On 22 May Darwin told Asa Gray that
the most serious omission in my book was not explaining how it is … that all forms do not necessarily advance, how there can now be simple organisms still existing [i.e. which have not evolved despite the passage of time].7
As regards the controversy occasioned by the publication of his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin declared sanguinely,
if I had not stirred up the mud someone else would very soon; so that the sooner the battle is fought the sooner it will be settled, not that the subject will be settled in our lives’ times. It will be an immense gain, if the question becomes a fairly open one; so that each man may try his new facts on it pro & contra.8
* * *
It was in Oxford, in the summer of 1860, at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (held from 26 June to 3 July 1860), that the protagonists in the drama met head on: the ‘Darwinists’, on the one hand, represented principally by Huxley and Hooker, and ranged against them, the ‘Creationists’, represented by Professor Richard Owen, the Reverend Samuel Wilberforce (Bishop of Oxford), and Robert FitzRoy (Darwin’s former captain on the Beagle, who was now an admiral), on the other. Darwin himself was unable to attend due to ill health, and Wallace had not returned from the Far East.
The following account of the meeting ‘has been drawn from the London literary magazine the Athenaeum (not to be confused with the London club of that name), which provided the most complete contemporary report of the meeting and which Darwin himself read’.9 (In fact, the Athenaeum published two reports, one on 7 July and the other a week later.)
Athenaeum, 7 July 1860. Zoology and botany, including physiology. President: John Stevens Henslow. ‘On the Final Causes of Sexuality of Plants, with particular Reference to Mr Darwin’s work “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection” by Dr DAUBENY’.
At the meeting, Charles G. B. Daubeny, Professor of Botany at Oxford University, stated that
Whilst … he gave his assent to the Darwinian hypothesis … he wished not to be considered as advocating it to the extent to which the author seems disposed to carry it.
Daubeny, in other words, preferred to ‘sit on the fence’. Whereupon, Professor Huxley,
having been called on by the Chairman, deprecated any discussion of the general question of the truth of Mr Darwin’s theory. He felt 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.
Professor Owen,
Whilst giving all praise to Mr Darwin for the courage with which he had put forth his theory, he felt it must be tested by facts. As a contribution to the facts by which the theory must be tested, he would refer to the structure of the highest Quadrumana [primate, other than a human, having all four feet modified as hands] as compared with man. Taking the brain of the gorilla, it 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 form of the Quadrumana. The deficiencies in cerebral structure between the gorilla and man were immense. The posterior lobes of the cerebrum in man presented parts which were wholly absent in the gorilla. The same remarkable differences of structure were seen in other parts of the body ….
Professor Huxley
begged to be permitted to reply to Prof. Owen. He denied altogether that the difference between the brain of the gorilla and man was so great as represented by Prof. Owen, and appealed to the published dissections of [Professor Friedrich] Tiedemann [German anatomist and physiologist] and others. From the study of the structure of the brain of the Quadrumana, he maintained that the difference between man and the highest monkey was not so great as between the highest and the lowest monkey. He maintained also, with regard to the limbs, that there was more difference between the toeless monkeys and the gorilla than between the latter and man. He believed that the great feature which distinguished man from the monkey was the gift of speech.10
Athenaeum, 14 July 1860, Zoology and botany, including physiology. ‘On the Intellectual Development of Europe, considered with Reference to the Views of Mr Darwin and others, that the Progression [evolution] of Organisms is determined by Law,’ by Prof. DRAPER, MD, of New York.
In his address, Dr John W. Draper, Professor of Chemistry at the University of the City of New York and President of its Medical School, described the ‘doctrine of the immutability of species’ as ‘fanciful’. On this vitally important point, he was therefore in agreement with Darwin.
The Bishop of Oxford, the Reverend Samuel Wilberforce,
stated that the Darwinian theory, when tried by the principles of inductive science, broke down. The facts brought forward did not warrant the theory. The permanence of specific forms was a fact confirmed by all observation. The remains of animals, plants, and man found in those earliest records of the human race — the Egyptian catacombs, all spoke of their identity with existing forms, and of the irresistible tendency of organized beings to assume an unalterable character. The line between man and the lower animals was distinct: there was no tendency on the part of the lower animals to become the self-conscious intelligent being, man; or in man to degenerate and lose the high characteristics of his mind and intelligence. He [the bishop] was glad to know that the greatest names in science were opposed to this theory, which he believed to be opposed to the interests of science and humanity.
Professor Huxley
defended Mr Darwin’s theory from the charge of its being merely an hypothesis. He said it was an explanation of phenomena in Natural History … . Darwin’s theory was an explanation of facts; and his book was full of new facts, all bearing on his theory. Without asserting that every part of the theory had been confirmed, he maintained that it was the best explanation of the origin of species which had yet been offered.
Admiral Robert FitzRoy
regretted the publication of Mr Darwin’s book, and denied Prof. Huxley’s statement that it was a logical arrangement of facts.
Dr Hooker,
being called upon by the President to state his views of the botanical aspect of the question, observed that the Bishop of Oxford having asserted that all men of science were hostile to Mr Darwin’s hypothesis, whereas he himself was favourable to it, he could not presume to address the audience as a scientific authority.
This was clearly sarcasm on Hooker’s part, he being one of the greatest scientific experts of the age in his chosen field of botany.
As, however, he had been asked for his opinion, he would briefly give it. In the first place, his Lordship [the bishop], in his eloquent address, had, as it appeared to him, completely misunderstood Mr Darwin’s hypothesis: his Lordship intimated that this maintained the doctrine of the transmutation of existing species one into another, and had confounded this with that of the successive development of species by variation and natural selection. The first of these doctrines was so wholly opposed to the facts, reasonings and results of Mr Darwin’s work, that he [Hooker] could not conceive how any one who had read it could make such a mistake, the whole book, indeed, being a protest against that doctrine.
In other words, Hooker was implying that Bishop Wilberforce had either not taken the trouble to read Origin; or had read it, but failed to interpret the facts contained within it correctly.
Now … that Mr Darwin had published it, he had no hesitation in publicly adopting his hypothesis, as that which offers by far the most probable explanation of all the phenomena presented by the classification, distribution, structure, and development of plants in a state of nature and under cultivation; and he should, therefore continue to use his [Darwin’s] hypothesis as the best weapon for future research, holding himself ready to lay it down should a better be forthcoming, or should the now abandoned doctrine of original creations regain all it had lost in his experience.11
NOTES
1. Darwin to Thomas Bridges The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 8, 1860, 6 January 1860, p.19, an
d p.20, note 1.
2. Darwin to Baden Powell, 18 January 1860, Cor.8, p.40.
3. Darwin to Charles Lyell, Cor.8, 15 April 1860, p.161.
4. Darwin to J. S. Henslow, 8 May, Cor.8, p.195.
5. Darwin to J. S. Henslow, 14 May, Cor.8, p.208.
6. Darwin to A. R. Wallace, 18 May 1860, Cor.8, p.220.
7. Darwin to Asa Gray, 22 May, Cor.8, p.223.
8. Darwin to Asa Gray, 3 July, Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter 2855.
9. These reports, published by the Athenaeum, were dated 7 July and 14 July 1860.
10. Athenaeum, 7 July 1860, pp.25–6, Cor.8, pp.591–3.
11. Ibid, 14 July 1860, pp. 64–5, Cor.8, pp.593–7.
Chapter 17
Aftermath of the Great Debate
In a letter to Asa Gray, dated 22 July 1860, Darwin paid this tribute to those who had supported him at the great Oxford debate.
I see most clearly that my book would have been a dead failure, had it not been for all the generous labour bestowed on it (not for my sake, but for the subject sake) by yourself, Hooker, Huxley & Carpenter [William B. Carpenter, physician and naturalist]; & to these names I hope soon Lyell’s may be added.1
However, repercussions of the debate continued to rankle with Darwin, even though he had not been present at it in person. This is evident in a letter which he wrote on 3 August 1860 to his publisher John Murray, in respect of a review which Bishop Samuel Wilberforce had written of Origin, which was published, anonymously, in the July 1860 issue of the Quarterly Review.
The Bishop makes me say several things which I do not say, but these very clever men think they can write a review with a very slight knowledge of the Book reviewed or subject in question.2
On 23 April 1861 Darwin told Hooker
In simple truth I am become quite demoniacal about Owen, worse than Huxley … . I shall never forget his [Owen’s] cordial shake of the hand when he was writing as spitefully as he possibly could against me.3
This was a reference to a meeting between Darwin and Professor Owen soon after the publication of Origin. Darwin was not known for being antagonistic towards his detractors, but Owen’s underhand attacks exhausted his patience and filled him with disgust and contempt.
To Hooker on 25/26 January 1862, Darwin once again expressed his frustration with Owen.
By the way Huxley tells me that Owen goes in for progressive development in the 2d. Edit. of his Palaeontology, pooh-pooing natural selection. I am quite ashamed how demoniacal my feelings are towards Owen.4
This was a reference to Palaeontology or a Systematic Summary of Extinct Animals and their Geological Relations, published in 1860.
Darwin told Armand de Quatrefages on 11 July how, in respect of Origin,
I have been atrociously abused by my religious countrymen; but as I live an independent life in the country, it does not in the least hurt me in any way. except indeed when the abuse comes from an old friend, like Prof. Owen … .5
On 4 April 1863 a paper entitled, ‘Introduction to the Study of the Foraminifera [singlecelled, planktonic marine animals]’ by William Carpenter was published in the Athenaeum, and reviewed by an anonymous person whom Darwin identified as Professor Owen.6 Not only that but, in his review, the reviewer took the opportunity to criticize Darwin’s theory of evolution, which led the latter (in a letter to the Athenaeum’s editor), to respond thus:
Your reviewer thinks that the weakness of my theory is demonstrated because existing Foraminifera are identical with those which lived at a very remote epoch. So little do we know of the conditions of life all around us, that we cannot say why one native weed or insect swarms in numbers, and another closely allied weed or insect is rare. Is it then possible that we should understand why one group of beings has risen in the scale of life during the long lapse of time, and another group has remained stationary?7
Darwin elaborated upon this point further in his letter of 22 May to George Bentham, botanist and President of the Linnean Society of London.
in judging the theory of natural selection, which implies that a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should change much slower & much less, & some few should have changed not at all under conditions which to us (who really know nothing [of] what are the important conditions [i.e. circumstances]) seem very different.8
On 19 June Darwin quoted Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, as having said that ‘he believed that the Origin was the most illogical book ever published’.9
* * *
Meanwhile, to economist and politician Henry Fawcett on 6 December 1860, Darwin had made this disclosure in regard to his modus operandi.
As you seem so kindly interested in my work, I may mention that I believe that the key of my work was gained by an unusually inductive line of research [‘induction’ being defined as the inference of a general law from particular instances].10
From Ternate – an island in the Indonesian archipelago of the Moluccas – on Christmas Eve, Wallace wrote to Henry W. Bates (who had been his companion on the expedition to South America) in fulsome praise of Darwin.
Mr Darwin has created a new science and a new philosophy; and I believe that never has such a complete illustration of a new branch of science been due to the labours and researches of a single man.11
Darwin advised Hooker on 4 February 1861 to take life more gently.
Be idle; but I am a pretty man to preach, for I cannot be idle, much as I wish it & am never comfortable except when at work. The word Holiday is written in a dead language for me, & much I grieve at it.12
To Armand de Quatrefages, on 25 April, Darwin declared of Origin, ‘My views spread slowly in England & America; and I am much surprised to find them most commonly accepted by Geologists, next by Botanists and least by Zoologists.’13
To his son William, on 9 May, Darwin wrote, ‘I have not had one game of Billiards since the Boys [his other sons, George and Francis] were here; indeed the Table has been covered with skeletons of Cocks & Hens & has been very useful for that purpose.’14
When Henslow died on 16 May Darwin told Hooker, ‘I fully believe a better man never walked this earth.’15
To Sir John Herschel on 23 May Darwin wrote:
The point which you raise on intelligent design has perplexed me beyond measure … . One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this.16
The following day Darwin told Bartholomew J. Sulivan, naval officer and hydrographer (and lieutenant on the famous voyage of HMS Beagle, 1831–36):
FitzRoy was so kind as to send me the last London Review & I read the article on Genesis. I cannot say that it all satisfied me … . But I am weary of all these attempts to reconcile, what I believe to be irreconcilable.17
Darwin had long regarded as irreconcilable his theory of evolution by natural selection, on the one hand, and the Biblical account of Creation as described in the Book of Genesis, on the other.
To Frances Julia Wedgwood (daughter of Hensleigh and his wife Frances) on 11 July Darwin returned to the question of ‘design’, this time in respect of the entire universe.
The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is, without having been [i.e. without believing it to have been] designed; yet, where one would most expect design, viz. in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think on the subject, the less I can see proof of design.18
And he told Asa Gray on 17 September:
I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts your idea of the stream [i.e. continuous occurrence] of variation [of species] having been designed … . I must think that it is illogical to suppose that variations which Nat. Selection, preserves for the good of any being, have been designed.19
In October Darwin wrote again to Gray, this time in respect of the anatomical structure of the nose
.
I should believe it to have been designed (as I did formerly each part of each animal) until I saw a way of its being formed without design, & at the same time saw in its whole structure evidence of its having been produced in a quite distinct manner, i.e. by descent from another cream-jug whose nose subserved, perhaps, some quite distinct use.20
(Gray had previously joked about a monster with a ‘cream-jug’ nose.)
On 30 November Darwin received a letter from Wallace sent from Sumatra, congratulating him on Origin, and in particular for ‘both the attractive manner in which you have treated the subject & the clearness with which you have stated & enforced the arguments …’.21
Of the work of others Darwin could be a stern critic. For example, in December, referring to Études sur la géographie botanique de l’Europe, et en particulier sur la végetation du plateau central de la France by Henri Lecoq, Professor of Science at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, France, published in nine volumes between 1854 and 1858, Darwin declared: ‘Lecoq [‘s] is a miserable book, dreadfully spun out, with maudlin speculations & a great dearth of precise facts … .’22
To Asa Gray on 22 January 1862 Darwin wrote in reference to the American Civil War (1861–65):
I have begun to think whether it would not be well for the peace of the world, if you [the Northern States, or Union, and the Southern States, or Confederacy] were split up into two or three nations. On the other hand I cannot bear the thought of the slave-holders [who existed predominantly in the southern states] being triumphant … .23
To the Reverend Charles Kingsley on 6 February, Darwin wrote on the question of
Charles Darwin Page 14
