Volume I., page 179, and the amusing account of the meeting in Mr.

Tuckwell's "Reminiscences of Oxford," London, 1900, page 50.) It is of

enormous importance the showing the world that a few first-rate men

are not afraid of expressing their opinion. I see daily more and more

plainly that my unaided book would have done absolutely nothing. Asa

Gray is fighting admirably in the United States. He is thorough master

of the subject, which cannot be said by any means of such men as even

Hopkins.

I have been thinking over what you allude to about a natural history

review. (107/3. In the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I.,

page 209, some account of the founding of the "Natural History Review"

is given in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker of July 17th, 1860. On August

2nd Mr. Huxley added: "Darwin wrote me a very kind expostulation about

it, telling me I ought not to waste myself on other than original work.

In reply, however, I assured him that I MUST waste myself willy-nilly,

and that the 'Review' was only a save-all.") I suppose you mean really

a REVIEW and not journal for original communications in Natural History.

Of the latter there is now superabundance. With respect to a good

review, there can be no doubt of its value and utility; nevertheless, if

not too late, I hope you will consider deliberately before you decide.

Remember what a deal of work you have on your shoulders, and though you

can do much, yet there is a limit to even the hardest worker's power of

working. I should deeply regret to see you sacrificing much time which

could be given to original research. I fear, to one who can review as

well as you do, there would be the same temptation to waste time, as

there notoriously is for those who can speak well.

A review is only temporary; your work should be perennial. I know well

that you may say that unless good men will review there will be no good

reviews. And this is true. Would you not do more good by an occasional

review in some well-established review, than by giving up much time

to the editing, or largely aiding, if not editing, a review which from

being confined to one subject would not have a very large circulation?

But I must return to the chief idea which strikes me--viz., that it

would lessen the amount of original and perennial work which you could

do. Reflect how few men there are in England who can do original work

in the several lines in which you are excellently fitted. Lyell, I

remember, on analogous grounds many years ago resolved he would write no

more reviews. I am an old slowcoach, and your scheme makes me tremble.

God knows in one sense I am about the last man in England who ought to

throw cold water on any review in which you would be concerned, as I

have so immensely profited by your labours in this line.

With respect to reviewing myself, I never tried: any work of that kind

stops me doing anything else, as I cannot possibly work at odds and

ends of time. I have, moreover, an insane hatred of stopping my regular

current of work. I have now materials for a little paper or two, but I

know I shall never work them up. So I will not promise to help; though

not to help, if I could, would make me feel very ungrateful to you. You

have no idea during how short a time daily I am able to work. If I had

any regular duties, like you and Hooker, I should do absolutely nothing

in science.

I am heartily glad to hear that you are better; but how such labour as

volunteer-soldiering (all honour to you) does not kill you, I cannot

understand.

For God's sake remember that your field of labour is original research

in the highest and most difficult branches of Natural History. Not that

I wish to underrate the importance of clever and solid reviews.

LETTER 108. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Sudbrook Park, Richmond, Thursday [July,

1860].

I must send you a line to say what a good fellow you are to send me so

long an account of the Oxford doings. I have read it twice, and sent

it to my wife, and when I get home shall read it again: it has so much

interested me. But how durst you attack a live bishop in that fashion? I

am quite ashamed of you! Have you no reverence for fine lawn sleeves?

By Jove, you seem to have done it well. If any one were to ridicule any

belief of the bishop's, would he not blandly shrug his shoulders and be

inexpressibly shocked? I am very, very sorry to hear that you are not

well; but am not surprised after all your self-imposed labour. I hope

you will soon have an outing, and that will do you real good.

I am glad to hear about J. Lubbock, whom I hope to see soon, and

shall tell him what you have said. Have you read Hopkins in the last

"Fraser?"--well put, in good spirit, except soul discussion bad, as I

have told him; nothing actually new, takes the weak points alone, and

leaves out all other considerations.

I heard from Asa Gray yesterday; he goes on fighting like a Trojan.

God bless you!--get well, be idle, and always reverence a bishop.

LETTER 109. TO J.D. DANA. Down, July 30th [1860].

I received several weeks ago your note telling me that you could not

visit England, which I sincerely regretted, as I should most heartily

have liked to have made your personal acquaintance. You gave me an

improved, but not very good, account of your health. I should at some

time be grateful for a line to tell me how you are. We have had a

miserable summer, owing to a terribly long and severe illness of

my eldest girl, who improves slightly but is still in a precarious

condition. I have been able to do nothing in science of late. My kind

friend Asa Gray often writes to me and tells me of the warm discussions

on the "Origin of Species" in the United States. Whenever you are

strong enough to read it, I know you will be dead against me, but I know

equally well that your opposition will be liberal and philosophical.

And this is a good deal more than I can say of all my opponents in

this country. I have not yet seen Agassiz's attack (109/1. "Silliman's

Journal," July, 1860. A passage from Agassiz's review is given by Mr.

Huxley in Darwin's "Life and Letters," II., page 184.), but I hope to

find it at home when I return in a few days, for I have been for several

weeks away from home on my daughter's account. Prof. Silliman sent me an

extremely kind message by Asa Gray that your Journal would be open to

a reply by me. I cannot decide till I see it, but on principle I have

resolved to avoid answering anything, as it consumes much time,

often temper, and I have said my say in the "Origin." No one person

understands my views and has defended them so well as A. Gray, though he

does not by any means go all the way with me. There was much discussion

on the subject at the British Association at Oxford, and I had many

defenders, and my side seems (for I was not there) almost to have got

the best of the battle. Your correspondent and my neighbour, J. Lubbock,

goes on working at such spare time as he has. This is an egotistical

note, but I have not seen a naturalist for months. Most sincerely and

deeply do I hope that this note may find you almost recovered.

LETTER 110. TO W.H. HARVEY.

(110/1. See Letter 95, note. This letter was written in reply to a

long one from W.H. Harvey, dated August 24th, 1860. Harvey had already

published a serio-comic squib and a review, to which references are

given in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 314 and 375; but apparently

he had not before this time completed the reading of the "Origin.")

[August, 1860.]

I have read your long letter with much interest, and I thank you for

your great liberality in sending it me. But, on reflection, I do not

wish to attempt answering any part, except to you privately. Anything

said by myself in defence would have no weight; it is best to be

defended by others, or not at all. Parts of your letter seem to me, if

I may be permitted to say so, very acute and original, and I feel it

a great compliment your giving up so much time to my book. But, on the

whole, I am disappointed; not from your not concurring with me, for I

never expected that, and, indeed, in your remarks on Chapters XII. and

XIII., you go much further with me (though a little way) than I ever

anticipated, and am much pleased at the result. But on the whole I am

disappointed, because it seems to me that you do not understand what I

mean by Natural Selection, as shown at page 11 (110/2. Harvey speaks of

the perpetuation or selection of the useful, pre-supposing "a vigilant

and intelligent agent," which is very much like saying that an

intelligent agent is needed to see that the small stones pass through

the meshes of a sieve and the big ones remain behind.) of your letter

and by several of your remarks. As my book has failed to explain my

meaning, it would be hopeless to attempt it in a letter. You speak in

the early part of your letter, and at page 9, as if I had said that

Natural Selection was the sole agency of modification, whereas I

have over and over again, ad nauseam, directly said, and by order of

precedence implied (what seems to me obvious) that selection can do

nothing without previous variability (see pages 80, 108, 127, 468, 469,

etc.), "nothing can be effected unless favourable variations occur."

I consider Natural Selection as of such high importance, because it

accumulates successive variations in any profitable direction, and

thus adapts each new being to its complex conditions of life. The term

"selection," I see, deceives many persons, though I see no more reason

why it should than elective affinity, as used by the old chemists. If I

had to rewrite my book, I would use "natural preservation" or "naturally

preserved." I should think you would as soon take an emetic as re-read

any part of my book; but if you did, and were to erase selection and

selected, and insert preservation and preserved, possibly the subject

would be clearer. As you are not singular in misunderstanding my book, I

should long before this have concluded that my brains were in a haze had

I not found by published reviews, and especially by correspondence, that

Lyell, Hooker, Asa Gray, H.C. Watson, Huxley, and Carpenter, and many

others, perfectly comprehend what I mean. The upshot of your remarks at

page 11 is that my explanation, etc., and the whole doctrine of Natural

Selection, are mere empty words, signifying the "order of nature." As

the above-named clear-headed men, who do comprehend my views, all go a

certain length with me, and certainly do not think it all moonshine, I

should venture to suggest a little further reflection on your part. I do

not mean by this to imply that the opinion of these men is worth much as

showing that I am right, but merely as some evidence that I have

clearer ideas than you think, otherwise these same men must be even

more muddle-headed than I am; for they have no temptation to deceive

themselves. In the forthcoming September (110/3. "American Journal of

Science and Arts," September 1860, "Design versus Necessity," reprinted

in Asa Gray's "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62.) number of the "American

Journal of Science" there is an interesting and short theological

article (by Asa Gray), which gives incidentally with admirable clearness

the theory of Natural Selection, and therefore might be worth your

reading. I think that the theological part would interest you.

You object to all my illustrations. They are all necessarily

conjectural, and may be all false; but they were the best I could give.

The bear case (110/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 184. See

Letter 120.) has been well laughed at, and disingenuously distorted by

some into my saying that a bear could be converted into a whale. As it

offended persons, I struck it out in the second edition; but I still

maintain that there is no especial difficulty in a bear's mouth

being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits,--no more

difficulty than man has found in increasing the crop of the pigeon, by

continued selection, until it is literally as big as the whole rest of

the body. If this had not been known, how absurd it would have appeared

to say that the crop of a bird might be increased till it became like a

balloon!

With respect to the ostrich, I believe that the wings have been reduced,

and are not in course of development, because the whole structure of a

bird is essentially formed for flight; and the ostrich is essentially

a bird. You will see at page 182 of the "Origin" a somewhat analogous

discussion. At page 450 of the second edition I have pointed out the

essential distinction between a nascent and rudimentary organ. If you

prefer the more complex view that the progenitor of the ostrich lost its

wings, and that the present ostrich is regaining them, I have nothing to

say in opposition.

With respect to trees on islands, I collected some cases, but took the

main facts from Alph. De Candolle, and thought they might be trusted. My

explanation may be grossly wrong; but I am not convinced it is so, and I

do not see the full force of your argument of certain herbaceous orders

having been developed into trees in certain rare cases on continents.

The case seems to me to turn altogether on the question whether

generally herbaceous orders more frequently afford trees and bushes on

islands than on continents, relatively to their areas. (110/5. In

the "Origin," Edition I., page 392, the author points out that in the

presence of competing trees an herbaceous plant would have little chance

of becoming arborescent; but on an island, with only other herbaceous

plants as competitors, it might gain an advantage by overtopping its

fellows, and become tree-like. Harvey writes: "What you say (page

392) of insular trees belonging to orders which elsewhere include only

herbaceous species seems to me to be unsupported by sufficient evidence.

You cite no particular trees, and I may therefore be wrong in guessing

that the orders you allude to are Scrophularineae and Compositae; and

the insular trees the Antarctic Veronicas and the arborescent

Compositae of St. Helena, Tasmania, etc. But in South Africa Halleria

(Scrophularineae) is often as large and woody as an apple tree; and

there are several South African arborescent Compositae (Senecio and

Oldenburgia). Besides, in Tasmania at least, the arborescent Composites

are not found competing with herbaceous plants alone, and growing taller

and taller by overtopping them...; for the most arborescent of them all

(Eurybia argophylla, the Musk tree) grows...in Eucalyptus forests. And

so of the South African Halleria, which is a tree among trees. What the

conditions of the arborescent Gerania of the Sandwich Islands may be

I am unable to say...I cannot remember any other instances, nor can I

accept your explanation in any other of the cases I have cited.")

In page 4 of your letter you say you give up many book-species as

separate creations: I give up all, and you infer that our difference

is only in degree and not in kind. I dissent from this; for I give a

distinct reason how far I go in giving up species. I look at all forms,

which resemble each other homologically or embryologically, as certainly

descended from the same species.

You hit me hard and fairly (110/6. Harvey writes: "You ask--were all the

infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed,

or as full grown? To this it is sufficient to reply, was your primordial

organism, or were your four or five progenitors created as egg, seed,

or full grown? Neither theory attempts to solve this riddle, nor yet the

riddle of the Omphalos." The latter point, which Mr. Darwin refuses to

give up, is at page 483 of the "Origin," "and, in the case of mammals,

were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the

mother's womb?" In the third edition of the "Origin," 1861, page 517,

the author adds, after the last-cited passage: "Undoubtedly these same

questions cannot be answered by those who, under the present state of

science, believe in the creation of a few aboriginal forms, or of some

one form of life. In the sixth edition, probably with a view to the

umbilicus, he writes (page 423): "Undoubtedly some of these same

questions," etc., etc. From notes in Mr. Darwin's copy of the second

edition it is clear that the change in the third edition was chiefly

due to Harvey's letter. See Letter 115.) about my question (page 483,

"Origin") about creation of eggs or young, etc., (but not about mammals

with the mark of the umbilical cord), yet I still have an illogical sort

of feeling that there is less difficulty in imagining the creation of an

asexual cell, increasing by simple division.

Page 5 of your letter: I agree to every word about the antiquity of the

world, and never saw the case put by any one more strongly or more ably.

It makes, however, no more impression on me as an objection than does

the astronomer when he puts on a few hundred million miles to the

distance of the fixed stars. To compare very small things with great,

Lingula, etc., remaining nearly unaltered from the Silurian epoch to

the present day, is like the dovecote pigeons still being identical with

wild Rock-pigeons, whereas its "fancy" offspring have been immensely

modified, and are still being modified, by means of artificial

selection.

You put the difficulty of the first modification of the first protozoon

admirably. I assure you that immediately after the first edition was

published this occurred to me, and I thought of inserting it in the

second edition. I did not, because we know not in the least what the

first germ of life was, nor have we any fact at all to guide us in our

speculations on the kind of change which its offspring underwent. I

dissent quite from what you say of the myriads of years it would take to

people the world with such imagined protozoon. In how very short a time

Ehrenberg calculated that a single infusorium might make a cube of rock!

A single cube on geometrical progression would make the solid globe

in (I suppose) under a century. From what little I know, I cannot help

thinking that you underrate the effects of the physical conditions of

life on these low organisms. But I fully admit that I can give no sort

of answer to your objections; yet I must add that it would be marvellous

if any man ever could, assuming for the moment that my theory is true.

You beg the question, I think, in saying that Protococcus would be

doomed to eternal similarity. Nor can you know that the first germ

resembled a Protococcus or any other now living form.

Page 12 of your letter: There is nothing in my theory necessitating in

each case progression of organisation, though Natural Selection tends in

this line, and has generally thus acted. An animal, if it become

fitted by selection to live the life, for instance, of a parasite, will

generally become degraded. I have much regretted that I did not make

this part of the subject clearer. I left out this and many other

subjects, which I now see ought to have been introduced. I have inserted

a discussion on this subject in the foreign editions. (110/7. In the

third Edition a discussion on this point is added in Chapter IV.) In

no case will any organic being tend to retrograde, unless such

retrogradation be an advantage to its varying offspring; and it is

difficult to see how going back to the structure of the unknown supposed

original protozoon could ever be an advantage.

Page 13 of your letter: I have been more glad to read your discussion

on "dominant" forms than any part of your letter. (110/8. Harvey

writes: "Viewing organic nature in its widest aspect, I think it is

unquestionable that the truly dominant races are not those of high, but

those of low organisation"; and goes on to quote the potato disease,

etc. In the third edition of the "Origin," page 56, a discussion is

introduced defining the author's use of the term "dominant.") I can now

see that I have not been cautious enough in confining my definition

and meaning. I cannot say that you have altered my views. If Botrytis

[Phytophthora] had exterminated the wild potato, a low form would have

conquered a high; but I cannot remember that I have ever said (I am

sure I never thought) that a low form would never conquer a high. I have

expressly alluded to parasites half exterminating game-animals, and

to the struggle for life being sometimes between forms as different as

possible: for instance, between grasshoppers and herbivorous quadrupeds.

Under the many conditions of life which this world affords, any group

which is numerous in individuals and species and is widely distributed,

may properly be called dominant. I never dreamed of considering that

any one group, under all conditions and throughout the world, would be

predominant. How could vertebrata be predominant under the conditions

of life in which parasitic worms live? What good would their perfected

senses and their intellect serve under such conditions? When I have

spoken of dominant forms, it has been in relation to the multiplication

of new specific forms, and the dominance of any one species has been

relative generally to other members of the same group, or at least to

beings exposed to similar conditions and coming into competition. But I

daresay that I have not in the "Origin" made myself clear, and space has

rendered it impossible. But I thank you most sincerely for your valuable

remarks, though I do not agree with them.

About sudden jumps: I have no objection to them--they would aid me in

some cases. All I can say is, that I went into the subject, and found

no evidence to make me believe in jumps; and a good deal pointing in the

other direction. You will find it difficult (page 14 of your letter) to

make a marked line of separation between fertile and infertile crosses.

I do not see how the apparently sudden change (for the suddenness of

change in a chrysalis is of course largely only apparent) in larvae

during their development throws any light on the subject.

I wish I could have made this letter better worth sending to you. I have

had it copied to save you at least the intolerable trouble of reading

my bad handwriting. Again I thank you for your great liberality and

kindness in sending me your criticisms, and I heartily wish we were

a little nearer in accord; but we must remain content to be as wide

asunder as the poles, but without, thank God, any malice or other

ill-feeling.

LETTER 111. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(111/1. Dr. Asa Gray's articles in the "Atlantic Monthly," July, August,

and October, 1860, were published in England as a pamphlet, and form