A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1 (of 2) by James Marchant

J >> James Marchant >> Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1 (of 2)




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,[83] and I feel _absolutely certain_ that he meant to be fair (but
he was stimulated by theological fervour); yet I do not think he 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 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 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.[84] 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 colour[85] in the case 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.

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.
Crotch[86] 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 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 _Spectator_[87] 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 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 L20 or L30.

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 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.[88] 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 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 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.

* * * * *

_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.

P.S.--There is a most cutting review of me in the _Quarterly_:[89] 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, 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 Mueller
(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.

* * * * *

_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_.[90] I have been the more glad to see it, as
I have not seen the book itself: I 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.

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Paul Leicester Ford - "The Honorable Peter Stirling and What People Thought of Him"

Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher - "The False One"

or: Kisari Mohan Ganguli - "The Mahabharata of Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa, Volume 1"

S. E. Wishard - "The Testimony of the Bible Concerning the Assumptions of Destructive Criticism"