by Janet Browne
Autobiography, 124
I have, also, read the Vestiges [the anonymous evolutionary book by Robert Chambers] but have been somewhat less amused at it, than you appear to have been: the writing & arrangement are certainly admirable, but his geology strikes me as bad, & his zoology far worse.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
[7 January 1845], DCP 814
Have you read that strange unphilosophical, but capitally written book, the Vestiges? It has made more talk than any work of late, & has been by some attributed to me—at which I ought to be much flattered & unflattered.
Darwin to W. D. Fox,
[24 April 1845], DCP 859
No educated person, not even the most ignorant, could suppose that I meant to arrogate to myself the origination of the doctrine that species had not been independently created. The only novelty in my work is the attempt to explain how species become modified, & to a certain extent how the theory of descent explains certain large classes of facts; & in these respects I received no assistance from my predecessors.
Darwin to Baden Powell,
18 January [1860], DCP 2655
In last Saturday Gardeners’ Chronicle, a Mr Patrick Matthews publishes long extract from his work on “Naval Timber & Arboriculture” published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Nat. Selection.—I have ordered the Book, as some few passages are rather obscure but it, is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! Erasmus [Darwin’s brother] always said that surely this would be shown to be the case someday. Anyhow one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on “Naval Timber.”
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
10 April [1860], DCP 2754
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on this subject excited much attention…. He upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic as well as in the inorganic world being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.
Origin 1861, xiii
It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the erroneous grounds of opinion, and the views of Lamarck, in his “Zoonomia” (vol. i. p. 500–510), published in 1794. According to Isid. Geoffroy [Isidore Geoffroy Saint Hilaire] there is no doubt that Goethe was an extreme partisan of similar views, as shown in the Introduction to a work written in 1794 and 1795, but not published till long afterwards. It is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views arise at about the same period, that Goethe in Germany, Dr. Darwin in England, and Geoffroy Saint Hilaire (as we shall immediately see) in France, came to the same conclusion on the origin of species, in the years 1794–5.
Origin 1861, xiv, note
The “Vestiges of Creation” appeared in 1844…. The work, from its powerful and brilliant style, though displaying in the earlier editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of scientific caution, immediately had a very wide circulation. In my opinion it has done excellent service in calling in this country attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views.
Origin 1861, xv–xvi
Mr. Herbert Spencer, in an Essay (originally published in the “Leader,” March 1852, and republished in his “Essays” in 1858), has contrasted the theories of the Creation and the Development of organic beings with remarkable skill and force. He argues from the analogy of domestic productions, from the changes which the embryos of many species undergo, from the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, and from the principle of general gradation, that species have been modified; and he attributes the modification to the change of circumstances. The author (1855) has also treated Psychology on the principle of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation.
Origin 1861, xvii
The “Philosophy of Creation” has been treated in a masterly manner by the Rev. Baden Pow ell, in his “Essays on the Unity of Worlds,” 1855. Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that the introduction of new species is “a regular, not a casual phenomenon,” or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, “a natural in contra-distinction to a miraculous process.”
Origin 1861, xviii
You refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck’s doctrine of development & progression; if this is your deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said—; but it does not seem so to me; Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before Lamarck & others propounded the obvious view that if species were not created separately, they must have descended from other species: & I can see nothing else in common between the Origin & Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very injurious to its acceptance; as it implies necessary progression & closely connects Wallace’s & my views with what I consider, after two deliberate readings, as a wretched book; & one from which (I well remember my surprise) I gained nothing.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
12–13 March [1863], DCP 4038
It has sometimes been said that the success of the Origin proved “that the subject was in the air,” or “that men’s minds were prepared for it.” I do not think that this is strictly true, for I occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species. Even Lyell and Hooker, though they would listen with interest to me, never seemed to agree. I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural selection, but signally failed. What I believe was strictly true is that innumerable well-observed facts were stored in the minds of naturalists, ready to take their proper places as soon as any theory which would receive them was sufficiently explained.
Autobiography, 123–24
Independent Discoveries
But you must not suppose that your paper [On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species, Annals and Magazine of Natural History 16 (1855): 184–96] has not been attended to: two very good men, Sir C. Lyell & Mr E. Blyth at Calcutta specially called my attention to it. Though agreeing with you on your conclusion in that paper, I believe I go much further than you; but it is too long a subject to enter on my speculative notions…. My work, on which I have now been at work more or less for 20 years, will not fix or settle anything; but I hope it will aid by giving a large collection of facts with one definite end: I get on very slowly, partly from ill-health, partly from being a very slow worker.—I have got about half written; but I do not suppose I shall publish under a couple of years.
Darwin to A. R. Wallace,
22 December 1857, DCP 2192
Some year or so ago, you recommended me to read a paper by [Alfred Russel] Wallace in the Annals, which had interested you & as I was writing to him, I knew this would please him much, so I told him. He has today sent me the enclosed & asked me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a vengeance that I shd be forestalled. You said this when I explained to you here [at Down House] very briefly my views of “Natural Selection” depending on the Struggle for existence.—I never saw a more striking coincidence. If Wallace had my M.S. sketch written out in 1842 he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as Heads of my Chapters.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
18 [June 1858], DCP 2285
So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
18 [June 1858], DCP 2285
I shd be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my general views in about a dozen pages or so. But I cannot persuade myself that I can do so honourably…. I would far rather burn my whole book than that he or any man shd think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
[25 June 1858], DCP 2294
It is miserable in me to care at all about priority.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker
,
[29 June 1858], DCP 2298
Mr Wallace who is now exploring New Guinea, has sent me an abstract of the same theory, most curiously coincident even in expressions. And he could never have heard a word of my views. He directed me to forward it to [Charles] Lyell.—Lyell who is acquainted with my notions consulted with [Joseph D.] Hooker, (who read a dozen years ago a long sketch of mine written in 1844) urged me with much kindness not to let myself to be quite forestalled & to allow them to publish with Wallace’s paper an abstract of mine; & as the only very brief thing which I had written out was a copy of my letter to you, I sent it and, I believe, it has just been read, (though never written, & not fit for such purpose) before the Linnean Socy.
Darwin to Asa Gray,
4 July 1858, DCP 2302
The accompanying papers, which we have the honour of communicating to the Linnean Society, and which all relate to the same subject … contain the results of the investigations of two indefatigable naturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Alfred Wallace. These gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, may both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society.
Charles Lyell and J. D. Hooker, quoted in Darwin and Wallace 1858, 45
I always thought it very possible that I might be forestalled, but I fancied that I had grand enough soul not to care; but I found myself mistaken & punished; I had, however, quite resigned myself & had written half a letter to Wallace to give up all priority to him & shd certainly not have changed had it not been for Lyell’s & yours quite extraordinary kindness. I assure you I feel it, & shall not forget it.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
13 [July 1858], DCP 2306
It would have caused me much pain & regret had Mr. Darwin’s excess of generosity led him to make public my paper unaccompanied by his own much earlier & I doubt not much more complete views on the same subject, & I must again thank you for the course you have adopted, which while strictly just to both parties, is so favourable to myself.
Alfred Russel Wallace to J. D. Hooker,
6 October 1858, DCP 2337
I enclose letters to you & me from Wallace. I admire extremely the spirit in which they are written. I never felt very sure what he would say. He must be an amiable man. Please return that to me, & Lyell ought to be told how well satisfied he is.—These letters have vividly brought before me how much I owe to your & Lyell’s most kind & generous conduct in all this affair.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
23 January [1859], DCP 2403
Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the natural history of the Malay archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of species. Last year he sent to me a memoir on this subject, with a request that I would forward it to Sir Charles Lyell, who sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is published in the third volume of the Journal of that Society. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work—the latter having read my sketch of 1844—honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish, with Mr. Wallace’s excellent memoir, some brief extracts from my manuscripts.
Origin 1859, 1–2
The extract from my MS. and the letter to Asa Gray had neither been intended for publication, and were badly written. Mr Wallace’s essay, on the other hand, was admirably expressed and quite clear. Nevertheless, our joint productions excited very little attention, and the only published notice of them which I can remember was by Professor Haughton of Dublin, whose verdict was that all that was new in them was false, and what was true was old.
Autobiography, 122
The year which has passed … has not, indeed, been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the department of science on which they bear.
Thomas Bell, presidential address,
Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 1859, viii
PART 3
Origin of Species
Darwin, photograph by Maull & Fox, c. 1854. Reproduced with permission from National Portrait Gallery, London.
On the Origin of Species
WHEN on board H.M.S. “Beagle,” as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.
Origin 1859, 1
The Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from their high geometrical powers of increase, will be treated of. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.
Origin 1859, 4–5
I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.
Origin 1859, 6
How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organisation to another part, and to the conditions of life, and of one distinct organic being to another being, been perfected? We see these beautiful co-adaptations most plainly in the woodpecker and missletoe; and only a little less plainly in the humblest parasite which clings to the hairs of a quadruped or feathers of a bird; in the structure of the beetle which dives through the water; in the plumed seed which is wafted by the gentlest breeze; in short, we see beautiful adaptations everywhere and in every part of the organic world.
Origin 1859, 60–61
We behold the face of nature bright with gladness, we often see superabundance of food; we do not see, or we forget, that the birds which are idly singing round us mostly live on insects or seeds, and are thus constantly destroying life; or we forget how largely these songsters, or their eggs, or their nestlings, are destroyed by birds and beasts of prey; we do not always bear in mind, that though food may be now superabundant, it is not so at all seasons of each recurring year.
Origin 1859, 62
Lighten any check, mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will almost instantaneously increase to any amount. The face of Nature may be compared to a yielding surface, with ten thousand sharp wedges packed close together and driven inwards by incessant blows, sometimes one wedge being struck, and then another with greater force.
Origin 1859, 66–67
From experiments which I have tried, I have found that the visits of bees, if not indispensable, are at least highly beneficial to the fertilisation of our clovers; but humble-bees alone visit the common red clover (Trifolium pratense), as other bees cannot reach the nectar. Hence I have very little doubt, that if the whole genus of humble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear. The number of humble-bees in any district depends in a great degree on the number of field-mice, which destr
oy their combs and nests; and Mr. H. Newman, who has long attended to the habits of humble-bees, believes that “more than two thirds of them are thus destroyed all over England.” Now the number of mice is largely dependent, as every one knows, on the number of cats; and Mr. Newman says, “Near villages and small towns I have found the nests of humble-bees more numerous than elsewhere, which I attribute to the number of cats that destroy the mice.” Hence it is quite credible that the presence of a feline animal in large numbers in a district might determine, through the intervention first of mice and then of bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district!
Origin 1859, 73–74
Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature? I think we shall see that it can act most effectually.
Origin 1859, 80
In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
Origin 1859, 184
The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species…. As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications.
