More Letters of Charles Darwin Volume II

C >> Charles Darwin >> More Letters of Charles Darwin Volume II

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49

Wiesner and Van Tieghem seem to think that this is explained by calling
the whole process "induction," borrowing a term used by some physico-
chemists (of whom I believe Roscoe is one) and implying an agency which
does not produce any effect for some time, and continues its effect for
some time after the cause has ceased. I believe that photographic paper
is an instance. I must ask Leonard (762/4. Mr. Darwin's son.) whether
an interrupted light acts on it in the same manner as on a plant. At
present I must still believe in my explanation that it is the contrast
between light and darkness which excites a plant.

I have forgotten my main object in writing--viz., to say that I believe
(and have so stated) that seedlings vary much in their sensitiveness to
light; but I did not prove this, for there are many difficulties,
whether the time of incipient curvature or the amount of curvature is
taken as the criterion. Moreover they vary according to age, and
perhaps from vigour of growth, and there seems inherent variability, as
Strasburger (whom I quote) found with spores. If the curious anomaly
observed by you is due to varying sensitiveness, ought not all the
seedlings to bend if the flashes were at longer intervals of time?
According to my notion of contrast between light and darkness being the
stimulus, I should expect that if flashes were made sufficiently slow it
would be a powerful stimulus, and that you would suddenly arrive at a
period when the result would SUDDENLY become great. On the other hand,
as far as my experience goes, what one expects rarely happens.

LETTER 763. TO JULIUS WIESNER.
Down, October 4th, 1881.

I thank you sincerely for your very kind letter, and for the present of
your new work. (763/1. "Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanze," 1881. One
of us has given some account of Wiesner's book in the presidential
address to Section D of the British Association, 1891. Wiesner's
divergence from Darwin's views is far-reaching, and includes the main
thesis of the "Power of Movement." See "Life and Letters," III., page
336, for an interesting letter to Wiesner.) My son Francis, if he had
been at home, would have likewise sent his thanks. I will immediately
begin to read your book, and when I have finished it will write again.
But I read german so very slowly that your book will take me a
considerable time, for I cannot read for more than half an hour each
day. I have, also, been working too hard lately, and with very little
success, so that I am going to leave home for a time and try to forget
science.

I quite expect that you will find some gross errors in my work, for you
are a very much more skilful and profound experimentalist than I am.
Although I always am endeavouring to be cautious and to mistrust myself,
yet I know well how apt I am to make blunders. Physiology, both animal
and vegetable, is so difficult a subject, that it seems to me to
progress chiefly by the elimination or correction of ever-recurring
mistakes. I hope that you will not have upset my fundamental notion
that various classes of movement result from the modification of a
universally present movement of circumnutation.

I am very glad that you will again discuss the view of the turgescence
of the cells being the cause of the movement of parts. I adopted De
Vries' views as seeming to me the most probable, but of late I have felt
more doubts on this head. (763/2. See "Power of Movement," page 2. De
Vries' work is published in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1879, page 830.)

LETTER 764. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Glenrhydding House, Patterdale, Penrith, June 15th, 1881.

It was real pleasure to me to see once again your well-known handwriting
on the outside of your note. I do not know how long you have returned
from Italy, but I am very sorry that you are so bothered already with
work and visits. I cannot but think that you are too kind and civil to
visitors, and too conscientious about your official work. But a man
cannot cure his virtues, any more than his vices, after early youth; so
you must bear your burthen. It is, however, a great misfortune for
science that you have so very little spare time for the "Genera." I can
well believe what an awful job the palms must be. Even their size must
be very inconvenient. You and Bentham must hate the monocotyledons, for
what work the Orchideae must have been, and Gramineae and Cyperaceae
will be. I am rather despondent about myself, and my troubles are of an
exactly opposite nature to yours, for idleness is downright misery to
me, as I find here, as I cannot forget my discomfort for an hour. I
have not the heart or strength at my age to begin any investigation
lasting years, which is the only thing which I enjoy; and I have no
little jobs which I can do. So I must look forward to Down graveyard as
the sweetest place on earth. This place is magnificently beautiful, and
I enjoy the scenery, though weary of it; and the weather has been very
cold and almost always hazy.

I am so glad that your tour has answered for Lady Hooker. We return
home on the first week of July, and should be truly glad to aid Lady
Hooker in any possible manner which she will suggest.

I have written to my gardener to send you plants of Oxalis corniculata
(and seeds if possible). I should think so common a weed was never
asked for before,--and what a poor return for the hundreds of plants
which I have received from Kew! I hope that I have not bothered you by
writing so long a note, and I did not intend to do so.

If Asa Gray has returned with you, please give him my kindest
remembrances.

LETTER 765. TO J.D. HOOKER.
October 22nd, 1881.

I am investigating the action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll,
which makes me want the plants in my list. (765/1. "The Action of
Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll Bodies." "Linn. Soc. Journ." XIX.,
page 262, 1882.) I have incidentally observed one point in Euphorbia,
which has astonished me--viz. that in the fine fibrous roots of
Euphorbia, the alternate rows of cells in their roots must differ
physiologically, though not in external appearance, as their contents
after the action of carbonate of ammonia differ most conspicuously...

Wiesner of Vienna has just published a book vivisecting me in the most
courteous, but awful manner, about the "Power of Movement in Plants."
(765/2. See Letter 763, note.) Thank heaven, he admits almost all my
facts, after re-trying all my experiments; but gives widely different
interpretation of the facts. I think he proves me wrong in several
cases, but I am convinced that he is utterly erroneous and fanciful in
other explanations. No man was ever vivisected in so sweet a manner
before, as I am in this book.

CHAPTER 2.XII.

VIVISECTION AND MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, 1867-1882.

2.XII.I. VIVISECTION, 1875-1882.

LETTER 766. TO LORD PLAYFAIR.

(766/1. A Bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon
Playfair, Walpole and Ashley, in the spring of 1875, but was withdrawn
on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole
question. Some account of the Anti-Vivisection agitation, the
introduction of bills, and the appointment of a Royal Commission is
given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 201, where the more
interesting of Darwin's letters on the question are published.)

Down, May 26th, 1875.

I hope that you will excuse my troubling you once again. I received
some days ago a letter from Prof. Huxley, in Edinburgh, who says with
respect to your Bill: "the professors here are all in arms about it,
and as the papers have associated my name with the Bill, I shall have to
repudiate it publicly, unless something can be done. But what in the
world is to be done?" (766/2. The letter is published in full in Mr.
L. Huxley's interesting chapter on the vivisection question in his
father's "Life," I., page 438.) Dr. Burdon Sanderson is in nearly the
same frame of mind about it. The newspapers take different views of the
purport of the Bill, but it seems generally supposed that it would
prevent demonstrations on animals rendered insensible, and this seems to
me a monstrous provision. It would, moreover, probably defeat the end
desired; for Dr. B. Sanderson, who demonstrates to his class on animals
rendered insensible, told me that some of his students had declared to
him that unless he had shown them what he had, they would have
experimented on live animals for themselves. Certainly I do not believe
that any one could thoroughly understand the action of the heart without
having seen it in action. I do not doubt that you wish to aid the
progress of Physiology, and at the same time save animals from all
useless suffering; and in this case I believe that you could not do a
greater service than to warn the Home Secretary with respect to the
appointment of Royal Commissioners, that ordinary doctors know little or
nothing about Physiology as a science, and are incompetent to judge of
its high importance and of the probability of its hereafter conferring
great benefits on mankind.

LETTER 767. TO LORD PLAYFAIR.
Down, May 28th.

I must write one line to thank you for your very kind letter, and to say
that, after despatching my last note, it suddenly occurred to me that I
had been rude in calling one of the provisions of your Bill "monstrous"
or "absurd"--I forget which. But when I wrote the expression it was
addressed to the bigots who, I believed, had forced you to a compromise.
I cannot understand what Dr. B. Sanderson could have been about not to
have objected with respect to the clause of not demonstrating on animals
rendered insensible. I am extremely sorry that you have had trouble and
vexation on the subject. It is a most disagreeable and difficult one.
I am not personally concerned, as I never tried an experiment on a
living animal, nor am I a physiologist; but I know enough to see how
ruinous it would be to stop all progress in so grand a science as
Physiology. I commenced the agitation amongst the physiologists for
this reason, and because I have long felt very keenly on the question of
useless vivisection, and believed, though without any good evidence,
that there was not always, even in this country, care enough taken.
Pray forgive me this note, so much about myself...

LETTER 768. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(768/1. Published in "Life of Romanes," page 61, under 1876-77.)

Down, June 4th [1876].

Your letter has made me as proud and conceited as ten peacocks. (768/2.
This may perhaps refer to Darwin being elected the only honorary member
of the Physiological Society, a fact that was announced in a letter from
Romanes June 1st, 1876, published in the "Life" of Romanes, page 50.
Dr. Sharpey was subsequently elected a second honorary member.) I am
inclined to think that writing against the bigots about vivisection is
as hopeless as stemming a torrent with a reed. Frank, who has just come
here, and who sputters with indignation on the subject, takes an
opposite line, and perhaps he is right; anyhow, he had the best of an
argument with me on the subject...It seems to me the physiologists are
now in the position of a persecuted religious sect, and they must grin
and bear the persecution, however cruel and unjust, as well as they can.

LETTER 769. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON.

(769/1. In November, 1881, an absolutely groundless charge was brought
by the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from
Vivisection against Dr. Ferrier for an infringement of the Vivisection
Act. The experiment complained of was the removal of the brain of a
monkey and the subsequent testing of the animal's powers of reacting to
certain treatment. The fact that the operation had been performed six
months before the case came into court would alone have been fatal to
the prosecution. Moreover, it was not performed by Dr. Ferrier, but by
another observer, who was licensed under the Act to keep the monkey
alive after the operation, which was performed under anaesthetics. Thus
the prosecution completely broke down, and the case was dismissed.
(769/2. From the "British Medical Journal," November 19th, 1881. See
also "Times," November 18th, 1881.) The sympathy with Dr. Ferrier in
the purely scientific and medical world was very strong, and the British
Medical Association undertook the defence. The prosecution did good in
one respect, inasmuch as it led to the formation of the Science Defence
Association, to which reference is made in some of Mr. Darwin's letters
to Sir Lauder Brunton. The Association still exists, and continues to
do good work.

Part of the following letter was published in the "British Medical
Journal," December 3rd, 1881.)

Down, November 19th, 1881.

I saw in some paper that there would probably be a subscription to pay
Dr. Ferrier's legal expenses in the late absurd and wicked prosecution.
As I live so retired I might not hear of the subscription, and I should
regret beyond measure not to have the pleasure and honour of showing my
sympathy [with] and admiration of Dr. Ferrier's researches. I know that
you are his friend, as I once met him at your house; so I earnestly beg
you to let me hear if there is any means of subscribing, as I should
much like to be an early subscriber. I am sure that you will forgive me
for troubling you under these circumstances.

P.S.--I finished reading a few days ago the several physiological and
medical papers which you were so kind as to send me. (769/3. Some of
Lauder Brunton's publications.) I was much interested by several of
them, especially by that on night-sweating, and almost more by others on
digestion. I have seldom been made to realise more vividly the wondrous
complexity of our whole system. How any one of us keeps alive for a day
is a marvel!

LETTER 770. T. LAUDER BRUNTON TO CHARLES DARWIN.
50, Welbeck Street, London, November 21st, 1881.

I thank you most sincerely for your kind letter and your offer of
assistance to Dr. Ferrier. There is at present no subscription list, as
the British Medical Association have taken up the case, and ought to pay
the expenses. Should these make such a call upon the funds of the
Association as to interfere with its other objects, the whole or part of
the expenses will be paid by those who have subscribed to a guarantee
fund. To this fund there are already a number of subscribers, whose
names are taken by Professor Gerald Yeo, one of the secretaries of the
Physiological Society. They have not subscribed a definite sum, but
have simply fixed a maximum which they will subscribe, if necessary, on
the understanding that only so much as is required shall be asked from
each subscriber in proportion to his subscription. It is proposed to
send by-and-by a list of the most prominent members of this guarantee
fund to the "Times" and other papers, and not only every scientific man,
but every member of the medical profession, will rejoice to see your
name in the list. Dr. Ferrier has been quite worn out by the worry of
this prosecution, or, as it might well be called, persecution, and has
gone down to Shanklin for a couple of days. He returns this afternoon,
and I have sent on your letter to await his arrival, knowing as I do
that it will be to him like cold water to a thirsty soul.

LETTER 771. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON.
Down, November 22nd, 1881.

Many thanks for your very kind and interesting letter...

I write now to beg a favour. I do not in the least know what others
have guaranteed in relation to Dr. Ferrier. (771/1. In a letter dated
November 27th, 1881, Sir Lauder Brunton wrote in reply to Mr. Darwin's
inquiry as to the amount of the subscriptions: "When I ascertain what
they intend to give under the new conditions--viz., that the
subscriptions are not to be applied to Ferrier's defence, but to the
defence of others who may be attacked and to a diffusion of knowledge
regarding the nature and purposes of vivisection, I will let you
know...") Would twenty guineas be sufficient? If not, will you kindly
take the trouble to have my name put down for thirty or forty guineas,
as you may think best. If, on the other hand, no one else has
guaranteed for as much as twenty guineas, will you put me down for ten
or fifteen guineas, though I should like to give twenty best.

You can understand that I do not wish to be conspicuous either by too
little or too much; so I beg you to be so very kind as to act for me. I
have a multitude of letters which I must answer, so excuse haste.

LETTER 772. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON.

(772/1. The following letter was written in reply to Sir T. Lauder
Brunton's suggestion that Mr. Darwin should be proposed as President of
the Science Defence Association.)

4, Bryanston Street, Portman Square, December 17th, 1881.

I have been thinking a good deal about the suggestion which you made to
me the other day, on the supposition that you could not get some man
like the President of the College of Physicians to accept the office.
My wife is strongly opposed to my accepting the office, as she feels
sure that the anxiety thus caused would tell heavily on my health. But
there is a much stronger objection suggested to me by one of my
relations--namely, no man ought to allow himself to be placed at the
head (though only nominally so) of an associated movement, unless he has
the means of judging of the acts performed by the association, after
hearing each point discussed. This occurred to me when you spoke to me,
and I think that I said something to this effect. Anyhow, I have in
several analogous cases acted on this principle.

Take, for instance, any preliminary statement which the Association may
publish. I might feel grave doubts about the wisdom or justice of some
points, and this solely from my not having heard them discussed. I am
therefore inclined to think that it would not be right in me to accept
the nominal Presidency of your Association, and thus have to act
blindly.

As far as I can at present see, I fear that I must confine my assistance
to subscribing as large a sum to the Association as any member gives.

I am sorry to trouble you, but I have thought it best to tell you at
once of the doubts which have arisen in my mind.

LETTER 773. TO LAUDER BRUNTON.

(773/1. Sir T. Lauder Brunton had written (February 12th) to Mr. Darwin
explaining that two opinions were held as to the constitution of the
proposed Science Defence Association: one that it should consist of a
small number of representative men; the other that it should, if
possible, embrace every medical practitioner in the country. Sir Lauder
Brunton adds: "I should be very greatly obliged if you would kindly say
what you think of the two schemes.")

Down, February 14th, 1882.

I am very much obliged for your information in regard to the
Association, about which I feel a great interest. It seems to me highly
desirable that the Association should include as many medical and
scientific men as possible throughout the whole country, who could
illumine those capable of illumination on the necessity of physiological
research; but that the Association should be governed by a council of
powerful men, not too many in number. Such a council, as representing a
large body of medical men, would have more power in the eyes of vote-
hunting politicians than a small body representing only themselves.

From what I see of country practitioners, I think that their annual
subscription ought to be very small. But would it not be possible to
add to the rules some such statement as the following one: "That by a
donation of ... pounds, or of any larger sum, from those who feel a deep
interest in the progress of medical science, the donor shall become a
life member." I, for one, would gladly subscribe 50 or 100 pounds. If
such a plan were approved by the leading medical men of London, two or
three thousand pounds might at once be collected; and if any such sum
could be announced as already subscribed, when the program of the
Association is put forth, it would have, as I believe, a considerable
influence on the country, and would attract the attention of country
practitioners. The Anti-Corn Law League owed much of its enormous power
to several wealthy men laying down 1,000 pounds; for the subscription of
a good sum of money is the best proof of earnest conviction. You asked
for my opinion on the above points, and I have given it freely, though
well aware that from living so retired a life my judgment cannot be
worth much.

Have you read Mr. Gurney's articles in the "Fortnightly" and "Cornhill?"
(773/2. "Fortnightly Review," XXX., page 778; "Cornhill Magazine," XLV.,
page 191. The articles are by the late Edmund Gurney, author of "The
power of Sound," 1880.) They seem to me very clever, though obscurely
written; and I agree with almost everything he says, except with some
passages which appear to imply that no experiments should be tried
unless some immediate good can be predicted, and this is a gigantic
mistake contradicted by the whole history of science.

P.S.--That is a curious fact about babies. I remember hearing on good
authority that very young babies when moved are apt to clutch hold of
anything, and I thought of your explanation; but your case during sleep
is a much more interesting one. Very many thanks for the book, which I
much wanted to see; it shall be sent back to-day, as from you, to the
Society.

2.XII.II. MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, 1867-1882.

LETTER 774. TO CANON FARRAR.

(774/1. The lecture which forms the subject of this letter was one
delivered by Canon Farrar at the Royal Institution, "On Some Defects in
Public School Education.")

Down, March 5th, 1867.

I am very much obliged for your kind present of your lecture. We have
read it aloud with the greatest interest, and I agree to every word. I
admire your candour and wonderful freedom from prejudice; for I feel an
inward conviction that if I had been a great classical scholar I should
never have been able to have judged fairly on the subject. As it is, I
am one of the root and branch men, and would leave classics to be learnt
by those alone who have sufficient zeal and the high taste requisite for
their appreciation. You have indeed done a great public service in
speaking out so boldly. Scientific men might rail forever, and it would
only be said that they railed at what they did not understand. I was at
school at Shrewsbury under a great scholar, Dr. Butler; I learnt
absolutely nothing, except by amusing myself by reading and
experimenting in chemistry. Dr. Butler somehow found this out, and
publicly sneered at me before the whole school for such gross waste of
time; I remember he called me a Pococurante (774/2. Told in "Life and
Letters," I., page 35.), which, not understanding, I thought was a
dreadful name. I wish you had shown in your lecture how science could
practically be taught in a great school; I have often heard it objected
that this could not be done, and I never knew what to say in answer.

I heartily hope that you may live to see your zeal and labour produce
good fruit.

LETTER 775. TO HERBERT SPENCER.
Down, December 9th [1867].

I thank you very sincerely for your kind present of your "First
Principles." (775/1. "This must have been the second edition." (Note
by Mr. Spencer.)) I earnestly hope that before long I may have strength
to study the work as it ought to be studied, for I am certain to find or
re-find much that is deeply interesting. In many parts of your
"Principles of Biology" I was fairly astonished at the prodigality of
your original views. (775/2. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 55,
56.) Most of the chapters furnished suggestions for whole volumes of
future researches. As I have heard that you have changed your
residence, I am forced to address this to Messrs. Williams & Norgate;
and for the same reason I gave some time ago the same address to Mr.
Murray for a copy of my book on variation, etc., which is now finished,
but delayed by the index-maker.

LETTER 776. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(776/1. This letter refers to a movement set on foot at a meeting held
at the Freemasons' Tavern, on November 16th, 1872, of which an account
is given in the "Times" of November 23rd, 1872, at which Mark Pattison,
Mr. Henry Sidgwick, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Professors Rolleston, Seeley,
Huxley, etc., were present. The "Times" says that the meeting was held
"by members of the Universities and others interested in the promotion
of mature study and scientific research in England." One of the
headings of the "Program of Discussion" was "The Abolition of Prize
Fellowships.")

Sevenoaks, October 22nd [1872].

I have been glad to sign and forward the paper, for I have very long
thought it a sin that the immense funds of the Universities should be
wasted in Fellowships, except a few for paying for education. But when
I was at Cambridge it would have been an unjustifiable sneer to have
spoken of the place as one for education, always excepting the men who
went in for honours. You speak of another resolution "in the interest
of the anti-letter-writing association"--but alas, this never arrived!
I should like a society formed so that every one might receive pleasant
letters and never answer them.