Volume 1 / Part 2 — II.—The Complete Extant Correspondence between Wallace and Darwin (continued 3)

Really, what with the Tories passing Radical Reform Bills and the Church periodicals advocating Darwinianism, the millennium must be at hand.—A.R.W.

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 22, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—Your intended dedication pleases me much and I look at it as a great honour, and this is nothing more than the truth. I am glad to hear, for Lyell's sake and on general grounds, that you are going to write in the Quarterly. Some little time ago I was actually wishing that you wrote in the Quarterly, as I knew that you occasionally contributed to periodicals, and I thought that your articles would thus be more widely read.

Thank you for telling me about the Guardian, which I will borrow from Lyell. I did note the article in the Quarterly Journal of Science and put it aside to read again with the articles in Fraser and the Spectator.

I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing a new edition75 of the "Origin," which has cost me much labour, and which I hope I have considerably improved in two or three important points. I always thought individual differences more important than single variations, but now I have come to the conclusion that they are of paramount importance, and in this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin's arguments have convinced me.76

I heartily congratulate you on your new book being so nearly finished.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

[pg 234]

9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 30, 1869.

Dear Darwin,—Will you tell me where are Fleeming Jenkin's arguments on the importance of single variation? Because I at present hold most strongly the contrary opinion, that it is the individual differences or general variability of species that enables them to become modified and adapted to new conditions.

Variations or "sports" may be important in modifying an animal in one direction, as in colour for instance, but how it can possibly work in changes requiring co-ordination of many parts, as in Orchids for example, I cannot conceive. And as all the more important structural modifications of animals and plants imply much co-ordination, it appears to me that the chances are millions to one against individual variations ever coinciding so as to render the required modification possible. However, let me read first what has convinced you.

You may tell Mrs. Darwin that I have now a daughter.

Give my kind regards to her and all your family.—Very truly yours,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 2, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—I must have expressed myself atrociously; I meant to say exactly the reverse of what you have understood. F. Jenkin argued in the North British Review77 against single variations ever being perpetuated, and has convinced me, though not in quite so broad a manner as here put. I always thought individual differences more important, but I was blind and thought that single variations might be preserved much oftener than I now see is possible or probable. I mentioned this in my former note merely because I believed that you had come to similar [pg 235]conclusions, and I like much to be in accord with you. I believe I was mainly deceived by single variations offering such simple illustrations, as when man selects.

We heartily congratulate you on the birth of your little daughter.—Yours very sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 5, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—I was delighted at receiving your book78 this morning. The whole appearance and the illustrations with which it [is] so profusely ornamented are quite beautiful. Blessings on you and your publisher for having the pages cut and gilded.

As for the dedication, putting quite aside how far I deserve what you say, it seems to me decidedly the best expressed dedication which I have ever met.

The reading will probably last me a month, for I dare not have it read aloud, as I know that it will set me thinking.

I see that many points will interest me greatly. When I have finished, if I have anything particular to say, I will write again. Accept my cordial thanks. The dedication is a thing for my children's children to be proud of.—Yours most sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. March 10, 1869.

Dear Darwin,—Thanks for your kind note. I could not persuade Mr. Macmillan to cut more than twenty-five copies for my own friends, and he even seemed to think this a sign of most strange and barbarous taste.

Mr. Weir's paper on the kinds of larvæ, etc., eaten or rejected by insectivorous birds was read at the last meeting of the Entomological Society and was most interesting and satisfactory. His observations and experiments, so far [pg 236]as they have yet gone, confirm in every instance my hypothetical explanation of the colours of caterpillars. He finds that all nocturnal-feeding obscure-coloured caterpillars, all green and brown and mimicking caterpillars, are greedily eaten by almost every insectivorous bird. On the other hand, every gaily coloured, spotted or banded species, which never conceal themselves, and all spiny and hairy kinds, are invariably rejected, either without or after trial. He has also come to the curious and rather unexpected conclusion, that hairy and spiny caterpillars are not protected by their hairs, but by their nauseous taste, the hairs being merely an external mark of their uneatableness, like the gay colours of others. He deduces this from two kinds of facts: (1) that very young caterpillars before the hairs are developed are equally rejected, and (2) that in many cases the smooth pupæ and even the perfect insects of the same species are equally rejected.

His facts, it is true, are at present not very numerous, but they all point one way. They seem to me to lend an immense support to my view of the great importance of protection in determining colour, for it has not only prevented the eatable species from ever acquiring bright colours, spots, or markings injurious to them, but it has also conferred on all the nauseous species distinguishing marks to render their uneatableness more protective to them than it would otherwise be. When you have read my book I shall be glad of any hints for corrections if it comes to another edition. I was horrified myself by coming accidentally on several verbal inelegancies after all my trouble in correcting, and I have no doubt there are many more important errors.—Believe me, dear Darwin, yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 237]

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 22, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—I have finished your book.79 It seems to me excellent, and at the same time most pleasant to read. That you ever returned alive is wonderful after all your risks from illness and sea voyages, especially that most interesting one to Waigiou and back. Of all the impressions which I have received from your book, the strongest is that your perseverance in the cause of science was heroic. Your descriptions of catching the splendid butterflies have made me quite envious, and at the same time have made me feel almost young again, so vividly have they brought before my mind old days when I collected, though I never made such captures as yours. Certainly collecting is the best sport in the world. I shall be astonished if your book has not a great success; and your splendid generalisations on geographical distribution, with which I am familiar from your papers, will be new to most of your readers. I think I enjoyed most the Timor case, as it is best demonstrated; but perhaps Celebes is really the most valuable. I should prefer looking at the whole Asiatic continent as having formerly been more African in its fauna, than admitting the former existence of a continent across the Indian Ocean. Decaisne's paper on the flora of Timor, in which he points out its close relation to that of the Mascarene Islands, supports your view. On the other hand, I might advance the giraffes, etc., in the Sewalik deposits. How I wish someone would collect the plants of Banca! The puzzle of Java, Sumatra and Borneo is like the three geese and foxes: I have a wish to extend Malacca through Banca to part of Java and thus make three parallel peninsulas, but I cannot get the geese and foxes across the river.

Many parts of your book have interested me much: I [pg 238]always wished to hear an independent judgment about the Rajah Brooke, and now I have been delighted with your splendid eulogium on him.

With respect to the fewness and inconspicuousness of the flowers in the tropics, may it not be accounted for by the hosts of insects, so that there is no need for the flowers to be conspicuous? As, according to Humboldt, fewer plants are social in the tropical than in the temperate regions, the flowers in the former would not make so great a show.

In your note you speak of observing some inelegancies of style. I notice none. All is as clear as daylight. I have detected two or three errata.

In Vol. I. you write londiacus: is this not an error?

Vol. II., p. 236: for western side of Aru read eastern.

Page 315: Do you not mean the horns of the moose? For the elk has not palmated horns.

I have only one criticism of a general nature, and I am not sure that other geologists would agree with me: you repeatedly speak as if the pouring out of lava, etc., from volcanoes actually caused the subsidence of an adjoining area. I quite agree that areas undergoing opposite movements are somehow connected; but volcanic outbursts must, I think, be looked at as mere accidents in the swelling tip of a great dome or surface of plutonic rocks; and there seems no more reason to conclude that such swelling or elevation in mass is the cause of the subsidence than that the subsidence is the cause of the elevation; which latter view is indeed held by some geologists, I have regretted to find so little about the habits of the many animals which you have seen.

In Vol. II., p. 399, I wish I could see the connection between variations having been first or long ago selected, and their appearance at an earlier age in birds of paradise [pg 239]than the variations which have subsequently arisen and been selected. In fact, I do not understand your explanation of the curious order of development of the ornaments of these birds.

Will you please to tell me whether you are sure that the female Casuarius (Vol. II., p. 150) sits on her eggs as well as the male?—for, if I am not mistaken, Bartlett told me that the male alone, who is less brightly coloured about the neck, sits on the eggs. In Vol. II., p. 255, you speak of male savages ornamenting themselves more than the women, of which I have heard before; now, have you any notion whether they do this to please themselves, or to excite the admiration of their fellow-men, or to please the women, or, as is perhaps probable, from all three motives?

Finally, let me congratulate you heartily on having written so excellent a book, full of thought on all sorts of subjects. Once again, let me thank you for the very great honour which you have done me by your dedication.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

Vol. II., p. 455: When in New Zealand I thought the inhabitants a mixed race, with the type of Tahiti preponderating over some darker race with more frizzled hair; and now that the stone instruments [have] revealed the existence of ancient inhabitants, is it not probable that these islands were inhabited by true Papuans? Judging from descriptions the pure Tahitans must differ much from your Papuans.

The reference in the following letter is to Wallace's review, in the April number of the Quarterly, of Lyell's "Principles of Geology" (tenth edition), and of the sixth edition of the "Elements of Geology." Wallace points out that here for the first time Sir C. Lyell gave up his opposition to Evolution; and this leads Wallace to give [pg 240]a short account of the views set forth in the "Origin of Species." In this article Wallace makes a definite statement as to his views on the evolution of man, which were opposed to those of Darwin. He upholds the view that the brain of man, as well as the organs of speech, the hand and the external form, could not have been evolved by Natural Selection (the "child" he is supposed to "murder "). At p. 391 he writes: "In the brain of the lowest savages and, as far as we know, of the prehistoric races, we have an organ ... little inferior in size and complexity to that of the highest types.... But the mental requirements of the lowest savages, such as the Australians or the Andaman Islanders, are very little above those of many animals.... How then was an organ developed far beyond the needs of its possessor? Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies."

This passage is marked in Darwin's copy with a triply underlined "No," and with a shower of notes of exclamation. It was probably the first occasion on which he realised the extent of this great and striking divergence in opinion between himself and his colleague. He had, however, some indication of it in Wallace's paper on Man in the Anthropological Review, 1864, referred to in his letter to Wallace of May 28, 1864, and again in that of April 14, 1869.

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 27, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—I must send a line to thank you, but this note will require no answer. This very morning after writing I found that "elk" was used for "moose" in Sweden, but I had been reading lately about elk and moose in North America.

As you put the case in your letter, which I think differs somewhat from your book, I am inclined to agree, and had thought that a feather could hardly be increased in length [pg 241]until it had first grown to full length, and therefore it would be increased late in life and transmitted to a corresponding age. But the Crossoptilon pheasant, and even the common pheasant, show that the tail feathers can be developed very early.

Thanks for other facts, which I will reflect on when I go again over my MS.

I read all that you said about the Dutch Government with much interest, but I do not feel I know enough to form any opinion against yours.

I shall be intensely curious to read the Quarterly: I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.

I have lately, i.e. in the new edition of the "Origin,"80 been moderating my zeal, and attributing much more to mere useless variability. I did think I would send you the sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in which I discuss Nägeli's essay on Natural Selection not affecting characters of no functional importance, and which yet are of high classificatory importance.

Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on this head. It will be curious if we have hit on similar conclusions. You are about the last man in England who would deviate a hair's breadth from his conviction to please any editor in the world.—Yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

P.S.—After all, I have thought of one question, but if I receive no answer I shall understand that (as is probable) you have nothing to say. I have seen it remarked that the men and women of certain tribes differ a little in shade or tint; but have you ever seen or heard of any difference in tint between the two sexes which did not appear to follow from a difference in habits of life?

[pg 242]

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 14, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—I have been wonderfully interested by your article,81 and I should think Lyell will be much gratified by it. I declare if I had been editor and had the power of directing you I should have selected for discussion the very points which you have chosen. I have often said to younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) that they did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected; nevertheless, your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me.

Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put more confidence in Croll than you seem to do; but I have been much struck by many of your remarks on degradation.

Thomson's views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles, and so I have been glad to read what you say. Your exposition of Natural Selection seems to me inimitably good; there never lived a better expounder than you.

I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference between our views and Lamarck's. One sometimes sees the odious expression, "Justice to myself compels me to say, etc.," but you are the only man I ever heard of who persistently does himself an injustice and never demands justice. Indeed, you ought in the review to have alluded to your paper in the Linnean Journal, and I feel sure all our friends will agree in this, but you cannot "Burke" yourself, however much you may try, as may be seen in half the articles which appear.

I was asked but the other day by a German professor for your paper, which I sent him. Altogether, I look at your article as appearing in the Quarterly as an immense triumph for our cause. I presume that your remarks on Man are those to which you alluded in your note. [pg 243] If you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added by someone else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it.

I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and proximate cause in regard to Man. But the subject is too long for a letter.

I have been particularly glad to read your discussion, because I am now writing and thinking much about Man.

I hope that your Malay book sells well. I was extremely pleased with the article in the Q.J. of Science, inasmuch as it is thoroughly appreciative of your work. Alas! you will probably agree with what the writer says about the uses of the bamboo.

I hear that there is also a good article in the Saturday Review, but have heard nothing more about it.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours ever sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

P.S.—I have had a baddish fall, my horse partly rolling over me; but I am getting rapidly well.

9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. April 18, 1869.

Dear Darwin,—I am very glad you think I have done justice to Lyell, and have also well "exposed" (as a Frenchman would say) Natural Selection. There is nothing I like better than writing a little account of it, and trying to make it clear to the meanest capacity.

The "Croll" question is awfully difficult. I had gone into it more fully, but the Editor made me cut out eight pages.

I am very sorry indeed to hear of your accident, but trust you will soon recover and that it will leave no bad effects.

I can quite comprehend your feelings with regard to my "unscientific" opinions as to Man, because a few years back [pg 244]I should myself have looked at them as equally wild and uncalled for. I shall look with extreme interest for what you are writing on Man, and shall give full weight to any explanations you can give of his probable origin. My opinions on the subject have been modified solely by the consideration of a series of remarkable phenomena, physical and mental, which I have now had every opportunity of fully testing, and which demonstrate the existence of forces and influences not yet recognised by science. This will, I know, seem to you like some mental hallucination, but as I can assure you from personal communication with them, that Robert Chambers, Dr. Norris of Birmingham, the well-known physiologist, and C.F. Varley, the well-known electrician, who have all investigated the subject for years, agree with me both as to the facts and as to the main inferences to be drawn from them, I am in hopes that you will suspend your judgment for a time till we exhibit some corroborative symptoms of insanity.

In the meantime I can console you by the assurance that I don't agree with the Q.J. of Science about bamboo, and that I see no cause to modify any of my opinions expressed in my article on the "Reign of Law."—Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. June 23, 1869.

Dear Darwin,—Thank you very much for the copy of your fifth edition of the "Origin." I have not yet read all the additions, but those I have looked at seem very interesting, though somewhat brief, but I suppose you are afraid of its great and rapid growth.

A difficult sexual character seems to me the plumules or battledore scales on the wings of certain families and genera of butterflies, almost invariably changing in form with the species and genera in proportion to other changes, [pg 245]and always constant in each species yet confined to the males, and so small and mixed up with the other scales as to produce no effect on the colour or marking of the wings. How could sexual selection produce them?

Your correspondent Mr. Geach is now in England, and if you would like to see him I am sure he would be glad to meet you. He is staying with his brother (address Guildford), but often comes to town.

Hoping that you have quite recovered from your accident and that the great work is progressing, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—You will perhaps be pleased to hear that German, French, and Danish translations of my "Malay Archipelago" are in progress.—A.R.W.

Caerleon, Barmouth, N. Wales. June 25, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—We have been here a fortnight, and shall remain here till the beginning of August. I can say nothing good about my health, and I am so weak that I can hardly crawl half a mile from the house; but I hope I may improve, and anyhow the magnificent view of Cader is enjoyable.

I do not know that I have anything to ask Mr. Geach, nor do I suppose I shall be in London till late in the autumn, but I should be particularly obliged, if you have any communication with Mr. Geach, if you would express for me my sincere thanks for his kindness in sending me the very valuable answers on Expression. I wrote some months ago to him in answer to his last letter.

I would ask him to Down, but the fatigue to me of receiving a stranger is something which to you would be utterly unintelligible.

I think I have heard of the scales on butterflies; but [pg 246]there are lots of sexual characters which quite baffle all powers of even conjecture.

You are quite correct, that I felt forced to make all additions to the "Origin" as short as possible.

I am indeed pleased to hear, and fully expected, that your Malay work would be known throughout Europe.

Oh dear! what would I not give for a little more strength to get on with my work.—Ever yours,

C. DARWIN.

I wish that you could have told me that your place in the new Museum was all settled.

9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. October 20, 1869.

Dear Darwin,—I do not know your son's (Mr. George Darwin's) address at Cambridge. Will you be so good as to forward him the enclosed note begging for a little information?

I was delighted to see the notice in the Academy that you are really going to bring out your book on Man. I anticipate for it an enormous sale, and shall read it with intense interest, although I expect to find in it more to differ from than in any of your other books. Some reasonable and reasoning opponents are now taking the field. I have been writing a little notice of Murphy's "Habit and Intelligence," which, with much that is strange and unintelligible, contains some very acute criticisms and the statement of a few real difficulties. Another article just sent me from the Month contains some good criticism. How incipient organs can be useful is a real difficulty, so is the independent origin of similar complex organs; but most of his other points, though well put, are not very formidable. I am trying to begin a little book on the Distribution of Animals, but I fear I shall not make much of it from my idleness in collecting facts. [pg 247] I shall make it a popular sketch first, and, if it succeeds, gather materials for enlarging it at a future time. If any suggestion occurs to you as to the kind of maps that would be best, or on any other essential point, I should be glad of a hint. I hope your residence in Wales did you good. I had no idea you were so near Dolgelly till I met your son there one evening when I was going to leave the next morning. It is a glorious country, but the time I like is May and June—the foliage is so glorious.

Sincerely hoping you are pretty well, and with kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and the rest of your family, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. October 21, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—I forwarded your letter at once to my son George, but I am nearly sure that he will not be able to tell you anything; I wish he could for my own sake; but I suspect there are few men in England who could. Pray send me a copy or tell me where your article on Murphy will be published. I have just received the Month, but have only read half as yet. I wish I knew who was the author; you ought to know, as he admires you so much; he has a wonderful deal of knowledge, but his difficulties have not troubled me much as yet, except the case of the dipterous larva. My book will not be published for a long time, but Murray wished to insert some notice of it. Sexual selection has been a tremendous job. Fate has ordained that almost every point on which we differ should be crowded into this vol. Have you seen the October number of the Revue des deux Mondes? It has an article on you, but I have not yet read it; and another article, not yet read, by a very good man on the Transformist School.

I am very glad to hear that you are beginning a book, [pg 248]but do not let it be "little," on Distribution, etc. I have no hints to give about maps; the subject would require long and anxious consideration. Before Forbes published his essay on Distribution and the Glacial Period I wrote out and had copied an essay on the same subject, which Hooker read. If this MS. would be of any use to you, on account of the references in it to papers, etc., I should be very glad to lend it, to be used in any way; for I foresee that my strength will never last out to come to this subject.

I have been pretty well since my return from Wales, though at the time it did me no good.

We shall be in London next month, when I shall hope to see you.—My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. December 4, [1869].

Dear Darwin,—Dr. Adolf Bernhard Meyer, who translated my book into German, has written to me for permission to translate my original paper in the Linnean Proceedings with yours, and wants to put my photograph and yours in it. If you have given him permission to translate the papers (which I suppose he can do without permission if he pleases), I write to ask which of your photographs you would wish to represent you in Germany—the last, or the previous one by Ernest Edwards, which I think much the best—as if you like I will undertake to order them and save you any more trouble about it. It is, of course, out of the question our meeting to be photographed together, as Mr. Meyer coolly proposes.

Hoping you are well, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—I have written a paper on Geological Time, which will appear in Nature, and I think I have hit upon a solution of your greatest difficulties in that matter.—A.R.W.

[pg 249]

Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. December 5, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—I wrote to Dr. Meyer that the photographs in England would cost much and that they did not seem to me worth the cost to him, but that I of course had no sort of objection. I should be greatly obliged if you would kindly take the trouble to order any one which you think best: possibly it would be best to wait, unless you feel sure, till you hear again from Dr. M. I sent him a copy of our joint paper. He has kindly sent me the translation of your book, which is splendidly got up, and which I thought I could not better use than by sending it to Fritz Müller in Brazil, who will appreciate it.

I liked your reviews on Mr. Murphy very much; they are capitally written, like everything which is turned out of your workshop. I was specially glad about the eye. If you agree with me, take some opportunity of bringing forward the case of perfected greyhound or racehorse, in proof of the possibility of the selection of many correlated variations. I have remarks on this head in my last book.

If you throw light on the want of geological time, may honour, eternal glory and blessings crowd thick on your head.—Yours most sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

I forgot to say that I wrote to Dr. M. to say that I should not soon be in London, and that, of all things in the world, I hate most the bother of sitting for photographs, so I declined with many apologies. I have recently refused several applications.

9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 22, 1870.

Dear Darwin,—My paper on Geological Time having been in type nearly two months, and not knowing when it will appear, I have asked for a proof to send you, Huxley and Lyell. The latter part only contains what I think [pg 250]is new, and I shall be anxious to hear if it at all helps to get over your difficulties.

I have been lately revising and adding to my various papers bearing on the "Origin of Species," etc., and am going to print them in a volume immediately, under the title of "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection: A Series of Essays."

In the last, I put forth my heterodox opinions as to Man, and even venture to attack the Huxleyan philosophy!

Hoping you are quite well and are getting on with your Man book, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—When you have read the proof and done with it, may I beg you to return it to me?—A.R.W.

Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. January 26, [1870].

My dear Wallace,—I have been very much struck by your whole article (returned by this post), especially as to rate of denudation, for the still glaciated surfaces have of late most perplexed me. Also especially on the lesser mutations of climate during the last 60,000 years; for I quite think with you no cause so powerful in inducing specific changes, through the consequent migrations. Your argument would be somewhat strengthened about organic changes having been formerly more rapid, if Sir W. Thomson is correct that physical changes were formerly more violent and abrupt.

The whole subject is so new and vast that I suppose you hardly expect anyone to be at once convinced, but that he should keep your view before his mind and let it ferment. This, I think, everyone will be forced to do. I have not as yet been able to digest the fundamental notion [pg 251]of the shortened age of the sun and earth. Your whole paper seems to me admirably clear and well put. I may remark that Rütimeyer has shown that several wild mammals in Switzerland since the neolithic period have had their dentition and, I think, general size slightly modified. I cannot believe that the Isthmus of Panama has been open since the commencement of the glacial period; for, notwithstanding the fishes, so few shells, crustaceans, and, according to Agassiz, not one echinoderm is common to the sides. I am very glad you are going to publish all your papers on Natural Selection: I am sure you are right, and that they will do our cause much good.

But I groan over Man—you write like a metamorphosed (in retrograde direction) naturalist, and you the author of the best paper that ever appeared in the Anthropological Review! Eheu! Eheu! Eheu!—Your miserable friend,

C. DARWIN.

Down, Beckenham, Kent. March 31, 1870.

My dear Wallace,—Many thanks for the woodcut, which, judging from the rate at which I crawl on, will hardly be wanted till this time next year. Whether I shall have it reduced, or beg Mr. Macmillan for a stereotype, as you said I might, I have not yet decided.

I heartily congratulate you on your removal being over, and I much more heartily condole with myself at your having left London, for I shall thus miss my talks with you which I always greatly enjoy.

I was excessively pleased at your review of Galton, and I agree to every word of it. I must add that I have just re-read your article in the Anthropological Review, and I defy you to upset your own doctrine.—Ever yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN

[pg 252]

Down, Beckenham, Kent. April 20, [1870].

My dear Wallace,—I have just received your book ["Natural Selection"]82 and read the preface. There never has been passed on me, or indeed on anyone, a higher eulogium than yours. I wish that I fully deserved it. Your modesty and candour are very far from new to me. I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect—and very few things in my life have been more satisfactory to me—that we have never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in one sense rivals. I believe that I can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is true of you.

You have been a good Christian to give a list of your additions, for I want much to read them, and I should hardly have had time just at present to have gone through all your articles.

Of course, I shall immediately read those that are new or greatly altered, and I will endeavour to be as honest as can reasonably be expected. Your book looks remarkably well got up.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, to remain yours very cordially,

CH. DARWIN

Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. June 5, 1870.

My dear Wallace,—As imitation and protection are your subjects I have thought that you would like to possess the enclosed curious drawing. The note tells all I know about it.—Yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN

P.S.—I read not long ago a German article on the colours of female birds, and that author leaned rather strongly to your side about nidification. I forget who the author was, but he seemed to know a good deal.—C.D.

[pg 253]

Holly House, Barking, E. July 6, 1870.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for the drawing. I must say, however, the resemblance to a snake is not very striking, unless to a cobra not found in America. It is also evident that it is not Mr. Bates's caterpillar, as that threw the head backwards so as to show the feet above, forming imitations of keeled scales.

Claparède has sent me his critique on my book. You will probably have it too. His arguments in reply to my heresy seem to me of the weakest. I hear you have gone to press, and I look forward with fear and trembling to being crushed under a mountain of facts!

I hear you were in town the other day. When you are again, I should be glad to come at any convenient hour and give you a call.

Hoping your health is improving, and with kind remembrances to Mrs. Darwin and all your family, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

In "My Life" (Vol. II., p. 7) Wallace wrote: "In the year 1870 Mr. A.W. Bennett read a paper before Section D of the British Association at Liverpool entitled 'The Theory of Natural Selection from a Mathematical Point of View,' and this paper was printed in full in Nature of November 10, 1870. To this I replied on November 17, and my reply so pleased Mr. Darwin that he at once wrote to me as follows:"

Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. November 22, 1870.

My dear Wallace,—I must ease myself by writing a few words to say how much I and all others in this house admire your article in Nature. You are certainly an unparalleled master in lucidly stating a case and in arguing. Nothing ever was better done than your argument about the term [pg 254]"origin of species," and the consequences about much being gained, even if we know nothing about precise cause of each variation. By chance I have given a few words in my first volume, now some time printed off, about mimetic butterflies, and have touched on two of your points, viz. on species already widely dissimilar not being made to resemble each other, and about the variations in Lepidoptera being often well pronounced. How strange it is that Mr. Bennett or anyone else should bring in the action of the mind as a leading cause of variation, seeing the beautiful and complex adaptations and modifications of structure in plants, which I do not suppose they would say had minds.

I have finished the first volume, and am half-way through the first proof of the second volume, of my confounded book, which half kills me by fatigue, and which I much fear will quite kill me in your good estimation.

If you have leisure I should much like a little news of you and your doings and your family.—Ever yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

Holly House, Barking, E. November 24, 1870.

Dear Darwin,—Your letter gave me very great pleasure. We still agree, I am sure, on nineteen points out of twenty, and on the twentieth I am not inconvincible. But then I must be convinced by facts and arguments, not by high-handed ridicule such as Claparède's.

I hope you see the difference between such criticisms as his, and that in the last number of the North American Review, where my last chapter is really criticised, point by point; and though I think some of it very weak, I admit that some is very strong, and almost converts me from the error of my ways.

As to your new book, I am sure it will not make me think less highly of you than I do, unless you do, what [pg 255]you have never done yet, ignore facts and arguments that go against you.

I am doing nothing just now but writing articles and putting down anti-Darwinians, being dreadfully ridden upon by a horrid old-man-of-the-sea, who has agreed to let me have the piece of land I have set my heart on, and which I have been trying to get of him since last February, but who will not answer letters, will not sign an agreement, and keeps me week after week in anxiety, though I have accepted his own terms unconditionally, one of which is that I pay rent from last Michaelmas! And now the finest weather for planting is going by. It is a bit of a wilderness that can be made into a splendid imitation of a Welsh valley in little, and will enable me to gather round me all the beauties of the temperate flora which I so much admire, or I would not put up with the little fellow's ways. The fixing on a residence for the rest of your life is an important event, and I am not likely to be in a very settled frame of mind for some time.

I am answering A. Murray's Geographical Distribution of Coleoptera for my Entomological Society Presidential Address, and am printing a second edition of my "Essays," with a few notes and additions. Very glad to see (by your writing yourself) that you are better, and with kind regards to all your family, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

Holly House, Barking, E. January 27, 1871.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your first volume,83 which I have just finished reading through with the greatest pleasure and interest, and I have also to thank you for the great tenderness with which you have treated me and my heresies.

[pg 256]

On the subject of sexual selection and protection you do not yet convince me that I am wrong, but I expect your heaviest artillery will be brought up in your second volume, and I may have to capitulate. You seem, however, to have somewhat misunderstood my exact meaning, and I do not think the difference between us is quite so great as you seem to think it. There are a number of passages in which you argue against the view that the female has, in any large number of cases, been "specially modified" for protection, or that colour has generally been obtained by either sex for purposes of protection.

But my view is, and I thought I had made it clear, that the female has (in most cases) been simply prevented from acquiring the gay tints of the male (even when there was a tendency for her to inherit it) because it was hurtful; and, that when protection is not needed, gay colours are so generally acquired by both sexes as to show that inheritance by both sexes of colour variations is the most usual, when not prevented from acting by Natural Selection.

The colour itself may be acquired either by sexual selection or by other unknown causes. There are, however, difficulties in the very wide application you give to sexual selection which at present stagger me, though no one was or is more ready than myself to admit the perfect truth of the principle or the immense importance and great variety of its applications. Your chapters on Man are of intense interest, but as touching my special heresy not as yet altogether convincing, though of course I fully agree with every word and every argument which goes to prove the "evolution" or "development" of man out of a lower form. My only difficulties are as to whether you have accounted for every step of the development by ascertained laws. Feeling sure that the book will keep up and [pg 257]increase your high reputation and be immensely successful, as it deserves to be, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. January 30, 1871.

My dear Wallace,—Your note has given me very great pleasure, chiefly because I was so anxious not to treat you with the least disrespect, and it is so difficult to speak fairly when differing from anyone. If I had offended you, it would have grieved me more than you will readily believe. Secondly, I am greatly pleased to hear that Vol. I. interests you; I have got so sick of the whole subject that I felt in utter doubt about the value of any part. I intended when speaking of the female not having been specially modified for protection to include the prevention of characters acquired by the [male symbol] being transmitted to the [female symbol]; but I now see it would have been better to have said "specially acted on," or some such term. Possibly my intention may be clearer in Vol. II. Let me say that my conclusions are chiefly founded on a consideration of all animals taken in a body, bearing in mind how common the rules of sexual differences appear to be in all classes. The first copy of the chapter on Lepidoptera agreed pretty closely with you. I then worked on, came back to Lepidoptera, and thought myself compelled to alter it, finished sexual selection, and for the last time went over Lepidoptera, and again I felt forced to alter it.

I hope to God there will be nothing disagreeable to you in Vol. II., and that I have spoken fairly of your views. I feel the more fearful on this head, because I have just read (but not with sufficient care) Mivart's book,84 and I feel absolutely certain that he meant to be fair (but he was stimulated by theological fervour); yet I do not think he [pg 258]has been quite fair: he gives in one place only half of one of my sentences, ignores in many places all that I have said on effects of use, speaks of my dogmatic assertion, "of false belief," whereas the end of paragraph seems to me to render the sentence by no means dogmatic or arrogant; etc. etc. I have since its publication received some quite charming letters from him.

What an ardent (and most justly) admirer he is of you. His work, I do not doubt, will have a most potent influence versus Natural Selection. The pendulum will now swing against us. The part which, I think, will have most influence is when he gives whole series of cases, like that of whalebone, in which we cannot explain the gradational steps; but such cases have no weight on my mind—if a few fish were extinct, who on earth would have ventured even to conjecture that lung had originated in swim-bladder? In such a case as Thylacines, I think he was bound to say that the resemblance of the jaw to that of the dog is superficial; the number and correspondence and development of teeth being widely different. I think, again, when speaking of the necessity of altering a number of characters together, he ought to have thought of man having power by selection to modify simultaneously or almost simultaneously many points, as in making a greyhound or racehorse—as enlarged upon in my "Domestic Animals."

Mivart is savage or contemptuous about my "moral sense," and so probably will you be. I am extremely pleased that he agrees with my position, as far as animal nature is concerned, of man in the series; or, if anything, thinks I have erred in making him too distinct.

Forgive me for scribbling at such length.

You have put me quite in good spirits, I did so dread having been unintentionally unfair towards your views. I [pg 259]hope earnestly the second volume will escape as well. I care now very little what others say. As for our not quite agreeing, really in such complex subjects it is almost impossible for two men who arrive independently at their conclusions to agree fully—it would be unnatural for them to do so.—Yours ever very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

Holly House, Barking, E. March 11, 1871.

Dear Darwin,—I need not say that I read your second volume with, if possible, a greater interest than the first, as so many topics of special interest to me are treated of. You will not be surprised to find that you have not convinced me on the "female protection" question, but you will be surprised to hear that I do not despair of convincing you. I have been writing, as you are aware, a review for the Academy, which I tried to refuse doing, but the Editor used as an argument the statement that you wished me to do so. It is not an easy job fairly to summarise such a book, but I hope I have succeeded tolerably. When I got to discussion, I felt more at home, but I most sincerely trust that I may not have let pass any word that may seem to you in the least too strong.

You have not written a word about me that I could wish altered, but as I know you wish me to be candid with you, I will mention that you have quoted one passage in a note (p. 376, Vol. II.) which seems to me a caricature of anything I have written.

Now let me ask you to rejoice with me, for I have got my chalk pit, and am hard at work engineering a road up its precipitous slopes. I hope you may be able to come and see me there some day, as it is an easy ride from London, and I shall be anxious to know if it is equal to the pit in the wilds of Kent Mrs. Darwin mentioned when I lunched with you. Should your gardener in the autumn have any [pg 260]thinnings out of almost any kind of hardy plants they would be welcome, as I have near four acres of ground in which I want to substitute ornamental plants for weeds.

With best wishes, and hoping you may have health and strength to go on with your great work, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

My review will appear next Wednesday.

Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. March 16, 1871.

My dear Wallace,—I have just read your grand review.85 It is in every way as kindly expressed towards myself as it is excellent in matter. The Lyells have been here, and Sir C. remarked that no one wrote such good scientific reviews as you, and, as Miss Buckley added, you delight in picking out all that is good, though very far from blind to the bad. In all this I most entirely agree. I shall always consider your review as a great honour, and however much my book may hereafter be abused, as no doubt it will be, your review will console me, notwithstanding that we differ so greatly.

I will keep your objections to my views in my mind, but I fear that the latter are almost stereotyped in my mind, I thought for long weeks about the inheritance and selection difficulty, and covered quires of paper with notes, in trying to get out of it, but could not, though clearly seeing that it would be a great relief if I could. I will confine myself to two or three remarks. I have been much impressed with what you urge against colour86 in the case [pg 261]of insects having been acquired through sexual selection. I always saw that the evidence was very weak; but I still think, if it be admitted that the musical instruments of insects have been gained through sexual selection, that there is not the least improbability in colour having been thus gained. Your argument with respect to the denudation of mankind, and also to insects, that taste on the part of one sex would have to remain nearly the same during many generations, in order that sexual selection should produce any effect, I agree to, and I think this argument would be sound if used by one who denied that, for instance, the plumes of birds of paradise had been so gained.

I believe that you admit this, and if so I do not see how your argument applies in other cases. I have recognised for some short time that I have made a great omission in not having discussed, as far as I could, the acquisition of taste, its inherited nature, and its permanence within pretty close limits for long periods.

One other point and I have done: I see by p. 179 of your review that I must have expressed myself very badly to have led you to think that I consider the prehensile organs of males as affording evidence of the females exerting a choice. I have never thought so, and if you chance to remember the passage (but do not hunt for it), pray point it out to me.

I am extremely sorry that I gave the note from Mr. Stebbing; I thought myself bound to notice his suggestion of beauty as a cause of denudation, and thus I was led on to give his argument. I altered the final passage which seemed to me offensive, and I had misgivings about the first part.

I heartily wish I had yielded to these misgivings. I will omit in any future edition the latter half of the note. [pg 262] I have heard from Miss Buckley that you have got possession of your chalk pit, and I congratulate you on the tedious delay being over. I fear all our bushes are so large that there is nothing which we are at all likely to grub up.

Years ago we threw away loads of things. I should very much like to see your house and grounds; but I fear the journey would be too long. Going even to Kew knocks me up, and I have almost ceased trying to do so.

Once again let me thank you warmly for your admirable review.—My dear Wallace, yours ever very sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

What an excellent address you gave about Madeira, but I wish you had alluded to Lyell's discussion on land shells, etc.—not that he has said a word on the subject. The whole address quite delighted me. I hear Mr. Crotch87 disputed some of your facts about the wingless insects, but he is a crotchety man. As far as I remember, I did not venture to ask Mr. Appleton to get you to review me, but only said, in answer to an inquiry, that you would undoubtedly be the best, or one of the very few men who could do so effectively.

Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. March 24, 1871.

My dear Wallace,—Very many thanks for the new edition of your Essays. Honour and glory to you for giving list of additions. It is grand as showing that our subject flourishes, your book coming to a new edition so soon. My book also sells immensely; the edition will, I believe, be 6,500 copies. I am tired with writing, for the load of letters which I receive is enough to make a man cry, yet some few are curious [pg 263]and valuable. I got one to-day from a doctor on the hair on backs of young weakly children, which afterwards falls off. Also on hairy idiots. But I am tired to death, so farewell.

Thanks for your last letter.

There is a very striking second article on my book in the Pall Mall. The articles in the Spectator88 have also interested me much.—Again farewell.

C. DARWIN.

Holly House, Barking, E. May 14, 1871.

Dear Darwin,—Have you read that very remarkable book "The Fuel of the Sun"? If not, get it. It solves the great problem of the almost unlimited duration of the sun's heat in what appears to me a most satisfactory manner. I recommended it to Sir C. Lyell, and he tells me that Grove spoke very highly of it to him. It has been somewhat ignored by the critics because it is by a new man with a perfectly original hypothesis, founded on a vast accumulation of physical and chemical facts; but not being encumbered with any mathematical shibboleths, they have evidently been afraid that anything so intelligible could not be sound. The manner in which everything in physical astronomy is explained is almost as marvellous as the powers of Natural Selection in the same way, and naturally excites a suspicion that the respective authors are pushing their theories "a little too far."

If you read it, get Proctor's book on the Sun at the same time, and refer to his coloured plates of the protuberances, corona, etc., which marvellously correspond [pg 264]with what Matthieu Williams's theory requires. The author is a practical chemist engaged in iron manufacture, and it is from furnace chemistry that he has been led to the subject. I think it the most original, most thoughtful and most carefully-worked-out theory that has appeared for a long time, and it does not say much for the critics that, as far as I know, its great merits have not been properly recognised.

I have been so fully occupied with road-making, well-digging, garden- and house-planning, planting, etc., that I have given up all other work.

Do you not admire our friend Miss Buckley's admirable article in Macmillan? It seems to me the best and most original that has been written on your book.

Hoping you are well, and are not working too hard, I remain yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 9, 1871.

My dear Wallace,—I send by this post a review by Chauncey Wright, as I much want your opinion of it, as soon as you can send it. I consider you an incomparably better critic than I am. The article, though not very clearly written, and poor in parts for want of knowledge, seems to me admirable.

Mivart's book is producing a great effect against Natural Selection, and more especially against me. Therefore, if you think the article even somewhat good, I will write and get permission to publish it as a shilling pamphlet, together with the MS. addition (enclosed), for which there was not room at the end of the review. I do not suppose I should lose more than £20 or £30.

I am now at work at a new and cheap edition of the "Origin," and shall answer several points in Mivart's book and introduce a new chapter for this purpose; but I treat [pg 265]the subject so much more concretely, and I daresay less philosophically, than Wright, that we shall not interfere with each other. You will think me a bigot when I say, after studying Mivart, I was never before in my life so convinced of the general (i.e. not in detail) truth of the views in the "Origin." I grieve to see the omission of the words by Mivart, detected by Wright.89 I complained to M. 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. I conclude with sorrow that though he means to be honourable, he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly.

I was glad to see your letter in Nature, though I think you were a little hard on the silly and presumptuous man.

I hope that your house and grounds are progressing well, and that you are in all ways flourishing.

I have been rather seedy, but a few days in London did me much good; and my dear good wife is going to take me somewhere, nolens volens, at the end of this month.

C. DARWIN.

Holly Home, Barking, E. July 12, 1871.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to read at my leisure the very talented article of Mr. C. Wright. His criticism of Mivart, though very severe, is, I think, in most cases sound; but I find the larger part of the article so heavy and much of the language and argument so very obscure, that I very much doubt the utility of printing it separately. I do not think the readers of Mivart could [pg 266]ever read it in that form, and I am sure your own answer to Mivart's arguments will be so much more clear and to the point, that the other will be unnecessary. You might extract certain portions in your own chapter, such as the very ingenious suggestion as to the possible origin of mammary glands, as well as the possible use of the rattle of the rattlesnake, etc.

I cannot see the force of Mivart's objection to the theory of production of the long neck of the giraffe (suggested in my first Essay), and which C. Wright seems to admit, while his "watch-tower" theory seems to me more difficult and unlikely as a means of origin. The argument, "Why haven't other allied animals been modified in the same way?" seems to me the weakest of the weak. I must say also I do not see any great reason to complain of the "words" left out by Mivart, as they do not seem to me materially to affect the meaning. Your expression, "and tends to depart in a slight degree," I think hardly grammatical; a tendency to depart cannot very well be said to be in a slight degree; a departure can, but a tendency must be either a slight tendency or a strong tendency; the degree to which the departure may reach must depend on favourable or unfavourable causes in addition to the tendency itself. Mivart's words, "and tending to depart from the parental type," seem to me quite unobjectionable as a paraphrase of yours, because the "tending" is kept in; and your own view undoubtedly is that the tendency may lead to an ultimate departure to any extent. Mivart's error is to suppose that your words favour the view of sudden departures, and I do not see that the expression he uses really favours his view a bit more than if he had quoted your exact words. The expression of yours he relies upon is evidently "the whole organism seeming to have become plastic," and he argues, no doubt erroneously, that having so become "plastic," any amount or [pg 267]a larger amount of sudden variation in some direction is likely.

Mivart's greatest error, the confounding "individual variations" with "minute or imperceptible variations," is well exposed by C. Wright, and that part I should like to see reprinted; but I always thought you laid too much stress on the slowness of the action of Natural Selection owing to the smallness and rarity of favourable variations. In your chapter on Natural Selection the expressions, "extremely slight modifications," "every variation even the slightest," "every grade of constitutional difference," occur, and these have led to errors such as Mivart's, I say all this because I feel sure that Mivart would be the last to intentionally misrepresent you, and he has told me that he was sorry the word "infinitesimal," as applied to variations used by Natural Selection, got into his book, and that he would alter it, as no doubt he has done, in his second edition.

Some of Mivart's strongest points—the eye and ear, for instance—are unnoticed in the review. You will, of course, reply to these. His statement of the "missing link" argument is also forcible, and has, I have no doubt, much weight with the public. As to all his minor arguments, I feel with you that they leave Natural Selection stronger than ever, while the two or three main arguments do leave a lingering doubt in my mind of some fundamental organic law of development of which we have as yet no notion.

Pray do not attach any weight to my opinions as to the review. It is very clever, but the writer seems a little like those critics who know an author's or an artist's meaning better than they do themselves.

My house is now in the hands of a contractor, but I am wall-building, etc., and very busy.—With best wishes, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 268]

Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 12, 1871.

My dear Wallace,—Very many thanks. As soon as I read your letter I determined, not to print the paper, notwithstanding my eldest daughter, who is a very good critic, thought it so interesting as to be worth reprinting. Then my wife came in, and said, "I do not much care about these things and shall therefore be a good judge whether it is very dull." So I will leave my decision open for a day or two. Your letter has been, and will be, of use to me in other ways: thus I had quite forgotten that you had taken up the case of the giraffe in your first memoir, and I must look to this. I feel very doubtful how far I shall succeed in answering Mivart; it is so difficult to answer objections to doubtful points and make the discussion readable. I shall make only a selection. The worst of it is that I cannot possibly hunt through all my references for isolated points; it would take me three weeks of intolerably hard work. I wish I had your power of arguing clearly. At present I feel sick of everything, and if I could occupy my time and forget my daily discomforts or little miseries, I would never publish another word. But I shall cheer up, I daresay, soon, being only just got over a bad attack. Farewell. God knows why I bother you about myself.

I can say nothing more about missing links than what I have said. I should rely much on pre-Silurian times; but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre. Farewell.—Yours most sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

I was grieved to see in the Daily News that the madman about the flat earth has been threatening your life. What an odious trouble this must have been to you. [pg 269] P.S.—There is a most cutting review of me in the Quarterly:90 I have only read a few pages. The skill and style make me think of Mivart. I shall soon be viewed as the most despicable of men. This Quarterly review tempts me to republish Ch. Wright, even if not read by anyone, just to show that someone will say a word against Mivart, and that his (i.e. Mivart's) remarks ought not to be swallowed without some reflection.

I quite agree with what you say that Mivart fully intends to be honourable; but he seems to me to have the mind of a most able lawyer retained to plead against us, and especially against me. God knows whether my strength and spirit will last out to write a chapter versus Mivart and others; I do so hate controversy, and feel I should do it so badly.

P.S.—I have now finished the review: there can be no doubt it is by Mivart, and wonderfully clever.

Holly House, Barking, E. July 16, 1871.

Dear Darwin,—I am very sorry you are so unwell, and that you allow criticisms to worry you so. Remember the noble army of converts you have made! and the host of the most talented men living who support you wholly. What do you think of putting C. Wright's article as an appendix to the new edition of the "Origin"? That would get it read, and obviate my chief objection, that the people who read Mivart and the "Origin" will very few of them buy a separate pamphlet to read. Pamphlets are such nuisances. I don't think Mivart could have written the Quarterly article, but I will look at it and shall, I think, be able to tell. Pray keep your spirits up. I am so distracted by building troubles that I can write nothing, [pg 270]and I shall not, till I get settled in my new house, some time next spring, I hope.—With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

Haredene, Albury, Guildford. August 1, 1871.

My dear Wallace,—Your kind and sympathetic letter pleased me greatly and did me good, but as you are so busy I did not answer it. I write now because I have just received a very remarkable letter from Fritz Müller (with butterflies' wings gummed on paper as illustrations) on mimicry, etc. I think it is well worth your reading, but I will not send it, unless I receive a 1/2d. card to this effect. He puts the difficulty of first start in imitation excellently, and gives wonderful proof of closeness of the imitation. He hints a curious addition to the theory in relation to sexual selection, which you will think madly hypothetical: it occurred to me in a very different class of cases, but I was afraid to publish it. It would aid the theory of imitative protection, when the colours are bright. He seems much pleased with your caterpillar theory. I wish the letter could be published, but without coloured illustrations [it] would, I fear, be unintelligible.

I have not yet made up my mind about Wright's review; I shall stop till I hear from him. Your suggestion would make the "Origin," already too large, still more bulky.

By the way, did Mr. Youmans, of the United States, apply to you to write a popular sketch of Natural Selection? I told him you would do it immeasurably better than anyone in the world. My head keeps very rocky and wretched, but I am better,—Ever yours most truly,

C. DARWIN.

[pg 271]

Holly House, Barking, E. March 3, 1872.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your new edition of the "Origin," which I have been too busy to acknowledge before. I think your answer to Mivart on the initial stages of modification ample and complete, and the comparison of whale and duck most beautiful. I always saw the fallacy of these objections, of course. The eye and ear objection you have not so satisfactorily answered, and to me the difficulty exists of how three times over an organ of sight was developed with the apparatus even approximately identical. Why should not, in one case out of the three, the heat rays or the chemical rays have been utilised for the same purpose, in which case no translucent media would have been required, and yet vision might have been just as perfect? The fact that the eyes of insects and molluscs are transparent to us shows that the very same limited portion of the rays of the spectrum is utilised for vision by them as by us.

The chances seem to me immense against that having occurred through "fortuitous variation," as Mivart puts it.

I see still further difficulties on this point but cannot go into them now. Many thanks for your kind invitation. I will try and call some day, but I am now very busy trying to make my house habitable by Lady Day, when I must be in it.—Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 27, 1872.

My dear Wallace,—I have just read with infinite satisfaction your crushing article in Nature.91 I have been the more glad to see it, as I have not seen the book itself: I [pg 272]did not order it, as I felt sure from Dr. B.'s former book that he could write nothing of value. But assuredly I did not suppose that anyone would have written such a mass of inaccuracies and rubbish. How rich is everything which he says and quotes from Herbert Spencer!

By the way, I suppose that you read H. Spencer's answer to Martineau: it struck me as quite wonderfully good, and I felt even more strongly inclined than before to bow in reverence before him. Nothing has amused me more in your review than Dr. B.'s extraordinary presumption in deciding that such men as Lyell, Owen, H. Spencer, Mivart, Gaudry, etc. etc., are all wrong. I daresay it would be very delightful to feel such overwhelming confidence in oneself.

I have had a poor time of it of late, rarely having an hour of comfort, except when asleep or immersed in work; and then when that is over I feel dead with fatigue. I am now correcting my little book on Expression; but it will not be published till November, when of course a copy will be sent to you. I shall now try whether I can occupy myself without writing anything more on so difficult a subject as Evolution.

I hope you are now comfortably settled in your new house, and have more leisure than you have had for some time. I have looked out in the papers for any notice about the curatorship of the new Museum, but have seen nothing. If anything is decided in your favour, I beg you to inform me.—My dear Wallace, very truly yours,

C. DARWIN.

How grandly the public has taken up Hooker's case.

Down. August 3, [1872].

My dear Wallace,—I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps because I do it badly; but as Dr. Bree accuses you of "blundering," I have thought myself bound to send the [pg 273]enclosed letter92 to Nature, that is, if you in the least desire it. In this case please post it. If you do not at all wish it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in this case please tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you intend answering Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably better than I should. Also please tear it up if you don't like the letter.—My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 4, 1872.

Dear Darwin,—I have sent your letter to Nature, as I think it will settle that question far better than anything I can say. Many thanks for it. I have not seen Dr. Bree's letter yet, as I get Nature here very irregularly, but as I was very careful to mention none but real errors in Dr. Bree's book, I do not imagine there will be any necessity for my taking any notice of it. It was really entertaining to have such a book to review, the errors and misconceptions were so inexplicable and the self-sufficiency of the man so amazing. Yet there is some excellent writing in the book, and to a half-informed person it has all the appearance of being a most valuable and authoritative work.

I am now reviewing a much more important book and one that, if I mistake not, will really compel you sooner or later to modify some of your views, though it will not [pg 274]at all affect the main doctrine of Natural Selection as applied to the higher animals. I allude, of course, to Bastian's "Beginnings of Life," which you have no doubt got. It is hard reading, but intensely interesting. I am a thorough convert to his main results, and it seems to me that nothing more important has appeared since your "Origin." It is a pity he is so awfully voluminous and discursive. When you have thoroughly digested it I shall be glad to know what you are disposed to think. My first notice of it will I think appear in Nature next week, but I have been hurried for it, and it is not so well written an article as I could wish.

I sincerely hope your health is improving.—Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—I fear Lubbock's motion is being pushed off to the end of the Session, and Hooker's case will not be fairly considered. I hope the matter will not be allowed to drop.—A.R.W.

Down, Beckenham, Kent. August 28, 1872.

My dear Wallace,—I have at last finished the gigantic job of reading Dr. Bastian's book, and have been deeply interested in it. You wished to hear my impression, but it is not worth sending.

He seems to me an extremely able man, as indeed I thought when I read his first essay. His general argument in favour of archebiosis93 is wonderfully strong; though I cannot think much of some few of his arguments. The result is that I am bewildered and astonished by his statements, but am not convinced; though on the whole it seems to me probable that archebiosis is true. I am not convinced partly I think owing to the deductive [pg 275]cast of much of his reasoning; and I know not why, but I never feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H. Spencer's writings. If Dr. B.'s book had been turned upside down, and he had begun with the various cases of heterogenesis, and then gone on to organic and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given his general arguments, I should have been, I believe, much more influenced. I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty is the effect of old convictions being stereotyped on my brain. I must have more evidence that germs or the minutest fragments of the lowest forms are always killed by 212° of Fahr. Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statements given by Dr. B. by other men whose judgment I respect and who have worked long on the lower organisms would suffice to convince me. Here is a fine confession of intellectual weakness; but what an inexplicable frame of mind is that of belief.

As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously generated, my mind can no more digest such statements, whether true or false, than my stomach can digest a lump of lead.

Dr. B. is always comparing archebiosis as well as growth to crystallisation; but on this view a Rotifer or Tardigrade is adapted to its humble conditions of life by a happy accident; and this I cannot believe. That observations of the above nature may easily be altogether wrong is well shown by Dr. B. having declared to Huxley that he had watched the entire development of a leaf of Sphagnum. He must have worked with very impure materials in some cases, as plenty of organisms appeared in a saline solution not containing an atom of nitrogen.

I wholly disagree with Dr. B. about many points in his latter chapters. Thus the frequency of generalised forms in the older strata seems to me clearly to indicate the common descent with divergence of more recent forms. [pg 276] Notwithstanding all his sneers, I do not strike my colours as yet about pangenesis. I should like to live to see archebiosis proved true, for it would be a discovery of transcendent importance; or if false I should like to see it disproved, and the facts otherwise explained; but I shall not live to see all this. If ever proved, Dr. B. will have taken a prominent part in the work. How grand is the onward rush of science; it is enough to console us for the many errors which we have committed and for our efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the mass of new facts and new views which are daily turning up.

This is all I have to say about Dr. B.'s book, and it certainly has not been worth saying. Nevertheless, reward me whenever you can by giving me any news about your appointment to the Bethnal Green Museum.—My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 31, 1872.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your long and interesting letter about Bastian's book, though I almost regret that my asking you for your opinion should have led you to give yourself so much trouble. I quite understand your frame of mind, and think it quite a natural and proper one. You had hard work to hammer your views into people's heads at first, and if Bastian's theory is true he will have still harder work, because the facts he appeals to are themselves so difficult to establish. Are not you mistaken about the Sphagnum? As I remember it, Huxley detected a fragment of Sphagnum leaf in the same solution in which a fungoid growth had been developed. Bastian mistook the Sphagnum also for a vegetable growth, and on account of this ignorance of the character of Sphagnum, and its presence in the solution, Huxley rejected somewhat contemptuously (and I think very illogically) all Bastian's [pg 277]observations. Again, as to the saline solution without nitrogen, would not the air supply what was required?

I quite agree that the book would have gained force by rearrangement in the way you suggest, but perhaps he thought it necessary to begin with a general argument in order to induce people to examine his new collection of facts, I am impressed most by the agreement of so many observers, some of whom struggle to explain away their own facts. What a wonderfully ingenious and suggestive paper that is by Galton on "Blood Relationship." It helps to render intelligible many of the eccentricities of heredity, atavism, etc.

Sir Charles Lyell was good enough to write to Lord Ripon and Mr. Cole94 about me and the Bethnal Green Museum, and the answer he got was that at present no appointment of a director is contemplated. I suppose they see no way of making it a Natural History Museum, and it will have to be kept going by Loan Collections of miscellaneous works of art, in which case, of course, the South Kensington people will manage it. It is a considerable disappointment to me, as I had almost calculated on getting something there.

With best wishes for your good health and happiness, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—I have just been reading Howorth's paper in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute. How perverse it is. He throughout confounds "fertility" with "increase of population," which seems to me to be the main cause of his errors. His elaborate accumulation of facts in other papers in Nature, on "Subsidence and Elevation of Land," I believe to be equally full of error, and utterly untrustworthy as a whole.—A.R.W.

[pg 278]

Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 2, 1872.

My dear Wallace,—I write a line to say that I understood—but I may of course have been mistaken—from Huxley that Bastian distinctly stated that he had watched the development of the scale of Sphagnum: I was astonished, as I knew the appearance of Sphagnum under a high power, and asked a second time; but I repeat that I may have been mistaken. Busk told me that Sharpey had noticed the appearance of numerous Infusoria in one of the solutions not containing any nitrogen; and I do not suppose that any physiologist would admit the possibility of Infusoria absorbing nitrogen gas. Possibly I ought not to have mentioned statements made in private conversation, so please do not repeat them.

I quite agree about the extreme importance of such men as Cohn [illegible] and Carter having observed apparent cases of heterogenesis. At present I should prefer any mad hypothesis, such as that every disintegrated molecule of the lowest forms can reproduce the parent-form, and that the molecules are universally distributed, and that they do not lose their vital power until heated to such a temperature that they decompose like dead organic particles.

I am extremely grieved to hear about the Museum: it is a great misfortune.—Yours most sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

I have taken up old botanical work and have given up all theories.

I quite agree about Howorth's paper: he wrote to me and I told him that we differed so widely it was of no use our discussing any point.

As for Galton's paper, I have never yet been able to fully digest it: as far as I have, it has not cleared my [pg 279]ideas, and has only aided in bringing more prominently forward the large proportion of the latent characters.

Down, Beckenham, Kent. October 20, 1872.

My dear Wallace,—I have thought that you would perhaps like to see enclosed specimen and extract from letter (translated from the German by my son) from Dr. W. Marshall, Zoological Assistant to Schlegel at Leyden. Neither the specimen nor extract need be returned; and you need not acknowledge the receipt. The resemblance is not so close, now that the fragments are gummed on card, as I at first thought. Your review of Houzeau was very good: I skimmed through the whole gigantic book, but you managed to pick out the plums much better than I did for myself. You are a born critic. What an admirable number that was of Nature.

I am writing this at Sevenoaks, where we have taken a house for three weeks and have one more week to stay. We came here that I may get a little rest, of which I stood in much need.—Ever yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

With respect to what you say about certain instincts of ants having been acquired by experience or sense, have you kept in mind that the neuters have no progeny? I wish I knew whether the fertile females, or queens, do the same work (viz. placing the eggs in warm places, etc.) as the neuters do afterwards; if so the case would be comparatively simple; but I believe this is not the case, and I am driven to selection of varying pre-existing instincts.

The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 15, 1872.

Dear Darwin,—I should have written earlier to thank you for your book,95 but was hoping to be able to read more [pg 280]of it before doing so. I have not, however, found time to get beyond the first three chapters, but that is quite sufficient to show me how exceedingly interesting you have made the subject, and how completely and admirably you have worked it out. I expect it will be one of the most popular of your works. I have just been asked to write a review of it for the Quarterly Journal of Science, for which purpose I shall be in duty bound to seek out some deficiencies, however minute, so as to give my notice some flavour of criticism.

The cuts and photos are admirable, and my little boy and girl seized it at once to look at the naughty babies.

With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—I will take this opportunity of asking you if you know of any book that will give me a complete catalogue of vertebrate fossils with some indication of their affinities.—A.R.W.

Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 13, 1873.

My dear Wallace,—I have read your review with much interest, and I thank you sincerely for the very kind spirit in which it is written. I cannot say that I am convinced by your criticisms.96 If you have ever actually observed a kitten sucking and pounding with extended toes its mother, and then seen the same kitten when a little older doing the same thing on a soft shawl, and ultimately an old cat (as I have seen), and do not admit that it is identically the same action, I am astonished.

[pg 281]

With respect to the decapitated frog,97 I have always heard of Pflüger as a most trustworthy observer. If, indeed, anyone knows a frog's habits so well as to say that it never rubs off a bit of leaf or other object, which may stick to its thigh, in the same manner as it did the acid, your objection would be valid. Some of Flourens' experiments, in which he removed the cerebral hemisphere from a pigeon, indicate that acts apparently performed consciously can be done without consciousness—I presume through the force of habit; in which case it would appear that intellectual power is not brought into play. Several persons have made such suggestions and objections as yours about the hands being held up in astonishment:98 if there was any straining of the muscles, as with protruded arms under fright, I would agree: as it is I must keep to my old opinion, and I daresay you will say that I am an obstinate old blockhead.—My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

The book has sold wonderfully; 9,000 copies have now been printed.

The Dell, Grays, Essex. Wednesday morning, [November, 1873].

Dear Darwin,—Yours just received. Pray act exactly as if nothing had been said to me on the subject. I do not particularly wish for the work,99 as, besides being as [pg 282]you say, tedious work, it involves a considerable amount of responsibility. Still, I am prepared to do any literary work of the kind, as I told Bates some time ago, and that is the reason he wrote to me about it. I certainly think, however, that it would be in many ways more satisfactory to you if your son did it, and I therefore hope he may undertake it.

Should he, however, for any reasons, be unable, I am at your service as a dernier ressort.

In case my meaning is not quite clear, I will not do it unless your son has the offer and declines it.—Believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 18, 1873.

Dear Darwin,—I quite understand what you require, and would undertake to do it to the best of my ability. Of course in such work I should not think of offering criticisms of matter.

I do not think I could form any idea of how long it would take by seeing the MSS., as it would all depend upon the amount of revision and working-in required. I have helped Sir C. Lyell with his last three or four editions in a somewhat similar though different way, and for him I have kept an account simply of the hours I was employed in any way for him, and he paid me 5/- an hour; but (of course this is confidential) I do not think this quite enough for the class of work. I should propose for your work 7/- an hour as a fair remuneration, and I would put down each day the hours I worked at it.

No doubt you will get it done for very much less by any literary man accustomed to regular literary work and nothing else, and perhaps better done, so do not in the least scruple in saying you decide on employing the gentleman you had in view if you prefer it. [pg 283] If you send it to me could you let me have all your MSS. copied out, as it adds considerably to the time required if there is any difficulty in deciphering the writing, which in yours (as you are no doubt aware) there often is.

My hasty note to Bates was not intended to be shown you or anyone. I thought he had heard of it from Murray, and that the arrangement was to be made by Murray.—Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—I have been delighted with H. Spencer's "Study of Sociology." Some of the passages in the latter part are grand. You have perhaps seen that I am dipping into politics myself occasionally.—A.R.W.

Down, Beckenkam, Kent. November 19, 1873.

Dear Wallace,—I thank you for your extremely kind letter, and I am sorry that I troubled you with that of yesterday. My wife thinks that my son George would be so much pleased at undertaking the work for me, that I will write to him, and so probably shall have no occasion to trouble you. If on still further reflection, and after looking over my notes, I think that my son could not do the work, I will write again and gratefully accept your proposal. But if you do not hear, you will understand that I can manage the affair myself. I never in my lifetime regretted an interruption so much as this new edition of the "Descent." I am deeply immersed in some work on physiological points with plants.

I fully agree with what you say about H. Spencer's "Sociology"; I do not believe there is a man in Europe at all his equal in talents. I did not know that you had been writing on politics, except so far as your letter on the coal question, which interested me much and struck me as a capital letter. [pg 284] I must again thank you for your letter, and remain, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

I hope to Heaven that politics will not replace natural science.

I know too well how atrociously bad my handwriting is.

The Dell, Grays, Essex. December 6, 1874.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of your new edition of the "Descent." I see you have made a whole host of additions and corrections which I shall have great pleasure in reading over as soon as I have got rid of my horrid book on Geographical Distribution, which is almost driving me mad with the amount of drudgery required and the often unsatisfactory nature of the result. However, I must finish with it soon, or all the part first done will have to be done over again, every new book, either as a monograph, or a classification, putting everything wrong (for me).

Hoping you are in good health and able to go on with your favourite work, I remain yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

The Dell, Grays, Essex. July 21, 1875.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of your new book.100 Being very busy I have only had time to dip into it yet. The account of Utricularia is most marvellous, and quite new to me. I'm rather surprised that you do not make any remarks on the origin of these extraordinary contrivances for capturing insects. Did you think they were too obvious? I daresay there is no difficulty, but I feel sure they will be seized on as inexplicable by Natural Selection, and your silence on the [pg 285]point will be held to show that you consider them so! The contrivance in Utricularia and Dionæa, and in fact in Drosera too, seems fully as great and complex as in Orchids, but there is not the same motive force. Fertilisation and cross-fertilisation are important ends enough to lead to any modification, but can we suppose mere nourishment to be so important, seeing that it is so easily and almost universally obtained by extrusion of roots and leaves? Here are plants which lose their roots and leaves to acquire the same results by infinitely complex modes! What a wonderful and long-continued series of variations must have led up to the perfect "trap" in Utricularia, while at any stage of the process the same end might have been gained by a little more development of roots and leaves, as in 9,999 plants out of 10,000!

Is this an imaginary difficulty, or do you mean to deal with it in future editions of the "Origin"?—Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 7, 1875.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your beautiful little volume on "Climbing Plants," which forms a most interesting companion to your "Orchids" and "Insectivorous Plants." I am sorry to see that you have not this time given us the luxury of cut edges.

I am in the midst of printing and proof-sheets, which are wearisome in the extreme from the mass of names and statistics I have been obliged to introduce, and which will, I fear, make my book insufferably dull to all but zoological specialists.

My trust is in my pictures and maps to catch the public.

Hoping yourself and all your family are quite well, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 286]

Down, Beckenham, Kent. June 5, 1876.

My dear Wallace,—I must have the pleasure of expressing to you my unbounded admiration of your book,101 though I have read only to page 184—my object having been to do as little as possible while resting. I feel sure that you have laid a broad and safe foundation for all future work on Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter plants treated in strict relation to your views; and then all insects, pulmonate molluscs, and fresh-water fishes, in greater detail than I suppose you have given to these lower animals. The point which has interested me most, but I do not say the most valuable point, is your protest against sinking imaginary continents in a quite reckless manner, as was started by Forbes, followed, alas, by Hooker, and caricatured by Wollaston and Murray. By the way, the main impression which the latter author has left on my mind is his utter want of all scientific judgment. I have lifted up my voice against the above view with no avail, but I have no doubt that you will succeed, owing to your new arguments and the coloured chart. Of a special value, as it seems to me, is the conclusion that we must determine the areas chiefly by the nature of the mammals. When I worked many years ago on this subject, I doubted much whether the now-called Palearctic and Nearctic regions ought to be separated; and I determined if I made another region that it should be Madagascar. I have therefore been able to appreciate the value of your evidence on these points. What progress Palæontology has made during the last 20 years! But if it advances at the same rate in the future, our views on the migration and birthplace of the various groups will, I fear, be greatly altered. I cannot feel quite easy about [pg 287]the Glacial period and the extinction of large mammals, but I much hope that you are right. I think you will have to modify your belief about the difficulty of dispersal of land molluscs; I was interrupted when beginning to experimentise on the just-hatched young adhering to the feet of ground-roosting birds. I differ on one other point, viz. in the belief that there must have existed a Tertiary Antarctic continent, from which various forms radiated to the southern extremities of our present continents. But I could go on scribbling for ever. You have written, as I believe, a grand and memorable work, which will last for years as the foundation for all future treatises on Geographical Distribution,—My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,