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)




It was really a singular piece of good luck that gave to me any
share whatever in the discovery. During the first half of the
nineteenth century (and even earlier) many great biological
thinkers and workers had been pondering over the problem and had
even suggested ingenious but inadequate solutions. Some of these
men were among the greatest intellects of our time, yet, till
Darwin, all had failed; and it was only Darwin's extreme desire to
perfect his work that allowed me to come in, as a very bad second,
in the truly Olympian race in which all philosophical biologists,
from Buffon and Erasmus Darwin to Richard Owen and Robert
Chambers, were more or less actively engaged.

And this brings me to the very interesting question: Why did so
many of the greatest intellects fail, while Darwin and myself hit
upon the solution of this problem--a solution which this
Celebration proves to have been (and still to be) a satisfying one
to a large number of those best able to form a judgment on its
merits? As I have found what seems to me a good and precise answer
to this question, and one which is of some psychological interest,
I will, with your permission, briefly state what it is.

On a careful consideration, we find a curious series of
correspondences, both in mind and in environment, which led Darwin
and myself, alone among our contemporaries, to reach identically
the same theory.

First (and most important, as I believe), in early life both
Darwin and myself became ardent beetle-hunters. Now there is
certainly no group of organisms that so impresses the collector by
the almost infinite number of its specific forms, the endless
modifications of structure, shape, colour, and surface-markings
that distinguish them from each other, and their innumerable
adaptations to diverse environments. These interesting features
are exhibited almost as strikingly in temperate as in tropical
regions, our own comparatively limited island-fauna possessing
more than 3,000 species of this one order of insects.

Again, both Darwin and myself had what he terms "the mere passion
for collecting," not that of studying the minutiae of structure,
either internal or external. I should describe it rather as an
intense interest in the variety of living things--the variety that
catches the eye of the observer even among those which are very
much alike, but which are soon found to differ in several distinct
characters.

Now it is this superficial and almost child-like interest in the
outward forms of living things which, though often despised as
unscientific, happened to be _the only one_ which would lead us
towards a solution of the problem of species. For Nature herself
distinguishes her species by just such characters--often
exclusively so, always in some degree--very small changes in
outline, or in the proportions of appendages--as give a quite
distinct and recognisable facies to each, often aided by slight
peculiarities in motion or habit; while in a larger number of
cases differences of surface-texture, of colour, or in the details
of the same general scheme of colour-pattern or of shading, give
an unmistakable individuality to closely allied species.

It is the constant search for and detection of these often
unexpected differences between very similar creatures that gives
such an intellectual charm and fascination to the mere collection
of these insects; and when, as in the case of Darwin and myself,
the collectors were of a speculative turn of mind, they were
constantly led to think upon the "why" and the "how" of all this
wonderful variety in nature--this overwhelming and, at first
sight, purposeless wealth of specific forms among the very
humblest forms of life.

Then, a little later (and with both of us almost accidentally) we
became travellers, collectors, and observers, in some of the
richest and most interesting portions of the earth; and we thus
had forced upon our attention all the strange phenomena of local
and geographical distribution, with the numerous problems to
which they give rise. Thenceforward our interest in the great
mystery of _how_ species came into existence was intensified,
and--again to use Darwin's expression--"haunted" us.

Finally, both Darwin and myself, at the critical period when our
minds were freshly stored with a considerable body of personal
observation and reflection bearing upon the problem to be solved,
had our attention directed to the system of _positive checks_ as
expounded by Malthus in his "Principles of Population." The effect
of that was analogous to that of friction upon the specially
prepared match, producing that flash of insight which led us
immediately to the simple but universal law of the "survival of
the fittest," as the long-sought _effective_ cause of the
continuous modification and adaptations of living things.

It is an unimportant detail that Darwin read this book two years
_after_ his return from his voyage, while I read it _before_ I
went abroad, and it was a sudden recollection of its teachings
that caused the solution to flash upon me. I attach much
importance, however, to the large amount of solitude we both
enjoyed during our travels, which, at the most impressionable
period of our lives, gave us ample time for reflection on the
phenomena we were daily observing.

This view, of the combination of certain mental faculties and
external conditions that led Darwin and myself to an identical
conception, also serves to explain why none of our precursors or
contemporaries hit upon what is really so very simple a solution
of the great problem. Such evolutionists as Robert Chambers,
Herbert Spencer, and Huxley, though of great intellect, wide
knowledge, and immense power of work, had none of them the special
turn of mind that makes the collector and the species-man; while
they all--as well as the equally great thinker on similar lines,
Sir Charles Lyell--became in early life immersed in different
lines of research which engaged their chief attention.

Neither did the actual precursors of Darwin in the statement of
the principle--Wells, Matthews and Prichard--possess any adequate
knowledge of the class of facts above referred to, or sufficient
antecedent interest in the problem itself, which were both needed
in order to perceive the application of the principle to the mode
of development of the varied forms of life.

And now, to recur to my own position, I may be allowed to make a
final remark. I have long since come to see that no one deserves
either praise or blame for the _ideas_ that come to him, but only
for the actions resulting therefrom. Ideas and beliefs are
certainly not voluntary acts. They come to us--we hardly know
_how_ or _whence_, and once they have got possession of us we
cannot reject or change them at will. It is for the common good
that the promulgation of ideas should be free--uninfluenced either
by praise or blame, reward or punishment.

But the _actions_ which result from our ideas may properly be so
treated, because it is only by patient thought and work that new
ideas, if good and true, become adapted and utilised; while if
untrue, or if not adequately presented to the world, they are
rejected or forgotten.

I therefore accept the crowning honour you have conferred on me
to-day, not for the happy chance through which I became an
independent originator of the doctrine of "survival of the
fittest," but as a too liberal recognition by you of the moderate
amount of time and work I have given to explain and elucidate the
theory, to point out some novel applications of it, and (I hope I
may add) for my attempts to extend those applications, even in
directions which somewhat diverged from those accepted by my
honoured friend and teacher Charles Darwin.

Sir Joseph Hooker was now called upon by the President to receive the
Darwin-Wallace Medal. In acknowledging the honour that had been paid
him, he said:

No thesis or subject was vouchsafed to me by the Council, but,
having gratefully accepted the honour, I was bound to find one for
myself. It soon dawned upon me that the object sought by my
selection might have been that, considering the intimate terms
upon which Mr. Darwin extended to me his friendship, I could from
my memory contribute to the knowledge of some important events in
his career. It having been intimated to me that this was in a
measure true, I have selected as such an event one germane to this
Celebration and also engraven on my memory, namely, the
considerations which determined Mr. Darwin to assent to the course
which Sir Charles Lyell and myself had suggested to him, that of
presenting to the Society, in one communication, his own and Mr.
Wallace's theories on the effect of variation and the struggle for
existence on the evolution of species.

You have all read Francis Darwin's fascinating work as editor of
his father's "Life and Letters," where you will find (Vol. II., p.
116) a letter addressed, on the 18th of June, 1858, to Sir Charles
Lyell by Mr. Darwin, who states that he had on that day received a
communication from Mr. Wallace written from the Celebes Islands
requesting that it might be sent to him (Sir Charles).

In a covering letter Mr. Darwin pointed out that the enclosure
contained a sketch of a theory of Natural Selection as depending
on the struggle for existence so identical with one he himself
entertained and fully described in MS. in 1842 that he never saw a
more striking coincidence: had Mr. Wallace seen his sketch he
could not have made a better short abstract, even his terms
standing "as heads of chapters." He goes on to say that he would
at once write to Mr. Wallace offering to send his MS. to any
journal; and concludes: "So my originality is smashed, though my
book [the forthcoming 'Origin of Species'], if it will have any
value will not be deteriorated, as all know the labour consists in
the application of the theory."

After writing to Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Darwin informed me of Mr.
Wallace's letter and its enclosure, in a similar strain, only more
explicitly announcing his resolve to abandon all claim to priority
for his own sketch. I could not but protest against such a course,
no doubt reminding him that I had read it and that Sir Charles
knew its contents some years before the arrival of Mr. Wallace's
letter; and that our withholding our knowledge of its priority
would be unjustifiable. I further suggested the simultaneous
publication of the two, and offered--should he agree to such a
compromise--to write to Mr. Wallace fully informing him of the
motives of the course adopted.

In answer Mr. Darwin thanked me warmly for my offer to explain all
to Mr. Wallace, and in a later letter he informed me that he was
disposed to look favourably on my suggested compromise, but that
before making up his mind he desired a second opinion as to
whether he could honourably claim priority, and that he proposed
applying to Sir Charles Lyell for this. I need not say that this
was a relief to me, knowing as I did what Sir Charles's answer
must be.

In Vol. II., pp. 117-18, of the "Life and Letters," Mr. Darwin's
application to Sir Charles Lyell is given, dated June 26th, with a
postscript dated June 27th. In it he requests that the answer
shall be sent to me to be forwarded to himself. I have no
recollection of reading the answer, which is not to be found
either in Darwin's or my own correspondence; it was no doubt
satisfactory.

Further action was now left in the hands of Sir Charles and
myself, we all agreeing that, whatever action was taken, the
result should be offered for publication to the Linnean Society.

On June 29th Mr. Darwin wrote to me in acute distress, being
himself very ill, and scarlet fever raging in the family, to which
one infant son had succumbed on the previous day, and a daughter
was ill with diphtheria. He acknowledged the receipt of the letter
from me, adding, "I cannot think now of the subject, but soon
will: you shall hear as soon as I can think"; and on the night of
the same day he writes again, telling me that he is quite
prostrated and can do nothing but send certain papers for which I
had asked as essential for completing the prefatory statement to
the communication to the Linnean Society of Mr. Wallace's
essay....

The communications were read, as was the custom in those days, by
the Secretary to the Society. Mr. Darwin himself, owing to his
illness and distress, could not be present. Sir Charles Lyell and
myself said a few words to emphasise the importance of the
subject, but, as recorded in the "Life and Letters" (Vol. II., p.
126), although intense interest was excited, no discussion took
place: "the subject was too novel, too ominous, for the old school
to enter the lists before armouring." ...

It must also be noticed that for the detailed history given above
there is no documentary evidence beyond what Francis Darwin has
produced in the "Life and Letters." There are no letters from
Lyell relating to it, not even answers to Mr. Darwin's of the
18th, 25th, and 26th of June; and Sir Leonard Lyell has at my
request very kindly but vainly searched his uncle's correspondence
for any relating to this subject beyond the two above mentioned.
There are none of my letters to either Lyell or Darwin, nor other
evidence of their having existed beyond the latter's
acknowledgment of the receipt of some of them; and, most
surprising of all, Mr. Wallace's letter and its enclosure have
disappeared. Such is my recollection of this day, the fiftieth
anniversary of which we are now celebrating, and of the fortnight
that immediately preceded it.

It remains for me to ask your forgiveness for intruding upon your
time and attention with the half-century-old real or fancied
memories of a nonagenarian as contributions to the history of the
most notable event in the annals of Biology that had followed the
appearance in 1735 of the "Systema Naturae" of Linnaeus.

Following Sir J. Hooker, the President, referring to Prof. Haeckel, who
was unable to be present, said that he was "the great apostle of the
Darwin-Wallace theory in Germany ... his enthusiastic and gallant
advocacy [having] chiefly contributed to its success in that country....
A man of world-wide reputation, the leader on the Continent of the 'Old
Guard' of evolutionary biologists, Prof. Haeckel was one whom the
Linnean Society delighted to honour." Two more German scientists were
honoured with the Medal, namely Prof. August Weismann (who was also
absent), and Prof. Eduard Strasburger, the latter paying a special
tribute to Wallace in saying: "When I was young the investigations and
the thought of Alfred Russel Wallace brought me a great stimulus.
Through his 'Malay Archipelago' a new world of scientific knowledge was
unfolded before me. On this occasion I feel it my duty to proclaim it
with gratitude." The Medal was then presented to Sir Francis Galton, who
delivered a notable speech in responding. The last on this occasion to
receive the Medal was Sir E. Ray Lankester, who, in replying to the
President's graceful speech, referred to the happy relationships which
had existed between the contemporary men of science of his own time, but
with special reference to Darwin and Wallace he said:

Never was there a more beautiful example of modesty, of unselfish
admiration for another's work, of loyal determination that the
other should receive the full merit of his independent labours and
thoughts, than was shown by Charles Darwin on that occasion....

Subsequently, throughout all their arduous work and varied
publications upon the great doctrine which they on that day
unfolded to humanity ... the same complete absence of rivalry
characterised these high-minded Englishmen, even when in some
outcomes of their doctrine they were not in perfect agreement....
I think I am able to say that great as was the interest excited by
the new doctrine in the scientific world, and wild and angry as
was the opposition to it in some quarters, few, if any, who took
part in the scenes attending the birth and earlier reception of
Darwin's "Origin of Species" had a prevision of the enormous and
all-important influence which that doctrine was destined to
exercise upon every line of human thought.... It is in its
application to the problems of human society that there still
remains an enormous field of work and discovery for the
Darwin-Wallace doctrine.

In the special branch of study which Wallace himself set
going--the inquiry into the local variations, races, and species
of insects as evidence of descent with modification, and of the
mechanism by which that modification is brought about--there is
still great work in progress, still an abundant field to be
reaped.... Several able observers and experimenters have set
themselves the task of improving, if possible, the theoretical
structure raised by Darwin and Wallace.... But I venture to
express the opinion that they have none of them resulted in any
serious modification of the great doctrine submitted to the
Linnean Society on July 1st, 1858, by Charles Darwin and Alfred
Russel Wallace. Not only do the main lines of the theory of Darwin
and Wallace remain unchanged, but the more it is challenged by new
suggestions and new hypotheses the more brilliantly do the
novelty, the importance, and the permanent value of the work by
those great men, to-day commemorated by us, shine forth as the one
great epoch-making effort of human thought on this subject.

Sir Francis Darwin and Sir William Thiselton-Dyer spoke on behalf of
Schools which had sent representatives to the meeting; Prof. Loennberg
and Sir Archibald Geikie on behalf of the Academies and Societies; while
Lord Avebury delivered the concluding address.

Any summary of this period in the lives of Darwin and Wallace would be
incomplete without some distinct reference to one other name, namely,
that of Herbert Spencer, whom I have linked with them in the
Introduction.

While we owe to Darwin and Wallace a definite theory of organic
development, it must be remembered that Spencer included this in the
general scheme of Evolution which grew as slowly but surely in his
mind--and as independently as did that of the origin of species in the
minds of Darwin and Wallace. Huxley recalls: "Within the ranks of
biologists, at that time, I met with nobody except Dr. Grant, of
University College, who had a word to say for Evolution--and his
advocacy was not calculated to advance the cause. Outside these ranks,
the only person known to me whose knowledge and capacity compelled
respect, and who was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist,
was Mr. Herbert Spencer.... Many and prolonged were the battles we
fought on this topic.... I took my stand upon two grounds: first, that
up to that time the evidence in favour of transmutation was wholly
insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestions respecting the causes
of the transmutations assumed ... were in any war adequate to explain
the phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, I
really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable."[25]

And Prof. Raphael Meldola, in a lecture on Evolution wherein he compares
the impression left by each of these great founders of that school upon
the current of modern thought, says: "Through all ... his [Spencer's]
writings the underlying idea of development can be traced with
increasing depth and breadth, expanding in 1850 in his 'Social Statics'
to a foreshadowing of the general doctrine of Evolution. In 1852 his
views on organic evolution had become so definite that he gave public
expression to them in that well-known and powerful essay on 'The
Development Hypothesis.' ... In the 'Principles of Psychology,' the
first edition of which was published in 1855, the evolutionary principle
was dominant. By 1858--the year of the announcement of Natural Selection
by Darwin and Wallace--he had conceived the great general scheme and had
sketched out the first draft of the prospectus of the Synthetic
Philosophy, the final and amended syllabus [being] issued in 1860. The
work of Darwin and Spencer from that period, although moving along
independent lines, was directed towards the same end, notwithstanding
the diversity of materials which they made use of and the differences in
their methods of attack; that end was the establishment of Evolution as
a great natural principle or law."[26]

In this connection it is especially interesting to note how near Spencer
had come to the conception of Natural Selection without grasping its
full significance. In an article on a "Theory of Population" (published
in the _Westminster Review_ for April, 1852) he wrote: "And here,
indeed, without further illustration, it will be seen that premature
death, under all its forms and from all its causes, cannot fail to work
in the same direction. For as those prematurely carried off must, in the
average of cases, be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the
least, it unavoidably follows that those left behind to continue the
race must be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the
greatest--must be the select of their generation. So that whether the
dangers of existence be of the kind produced by excess of fertility, or
of any other kind, it is clear that by the ceaseless exercise of the
faculties needed to contend with them, and by the death of all men who
fail to contend with them successfully, there is ensured a constant
progress towards a higher degree of skill, intelligence,
self-regulation--a better co-ordinance of actions--a more complete
life."

Up to the period of the publication of the "Origin of Species" and the
first conception of the scheme of the Synthetic Philosophy there had
been no communication between Darwin and Spencer beyond the presentation
by Spencer of a copy of his Essays to Darwin in 1858, which was duly
acknowledged. But by the time the "Origin of Species" had been before
the public for eight years, the Darwinian principle of selection had
become an integral part of the Spencerian mechanism of organic
evolution. Indeed the term "survival of the fittest," approved by both
Darwin and Wallace as an alternative for "natural selection," was, as is
well known, introduced by Spencer.

Wallace's relations with Spencer, though somewhat controversial at
times, were nevertheless cordial and sympathetic. In "My Life" he tells
of his first visit, and the impression left upon his mind by their
conversation. It occurred somewhere about 1862-3, shortly after he and
Bates had read, and been greatly impressed by, Spencer's "First
Principles." "Our thoughts," he says, "were full of the great unsolved
problem of the origin of life--a problem which Darwin's 'Origin of
Species' left in as much obscurity as ever--and we looked to Spencer as
the one man living who could give us some clue to it. His wonderful
exposition of the fundamental laws and conditions, actions and
interactions of the material universe seemed to penetrate so deeply into
that 'nature of things' after which the early philosophers searched in
vain ... that we hoped he would throw some light on that great problem
of problems.... He was very pleasant, spoke appreciatively of what we
had both done for the practical exposition of evolution, and hoped we
would continue to work at the subject. But when we touched upon the
great problem, and whether he had arrived at even one of the first steps
towards its solution, our hopes were dashed at once. That, he said, was
too fundamental a problem to even think of solving at present. We did
not yet know enough of matter in its essential constitution nor of the
various forces of nature; and all he could say was that everything
pointed to its having been a development out of matter--a phase of that
continuous process of evolution by which the whole universe had been
brought to its present condition. And so we had to wait and work
contentedly at minor problems. And now, after forty years, though
Spencer and Darwin and Weismann have thrown floods of light on the
phenomena of life, its essential nature and its origin remain as great a
mystery as ever. Whatever light we do possess is from a source which
Spencer and Darwin neglected or ignored."[27]

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

James H. Fassett - "The Beacon Second Reader"

r Witnessed By The Author. - "The Underground Railroad"

Various - "Punch, Or The London Charivari, Vol. 101, August 8, 1891"

Beatrix Potter - "The Tale of the Pie and the Patty Pan"