now staggered to any moderate extent, you will come more and more round, the longer you keep the subject at all before your mind. I remember well how many long years it was before I could look into the face of some of the difficulties and not feel quite abashed. I fairly struck my colours before the case of neuter insects.* I suppose that I am a very slow thinker, for you would be surprised at the number of years it took me to see clearly what some of the problems were which had to be solved, such as the necessity of the principle of divergence of character, the extinction of intermediate varieties, on a continuous area, with graduated conditions; the double problem of sterile first crosses and sterile hybrids, &c. &c. Looking back, I think it was more difficult to see what the problems were than to solve them, so far as I have succeeded inding, and this seems to me rather curious. Well, good or had my work, thank God, is over; and hard work, I ca assareva. I have had, and much work which has never bor fruit. You can see, by the way I am scribbling, that I an idle and rainy afternoon. I was not able to start for Ille Yesterday as I was too unwell; but I hope to get there Tuesday or Wednesday. Do, I beg you, when you ! £mshed my book and thought a little over it, let me hear Never mind and pitch into me, if you think it requisi Murray has printed 1250 copies, which seems to The book was at last finished and printed, .. X: X Ilkley. NT DEAR STR-I have received your ange. I am minikly pleased and proud ai book any question), and if e alter the date to the e soon. The case in stronger than in Mr. rein scattered in three litting to notice that. it; but I do not expect ould not object to run is a great thing for me d as you. I owe much rgh] review again, and ed at the misrepresentato answer. Perhaps it is on the subject is too uny by my means has been tsuppose you much care t you seemed to him as if be cautious, and remember done this-who thought it en thought the same. You efore your Indian journey. Down, April [1860]. lad to hear what you thought dinburgh] review. Hooker and duty to point out the alteration of is truth in this remark; but I so resolved not to do so. I shall come the 14th, for Sir B. Brodie's party, of things to do in London, and will complained that an article in the Saturday 1860, was "scarcely fair in alluding to he origin of species, seeing that I published attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine 1 later that he learned that Matthew had also r 1865, he wrote Sir J. D. Hooker:-"Talking as called my attention to a paper attached to Dew, which was read in 1813 to the Royal ited, in which he applies most distinctly the ction to the races of Man. So poor old Patrick t, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put coverer of the principle of Natural Selection'!" C. D. to C. Lyell. Down, April 10th [1860]. I have just read the Edinburgh,* 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 passages, 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 Saturday's Gardeners' Chronicle,† 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 anticipates the theory of Natural 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 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. If you think it proper that I should * Edinburgh Review, April, 1860. † April 7, 1860. My father wrote (Gardeners' Chronicle, April 21, 1860, p. 362): “I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew's communication in the number of your paper dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is called for, I will insert to the foregoing effect." In spite of my father's recognition of his claims, Mr. Matthew 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 passages 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 passages, 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 Saturday the 14th, for Sir B. Brodie's party, as I have an accumulation of things to do in London, and will remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the Saturday Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, 1860, was "scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine years ago." It was not until later that he learned that Matthew had also been forestalled. In October 1865, he wrote Sir J. D. Hooker:-"Talking of the Origin, a Yankee has called my attention to a paper attached to Dr. Wells' famous Essay on Dew, which was read in 1813 to the Royal Soc., but not [then] printed, in which he applies most distinctly the principle of Natural Selection to the races of Man. So poor old Patrick Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put on his title-pages, Discoverer of the principle of Natural Selection'!" (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 accumulated 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. 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, it really signifies nothing. I look at their attacks as a proof that our work is * *This refers to a "savage onslaught" on the Origin by Sedgwick at the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Henslow defended his old pupil, and maintained that "the subject was a legitimate one for investigation.” |