Volume I Part 43 (1/2)
LETTER 280. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, August 3rd, 1877.
I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your long and interesting letter. The cause and means of the transition from an hermaphrodite to a unis.e.xual condition seems to me a very perplexing problem, and I shall be extremely glad to read your remarks on Smilax, whenever I receive the essay which you kindly say that you will send me. (280/1. ”Monographiae Phanerogamarum,” Volume I. In his treatment of the Smilaceae, De Candolle distinguishes:--Heterosmilax which has dioecious flowers without a trace of aborted stamens or pistils, Smilax with sterile stamens in the female flowers, and Rhipogonum with hermaphrodite flowers.) There is much justice in your criticisms (280/2. The pa.s.sage criticised by De Candolle is in ”Forms of Flowers” (page 7): ”It is a natural inference that their corollas have been increased in size for this special purpose.” De Candolle goes on to give an account of the ”recherche linguistique,” which, with characteristic fairness, he undertook to ascertain whether the word ”purpose” differs in meaning from the corresponding French word ”but.”) on my use of the terms object, end, purpose; but those who believe that organs have been gradually modified for Natural Selection for a special purpose may, I think, use the above terms correctly, though no conscious being has intervened. I have found much difficulty in my occasional attempts to avoid these terms, but I might perhaps have always spoken of a beneficial or serviceable effect. My son Francis will be interested by hearing about Smilax. He has dispatched to you a copy of his paper on the glands of Dipsacus (280/3. ”Quart. Journ. Mic. Sci.” 1877.), and I hope that you will find time to read it, for the case seems to me a new and highly remarkable one. We are now hard at work on an attempt to make out the function or use of the bloom or waxy secretion on the leaves and fruit of many plants; but I doubt greatly whether our experiments will tell us much. (280/4. ”As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation--with some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with some sea-sh.o.r.e plants prevents injury from salt-water, and I believe, with a few prevents injury from pure water resting on the leaves.” (See letter to Sir W.
Thiselton-Dyer, ”Life and Letters,” III., page 341. A paper on the same subject by Francis Darwin was published in the ”Journ. Linn.
Soc.” XXII.)) If you have any decided opinion whether plants with conspicuously glaucous leaves are more frequent in hot than in temperate or cold, in dry than in damp countries, I should be grateful if you would add to your many kindnesses by informing me. Pray give my kind remembrances to your son, and tell him that my son has been trying on a large scale the effects of feeding Drosera with meat, and the results are most striking and far more favourable than I antic.i.p.ated.
LETTER 281. TO G.J. ROMANES.
(281/1. Published in the ”Life and Letters” of Romanes, page 66.)
Down, Sat.u.r.day Night [1877].
I have just finished your lecture (281/2. ”The Scientific Evidence of Organic Evolution: a Discourse” (delivered before the Philosophical Society of Ross-s.h.i.+re), Inverness, 1877. It was reprinted in the ”Fortnightly Review,” and was afterwards worked up into a book under the above t.i.tle.); it is an admirable scientific argument, and most powerful. I wish that it could be sown broadcast throughout the land.
Your courage is marvellous, and I wonder that you were not stoned on the spot--and in Scotland! Do please tell me how it was received in the Lecture Hall. About man being made like a monkey (page 37 (281/3. ”And if you reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent, you can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape” (”Discourse,” page 37).)) is quite new to me, and the argument in an earlier place (page 8 (281/4.
At page 8 of the ”Discourse” the speaker referred to the law ”which Sir William Hamilton called the Law of Parsimony--or the law which forbids us to a.s.sume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the desired effects,” as const.i.tuting the ”only logical barrier between Science and Superst.i.tion.”)) on the law of parsimony admirably put. Yes, page 21 (281/5. ”Discourse,” page 21. If we accept the doctrines of individual creations and ideal types, we must believe that the Deity acted ”with no other apparent motive than to suggest to us, by every one of the observable facts, that the ideal types are nothing other than the bonds of a lineal descent.”) is new to me. All strike me as very clear, and, considering small s.p.a.ce, you have chosen your lines of reasoning excellently.
The few last pages are awfully powerful, in my opinion.
Sunday Morning.--The above was written last night in the enthusiasm of the moment, and now--this dark, dismal Sunday morning--I fully agree with what I said.
I am very sorry to hear about the failures in the graft experiments, and not from your own fault or ill-luck. Trollope in one of his novels gives as a maxim of constant use by a brickmaker--”It is dogged as does it”
(281/6. ”Tell 'ee what, Master Crawley;--and yer reverence mustn't think as I means to be preaching; there ain't nowt a man can't bear if he'll only be dogged. You go whome, Master Crawley, and think o' that, and may be it'll do ye a good yet. It's dogged as does it. It ain't thinking about it.” (Giles Hoggett, the old Brickmaker, in ”The Last Chronicle of Ba.r.s.et,” Volume II., 1867, page 188.))--and I have often and often thought that this is the motto for every scientific worker. I am sure it is yours--if you do not give up pangenesis with wicked imprecations.
By the way, G. Jager has brought out in ”Kosmos” a chemical sort of pangenesis bearing chiefly on inheritance. (281/7. Several papers by Jager on ”Inheritance” were published in the first volume of ”Kosmos,”
1877.)
I cannot conceive why I have not offered my garden for your experiments.
I would attend to the plants, as far as mere care goes, with pleasure; but Down is an awkward place to reach.
Would it be worth while to try if the ”Fortnightly” would republish it [i.e. the lecture]?
LETTER 282. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(282/1. In 1877 the honorary degree of LL.D. was conferred on Mr. Darwin by the University of Cambridge. At the dinner given on the occasion by the Philosophical Society, Mr. Huxley responded to the toast of the evening with the speech of which an authorised version is given by Mr.
L. Huxley in the ”Life and Letters” of his father (Volume I., page 479).
Mr. Huxley said, ”But whether the that doctrine [of evolution] be true or whether it be false, I wish to express the deliberate opinion, that from Aristotle's great summary of the biological knowledge of his time down to the present day, there is nothing comparable to the ”Origin of Species,” as a connected survey of the phenomena of life permeated and vivified by a central idea.”
In the first part of the speech there was a brilliant sentence which he described as a touch of the whip ”tied round with ribbons,” and this was perhaps a little hard on the supporters of evolution in the University.
Mr. Huxley said ”Instead of offering her honours when they ran a chance of being crushed beneath the acc.u.mulated marks of approbation of the whole civilised world, the University has waited until the trophy was finished, and has crowned the edifice with the delicate wreath of academic appreciation.”)
Down, Monday night, November 19th [1877].
I cannot rest easy without telling you more gravely than I did when we met for five minutes near the Museum, how deeply I have felt the many generous things (as far as Frank could remember them) which you said about me at the dinner. Frank came early next morning boiling over with enthusiasm about your speech. You have indeed always been to me a most generous friend, but I know, alas, too well how greatly you overestimate me. Forgive me for bothering you with these few lines.
(282/2. The following extract from a letter (February 10th, 1878) to his old schoolfellow, Mr. J. Price, gives a characteristic remark about the honorary degree.)