Charles Darwin: His Life in an Autobiographical Chapter Part 38

"The whole neighbourhood was unsettled by their disputes; Huxley quarrelled with Owen, Owen with Darwin, Lyell with Owen, Falconer and Prestwich with Lyell, and Gray the menagerie man with everybody. He had pleasure, however, in stating that Darwin was the quietest of the set.

They were always picking bones with each other and fighting over their gains. If either of the gravel sifters or stone breakers found anything, he was obliged to conceal it immediately, or one of the old bone collectors would be sure to appropriate it first and deny the theft afterwards, and the consequent wrangling and disputes were as endless as they were wearisome.

"Lord Mayor.--Probably the clergyman of the parish might exert some influence over them?

"The gentleman smiled, shook his head, and stated that he regretted to say that no cla.s.s of men paid so little attention to the opinions of the clergy as that to which these unhappy men belonged."

[238] No doubt Haeckel, whose monograph on the Radiolaria was published in 1862.

[239] The Marquis de Saporta.

[240] _Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l'origine des especes_. Par P.

Flourens. 8vo. Paris, 1864.

[241] _Lay Sermons_, p. 328.

[242] _Charles Darwin und sein Verhaltniss zu Deutschland_, 1885.

[243] An article in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 9th edit., reprinted in _Science and Culture_, 1881, p. 298.

[244] In October, 1867, he wrote to Mr. Wallace:--"Mr. Warrington has lately read an excellent and spirited abstract of the _Origin_ before the Victoria Inst.i.tute, and as this is a most orthodox body, he has gained the name of the Devil's Advocate. The discussion which followed during three consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked."

[245] _Die naturliche Schopfungs-Geschichte_, 1868. It was translated and published in 1876, under the t.i.tle, _The History of Creation_.

[246] _Zoological Record._ The volume for 1868, published December, 1869.

[247] Mr. Jenner Weir's observations published in the _Transactions of the Entomological Society_ (1869 and 1870) give strong support to the theory in question.

[248] _Contemporary Review_, 1871.

[249] In the introduction to the _Descent of Man_ the author wrote:--"This last naturalist [Haeckel] ... has recently ... published his _Naturliche Schopfungs-Geschichte_, in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived, I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine."

[250] April 7 and 8, 1871.

[251] His holiday this year was at Caerdeon, on the north sh.o.r.e of the beautiful Barmouth estuary, and pleasantly placed in being close to wild hill country behind, as well as to the picturesque wooded "hummocks,"

between the steeper hills and the river. My father was ill and somewhat depressed throughout this visit, and I think felt imprisoned and saddened by his inability to reach the hills over which he had once wandered for days together.

He wrote from Caerdeon to Sir J. D. Hooker (June 22nd):--

"We have been here for ten days, how I wish it was possible for you to pay us a visit here; we have a beautiful house with a terraced garden, and a really magnificent view of Cader, right opposite. Old Cader is a grand fellow, and shows himself off superbly with every changing light.

We remain here till the end of July, when the H. Wedgwoods have the house. I have been as yet in a very poor way; it seems as soon as the stimulus of mental work stops, my whole strength gives way. As yet I have hardly crawled half a mile from the house, and then have been fearfully fatigued. It is enough to make one wish oneself quiet in a comfortable tomb."

[252] The late Chauncey Wright, in an article published in the _North American Review_, vol. cxiii. pp. 83, 84. Wright points out that the words omitted are "essential to the point on which he [Mr. Mivart] cites Mr. Darwin's authority." It should be mentioned that the pa.s.sage from which words are omitted is not given within inverted commas by Mr.

Mivart.

[253] My father, as an Evolutionist, felt that he required more time than Sir W. Thomson's estimate of the age of the world allows.

[254] Chauncey Wright's review was published as a pamphlet in the autumn of 1871.

[255] The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies.

[256] The same words may be applied to Mr. Mivart's treatment of my father. The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th, 1874) refers to Mr. Mivart's statement (_Lessons from Nature_, p. 144) that Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views as to the "b.e.s.t.i.a.lity of man":--

"I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the _Academy_. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the _Origin_ I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, I went out of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted in my _Descent of Man_. Therefore it is very unjust ... of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment."

[257] They were utilised to some extent in the 2nd edition, edited by me, and published in 1890.--F. D.

CHAPTER XV.

MISCELLANEA.--REVIVAL OF GEOLOGICAL WORK.--THE VIVISECTION QUESTION.--HONOURS.

In 1874 a second edition of his _Coral Reefs_ was published, which need not specially concern us. It was not until some time afterwards that the criticisms of my father's theory appeared, which have attracted a good deal of attention.

The following interesting account of the subject is taken from Professor's Judd's "Critical Introduction" to Messrs. Ward, Lock and Co's. edition of _Coral Reefs_ and _Volcanic Islands, &c._[258]

"The first serious note of dissent to the generally accepted theory was heard in 1863, when a distinguished German naturalist, Dr. Karl Semper, declared that his study of the Pelew Islands showed that uninterrupted subsidence could not have been going on in that region. Dr. Semper's objections were very carefully considered by Mr. Darwin, and a reply to them appeared in the second and revised edition of his _Coral Reefs_, which was published in 1874. With characteristic frankness and freedom from prejudices, Darwin admitted that the facts brought forward by Dr.

Semper proved that in certain specified cases, subsidence could not have played the chief part in originating the peculiar forms of the coral islands. But while making this admission, he firmly maintained that exceptional cases, like those described in the Pelew Islands, were not sufficient to invalidate the theory of subsidence as applied to the widely spread atolls, encircling reefs, and barrier-reefs of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It is worthy of note that to the end of his life Darwin maintained a friendly correspondence with Semper concerning the points on which they were at issue.

"After the appearance of Semper's work, Dr. J. J. Rein published an account of the Bermudas, in which he opposed the interpretation of the structure of the islands given by Nelson and other authors, and maintained that the facts observed in them are opposed to the views of Darwin. Although so far as I am aware, Darwin had no opportunity of studying and considering these particular objections, it may be mentioned that two American geologists have since carefully re-examined the district--Professor W. N. Rice in 1884 and Professor A. Heilprin in 1889--and they have independently arrived at the conclusion that Dr.

Rein's objections cannot be maintained.

"The most serious objection to Darwin's coral-reef theory, however, was that which developed itself after the return of H.M.S. _Challenger_ from her famous voyage. Mr. John Murray, one of the staff of naturalists on board that vessel, propounded a new theory of coral-reefs, and maintained that the view that they were formed by subsidence was one that was no longer tenable; these objections have been supported by Professor Alexander Aga.s.siz in the United States, and by Dr. A. Geikie, and Dr. H. B. Guppy in this country.

"Although Mr. Darwin did not live to bring out a third edition of his _Coral Reefs_, I know from several conversations with him that he had given the most patient and thoughtful consideration to Mr. Murray's paper on the subject. He admitted to me that had he known, when he wrote his work, of the abundant deposition of the remains of calcareous organisms on the sea floor, he might have regarded this cause as sufficient in a few cases to raise the summit of submerged volcanoes or other mountains to a level at which reef-forming corals can commence to flourish. But he did not think that the admission that under certain favourable conditions, atolls might be thus formed without subsidence, necessitated an abandonment of his theory in the case of the innumerable examples of the kind which stud the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

"A letter written by Darwin to Professor Alexander Aga.s.siz in May 1881, shows exactly the att.i.tude which careful consideration of the subject led him to maintain towards the theory propounded by Mr. Murray:--

"'You will have seen,' he writes, 'Mr. Murray's views on the formation of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was known of the mult.i.tude of minute oceanic organisms. I rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the _Beagle_, in the south temperate regions, I concluded that sh.e.l.ls, the smaller corals, &c., decayed, and were dissolved, when not protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could not acc.u.mulate in the open ocean. Certainly, sh.e.l.ls, &c., were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into mud between my fingers; but you will know well whether this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence. I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which minute oceanic organisms could have acc.u.mulated to the thickness of many hundred feet.

"Darwin's concluding words in the same letter written within a year of his death, are a striking proof of the candour and openness of mind which he preserved so well to the end, in this as in other controversies.

"'If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much, and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a depth of 500 or 600 feet.'

"It is noteworthy that the objections to Darwin's theory have for the most part proceeded from zoologists, while those who have fully appreciated the geological aspect of the question have been the staunchest supporters of the theory of subsidence. The desirability of such boring operations in atolls has been insisted upon by several geologists, and it may be hoped that before many years have pa.s.sed away, Darwin's hopes may be realised, either with or without the intervention of the 'doubly rich millionaire.'

"Three years after the death of Darwin, the veteran Professor Dana re-entered the lists and contributed a powerful defence of the theory of subsidence in the form of a reply to an essay written by the ablest exponent of the anti-Darwinian views on this subject, Dr. A. Geikie.

While pointing out that the Darwinian position had been to a great extent misunderstood by its opponents, he showed that the rival theory presented even greater difficulties than those which it professed to remove.

"During the last five years, the whole question of the origin of coral-reefs and islands has been re-opened, and a controversy has arisen, into which, unfortunately, acrimonious elements have been very unnecessarily introduced. Those who desire it, will find clear and impartial statements of the varied and often mutually destructive views put forward by different authors, in three works which have made their appearance within the last year--_The Bermuda Islands_, by Professor Angelo Heilprin: _Corals and Coral Islands_, new edition by Professor J.

D. Dana; and the third edition of Darwin's _Coral-Reefs_, with Notes and Appendix by Professor T. G. Bonney.

"Most readers will, I think, rise from the perusal of these works with the conviction that, while on certain points of detail it is clear that, through the want of knowledge concerning the action of marine organisms in the open ocean, Darwin was betrayed into some grave errors, yet the main foundations of his argument have not been seriously impaired by the new facts observed in the deep-sea researches, or by the severe criticisms to which his theory has been subjected during the last ten years. On the other hand, I think it will appear that much misapprehension has been exhibited by some of Darwin's critics, as to what his views and arguments really were; so that the reprint and wide circulation of the book in its original form is greatly to be desired, and cannot but be attended with advantage to all those who will have the fairness to acquaint themselves with Darwin's views at first hand, before attempting to reply to them."

The only important geological work of my father's later years is embodied in his book on earthworms (1881), which may therefore be conveniently considered in this place. This subject was one which had interested him many years before this date, and in 1838 a paper on the formation of mould was published in the _Proceedings of the Geological Society_.

Here he showed that "fragments of burnt marl, cinders, &c., which had been thickly strewed over the surface of several meadows were found after a few years lying at a depth of some inches beneath the turf, but still forming a layer." For the explanation of this fact, which forms the central idea of the geological part of the book, he was indebted to his uncle Josiah Wedgwood, who suggested that worms, by bringing earth to the surface in their castings, must undermine any objects lying on the surface and cause an apparent sinking.