Charles Darwin: His Life in an Autobiographical Chapter Part 30

(2.) I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as n.o.ble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self-development into all forms needful _pro tempore_ and _pro loco_, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the _lacunas_ which He Himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought.

Be it as it may, I shall prize your book, both for itself, and as a proof that you are aware of the existence of such a person as

Your faithful servant, C. KINGSLEY.

My father's old friend, the Rev. J. Brodie Innes, of Milton Brodie, who was for many years Vicar of Down, in some reminiscences of my father which he was so good as to give me, writes in the same spirit:

"We never attacked each other. Before I knew Mr. Darwin I had adopted, and publicly expressed, the principle that the study of natural history, geology, and science in general, should be pursued without reference to the Bible. That the Book of Nature and Scripture came from the same Divine source, ran in parallel lines, and when properly understood would never cross....

"In [a] letter, after I had left Down, he [Darwin] writes, 'We often differed, but you are one of those rare mortals from whom one can differ and yet feel no shade of animosity, and that is a thing [of] which I should feel very proud if any one could say [it] of me.'

"On my last visit to Down, Mr. Darwin said, at his dinner-table, 'Innes and I have been fast friends for thirty years, and we never thoroughly agreed on any subject but once, and then we stared hard at each other, and thought one of us must be very ill.'"

The following extract from a letter to Lyell, Feb. 23, 1860, has a certain bearing on the points just touched on:

"With respect to Bronn's[195] objection that it cannot be shown how life arises, and likewise to a certain extent Asa Gray's remark that natural selection is not a _vera causa_, I was much interested by finding accidentally in Brewster's _Life of Newton_, that Leibnitz objected to the law of gravity because Newton could not show what gravity itself is.

As it has chanced, I have used in letters this very same argument, little knowing that any one had really thus objected to the law of gravity. Newton answers by saying that it is philosophy to make out the movements of a clock, though you do not know why the weight descends to the ground. Leibnitz further objected that the law of gravity was opposed to Natural Religion! Is this not curious? I really think I shall use the facts for some introductory remarks for my bigger book."

_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down, March 3rd [1860].

... I think you expect too much in regard to change of opinion on the subject of Species. One large cla.s.s of men, more especially I suspect of naturalists, never will care about _any_ general question, of which old Gray, of the British Museum, may be taken as a type; and secondly, nearly all men past a moderate age, either in actual years or in mind are, I am fully convinced, incapable of looking at facts under a new point of view. Seriously, I am astonished and rejoiced at the progress which the subject has made; look at the enclosed memorandum. ---- says my book will be forgotten in ten years, perhaps so; but, with such a list, I feel convinced the subject will not.

[Here follows the memorandum referred to:]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geologists. | Zoologists and | Physiologists. |Botanists.

| Palaeontologists. | | ------------------|------------------|------------------|----------------- Lyell. |Huxley. |Carpenter. |Hooker.

Ramsay.[196] |J. Lubbock. |Sir. H. Holland |H. C. Watson.

Jukes.[197] |L. Jenyns |(to large extent).|Asa Gray H. D. Rogers.[198]|(to large extent).| |(to some extent).

|Searles Wood.[199]| |Dr. Boott | |(to large extent).

| |Thwaites.[200]

_C. D. to Asa Gray_. Down, April 3 [1860].

... I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peac.o.c.k's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!...

You may like to hear about reviews on my book. Sedgwick (as I and Lyell feel _certain_ from internal evidence) has reviewed me savagely and unfairly in the _Spectator_.[201] The notice includes much abuse, and is hardly fair in several respects. He would actually lead any one, who was ignorant of geology, to suppose that I had invented the great gaps between successive geological formations, instead of its being an almost universally admitted dogma. But my dear old friend Sedgwick, with his n.o.ble heart, is old, and is rabid with indignation.... There has been one prodigy of a review, namely, an _opposed_ one (by Pictet,[202] the palaeontologist, in the _Bib. Universelle_ of Geneva) which is _perfectly_ fair and just, and I agree to every word he says; our only difference being that he attaches less weight to arguments in favour, and more to arguments opposed, than I do. Of all the opposed reviews, I think this the only quite fair one, and I never expected to see one.

Please observe that I do not cla.s.s your review by any means as opposed, though you think so yourself! It has done me _much_ too good service ever to appear in that rank in my eyes. But I fear I shall weary you with so much about my book. I should rather think there was a good chance of my becoming the most egotistical man in all Europe! What a proud pre-eminence! Well, you have helped to make me so, and therefore you must forgive me if you can.

My dear Gray, ever yours most gratefully.

_C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, April 10th [1860].

I have just read the _Edinburgh_,[203] which without doubt is by ----.

It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear will be very damaging. He is atrociously severe on Huxley's lecture, and very bitter against Hooker. So we three _enjoyed_ it together. Not that I really enjoyed it, for it made me uncomfortable for one night; but I have got quite over it to-day. It requires much study to appreciate all the bitter spite of many of the remarks against me; indeed I did not discover all myself. It scandalously misrepresents many parts. He misquotes some pa.s.sages, altering words within inverted commas....

It is painful to be hated in the intense degree with which ---- hates me.

Now for a curious thing about my book, and then I have done. In last Sat.u.r.day's _Gardeners' Chronicle_,[204] a Mr. Patrick Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on _Naval Timber and Arboriculture_ published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely antic.i.p.ates the theory of Natural Selection. I have ordered the book, as some few pa.s.sages are rather obscure, but it is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed antic.i.p.ation! Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the case some day. Anyhow, one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on Naval Timber.

_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down [April 13th, 1860].

MY DEAR HOOKER,--Questions of priority so often lead to odious quarrels, that I should esteem it a great favour if you would read the enclosed.[205] If you think it proper that I should send it (and of this there can hardly be any question), and if you think it full and ample enough, please alter the date to the day on which you post it, and let that be soon. The case in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_ seems a _little_ stronger than in Mr. Matthew's book, for the pa.s.sages are therein scattered in three places; but it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that. If you object to my letter, please return it; but I do not expect that you will, but I thought that you would not object to run your eye over it. My dear Hooker, it is a great thing for me to have so good, true, and old a friend as you. I owe much for science to my friends.

... I have gone over [the _Edinburgh_] review again, and compared pa.s.sages, and I am astonished at the misrepresentations. But I am glad I resolved not to answer. Perhaps it is selfish, but to answer and think more on the subject is too unpleasant. I am so sorry that Huxley by my means has been thus atrociously attacked. I do not suppose you much care about the gratuitous attack on you.

Lyell in his letter remarked that you seemed to him as if you were overworked. Do, pray, be cautious, and remember how many and many a man has done this--who thought it absurd till too late. I have often thought the same. You know that you were bad enough before your Indian journey.

_C. D. to C. Lyell._ Down, April [1860].

... I was particularly glad to hear what you thought about not noticing [the _Edinburgh_] review. Hooker and Huxley thought it a sort of duty to point out the alteration of quoted citations, and there is truth in this remark; but I so hated the thought that I resolved not to do so. I shall come up to London on Sat.u.r.day the 14th, for Sir B. Brodie's party, as I have an acc.u.mulation of things to do in London, and will (if I do not hear to the contrary) call about a quarter before ten on Sunday morning, and sit with you at breakfast, but will not sit long, and so take up much of your time. I must say one more word about our quasi-theological controversy about natural selection, and let me have your opinion when we meet in London. Do you consider that the successive variations in the size of the crop of the Pouter Pigeon, which man has acc.u.mulated to please his caprice, have been due to "the creative and sustaining powers of Brahma?" In the sense that an omnipotent and omniscient Deity must order and know everything, this must be admitted; yet, in honest truth, I can hardly admit it. It seems preposterous that a maker of a universe should care about the crop of a pigeon solely to please man's silly fancies. But if you agree with me in thinking such an interposition of the Deity uncalled for, I can see no reason whatever for believing in such interpositions in the case of natural beings, in which strange and admirable peculiarities have been naturally selected for the creature's own benefit. Imagine a Pouter in a state of nature wading into the water and then, being buoyed up by its inflated crop, sailing about in search of food. What admiration this would have excited--adaptation to the laws of hydrostatic pressure, &c. &c. For the life of me, I cannot see any difficulty in natural selection producing the most exquisite structure, _if such structure can be arrived at by gradation_, and I know from experience how hard it is to name any structure towards which at least some gradations are not known.

Ever yours.

P.S.--The conclusion at which I have come, as I have told Asa Gray, is that such a question, as is touched on in this note, is beyond the human intellect, like "predestination and free will," or the "origin of evil."

_C. D. to J. D. Hooker._ Down [May 15th, 1860].

... How paltry it is in such men as X., Y. and Co. not reading your essay. It is incredibly paltry. They may all attack me to their hearts'

content. I am got case-hardened. As for the old fogies in Cambridge,[206] it really signifies nothing. I look at their attacks as a proof that our work is worth the doing. It makes me resolve to buckle on my armour. I see plainly that it will be a long uphill fight. But think of Lyell's progress with Geology. One thing I see most plainly, that without Lyell's, yours, Huxley's and Carpenter's aid, my book would have been a mere flash in the pan. But if we all stick to it, we shall surely gain the day. And I now see that the battle is worth fighting. I deeply hope that you think so.

_C. D. to Asa Gray._ Down May 22nd [1860].

MY DEAR GRAY,--Again I have to thank you for one of your very pleasant letters of May 7th, enclosing a very pleasant remittance of 22. I am in simple truth astonished at all the kind trouble you have taken for me. I return Appletons' account. For the chance of your wishing for a formal acknowledgment I send one. If you have any further communication to the Appletons, pray express my acknowledgment for [their] generosity; for it is generosity in my opinion. I am not at all surprised at the sale diminishing; my extreme surprise is at the greatness of the sale. No doubt the public has been _shamefully_ imposed on! for they bought the book thinking that it would be nice easy reading. I expect the sale to stop soon in England, yet Lyell wrote to me the other day that calling at Murray's he heard that fifty copies had gone in the previous forty-eight hours. I am extremely glad that you will notice in _Silliman_ the additions in the _Origin_.[207] Judging from letters (and I have just seen one from Thwaites to Hooker), and from remarks, the most serious omission in my book was not explaining how it is, as I believe, that all forms do not necessarily advance, how there can now be _simple_ organisms still existing.... I hear there is a _very_ severe review on me in the _North British_ by a Rev. Mr. Dunns,[208] a Free Kirk minister, and dabbler in Natural History. In the _Sat.u.r.day Review_ (one of our cleverest periodicals) of May 5th, p. 573, there is a nice article on [the _Edinburgh_] review, defending Huxley, but not Hooker; and the latter, I think, [the _Edinburgh_ reviewer] treats most ungenerously.[209] But surely you will get sick unto death of me and my reviewers.

With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent G.o.d would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.

Not that this notion _at all_ satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.

Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest.

Yours sincerely and cordially.

The meeting of the British a.s.sociation at Oxford in 1860 is famous for two pitched battles over the _Origin of Species_. Both of them originated in unimportant papers. On Thursday, June 28th, Dr. Daubeny of Oxford made a communication to Section D: "On the final causes of the s.e.xuality of plants, with particular reference to Mr. Darwin's work on the _Origin of Species_." Mr. Huxley was called on by the President, but tried (according to the _Athenaeum_ report) to avoid a discussion, on the ground "that a general audience, in which sentiment would unduly interfere with intellect, was not the public before which such a discussion should be carried on." However, the subject was not allowed to drop. Sir R. Owen (I quote from the _Athenaeum_, July 7th, 1860), who "wished to approach this subject in the spirit of the philosopher,"

expressed his "conviction that there were facts by which the public could come to some conclusion with regard to the probabilities of the truth of Mr. Darwin's theory." He went on to say that the brain of the gorilla "presented more differences, as compared with the brain of man, than it did when compared with the brains of the very lowest and most problematical of the Quadrumana." Mr. Huxley replied, and gave these a.s.sertions a "direct and unqualified contradiction," pledging himself to "justify that unusual procedure elsewhere,"[210] a pledge which he amply fulfilled.[211] On Friday there was peace, but on Sat.u.r.day 30th, the battle arose with redoubled fury, at a conjoint meeting of three Sections, over a paper by Dr. Draper of New York, on the "Intellectual development of Europe considered with reference to the views of Mr.

Darwin."

The following account is from an eye-witness of the scene.

"The excitement was tremendous. The Lecture-room, in which it had been arranged that the discussion should be held, proved far too small for the audience, and the meeting adjourned to the Library of the Museum, which was crammed to suffocation long before the champions entered the lists. The numbers were estimated at from 700 to 1000. Had it been term-time, or had the general public been admitted, it would have been impossible to have accommodated the rush to hear the oratory of the bold Bishop.[212] Professor Henslow, the President of Section D, occupied the chair, and wisely announced _in limine_ that none who had not valid arguments to bring forward on one side or the other, would be allowed to address the meeting: a caution that proved necessary, for no fewer than four combatants had their utterances burked by him, because of their indulgence in vague declamation.