Volume II Part 43 (2/2)
Murray also seeks to prove that ”the chief features of coral reefs and islands can be accounted for without calling in the aid of great and general subsidence.” The following letter refers to this subject:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A. AGa.s.sIZ. Down, May 5, 1881.
... You will have seen Mr. Murray's views on the formation of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publis.h.i.+ng my book, I thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was known of the mult.i.tude of minute oceanic organisms.
I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the ”Beagle”, in the south temperate regions, I concluded that sh.e.l.ls, the smaller corals, etc., decayed, and were dissolved, when not protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could not acc.u.mulate in the open ocean. Certainly, sh.e.l.ls, etc., were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but you will know well whether this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute oceanic organisms could have acc.u.mulated to the thickness of many hundred feet... Pray forgive me for troubling you at such length, but it has occurred [to me] that you might be disposed to give, after your wide experience, your judgment. If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much, and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great oceans.
I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet...
[The second edition of the 'Descent of Man' was published in the autumn of 1874. Some severe remarks on the ”monistic hypothesis” appeared in the July (The review necessarily deals with the first edition of the 'Descent of Man.') number of the 'Quarterly Review' (page 45). The Reviewer expresses his astonishment at the ignorance of certain elementary distinctions and principles (e.g. with regard to the verb.u.m mentale) exhibited, among others, by Mr. Darwin, who does not exhibit the faintest indication of having grasped them, yet a clear perception of them, and a direct and detailed examination of his facts with regard to them, ”was a sine qua non for attempting, with a chance of success, the solution of the mystery as to the descent of man.”
Some further criticisms of a later date may be here alluded to. In the 'Academy,' 1876 (pages 562, 587), appeared a review of Mr. Mivart's 'Lessons from Nature,' by Mr. Wallace. When considering the part of Mr. Mivart's book relating to Natural and s.e.xual Selection, Mr. Wallace says: ”In his violent attack on Mr. Darwin's theories our author uses unusually strong language. Not content with mere argument, he expresses 'reprobation of Mr. Darwin's views'; and a.s.serts that though he (Mr.
Darwin) has been obliged, virtually, to give up his theory, it is still maintained by Darwinians with 'unscrupulous audacity,' and the actual repudiation of it concealed by the 'conspiracy of silence.'” Mr. Wallace goes on to show that these charges are without foundation, and points out that, ”if there is one thing more than another for which Mr. Darwin is pre-eminent among modern literary and scientific men, it is for his perfect literary honesty, his self-abnegation in confessing himself wrong, and the eager haste with which he proclaims and even magnifies small errors in his works, for the most part discovered by himself.”
The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th) refers to Mr. Mivart's statement ('Lessons from Nature,' page 144) that Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views as to the ”b.e.s.t.i.a.lity of man”:--
”I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the Academy. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the 'Origin' I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, I went out of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted in my 'Descent of Man.' Therefore it is very unjust,... of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment.”
The letter which here follows is of interest in connection with the discussion, in the 'Descent of Man,' on the origin of the musical sense in man:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO E. GURNEY. (Author of 'The Power of Sound.') Down, July 8, 1876.
My dear Mr. Gurney,
I have read your article (”Some disputed Points in Music.”--'Fortnightly Review,' July, 1876.) with much interest, except the latter part, which soared above my ken. I am greatly pleased that you uphold my views to a certain extent. Your criticism of the rasping noise made by insects being necessarily rhythmical is very good; but though not made intentionally, it may be pleasing to the females from the nerve cells being nearly similar in function throughout the animal kingdom. With respect to your letter, I believe that I understand your meaning, and agree with you. I never supposed that the different degrees and kinds of pleasure derived from different music could be explained by the musical powers of our semi-human progenitors. Does not the fact that different people belonging to the same civilised nation are very differently affected by the same music, almost show that these diversities of taste and pleasure have been acquired during their individual lives? Your simile of architecture seems to me particularly good; for in this case the appreciation almost must be individual, though possibly the sense of sublimity excited by a grand cathedral, may have some connection with the vague feelings of terror and superst.i.tion in our savage ancestors, when they entered a great cavern or gloomy forest. I wish some one could a.n.a.lyse the feeling of sublimity. It amuses me to think how horrified some high flying aesthetic men will be at your encouraging such low degraded views as mine.
Believe me, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous interest. The first extract (from a letter, January 18, 1874) refers to a spiritualistic seance, held at Erasmus Darwin's house, 6 Queen Anne Street, under the auspices of a well-known medium:]
”... We had grand fun, one afternoon, for George hired a medium, who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery points jump about in my brother's diningroom, in a manner that astounded every one, and took away all their breaths. It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh Wedgwood held the medium's hands and feet on both sides all the time. I found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these astounding miracles, or jugglery, took place. How the man could possibly do what was done pa.s.ses my understanding. I came downstairs, and saw all the chairs, etc., on the table, which had been lifted over the heads of those sitting round it.
The Lord have mercy on us all, if we have to believe in such rubbish. F.
Galton was there, and says it was a good seance...”
The Seance in question led to a smaller and more carefully organised one being undertaken, at which Mr. Huxley was present, and on which he reported to my father:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO PROFESSOR T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 29 [1874].
My dear Huxley,
<script>