CHAPTER 1.XII. -- THE UNFINISHED BOOK.

MAY 1856 TO JUNE 1858.

[In the Autobiographical chapter (page 69,) my father wrote:--"Early in

1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at

once to do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which

was afterwards followed in my 'Origin of Species;' yet it was only an

abstract of the materials which I had collected." The letters in the

present chapter are chiefly concerned with the preparation of this

unfinished book.

The work was begun on May 14th, and steadily continued up to June 1858,

when it was interrupted by the arrival of Mr. Wallace's MS. During the

two years which we are now considering he wrote ten chapters (that is

about one-half) of the projected book. He remained for the most part at

home, but paid several visits to Dr. Lane's Water-Cure Establishment

at Moor Park, during one of which he made a pilgrimage to the shrine of

Gilbert White at Selborne.]

LETTERS.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL May 3 [1856].

...With respect to your suggestion of a sketch of my views, I hardly

know what to think, but will reflect on it, but it goes against my

prejudices. To give a fair sketch would be absolutely impossible, for

every proposition requires such an array of facts. If I were

to do anything, it could only refer to the main agency of

change--selection--and perhaps point out a very few of the leading

features, which countenance such a view, and some few of the main

difficulties. But I do not know what to think; I rather hate the idea of

writing for priority, yet I certainly should be vexed if any one were

to publish my doctrines before me. Anyhow, I thank you heartily for

your sympathy. I shall be in London next week, and I will call on you on

Thursday morning for one hour precisely, so as not to lose much of

your time and my own; but will you let me this time come as early as 9

o'clock, for I have much which I must do in the morning in my strongest

time? Farewell, my dear old patron.

Yours, C. DARWIN.

By the way, THREE plants have come up out of the earth, perfectly

enclosed in the roots of the trees. And twenty-nine plants in the

table-spoonful of mud, out of the little pond; Hooker was surprised at

this, and struck with it, when I showed him how much mud I had scraped

off one duck's feet.

If I did publish a short sketch, where on earth should I publish it?

If I do NOT hear, I shall understand that I may come from 9 to 10 on

Thursday.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. May 9th, [1856].

...I very much want advice and TRUTHFUL consolation if you can give

it. I had a good talk with Lyell about my species work, and he urges

me strongly to publish something. I am fixed against any periodical

or Journal, as I positively will NOT expose myself to an Editor or a

Council, allowing a publication for which they might be abused. If I

publish anything it must be a VERY THIN and little volume, giving

a sketch of my views and difficulties; but it is really dreadfully

unphilosophical to give a resume, without exact references, of an

unpublished work. But Lyell seemed to think I might do this, at the

suggestion of friends, and on the ground, which I might state, that I

had been at work for eighteen (The interval of eighteen years, from 1837

when he began to collect facts, would bring the date of this letter to

1855, not 1856, nevertheless the latter seems the more probable date.)

years, and yet could not publish for several years, and especially as

I could point out difficulties which seemed to me to require especial

investigation. Now what think you? I should be really grateful for

advice. I thought of giving up a couple of months and writing such a

sketch, and trying to keep my judgment open whether or no to publish

it when completed. It will be simply impossible for me to give exact

references; anything important I should state on the authority of the

author generally; and instead of giving all the facts on which I ground

my opinion, I could give by memory only one or two. In the Preface I

would state that the work could not be considered strictly scientific,

but a mere sketch or outline of a future work in which full references,

etc. should be given. Eheu, eheu, I believe I should sneer at any one

else doing this, and my only comfort is, that I TRULY never dreamed

of it, till Lyell suggested it, and seems deliberately to think it

advisable.

I am in a peck of troubles and do pray forgive me for troubling you.

Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. May 11th [1856].

...Now for a MORE IMPORTANT! subject, viz., my own self: I am extremely

glad you think well of a separate "Preliminary Essay" (i.e., if anything

whatever is published; for Lyell seemed rather to doubt on this head)

(The meaning of the sentence in parentheses is obscure.); but I cannot

bear the idea of BEGGING some Editor and Council to publish, and then

perhaps to have to APOLOGISE humbly for having led them into a scrape.

In this one respect I am in the state which, according to a very wise

saying of my father's, is the only fit state for asking advice, viz.,

with my mind firmly made up, and then, as my father used to say, GOOD

advice was very comfortable, and it was easy to reject BAD advice. But

Heaven knows I am not in this state with respect to publishing at all

any preliminary essay. It yet strikes me as quite unphilosophical

to publish results without the full details which have lead to such

results.

It is a melancholy, and I hope not quite true view of yours that facts

will prove anything, and are therefore superfluous! But I have rather

exaggerated, I see, your doctrine. I do not fear being tied down

to error, i.e., I feel pretty sure I should give up anything false

published in the preliminary essay, in my larger work; but I may thus,

it is very true, do mischief by spreading error, which as I have often

heard you say is much easier spread than corrected. I confess I lean

more and more to at least making the attempt and drawing up a sketch

and trying to keep my judgment, whether to publish, open. But I always

return to my fixed idea that it is dreadfully unphilosophical to publish

without full details. I certainly think my future work in full would

profit by hearing what my friends or critics (if reviewed) thought of

the outline.

To any one but you I should apologise for such long discussion on so

personal an affair; but I believe, and indeed you have proved it by the

trouble you have taken, that this would be superfluous.

Yours truly obliged, CH. DARWIN.

P.S. What you say (for I have just re-read your letter) that the Essay

might supersede and take away all novelty and value from any future

larger Book, is very true; and that would grieve me beyond everything.

On the other hand (again from Lyell's urgent advice), I published a

preliminary sketch of the Coral Theory, and this did neither good nor

harm. I begin MOST HEARTILY to wish that Lyell had never put this idea

of an Essay into my head.

FROM A LETTER TO SIR C. LYELL [July, 1856].

"I am delighted that I may say (with absolute truth) that my essay

is published at your suggestion, but I hope it will not need so much

apology as I at first thought; for I have resolved to make it nearly as

complete as my present materials allow. I cannot put in all which you

suggest, for it would appear too conceited."

FROM A LETTER TO W.D. FOX. Down, June 14th [1856].

"...What you say about my Essay, I dare say is very true; and it gave me

another fit of the wibber-gibbers: I hope that I shall succeed in making

it modest. One great motive is to get information on the many points

on which I want it. But I tremble about it, which I should not do, if

I allowed some three or four more years to elapse before publishing

anything..."

[The following extracts from letters to Mr. Fox are worth giving, as

showing how great was the accumulation of material which now had to be

dealt with.

June 14th [1856].

"Very many thanks for the capital information on cats; I see I had

blundered greatly, but I know I had somewhere your original notes; but

my notes are so numerous during nineteen years' collection, that it

would take me at least a year to go over and classify them."

November 1856.

"Sometimes I fear I shall break down, for my subject gets bigger and

bigger with each month's work."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL Down, 16th [June, 1856].

My dear Lyell,

I am going to do the most impudent thing in the world. But my blood gets

hot with passion and turns cold alternately at the geological strides,

which many of your disciples are taking.

Here, poor Forbes made a continent to [i.e., extending to] North America

and another (or the same) to the Gulf weed; Hooker makes one from New

Zealand to South America and round the World to Kerguelen Land. Here

is Wollaston speaking of Madeira and P. Santo "as the sure and certain

witnesses of a former continent." Here is Woodward writes to me, if you

grant a continent over 200 or 300 miles of ocean depths (as if that was

nothing), why not extend a continent to every island in the Pacific and

Atlantic Oceans? And all this within the existence of recent species! If

you do not stop this, if there be a lower region for the punishment of

geologists, I believe, my great master, you will go there. Why, your

disciples in a slow and creeping manner beat all the old Catastrophists

who ever lived. You will live to be the great chief of the

Catastrophists.

There, I have done myself a great deal of good, and have exploded my

passion.

So my master, forgive me, and believe me, ever yours, C. DARWIN.

P.S. Don't answer this, I did it to ease myself.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [June] 17th, 1856.

...I have been very deeply interested by Wollaston's book ('The

Variation of Species,' 1856.), though I differ GREATLY from many of his

doctrines. Did you ever read anything so rich, considering how very

far he goes, as his denunciations against those who go further: "Most

mischievous," "absurd," "unsound." Theology is at the bottom of some

of this. I told him he was like Calvin burning a heretic. It is a very

valuable and clever book in my opinion. He has evidently read very

little out of his own line. I urged him to read the New Zealand essay.

His Geology also is rather eocene, as I told him. In fact I wrote most

frankly; he says he is sure that ultra-honesty is my characteristic:

I do not know whether he meant it as a sneer; I hope not. Talking

of eocene geology, I got so wrath about the Atlantic continent, more

especially from a note from Woodward (who has published a capital book

on shells), who does not seem to doubt that every island in the Pacific

and Atlantic are the remains of continents, submerged within period of

existing species, that I fairly exploded, and wrote to Lyell to protest,

and summed up all the continents created of late years by Forbes (the

head sinner!) YOURSELF, Wollaston, and Woodward, and a pretty nice

little extension of land they make altogether! I am fairly rabid on the

question and therefore, if not wrong already, am pretty sure to become

so...

I have enjoyed your note much. Adios, C. DARWIN.

P.S. [June] 18th. Lyell has written me a CAPITAL letter on your side,

which ought to upset me entirely, but I cannot say it does quite.

Though I must try and cease being rabid and try to feel humble, and

allow you all to make continents, as easily as a cook does pancakes.

CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, June 25th [1856].

My dear Lyell,

I will have the following tremendous letter copied to make the reading

easier, and as I want to keep a copy.

As you say you would like to hear my reasons for being most unwilling

to believe in the continental extensions of late authors, I gladly write

them, as, without I am convinced of my error, I shall have to give them

condensed in my essay, when I discuss single and multiple creation; I

shall therefore be particularly glad to have your general opinion on

them. I may QUITE LIKELY have persuaded myself in my wrath that there

is more in them than there is. If there was much more reason to admit a

continental extension in any one or two instances (as in Madeira) than

in other cases, I should feel no difficulty whatever. But if on account

of European plants, and littoral sea shells, it is thought necessary to

join Madeira to the mainland, Hooker is quite right to join New Holland

to New Zealand, and Auckland Island (and Raoul Island to N.E.), and

these to S. America and the Falklands, and these to Tristan d'Acunha,

and these to Kerguelen Land; thus making, either strictly at the same

time, or at different periods, but all within the life of recent

beings, an almost circumpolar belt of land. So again Galapagos and Juan

Fernandez must be joined to America; and if we trust to littoral see

shells, the Galapagos must have been joined to the Pacific Islands (2400

miles distant) as well as to America, and as Woodward seems to think

all the islands in the Pacific into a magnificent continent; also

the islands in the Southern Indian Ocean into another continent, with

Madagascar and Africa, and perhaps India. In the North Atlantic, Europe

will stretch half-way across the ocean to the Azores, and further north

right across. In short, we must suppose probably, half the present ocean

was land within the period of living organisms. The Globe within this

period must have had a quite different aspect. Now the only way to

test this, that I can see, is to consider whether the continents have

undergone within this same period such wonderful permutations. In all

North and South and Central America, we have both recent and miocene (or

eocene) shells, quite distinct on the opposite sides, and hence I cannot

doubt that FUNDAMENTALLY America has held its place since at least, the

miocene period. In Africa almost all the living shells are distinct on

the opposite sides of the inter-tropical regions, short as the distance

is compared to the range of marine mollusca, in uninterrupted seas;

hence I infer that Africa has existed since our present species were

created. Even the isthmus of Suez and the Aralo-Caspian basin have had a

great antiquity. So I imagine, from the tertiary deposits, has India.

In Australia the great fauna of extinct marsupials shows that before the

present mammals appeared, Australia was a separate continent. I do not

for one second doubt that very large portions of all these continents

have undergone GREAT changes of level within this period, but yet I

conclude that fundamentally they stood as barriers in the sea, where

they now stand; and therefore I should require the weightiest evidence

to make me believe in such immense changes within the period of living

organisms in our oceans, where, moreover, from the great depths, the

changes must have been vaster in a vertical sense.

SECONDLY.

Submerge our present continents, leaving a few mountain peaks as

islands, and what will the character of the islands be,--Consider

that the Pyrenees, Sierra Nevada, Apennines, Alps, Carpathians, are

non-volcanic, Etna and Caucasus, volcanic. In Asia, Altai and Himalaya,

I believe non-volcanic. In North Africa the non-volcanic, as I imagine,

Alps of Abyssinia and of the Atlas. In South Africa, the Snow Mountains.

In Australia, the non-volcanic Alps. In North America, the White

Mountains, Alleghanies and Rocky Mountains--some of the latter alone,

I believe, volcanic. In South America to the east, the non-volcanic

[Silla?] of Caracas, and Itacolumi of Brazil, further south the Sierra

Ventanas, and in the Cordilleras, many volcanic but not all. Now compare

these peaks with the oceanic islands; as far as known all are volcanic,

except St. Paul's (a strange bedevilled rock), and the Seychelles,

if this latter can be called oceanic, in the line of Madagascar; the

Falklands, only 500 miles off, are only a shallow bank; New Caledonia,

hardly oceanic, is another exception. This argument has to me great

weight. Compare on a Geographical map, islands which, we have SEVERAL

reasons to suppose, were connected with mainland, as Sardinia, and how

different it appears. Believing, as I am inclined, that continents as

continents, and oceans as oceans, are of immense antiquity--I should

say that if any of the existing oceanic islands have any relation of any

kind to continents, they are forming continents; and that by the time

they could form a continent, the volcanoes would be denuded to their

cores, leaving peaks of syenite, diorite, or porphyry. But have we

nowhere any last wreck of a continent, in the midst of the ocean? St.

Paul's Rock, and such old battered volcanic islands, as St. Helena, may

be; but I think we can see some reason why we should have less evidence

of sinking than of rising continents (if my view in my Coral volume has

any truth in it, viz.: that volcanic outbursts accompany rising areas),

for during subsidence there will be no compensating agent at work, in

rising areas there will be the ADDITIONAL element of outpoured volcanic

matter.

THIRDLY.

Considering the depth of the ocean, I was, before I got your letter,

inclined vehemently to dispute the vast amount of subsidence, but I

must strike my colours. With respect to coral reefs, I carefully guarded

against its being supposed that a continent was indicated by the groups

of atolls. It is difficult to guess, as it seems to me, the amount of

subsidence indicated by coral reefs; but in such large areas as the Lowe

Archipelago, the Marshall Archipelago, and Laccadive group, it would,

judging, from the heights of existing oceanic archipelagoes, be odd, if

some peaks of from 8000 to 10,000 feet had not been buried. Even after

your letter a suspicion crossed me whether it would be fair to argue

from subsidences in the middle of the greatest oceans to continents; but

refreshing my memory by talking with Ramsay in regard to the probable

thickness in one vertical line of the Silurian and carboniferous

formation, it seems there must have been AT LEAST 10,000 feet of

subsidence during these formations in Europe and North America, and

therefore during the continuance of nearly the same set of organic

beings. But even 12,000 feet would not be enough for the Azores, or

for Hooker's continent; I believe Hooker does not infer a continuous

continent, but approximate groups of islands, with, if we may judge

from existing continents, not PROFOUNDLY deep sea between them; but

the argument from the volcanic nature of nearly every existing oceanic

island tell against such supposed groups of islands,--for I presume he

does not suppose a mere chain of volcanic islands belting the southern

hemisphere.

FOURTHLY.

The supposed continental extensions do not seem to me, perfectly to

account for all the phenomena of distribution on islands; as the absence

of mammals and Batrachians; the absence of certain great groups of

insects on Madeira, and of Acaciae and Banksias, etc., in New Zealand;

the paucity of plants in some cases, etc. Not that those who believe in

various accidental means of dispersal, can explain most of these cases;

but they may at least say that these facts seem hardly compatible with

former continuous land.

FINALLY.

For these several reasons, and especially considering it certain

(in which you will agree) that we are extremely ignorant of means of

dispersal, I cannot avoid thinking that Forbes' 'Atlantis,' was

an ill-service to science, as checking a close study of means of

dissemination. I shall be really grateful to hear, as briefly as you

like, whether these arguments have any weight with you, putting yourself

in the position of an honest judge. I told Hooker that I was going to

write to you on this subject; and I should like him to read this; but

whether he or you will think it worth time and postage remains to be

proved.

Yours most truly, CHARLES DARWIN.

[On July 8th he wrote to Sir Charles Lyell.

"I am sorry you cannot give any verdict on Continental extensions; and

I infer that you think my argument of not much weight against such

extensions. I know I wish I could believe so."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 20th [1856].

...It is not a little egotistical, but I should like to tell you (and

I do not THINK I have) how I view my work. Nineteen years (!) ago it

occurred to me that whilst otherwise employed on Natural History,

I might perhaps do good if I noted any sort of facts bearing on the

question of the origin of species, and this I have since been doing.

Either species have been independently created, or they have descended

from other species, like varieties from one species. I think it can

be shown to be probable that man gets his most distinct varieties by

preserving such as arise best worth keeping and destroying the others,

but I should fill a quire if I were to go on. To be brief, I ASSUME that

species arise like our domestic varieties with MUCH extinction; and

then test this hypothesis by comparison with as many general and pretty

well-established propositions as I can find made out,--in geographical

distribution, geological history, affinities, etc., etc. And it seems

to me that, SUPPOSING that such hypothesis were to explain such general

propositions, we ought, in accordance with the common way of following

all sciences, to admit it till some better hypothesis be found out. For

to my mind to say that species were created so and so is no scientific

explanation, only a reverent way of saying it is so and so. But it is

nonsensical trying to show how I try to proceed in the compass of a

note. But as an honest man, I must tell you that I have come to the

heterodox conclusion that there are no such things as independently

created species--that species are only strongly defined varieties. I

know that this will make you despise me. I do not much underrate the

many HUGE difficulties on this view, but yet it seems to me to explain

too much, otherwise inexplicable, to be false. Just to allude to one

point in your last note, viz., about species of the same genus

GENERALLY having a common or continuous area; if they are actual lineal

descendants of one species, this of course would be the case; and the

sadly too many exceptions (for me) have to be explained by climatal

and geological changes. A fortiori on this view (but on exactly

same grounds), all the individuals of the same species should have a

continuous distribution. On this latter branch of the subject I have

put a chapter together, and Hooker kindly read it over. I thought the

exceptions and difficulties were so great that on the whole the balance

weighed against my notions, but I was much pleased to find that it

seemed to have considerable weight with Hooker, who said he had never

been so much staggered about the permanence of species.

I must say one word more in justification (for I feel sure that your

tendency will be to despise me and my crotchets), that all my notions

about HOW species change are derived from long continued study of the

works of (and converse with) agriculturists and horticulturists; and

I believe I see my way pretty clearly on the means used by nature

to change her species and ADAPT them to the wondrous and exquisitely

beautiful contingencies to which every living being is exposed...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 30th 1856.

My dear Hooker,

Your letter is of MUCH value to me. I was not able to get a definite

answer from Lyell (On the continental extensions of Forbes and others.),

as you will see in the enclosed letters, though I inferred that

he thought nothing of my arguments. Had it not been for this

correspondence, I should have written sadly too strongly. You may

rely on it I shall put my doubts moderately. There never was such a

predicament as mine: here you continental extensionists would remove

enormous difficulties opposed to me, and yet I cannot honestly admit the

doctrine, and must therefore say so. I cannot get over the fact that not

a fragment of secondary or palaeozoic rock has been found on any island

above 500 or 600 miles from a mainland. You rather misunderstand me

when you think I doubt the POSSIBILITY of subsidence of 20,000 or 30,000

feet; it is only probability, considering such evidence as we have

independently of distribution. I have not yet worked out in full detail

the distribution of mammalia, both IDENTICAL and allied, with respect

to the ONE ELEMENT OF DEPTH OF THE SEA; but as far as I have gone, the

results are to me surprisingly accordant with my very most troublesome

belief in not such great geographical changes as you believe; and in

mammalia we certainly know more of MEANS of distribution than in any

other class. Nothing is so vexatious to me, as so constantly finding

myself drawing different conclusions from better judges than myself,

from the same facts.

I fancy I have lately removed many (not geographical) great difficulties

opposed to my notions, but God knows it may be all hallucination.

Please return Lyell's letters.

What a capital letter of Lyell's that to you is, and what a wonderful

man he is. I differ from him greatly in thinking that those who believe

that species are NOT fixed will multiply specific names: I know in my

own case my most frequent source of doubt was whether others would not

think this or that was a God-created Barnacle, and surely deserved

a name. Otherwise I should only have thought whether the amount of

difference and permanence was sufficient to justify a name: I am, also,

surprised at his thinking it immaterial whether species are absolute or

not: whenever it is proved that all species are produced by generation,

by laws of change, what good evidence we shall have of the gaps in

formations. And what a science Natural History will be, when we are

in our graves, when all the laws of change are thought one of the most

important parts of Natural History.

I cannot conceive why Lyell thinks such notions as mine or of

'Vestiges,' will invalidate specific centres. But I must not run on

and take up your time. My MS. will not, I fear, be copied before you go

abroad. With hearty thanks.

Ever yours, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--After giving much condensed, my argument versus continental

extensions, I shall append some such sentence, as that two better judges

than myself have considered these arguments, and attach no weight to

them.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 5th [1856].

...I quite agree about Lyell's letters to me, which, though to me

interesting, have afforded me no new light. Your letters, under the

GEOLOGICAL point of view, have been more valuable to me. You cannot

imagine how earnestly I wish I could swallow continental extension,

but I cannot; the more I think (and I cannot get the subject out of my

head), the more difficult I find it. If there were only some half-dozen

cases, I should not feel the least difficulty; but the generality of the

facts of all islands (except one or two) having a considerable part of

their productions in common with one or more mainlands utterly staggers

me. What a wonderful case of the Epacridae! It is most vexatious, also

humiliating, to me that I cannot follow and subscribe to the way in

which you strikingly put your view of the case. I look at your facts

(about Eucalyptus, etc.) as DAMNING against continental extension, and

if you like also damning against migration, or at least of ENORMOUS

difficulty. I see the ground of our difference (in a letter I must put

myself on an equality in arguing) lies, in my opinion, that scarcely

anything is known of means of distribution. I quite agree with A. De

Candolle's (and I dare say your) opinion that it is poor work putting

together the merely POSSIBLE means of distribution; but I see no

other way in which the subject can be attacked, for I think that A. De

Candolle's argument, that no plants have been introduced into England

except by man's agency, [is] of no weight. I cannot but think that the

theory of continental extension does do some little harm as stopping

investigation of the means of dispersal, which, whether NEGATIVE or

positive, seems to me of value; when negatived, then every one who

believes in single centres will have to admit continental extensions.

...I see from your remarks that you do not understand my notions

(whether or no worth anything) about modification; I attribute very

little to the direct action of climate, etc. I suppose, in regard to

specific centres, we are at cross purposes; I should call the kitchen

garden in which the red cabbage was produced, or the farm in which

Bakewell made the Shorthorn cattle, the specific centre of these

SPECIES! And surely this is centralisation enough!

I thank you most sincerely for all your assistance; and whether or no my