Volume I Part 42 (2/2)

The Torah is the Pentateuch, strictly speaking, the source of all knowledge.) which has ”proceeded from thee for a light of the people”

(Isa. li. 4), and the nations ”hear and say, It is truth” (Isa. xliii.

9). But with ”the portion of my people” (Jer. x. 16), Jacob, ”the lot of my inheritance” (Deut. x.x.xii. 9), it is not so. This nation, ”the ancient people” (Isa. xliv. 7), which ”remembers the former things and considers the things of old (Isa. xliii. 18), ”knows not, neither doth it understand” (Psalm lx.x.xii. 5), that by thy Torah (instruction or theory) thou hast thrown light upon their Torah (the Law), and that the eyes of the Hebrews (277/3. One letter in this word changed would make the word ”blind,” which is what Isaiah uses in the pa.s.sage alluded to.) ”can now see out of obscurity and out of darkness” (Isa. xxix. 18).

Therefore ”I arose” (Judges v. 7) and wrote this book, ”Toledoth Adam”

(”the generations of man,” Gen. v. 1), to teach the children of my people, the seed of Jacob, the Torah (instruction) which thou hast given for an inheritance to all the nations of the earth.

And I have ”proceeded to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder” (Isa. xxix. 14), enabling them now to read in the Torah of Moses our teacher, ”plainly and giving the sense”

(Neh. viii. 8), that which thou hast given in thy Torahs (works of instruction). And when my people perceive that thy view has by no means ”gone astray” (Num. v. 12, 19, etc.) from the Torah of G.o.d, they will hold thy name in the highest reverence, and ”will at the same time glorify the G.o.d of Israel” (Isa. xxix. 23).

”The vision of all this” (Isa. xxix. 11) thou shalt see, O Prince of Wisdom, in this book, ”which goeth before me” (Gen. x.x.xii. 21); and whatever thy large understanding finds to criticise in it, come, ”write it in a table and note it in a book” (Isa. x.x.x. 8); and allow me to name my work with thy name, which is glorified and greatly revered by

Thy servant, Naphtali Hallevi [i.e. the Levite].

Dated here in the city of Radom, in the province of Poland, in the month of Nisan in the year 636, according to the lesser computation (i.e. A.M.

[5]636 = A.D. 1876).

LETTER 278. TO OTTO ZACHARIAS. 1877.

When I was on board the ”Beagle” I believed in the permanence of species, but, as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally flitted across my mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836 I immediately began to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the common descent of species (278/1. ”The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but until the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the species of the different geographical areas, with one another were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have been effected before the return of the ”Beagle” to England; and thus the date which Darwin (writing in 1837) a.s.signs to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind becomes intelligible.”--From ”Darwiniana,”

Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, London, 1893; pages 274-5.), so that in July, 1837, I opened a notebook to record any facts which might bear on the question; but I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years had elapsed. (278/2. On this last point see page 38.)

LETTER 279. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we have not seen. Darwin's remarks on it are, however, sufficiently clear.)

My address will be ”Ba.s.sett, Southampton,” June 11th [1877].

I have received the crossing paper which you were so kind as to send me.

It is very clear, and I quite agree with it; but the point in question has not been a difficulty to me, as I have never believed in a new form originating from a single variation. What I have called unconscious selection by man ill.u.s.trates, as it seems to me, the same principle as yours, within the same area. Man purchases the individual animals or plants which seem to him the best in any respect--some more so, and some less so--and, without any matching or pairing, the breed in the course of time is surely altered. The absence in numerous instances of intermediate or blending forms, in the border country between two closely allied geographical races or close species, seemed to me a greater difficulty when I discussed the subject in the ”Origin.”

With respect to your ill.u.s.tration, it formerly drove me half mad to attempt to account for the increase or diminution of the productiveness of an organism; but I cannot call to mind where my difficulty lay.

(279/2. See Letters 209-16.) Natural Selection always applies, as I think, to each individual and its offspring, such as its seeds, eggs, which are formed by the mother, and which are protected in various ways.

(279/3. It was in regard to this point that Romanes had sent the MS. to Darwin. In a letter of June 16th he writes: ”It was with reference to the possibility of Natural Selection acting on organic types as distinguished from individuals,--a possibility which you once told me did not seem at all clear.”) There does not seem any difficulty in understanding how the productiveness of an organism might be increased; but it was, as far as I can remember, in reducing productiveness that I was most puzzled. But why I scribble about this I know not.

I have read your review of Mr. Allen's book (279/4. See ”Nature”

(June 7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen's ”Physiological Aesthetics.”), and it makes me more doubtful, even, than I was before whether he has really thrown much light on the subject.

I am glad to hear that some physiologists take the same view as I did about your giving too much credit to H. Spencer--though, heaven knows, this is a rare fault. (279/5. The reference is to Romanes' lecture on Medusa, given at the Royal Inst.i.tution, May 25th. (See ”Nature,” XVI., pages 231, 269, 289.) It appears from a letter of Romanes (June 6th) that it was the abstract in the ”Times” that gave the impression referred to. References to Mr. Spencer's theories of nerve-genesis occur in ”Nature,” pages 232, 271, 289.)

The more I think of your medusa-nerve-work the more splendid it seems to me.

<script>