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

P.S. Our aristocracy is handsomer (more hideous according to a Chinese or
Negro) than the middle classes, from [having the] pick of the women; but
oh, what a scheme is primogeniture for destroying Natural Selection! I
fear my letter will be barely intelligible to you.

LETTER 406* A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN.
5, Westbourne Grove Terrace, W., May 29th [1864].

You are always so ready to appreciate what others do, and especially to
overestimate my desultory efforts, that I cannot be surprised at your very
kind and flattering remarks on my papers. I am glad, however, that you
have made a few critical observations (and am only sorry that you were not
well enough to make more), as that enables me to say a few words in
explanation.

My great fault is haste. An idea strikes me, I think over it for a few
days, and then write away with such illustrations as occur to me while
going on. I therefore look at the subject almost solely from one point of
view. Thus, in my paper on Man (406*/1. Published in the "Anthropological
Review," 1864.), I aim solely at showing that brutes are modified in a
great variety of ways by Natural Selection, but that in none of these
particular ways can Man be modified, because of the superiority of his
intellect. I therefore no doubt overlook a few smaller points in which
Natural Selection may still act on men and brutes alike. Colour is one of
them, and I have alluded to this in correlation to constitution, in an
abstract I have made at Sclater's request for the "Natural History Review."
(406*/2. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1864, page 328.) At the same time, there is
so much evidence of migrations and displacements of races of man, and so
many cases of peoples of distinct physical characters inhabiting the same
or similar regions, and also of races of uniform physical characters
inhabiting widely dissimilar regions,--that the external characteristics of
the chief races of man must, I think, be older than his present
geographical distribution, and the modifications produced by correlation to
favourable variations of constitution be only a secondary cause of external
modification. I hope you may get the returns from the Army. (406*/3.
Measurements taken of more than one million soldiers in the United States
showed that "local influences of some kind act directly on structure."--
"Descent of Man," 1901, page 45.) They would be very interesting, but I do
not expect the results would be favourable to your view.

With regard to the constant battles of savages leading to selection of
physical superiority, I think it would be very imperfect and subject to so
many exceptions and irregularities that it would produce no definite
result. For instance: the strongest and bravest men would lead, and
expose themselves most, and would therefore be most subject to wounds and
death. And the physical energy which led to any one tribe delighting in
war, might lead to its extermination, by inducing quarrels with all
surrounding tribes and leading them to combine against it. Again, superior
cunning, stealth, and swiftness of foot, or even better weapons, would
often lead to victory as well as mere physical strength. Moreover, this
kind of more or less perpetual war goes on amongst savage peoples. It
could lead, therefore, to no differential characters, but merely to the
keeping up of a certain average standard of bodily and mental health and
vigour.

So with selection of variations adapted to special habits of life as
fishing, paddling, riding, climbing, etc., etc., in different races, no
doubt it must act to some extent, but will it be ever so rigid as to induce
a definite physical modification, and can we imagine it to have had any
part in producing the distinct races that now exist?

The sexual selection you allude to will also, I think, have been equally
uncertain in its results. In the very lowest tribes there is rarely much
polygamy, and women are more or less a matter of purchase. There is also
little difference of social condition, and I think it rarely happens that
any healthy and undeformed man remains without wife and children. I very
much doubt the often-repeated assertion that our aristocracy are more
beautiful than the middle classes. I allow that they present specimens of
the highest kind of beauty, but I doubt the average. I have noticed in
country places a greater average amount of good looks among the middle
classes, and besides we unavoidably combine in our idea of beauty,
intellectual expression, and refinement of manner, which often makes the
less appear the more beautiful. Mere physical beauty--i.e. a healthy and
regular development of the body and features approaching to the mean and
type of European man, I believe is quite as frequent in one class of
society as the other, and much more frequent in rural districts than in
cities.

With regard to the rank of man in zoological classification, I fear I have
not made myself intelligible. I never meant to adopt Owen's or any other
such views, but only to point out that from one point of view he was right.
I hold that a distinct family for Man, as Huxley allows, is all that can
possibly be given him zoologically. But at the same time, if my theory is
true, that while the animals which surrounded him have been undergoing
modification in all parts of their bodies to a generic or even family
degree of difference, he has been changing almost wholly in the brain and
head--then in geological antiquity the SPECIES man may be as old as many
mammalian families, and the origin of the FAMILY man may date back to a
period when some of the ORDERS first originated.

As to the theory of Natural Selection itself, I shall always maintain it to
be actually yours and yours only. You had worked it out in details I had
never thought of, years before I had a ray of light on the subject, and my
paper would never have convinced anybody or been noticed as more than an
ingenious speculation, whereas your book has revolutionised the study of
Natural History, and carried away captive the best men of the present age.
All the merit I claim is the having been the means of inducing you to write
and publish at once. I may possibly some day go a little more into this
subject (of Man), and if I do will accept the kind offer of your notes.

I am now, however, beginning to write the "Narrative of my Travels," which
will occupy me a long time, as I hate writing narrative, and after Bates'
brilliant success rather fear to fail.

I shall introduce a few chapters on Geographical Distribution and other
such topics. Sir C. Lyell, while agreeing with my main argument on Man,
thinks I am wrong in wanting to put him back into Miocene times, and thinks
I do not appreciate the immense interval even to the later Pliocene. But I
still maintain my view, which in fact is a logical result of my theory; for
if man originated in later Pliocene, when almost all mammalia were of
closely allied species to those now living, and many even identical, then
man has not been stationary in bodily structure while animals have been
varying, and my theory will be proved to be all wrong.

In Murchison's address to the Geographical Society, just delivered, he
points out Africa as being the oldest existing land. He says there is no
evidence of its having been ever submerged during the Tertiary epoch. Here
then is evidently the place to find early man. I hope something good may
be found in Borneo, and that the means may be found to explore the still
more promising regions of tropical Africa, for we can expect nothing of man
very early in Europe.

It has given me great pleasure to find that there are symptoms of
improvement in your health. I hope you will not exert yourself too soon or
write more than is quite agreeable to you. I think I made out every word
of your letter, though it was not always easy.

(406*/4. For Wallace's later views see Letter 408, note.)

LETTER 407. TO W. TURNER.

(407/1. Sir William Turner is frequently referred to in the "Descent of
Man" as having supplied Mr. Darwin with information.)

Down, December 14th [1866].

Your kindness when I met you at the Royal Society makes me think that you
would grant me the favour of a little information, if in your power. I am
preparing a book on Domestic Animals, and as there has been so much
discussion on the bearing of such views as I hold on Man, I have some
thoughts of adding a chapter on this subject. The point on which I want
information is in regard to any part which may be fairly called rudimentary
in comparison with the same part in the Quadrumana or any other mammal.
Now the os coccyx is rudimentary as a tail, and I am anxious to hear about
its muscles. Mr. Flower found for me in some work that its one muscle
(with striae) was supposed only to bring this bone back to its proper
position after parturition. This seems to me hardly credible. He said he
had never particularly examined this part, and when I mentioned your name,
he said you were the most likely man to give me information.

Are there any traces of other muscles? It seems strange if there are none.
Do you know how the muscles are in this part in the anthropoid apes? The
muscles of the ear in man may, I suppose, in most cases be considered as
rudimentary; and so they seem to be in the anthropoids; at least, I am
assured in the Zoological Gardens they do not erect their ears. I gather
there are a good many muscles in various parts of the body which are in
this same state: could you specify any of the best cases? The mammae in
man are rudimentary. Are there any other glands or other organs which you
can think of? I know I have no right whatever to ask all these questions,
and can only say that I should be grateful for any information. If you
tell me anything about the os coccyx or other structures, I hope that you
will permit me to quote the statement on your authority, as that would add
so greatly to its value.

Pray excuse me for troubling you, and do not hurry yourself in the least in
answering me.

I do not know whether you would care to possess a copy, but I told my
publisher to send you a copy of the new edition of the "Origin" last month.

LETTER 408. TO W. TURNER.
Down, February 1st [1867].

I thank you cordially for all your full information, and I regret much that
I have given you such great trouble at a period when your time is so much
occupied. But the facts were so valuable to me that I cannot pretend that
I am sorry that I did trouble you; and I am the less so, as from what you
say I hope you may be induced some time to write a full account of all
rudimentary structures in Man: it would be a very curious and interesting
memoir. I shall at present give only a brief abstract of the chief facts
which you have so very kindly communicated to me, and will not touch on
some of the doubtful points. I have received far more information than I
ventured to anticipate. There is one point which has occurred to me, but I
suspect there is nothing in it. If, however, there should be, perhaps you
will let me have a brief note from you, and if I do not hear I will
understand there is nothing in the notion. I have included the down on the
human body and the lanugo on the foetus as a rudimentary representation of
a hairy coat. (408/1. "Descent of Man" I., page 25; II., page 375.) I do
not know whether there is any direct functional connection between the
presence of hair and the panniculus carnosus (408/2. Professor Macalister
draws our attention to the fact that Mr. Darwin uses the term panniculus in
the generalised sense of any sheet of muscle acting on the skin.) (to put
the question under another point of view, is it the primary or aboriginal
function of the panniculus to move the dermal appendages or the skin
itself?); but both are superficial, and would perhaps together become
rudimentary. I was led to think of this by the places (as far as my
ignorance of anatomy has allowed me to judge) of the rudimentary muscular
fasciculi which you specify. Now, some persons can move the skin of their
hairy heads; and is this not effected by the panniculus? How is it with
the eyebrows? You specify the axillae and the front region of the chest
and lower part of scapulae: now, these are all hairy spots in man. On the
other hand, the neck, and as I suppose the covering of the gluteus medius,
are not hairy; so, as I said, I presume there is nothing in this notion.
If there were, the rudiments of the panniculus ought perhaps to occur more
plainly in man than in woman...

P.S.--If the skin on the head is moved by the panniculus, I think I ought
just to allude to it, as some men alone having power to move the skin shows
that the apparatus is generally rudimentary.

(408/3. In March 1869 Darwin wrote to Mr. Wallace: "I shall be intensely
curious to read the "Quarterly." I hope you have not murdered too
completely your own and my child." The reference is to Mr. Wallace's
review, in the April number of the "Quarterly," of Lyell's "Principles of
Geology" (tenth edition), and of the sixth edition of the "Elements of
Geology." Mr. Wallace points out that here for the first time Sir C. Lyell
gave up his opposition to evolution; and this leads Mr. Wallace to give a
short account of the views set forth in the "Origin of Species." In this
article Mr. Wallace makes a definite statement as to his views on the
evolution of man, which were opposed to those of Mr. Darwin. He upholds
the view that the brain of man, as well as the organs of speech, the hand
and the external form, could not have been evolved by Natural Selection
(the child he is supposed to murder). At page 391 he writes: "In the
brain of the lowest savages, and, as far as we know, of the prehistoric
races, we have an organ...little inferior in size and complexity to that of
the highest types...But the mental requirements of the lowest savages, such
as the Australians or the Andaman Islanders, are very little above those of
many animals...How, then, was an organ developed so far beyond the needs of
its possessor? Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a
brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses
one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned
societies." This passage is marked in Mr. Darwin's copy with a triply
underlined "No," and with a shower of notes of exclamation. It was
probably the first occasion on which he realised the extent of this great
and striking divergence in opinion between himself and his colleague.

He had, however, some indication of it in Wallace's paper on Man,
"Anthropological Review," 1864. (See Letter 406). He wrote to Lyell, May
4th, 1869, "I was dreadfully disappointed about Man; it seems to me
incredibly strange." And to Mr. Wallace, April 14th, 1869, "If you had not
told me, I should have thought that [your remarks on Man] had been added by
some one else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am
very sorry for it."

LETTER 409. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, Thursday, February 21st [1868-70?].

I received the Jermyn Street programme, but have hardly yet considered it,
for I was all day on the sofa on Tuesday and Wednesday. Bad though I was,
I thought with constant pleasure of your very great kindness in offering to
read the proofs of my essay on man. I do not know whether I said anything
which might have appeared like a hint, but I assure you that such a thought
had never even momentarily passed through my mind. Your offer has just
made all the difference, that I can now write, whether or no my essay is
ever printed, with a feeling of satisfaction instead of vague dread.

Beg my colleague, Mrs. Huxley, not to forget the corrugator supercilii: it
will not be easy to catch the exact moment when the child is on the point
of crying, and is struggling against the wrinkling up [of] its little eyes;
for then I should expect the corrugator, from being little under the
command of the will, would come into play in checking or stopping the
wrinkling. An explosion of tears would tell nothing.

LETTER 410. TO FRANCIS GALTON.
Down, December 23rd [1870?].

I have only read about fifty pages of your book (to the Judges) (410/1.
"Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences," by Francis
Galton, London, 1869. "The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865" is the
heading of a section of this work (page 55). See "Descent of Man" (1901),
page 41.), but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my
inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more
interesting and original. And how well and clearly you put every point!
George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself just in the
same terms, tells me the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the
later ones! It will take me some time to get to these later chapters, as
it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have
made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained
that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal
and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important
difference. I congratulate you on producing what I am convinced will prove
a memorable work. I look forward with intense interest to each reading,
but it sets me thinking so much that I find it very hard work; but that is
wholly the fault of my brain, and not of your beautifully clear style.

LETTER 411. TO W.R. GREG.
March 21st [1871?].

Many thanks for your note. I am very glad indeed to read remarks made by a
man who possesses such varied and odd knowledge as you do, and who is so
acute a reasoner. I have no doubt that you will detect blunders of many
kinds in my book. (411/1. "The Descent of Man.") Your MS. on the
proportion of the sexes at birth seems to me extremely curious, and I hope
that some day you will publish it. It certainly appears that the males are
decreasing in the London districts, and a most strange fact it is. Mr.
Graham, however, I observe in a note enclosed, does not seem inclined to
admit your conclusion. I have never much considered the subject of the
causes of the proportion. When I reflected on queen bees producing only
males when not impregnated, whilst some other parthenogenetic insects
produced, as far as known, only females, the subject seemed to me
hopelessly obscure. It is, however, pretty clear that you have taken the
one path for its solution. I wished only to ascertain how far with various
animals the males exceeded the females, and I have given all the facts
which I could collect. As far as I know, no other data have been
published. The equality of the sexes with race-horses is surprising. My
remarks on mankind are quite superficial, and given merely as some sort of
standard for comparison with the lower animals. M. Thury is the writer who
makes the sex depend on the period of impregnation. His pamphlet was sent
me from Geneva. (411/2. "Memoire sur la loi de Production des Sexes," 2nd
edition, 1863 (a pamphlet published by Cherbuliez, Geneva).) I can lend it
you if you like. I subsequently read an account of experiments which
convinced me that M. Thury was in error; but I cannot remember what they
were, only the impression that I might safely banish this view from my
mind. Your remarks on the less ratio of males in illegitimate births
strikes me as the most doubtful point in your MS.--requiring two
assumptions, viz. that the fathers in such cases are relatively too young,
and that the result is the same as when the father is relatively too old.

My son, George, who is a mathematician, and who read your MS. with much
interest, has suggested, as telling in the right direction, but whether
sufficient is another question, that many more illegitimate children are
murdered and concealed shortly after birth, than in the case of legitimate
children; and as many more males than females die during the first few days
of life, the census of illegitimate children practically applies to an
older age than with legitimate children, and would thus slightly reduce the
excess of males. This might possibly be worth consideration. By a strange
coincidence a stranger writes to me this day, making the very same
suggestion.

I am quite delighted to hear that my book interests you enough to lead you
to read it with some care.

LETTER 412. TO FRANCIS GALTON.
Down, January 4th, 1873.

Very many thanks for "Fraser" (412/1. "Hereditary Improvement," by Francis
Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," January 1873, page 116.): I have been greatly
interested by your article. The idea of castes being spontaneously formed
and leading to intermarriage (412/2. "My object is to build up, by the
mere process of extensive enquiry and publication of results, a sentiment
of caste among those who are naturally gifted, and to procure for them,
before the system has fairly taken root, such moderate social favours and
preference, no more no less, as would seem reasonable to those who were
justly informed of the precise measure of their importance to the nation"
(loc. cit., page 123).) is quite new to me, and I should suppose to others.
I am not, however, so hopeful as you. Your proposed Society (412/3. Mr.
Galton proposes that "Some society should undertake three scientific
services: the first, by means of a moderate number of influential local
agencies, to institute continuous enquiries into the facts of human
heredity; the second to be a centre of information on heredity for breeders
of animals and plants; and the third to discuss and classify the facts that
were collected" (loc. cit., page 124).) would have awfully laborious work,
and I doubt whether you could ever get efficient workers. As it is, there
is much concealment of insanity and wickedness in families; and there would
be more if there was a register. But the greatest difficulty, I think,
would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. How few are above
mediocrity in health, strength, morals and intellect; and how difficult to
judge on these latter heads. As far as I see, within the same large
superior family, only a few of the children would deserve to be on the
register; and these would naturally stick to their own families, so that
the superior children of distinct families would have no good chance of
associating much and forming a caste. Though I see so much difficulty, the
object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I
fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be
inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and
insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance.
I will make one or two minor criticisms. Is it not possible that the
inhabitants of malarious countries owe their degraded and miserable
appearance to the bad atmosphere, though this does not kill them, rather
than to "economy of structure"? I do not see that an orthognathous face
would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one.
That is a fine simile (page 119) about the chip of a statue (412/4.
"...The life of the individual is treated as of absolutely no importance,
while the race is as everything; Nature being wholly careless of the former
except as a contributor to the maintenance and evolution of the latter.
Myriads of inchoate lives are produced in what, to our best judgment, seems
a wasteful and reckless manner, in order that a few selected specimens may
survive, and be the parents of the next generation. It is as though
individual lives were of no more consideration than are the senseless chips
which fall from the chisel of the artist who is elaborating some ideal form
from a rude block" (loc. cit., page 119).); but surely Nature does not more
carefully regard races than individuals, as (I believe I have misunderstood
what you mean) evidenced by the multitude of races and species which have
become extinct. Would it not be truer to say that Nature cares only for
the superior individuals and then makes her new and better races? But we
ought both to shudder in using so freely the word "Nature" (412/5. See
Letter 190, Volume I.) after what De Candolle has said. Again let me thank
you for the interest received in reading your essay.

Many thanks about the rabbits; your letter has been sent to Balfour: he is
a very clever young man, and I believe owes his cleverness to Salisbury
blood. This letter will not be worth your deciphering. I have almost
finished Greg's "Enigmas." (412/6. "The Enigmas of Life," 1872.) It is
grand poetry--but too Utopian and too full of faith for me; so that I have
been rather disappointed. What do you think about it? He must be a
delightful man.

I doubt whether you have made clear how the families on the Register are to
be kept pure or superior, and how they are to be in course of time still
further improved.