralogy” a notice of the ”Origin” (93/2. ”Neues Jahrb. fur Min.” 1860, page 112.); and says he has himself published elsewhere a foreboding of the theory!
LETTER 94. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 14th [1860].
I succeeded in persuading myself for twenty-four hours that Huxley's lecture was a success. (94/1. At the Royal Inst.i.tution. See ”Life and Letters,” II., page 282.) Parts were eloquent and good, and all very bold; and I heard strangers say, ”What a good lecture!” I told Huxley so; but I demurred much to the time wasted in introductory remarks, especially to his making it appear that sterility was a clear and manifest distinction of species, and to his not having even alluded to the more important parts of the subject. He said that he had much more written out, but time failed. After conversation with others and more reflection, I must confess that as an exposition of the doctrine the lecture seems to me an entire failure. I thank G.o.d I did not think so when I saw Huxley; for he spoke so kindly and magnificently of me, that I could hardly have endured to say what I now think. He gave no just idea of Natural Selection. I have always looked at the doctrine of Natural Selection as an hypothesis, which, if it explained several large cla.s.ses of facts, would deserve to be ranked as a theory deserving acceptance; and this, of course, is my own opinion. But, as Huxley has never alluded to my explanation of cla.s.sification, morphology, embryology, etc., I thought he was thoroughly dissatisfied with all this part of my book. But to my joy I find it is not so, and that he agrees with my manner of looking at the subject; only that he rates higher than I do the necessity of Natural Selection being shown to be a vera causa always in action. He tells me he is writing a long review in the ”Westminster.” It was really provoking how he wasted time over the idea of a species as exemplified in the horse, and over Sir J. Hall's old experiment on marble. Murchison was very civil to me over my book after the lecture, in which he was disappointed. I have quite made up my mind to a savage onslaught; but with Lyell, you, and Huxley, I feel confident we are right, and in the long run shall prevail. I do not think Asa Gray has quite done you justice in the beginning of the review of me. (94/2.
”Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection,” by ”A.G.” (”Amer. Jour. Sci.” Volume XXIX., page 153, 1860).
In a letter to Asa Gray on February 18th, 1860, Darwin writes: ”Your review seems to me admirable; by far the best which I have read.” (”Life and Letters,” II., 1887, page 286.) The review seemed to me very good, but I read it very hastily.
LETTER 95. TO C. LYELL. Down, [February] 18th [1860].
I send by this post Asa Gray, which seems to me very good, with the stamp of originality on it. Also Bronn's ”Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie.”
(95/1. See Letter 93.)
The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to make it out. I never tried such confoundedly hard german; nor does it seem worth the labour. He sticks to Priestley's Green Matter, and seems to think that till it can be shown how life arises it is no good showing how the forms of life arise. This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great things with little) as to say it was no use in Newton showing the laws of attraction of gravity and the consequent movement of the planets, because he could not show what the attraction of gravity is.
The expression ”Wahl der Lebens-Weise” (95/2. ”Die fruchtbarste und allgemeinste Ursache der Varietaten-Bildung ist jedoch die Wahl der Lebens-Weise” (loc. cit., page 112).) makes me doubt whether B.
understands what I mean by Natural Selection, as I have told him. He says (if I understand him) that you ought to be on the same side with me.
P.S. Sunday afternoon.--I have kept back this to thank you for your letter, with much news, received this morning. My conscience is uneasy at the time you waste in amusing and interesting me. I was very curious to hear about Phillips. The review in the ”Annals” is, as I was convinced, by Wollaston, for I have had a very cordial letter from him this morning. (95/3. A bibliographical Notice ”On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” (”Annals and Mag.” Volume V., pages 132-43, 1860). The notice is not signed. Referring to the article, in a letter to Lyell, February 15th, 1860, Darwin writes: ”I am perfectly convinced...that the review in the ”Annals” is by Wollaston; no one else in the world would have used so many parentheses” (”Life and Letters,”
II., page 284).)
I send by this post an attack in the ”Gardeners' Chronicle” by Harvey (a first-rate botanist, as you probably know). (95/4. In the ”Gardeners'