Chapter VII. Recapitulation and Conclusion. The final sentence of the

Sketch, which we saw in its first rough form in the Note Book of 1837,

closely resembles the final sentence of the 'Origin,' much of it being

identical. The 'Origin' is not divided into two "Parts," but we see

traces of such a division having been present in the writer's mind, in

this resemblance between the second part of the Sketch and the final

chapters of the 'Origin.' That he should speak ('Origin,' Introduction,

page 5.) of the chapters on transition, on instinct, on hybridism, and

on the geological record, as forming a group, may be due to the division

of his early MS. into two parts.

Mr. Huxley, who was good enough to read the Sketch at my request, while

remarking that the "main lines of argument," and the illustrations

employed are the same, points out that in the 1844 Essay, "much more

weight is attached to the influence of external conditions in producing

variation, and to the inheritance of acquired habits than in the

Origin.'"

It is extremely interesting to find in the Sketch the first mention of

principles familiar to us in the 'Origin of Species.' Foremost among

these may be mentioned the principle of Sexual Selection, which

is clearly enunciated. The important form of selection known as

"unconscious," is also given. Here also occurs a statement of the

law that peculiarities tend to appear in the offspring at an age

corresponding to that at which they occurred in the parent.

Professor Newton, who was so kind as to look through the 1844

Sketch, tells me that my father's remarks on the migration of

birds, incidentally given in more than one passage, show that he had

anticipated the views of some later writers.

With regard to the general style of the Sketch, it is not to be expected

that it should have all the characteristics of the 'Origin,' and we

do not, in fact, find that balance and control, that concentration and

grasp, which are so striking in the work of 1859.

In the Autobiography (page 68, volume 1) my father has stated what

seemed to him the chief flaw of the 1844 Sketch; he had overlooked

"one problem of great importance," the problem of the divergence of

character. This point is discussed in the 'Origin of Species,' but, as

it may not be familiar to all readers, I will give a short account

of the difficulty and its solution. The author begins by stating that

varieties differ from each other less than species, and then goes on:

"Nevertheless, according to my view, varieties are species in process of

formation...How then does the lesser difference between varieties become

augmented into the greater difference between species?" ('Origin,' 1st

edition, page 111.) He shows how an analogous divergence takes place

under domestication where an originally uniform stock of horses has

been split up into race-horses, dray-horses, etc., and then goes on to

explain how the same principle applies to natural species. "From the

simple circumstance that the more diversified the descendants from any

one species become in structure, constitution, and habits, by so much

will they be better enabled to seize on many and widely diversified

places in the polity of nature, and so be enabled to increase in

numbers."

The principle is exemplified by the fact that if on one plot of ground

a single variety of wheat be sown, and on to another a mixture of

varieties, in the latter case the produce is greater. More individuals

have been able to exist because they were not all of the same variety.

An organism becomes more perfect and more fitted to survive when by

division of labour the different functions of life are performed by

different organs. In the same way a species becomes more efficient

and more able to survive when different sections of the species become

differentiated so as to fill different stations.

In reading the Sketch of 1844, I have found it difficult to recognise

the absence of any definite statement of the principle of divergence as

a flaw in the Essay. Descent with modification implies divergence,

and we become so habituated to a belief in descent, and therefore in

divergence, that we do not notice the absence of proof that divergence

is in itself an advantage. As shown in the Autobiography, my father in

1876 found it hardly credible that he should have overlooked the problem

and its solution.

The following letter will be more in place here than its chronological

position, since it shows what was my father's feeling as to the value of

the Sketch at the time of its completion.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. DARWIN. Down, July 5, 1844.

I have just finished my sketch of my species theory. If, as I believe,

my theory in time be accepted even by one competent judge, it will be a

considerable step in science.

I therefore write this in case of my sudden death, as my most solemn and

last request, which I am sure you will consider the same as if legally

entered in my will, that you will devote 400 pounds to its publication,

and further, will yourself, or through Hensleigh (Mr. H. Wedgwood.),

take trouble in promoting it. I wish that my sketch be given to some

competent person, with this sum to induce him to take trouble in its

improvement and enlargement. I give to him all my books on Natural

History, which are either scored or have references at the end to the

pages, begging him carefully to look over and consider such passages as

actually bearing, or by possibility bearing, on this subject. I wish you

to make a list of all such books as some temptation to an editor. I

also request that you will hand over [to] him all those scraps roughly

divided in eight or ten brown paper portfolios. The scraps, with copied

quotations from various works, are those which may aid my editor. I also

request that you, or some amanuensis, will aid in deciphering any of

the scraps which the editor may think possibly of use. I leave to the

editor's judgment whether to interpolate these facts in the text, or

as notes, or under appendices. As the looking over the references and

scraps will be a long labour, and as the CORRECTING and enlarging and

altering my sketch will also take considerable time, I leave this sum

of 400 pounds as some remuneration, and any profits from the work. I

consider that for this the editor is bound to get the sketch published

either at a publisher's or his own risk. Many of the scrap in the

portfolios contains mere rude suggestions and early views, now useless,

and many of the facts will probably turn out as having no bearing on my

theory.

With respect to editors, Mr. Lyell would be the best if he would

undertake it; I believe he would find the work pleasant, and he would

learn some facts new to him. As the editor must be a geologist as well

as a naturalist, the next best editor would be Professor Forbes of

London. The next best (and quite best in many respects) would be

Professor Henslow. Dr. Hooker would be VERY good. The next, Mr.

Strickland. (After Mr. Strickland's name comes the following sentence,

which has been erased but remained legible. "Professor Owen would be

very good; but I presume he would not undertake such a work." If none of

these would undertake it, I would request you to consult with Mr. Lyell,

or some other capable man for some editor, a geologist and naturalist.

Should one other hundred pounds make the difference of procuring a good

editor, request earnestly that you will raise 500 pounds.)

My remaining collections in Natural History may be given to any one or

any museum where it would be accepted...

[The following note seems to have formed part of the original letter,

but may have been of later date:

"Lyell, especially with the aid of Hooker (and of any good zoological

aid), would be best of all. Without an editor will pledge himself to

give up time to it, it would be of no use paying such a sum.

"If there should be any difficulty in getting an editor who would go

thoroughly into the subject, and think of the bearing of the passages

marked in the books and copied out of scraps of paper, then let my

sketch be published as it is, stating that it was done several years ago

(The words "several years ago and," seem to have been added at a

later date.) and from memory without consulting any works, and with no

intention of publication in its present form."

The idea that the Sketch of 1844 might remain, in the event of his

death, as the only record of his work, seems to have been long in his

mind, for in August 1854, when he had finished with the Cirripedes, and

was thinking of beginning his "species work," he added on the back of

the above letter, "Hooker by far best man to edit my species volume.

August 1854."]