Chapter XVII: Letter VIII: C. Darwin to A.r. Wallace (1)

_Down, Bromley, Kent. May 18, 1860._

My dear Mr. Wallace,--I received this morning your letter from Amboyna dated Feb. 16th, containing some remarks and your too high approbation of my book. Your letter has pleased me very much, and I most completely agree with you on the parts which are strongest and which are weakest. The imperfection of the geological record is, as you say, the weakest of all; but yet I am pleased to find that there are almost more geological converts than of pursuers of other branches of natural science. I may mention Lyell, Ramsay, Jukes, Rogers, Keyerling, all good men and true. Pictet of Geneva is not a convert, but is evidently staggered (as I think is Bronn of Heidelberg), and he has written a perfectly fair review in the _Bib. Universelle_ of Geneva. Old Bronn has translated my book, well done also into German, and his well-known name will give it circulation. I think geologists are more converted than simple naturalists because more accustomed to reasoning.

Before telling you about the progress of opinion on the subject, you must let me say how I admire the generous manner in which you speak of my book: most persons would in your position have felt bitter envy and jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing of mankind. But you speak far too modestly of yourself; you would, if you had had my leisure, have done the work just as well, perhaps better, than I have done it. Talking of envy, you never read anything more envious and spiteful (with numerous misrepresentations) than Owen is in the _Edinburgh Review_. I must give one instance; he throws doubts and sneers at my saying that the ovigerous frena of cirripedes have been converted into branchiæ, because I have not found them to be branchiæ; whereas _he himself_ admits, before I wrote on cirripedes, without the least hesitation, that their organs are branchiæ. The attacks have been heavy and incessant of late. Sedgwick and Prof. Clarke attacked me savagely at the Cambridge Philosophical Society, but Henslow defended me well, though not a convert. Phillips has since attacked me in a lecture at Cambridge; Sir W. Jardine in the _Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal_, Wollaston in the _Annals of Nat. History_, A. Murray before the Royal Soc. of Edinburgh, Haughton at the Geological Society of Dublin, Dawson in the _Canadian Nat. Magazine_, and _many others_. But I am getting case-hardened, and all these attacks will make me only more determinedly fight. Agassiz sends me personal civil messages, but incessantly attacks me; but Asa Gray fights like a hero in defence. Lyell keeps as firm as a tower, and this autumn will publish on the Geological History of Man, and will then declare his conversion, which now is universally known. I hope that you have received Hooker's splendid essay. So far is bigotry carried that I can name three botanists who will not even read Hooker's essay!! Here is a curious thing: a Mr. Pat. Matthews, a Scotchman, published in 1830 a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture, and in the appendix to this he gives _most clearly_ but very briefly in half-dozen paragraphs our view of Natural Selection. It is a most complete case of anticipation. He published extracts in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_. I got the book, and have since published a letter acknowledging that I am fairly forestalled. Yesterday I heard from Lyell that a German, Dr. Schaffhausen, has sent him a pamphlet published some years ago, in which the same view is nearly anticipated, but I have not yet seen this pamphlet. My brother, who is a very sagacious man, always said, "You will find that someone will have been before you." I am at work at my larger work, which I shall publish in separate volumes. But for ill-health and swarms of letters I get on very, very slowly. I hope that I shall not have wearied you with these details.

With sincere thanks for your letter, and with most deeply-felt wishes for your success in science and in every way, believe me your sincere well-wisher,

C. DARWIN.

* * * * *

Of the letters from Wallace to Darwin which have been preserved, the earliest is the following:

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. April 7, 1862._

My dear Mr. Darwin,--I was much pleased to receive your note this morning. I have not yet begun work, but hope to be soon busy. As I am being doctored a little I do not think I shall be able to accept your kind invitation at present, but trust to be able to do so during the summer.

I beg you to accept a wild honeycomb from the island of Timor, not quite perfect but the best I could get. It is of a small size, but of characteristic form, and I think will be interesting to you. I was quite unable to get the honey out of it, so fear you will find it somewhat in a mess; but no doubt you will know how to clean it. I have told Stevens to send it to you.

Hoping your health is now quite restored and with best wishes, I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 23, 1862._

My dear Mr. Darwin,--Many thanks for your most interesting book on the Orchids. I have read it through most attentively, and have really been quite as much staggered by the wonderful adaptations you show to exist in them as by the _Eye_ in animals or any other complicated organs. I long to get into the country and have a look at some orchids guided by your new lights, but I have been now for ten days confined to my room with what is disagreeable though far from dangerous--boils.

I have been reading several of the Reviews on the "Origin," and it seems to me that you have assisted those who want to criticise you by your overstating the difficulties and objections. Several of them quote your own words as the strongest arguments against you.

I think you told me Owen wrote the article in the _Quarterly_. This seems to me hardly credible, as he speaks so much of Owen, quotes him as such a great authority, and I believe even calls him a profound philosopher, etc. etc. Would Owen thus speak of himself?

Trusting your health is good, I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. May 24, 1862._

My dear Mr. Wallace,--I write one line to thank you for your note and to say that the Bishop of Oxford[35] wrote the _Quarterly Review_ (paid £60), aided by Owen. In the _Edinburgh_ Owen no doubt praised himself. Mr. Maw's Review in the _Zoologist_ is one of the best, and staggered me in parts, for I did not see the sophistry of parts. I could lend you any which you might wish to see; but you would soon be tired. Hopkins and Pictet in France are two of the best.

I am glad you approve of my little Orchid book; but it has not been worth, I fear, the ten months it has cost me: it was a hobby-horse, and so beguiled me.

I am sorry to hear that you are suffering from boils; I have often had fearful crops: I hope that the doctors are right in saying that they are serviceable.

How puzzled you must be to know what to begin at. You will do grand work, I do not doubt.

My health is, and always will be, very poor: I am that miserable animal a regular valetudinarian.--Yours very sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. August 8, 1862._

My dear Mr. Darwin,--I sincerely trust that your little boy is by this time convalescent, and that you are therefore enabled to follow your favourite investigations with a more tranquil mind.

I heard a remark the other day which may not perhaps be new to you, but seemed to me a fact, if true, in your favour. Mr. Ward (I think it was), a member of the Microscopical Society, mentioned as a fact noticed by himself with much surprise that "the muscular fibres of the whale were no larger than those of the bee!"--an excellent indication of community of origin.

While looking at the ostriches the other day at the Gardens, it occurred to me that they were a case of special difficulty, as, inhabiting an ancient continent, surrounded by numerous enemies, how did their wings ever become abortive, and if they did so before the birds had attained their present gigantic size, strength and speed, how could they in the transition have maintained their existence? I see Westwood in the _Annals_ brings forward the same case, arguing that the ostriches should have acquired better wings within the historic period; but as they are now the swiftest of animals they evidently do not want their wings, which in their present state may serve some other trifling purpose in their economy such as fans, or balancers, which may have prevented their being reduced to such rudiments as in the cassowaries. The difficulty to me seems to be, how, if they once had flight, could they have lost it, surrounded by swift and powerful carnivora against whom it must have been the only defence?

This probably is all clear to you, but I think it is a point you might touch upon, as I think the objection will seem a strong one to most people.

In a day or two I go to Devonshire for a few weeks and hope to lay in a stock of health to enable me to stick to work at my collections during the winter. I begin to find that large collections involve a heavy amount of manual labour which is not very agreeable.

Present my compliments to Mrs. and Miss Darwin, and believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_1 Carlton Terrace, Southampton. August 20, 1862._

My dear Mr. Wallace,--You will not be surprised that I have been slow in answering when I tell you that my poor boy[36] became frightfully worse after you were at Down; and that during our journey to Bournemouth he had a slight relapse here and my wife took the scarlet fever rather severely. She is over the crisis. I have had a horrid time of it, and God only knows when we shall be all safe at home again--half my family are at Bournemouth.

I have given a piece of the comb from Timor to a Mr. Woodbury (who is working at the subject), and he is _extremely_ interested by it (I was sure the specimen would be valuable) and has requested me to ascertain whether the bee (_A. testacea_) is domesticated when it makes its combs. Will you kindly inform me?

Your remarks on ostriches have interested me, and I have alluded to the case in the Third Edition. The difficulty does not seem to me so great as to you. Think of bustards, which inhabit wide open plains, and which so seldom take flight: a very little increase in size of body would make them incapable of flight. The idea of ostriches acquiring flight is worthy of Westwood; think of the food required in these inhabitants of the desert to work the pectoral muscles! In the rhea the wings seem of considerable service in the first start and in turning.[37] ...

* * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. September 30, 1862._

My dear Mr. Darwin,--Many thanks for the third edition of the "Origin," which I found here on my return from Devonshire on Saturday. I have not had time yet to read more than the Historical Sketch, which is very interesting, and shows that the time had quite come for your book.

I am now reading Herbert Spencer's "First Principles," which seems to me a truly great work, which goes to the root of everything.

I hope you will be well enough to come to Cambridge.

I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. January 14 [1863?]._

My dear Mr. Darwin,--I am very sorry indeed to hear you are still in weak health. Have you ever tried mountain air? A residence at 2,000 or 3,000 ft. elevation is very invigorating.

I trust your family are now all in good health, and that you may be spared any anxiety on that score for some time. If you come to town I shall hope to have the pleasure of seeing you.

I am now in much better health, but find sudden changes of weather affect me very much, bringing on ague and fever fits. I am now working a little, but having fresh collections still arriving from correspondents in the East, it is principally the drudgery of cleaning, packing, and arrangement.

On the opposite page I give all the information I can about the Timor fossils, so that you can send it entire to Dr. Falconer.

With best wishes for the speedy recovery of your health, I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 1, 1864._

Dear Wallace,--I am still unable to write otherwise than by dictation. In a letter received two or three weeks ago from Asa Gray he writes: "I read lately with gusto Wallace's exposé of the Dublin man on Bee cells, etc."[38]

Now though I cannot read at present, I much want to know where this is published, that I may procure a copy. Further on Asa Gray says (after speaking of Agassiz's paper on Glaciers in the _Atlantic Magazine_ and his recent book entitled "Method of Study"): "Pray set Wallace upon these articles." So Asa Gray seems to think much of your powers of reviewing, and I mention this as it assuredly is _laudari a laudato_.

I hope you are hard at work, and if you are inclined to tell me I should much like to know what you are doing.

It will be many months, I fear, before I shall do anything.

Pray believe me yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. January 2, 1864._

My dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your kind letter. I was afraid to write because I heard such sad accounts of your health, but I am glad to find that you can write, and I presume read, by deputy. My little article on Haughton's paper was published in the _Annals of Natural History_ about August or September last, I think, but I have not a copy to refer to. I am sure it does not deserve Asa Gray's praises, for though the matter may be true enough, the manner I know is very inferior. It was written hastily, and when I read it in the _Annals_ I was rather ashamed of it, as I knew so many could have done it so much better.

I will try and see Agassiz's paper and book. What I have hitherto seen of his on Glacial subjects seems very good, but in all his Natural History _theories_, he seems so utterly wrong and so totally blind to the plainest deduction from facts, and at the same time so vague and obscure in his language, that it would be a very long and wearisome task to answer him.

With regard to work, I am doing but little--I am afraid I have no good habit of systematic work. I have been gradually getting parts of my collections in order, but the obscurities of synonymy and descriptions, the difficulty of examining specimens, and my very limited library, make it wearisome work.

I have been lately getting the first groups of my butterflies in order, and they offer some most interesting facts in variation and distribution--in variation some very puzzling ones. Though I have very fine series of specimens, I find in many cases I want more; in fact if I could have afforded to have all my collections kept till my return I should, I think, have found it necessary to retain twice as many as I now have.

I am at last making a beginning of a small book on my Eastern journey, which, if I can persevere, I hope to have ready by next Christmas. I am a very bad hand at writing anything like narrative. I want something to argue on, and then I find it much easier to go ahead. I rather despair, therefore, of making so good a book as Bates's, though I think my subject is better. Like every other traveller, I suppose, I feel dreadfully the want of copious notes on common everyday objects, sights and sounds and incidents, which I imagined I could never forget but which I now find it impossible to recall with any accuracy.

I have just had a long and most interesting letter from my old companion Spruce. He says he has had a letter from you about Melastoma, but has not, he says, for three years seen a single melastomaceous plant! They are totally absent from the Pacific plains of tropical America, though so abundant on the Eastern plains. Poor fellow, he seems to be in a worse state than you are. Life has been a burden to him for three years owing to lung and heart disease, and rheumatism, brought on by exposure in high, hot, and cold damp valleys of the Andes. He went down to the dry climate of the Pacific coast to die more at ease, but the change improved him, and he thinks to come home, though he is sure he will not survive the first winter in England. He had never been able to get a copy of your book, though I am sure no one would have enjoyed or appreciated it more.

If you are able to bear reading, will you allow me to take the liberty of recommending you a book? The fact is I have been so astonished and delighted with the perusal of Spencer's works that I think it a duty to society to recommend them to all my friends who I think can appreciate them. The one I particularly refer to now is "Social Statics," a book which is by no means hard to read; it is even amusing, and owing to the wonderful clearness of its style may be read and understood by anyone. I think, therefore, as it is quite distinct from your special studies at present, you might consider it as "light literature," and I am pretty sure it would interest you more than a great deal of what is now considered very good. I am utterly astonished that so few people seem to read Spencer, and the utter ignorance there seems to be among politicians and political economists of the grand views and logical stability of his works. He appears to me as far ahead of John Stuart Mill as J.S.M. is of the rest of the world, and, I may add, as Darwin is of Agassiz. The range of his knowledge is no less than its accuracy. His nebular hypothesis in the last volume of his essays is the most masterly astronomical paper I have ever read, and in his forthcoming volume on Biology he is I understand going to show that there is something else besides Natural Selection at work in nature. So you must look out for a "foeman worthy of your steel"! But perhaps all this time you have read his books. If so, excuse me, and pray give me your opinion of him, as I have hitherto only met with one man (Huxley) who has read and appreciated him.

Allow me to say in conclusion how much I regret that unavoidable circumstances have caused me to see so little of you since my return home, and how earnestly I pray for the speedy restoration of your health.--Yours most sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Malvern Wells. Tuesday, March, 1864._

My dear Mr. Wallace,--Your kindness is neverfailing. I got worse and worse at home and was sick every day for two months; so came here, when I suddenly broke down and could do nothing; but I hope I am now very slowly recovering, but am very weak.

Sincere thanks about Melastoma: these flowers have baffled me, and I have caused several friends much useless labour; though, Heaven knows, I have thrown away time enough on them myself.

The gorse case is very valuable, and I will quote it, as I presume I may.

I was very glad to see in the _Reader_ that you have been giving a grand paper (as I infer from remarks in discussion) on Geographical Distribution.

I am very weak, so will say no more.--Yours very sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

* * * * *

In Vol. I., p. 93, of the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," Darwin states the circumstances which led to his writing the "Descent of Man." He says that his collection of facts, begun in 1837 or 1838, was continued for many years without any definite idea of publishing on the subject. The letter to Wallace of May 28, 1864, in reply to the latter's of May 10, shows that in the period of ill-health and depression about 1864 he despaired of ever being able to do so.

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 10, 1864._

My dear Darwin,--I was very much gratified to hear by your letter of a month back that you were a little better, and I have since heard occasionally through Huxley and Lubbock that you are not worse. I sincerely hope the summer weather and repose may do you real good.

The Borneo Cave exploration is to go on at present without a subscription. The new British consul who is going out to Sarawak this month will undertake to explore some of the caves nearest the town, and if anything of interest is obtained a good large sum can no doubt be raised for a thorough exploration of the whole country. Sir J. Brooke will give every assistance, and will supply men for the preliminary work.

I send you now my little contribution to the _theory_ of the origin of man. I hope you will be able to agree with me. If you are able, I shall be glad to have your criticisms.

I was led to the subject by the necessity of explaining the vast mental and cranial differences between man and the apes combined with such small structural differences in other parts of the body, and also by an endeavour to account for the diversity of human races combined with man's almost perfect stability of form during all historical epochs.

It has given me a settled opinion on these subjects, if nobody can show a fallacy in the argument.

The Anthropologicals did not seem to appreciate it much, but we had a long discussion which appears almost verbatim in the _Anthropological Review_.[39]

As the _Linnean Transactions_ will not be out till the end of the year I sent a pretty full abstract of the more interesting parts of my Papilionidæ paper[40] to the _Reader_, which, as you say, is a splendid paper.

Trusting Mrs. Darwin and all your family are well, and that you are improving, believe me yours most sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent. May 28, 1864._

Dear Wallace,--I am so much better that I have just finished a paper for the Linnean Society; but as I am not yet at all strong I felt much disinclination to write, and therefore you must forgive me for not having sooner thanked you for your paper on Man received on the 11th. But first let me say that I have hardly ever in my life been more struck by any paper than that on variation, etc. etc., in the _Reader_. I feel sure that such papers will do more for the spreading of our views on the modification of species than any separate treatises on the single subject itself. It is really admirable; but you ought not in the Man paper to speak of the theory as mine; it is just as much yours as mine. One correspondent has already noticed to me your "high-minded" conduct on this head.

But now for your Man paper, about which I should like to write more than I can. The great leading idea is quite new to me, viz. that during late ages the mind will have been modified more than the body; yet I had got as far as to see with you that the struggle between the races of man depended entirely on intellectual and _moral_ qualities. The latter part of the paper I can designate only as grand and most eloquently done. I have shown your paper to two or three persons who have been here, and they have been equally struck with it.

I am not sure that I go with you on all minor points. When reading Sir G. Grey's account of the constant battles of Australian savages, I remember thinking that Natural Selection would come in, and likewise with the Esquimaux, with whom the art of fishing and managing canoes is said to be hereditary. I rather differ on the rank under the classificatory point of view which you assign to Man: I do not think any character simply in excess ought ever to be used for the higher division. Ants would not be separated from other hymenopterous insects, however high the instinct of the one and however low the instincts of the other.

With respect to the differences of race, a conjecture has occurred to me that much may be due to the correlation of complexion (and consequently hair) with constitution. Assume that a dusky individual best escaped miasma and you will readily see what I mean. I persuaded the Director-General of the Medical Department of the Army to send printed forms to the surgeons of all regiments in tropical countries to ascertain this point, but I daresay I shall never get any returns. Secondly, I suspect that a sort of sexual selection has been the most powerful means of changing the races of man. I can show that the different races have a widely different standard of beauty. Among savages the most powerful men will have the pick of the women, and they will generally leave the most descendants.

I have collected a few notes on Man, but I do not suppose I shall ever use them. Do you intend to follow out your views, and if so would you like at some future time to have my few references and notes?

I am sure I hardly know whether they are of any value, and they are at present in a state of chaos.

There is much more that I should like to write but I have not strength.--Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

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

* * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 29 [1864]._

My dear Darwin,--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 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[41] 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_.[42] 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. 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 could 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 among all 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 make the less appear the more beautiful. Mere physical beauty--that is, a healthy and regular development of the body and features approaching to the _mean_ or _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_ of 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's 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 times, 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 then 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.--Believe me, my dear Darwin, yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. June 15, 1864._

Dear Wallace,--You must not suppose from my delay that I have not been much interested by your long letter. I write now merely to thank you, and just to say that probably you are right on all the points you touch on except, as I think, about sexual selection, which I will not give up.

My belief in it, however, is contingent on my general beliefs in sexual selection. It is an awful stretcher to believe that a peacock's tail was thus formed; but believing it, I believe in the same principle somewhat modified applied to man.

I doubt whether my notes would be of any use to you, and as far as I remember they are chiefly on sexual selection.

I am very glad to hear that you are on your Travels. I believe you will find it a very convenient vehicle for miscellaneous discussion. With your admirable powers of writing, I cannot doubt that you will make an excellent book.--Believe me, dear Wallace, yours sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

P.S.--A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book against me; which pleases me much, for it is plain that our good work is spreading in France. He speaks of the _engouement_ about this book, "so full of empty and presumptuous thoughts."

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 29, 1865._

My dear Wallace,--I must ease my mind by saying how much I admire the two papers you have sent me.

That on parrots[43] contained most new matter to me, and interested me _extremely_; that in the _Geographical Journal_[44] strikes me as an epitome of the whole theory of geographical distribution: the comparison of Borneo and New Guinea, the relation of the volcanic outbursts and the required subsidence, and the comparison of the supposed conversion of the Atlantic into a great archipelago, seemed to me the three best hits. They are both indeed excellent papers.--Believe me yours very sincerely,

CHARLES DARWIN.

Do try what hard work will do to banish painful thoughts.[45]

P.S.--During one of the later French voyages, a _wild_ pig was killed and brought from the Aru Islands to Paris. Am I not right in inferring that this must have been introduced and run wild? If you have a clear opinion on this head, may I quote you?

* * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. January 31, [1865?]._

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your kind letter. I send you now a few more papers. One on Man is not much in your line. The other three are bird lists, but in the introductory remarks are a few facts of distribution that may be of use to you, and as you have them already in the _Zoological Proceedings_, you can cut these up if you want "extracts."

I hope you do not very much want the Aru pig to be a domestic animal run wild, because I have no doubt myself it was the species peculiar to the New Guinea fauna (_Sus papuensis_, Less.), a very distinct form. I have no doubt it is this species, though I did not get it myself there, because I was told that on a small island near, called there Pulo babi (Pig Island), was a race of pigs (different from and larger than those of the large islands) which had originated from the wreck of a large ship near a century ago. The productions of the Aru Islands closely resemble those of New Guinea, more than half the species of birds being identical, as well as about half of the few known mammals.

I am beginning to work at some semi-mechanical work, drawing up catalogues of parts of my collection for publication.

I enclose my "carte." Have you a photograph of yourself of any kind you can send me? When you come to town next, may I beg the honour of a sitting for my brother-in-law, Mr. Sims, 73 Westbourne Grove?--Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.--Your paper on _Lythrum salicaria_[46] is most beautiful. What a wonderful plant it is! I long to hear your paper on Tendrils and hear what you have got out of them. My old friend Spruce, a good botanist and close observer, could probably supply you with some facts on that or other botanical subjects if you would write to him. He is now at Kew, but almost as ill as yourself.--A.R.W.

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 1, 1865._

My dear Wallace,--I am much obliged for your photograph, for I have lately set up a scientific album; and for the papers, which I will read before long. I enclose my own photo, taken by my son, and I have no other.

I fear it will be a long time before I shall be able to sit to a photographer, otherwise I should be happy to sit to Mr. Sims.

Thanks for information about the Aru pig, which will make me very cautious.

It is a perplexing case, for Nathusius says the skull of the Aru resembles that of the Chinese breed, and he thinks that _Sus papuensis_ has been founded on a young skull; D. Blainville stating that an old skull from New Guinea resembles that of the wild pigs of Malabar, and these belong to the _S. scrofa_ type, which is different from the Chinese domestic breed. The latter has not been found in a wild condition.--Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park, N.W. Sept. 18, 1865._

Dear Darwin,--I should have written before to thank you for the copy of your paper on climbing plants, which I read with great interest; I can imagine how much pleasure the working out must have given you. I was afraid you were too ill to make it advisable that you should be bothered with letters.

I write now, in hopes you are better, to communicate a curious case of _variation_ becoming at once _hereditary_, which was brought forward at the British Association. I send a note of it on the other side, but if you would like more exact particulars, with names and dates and a drawing of the bird, I am sure Mr. O'Callaghan would send them to you.

I hope to hear that you are better, and that your new book is really to come out next winter.--Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

NOTE.--Last spring Mr. O'Callaghan was told by a country boy that he had seen a blackbird with a topknot; on which Mr. O'C. very judiciously told him to watch it and communicate further with him. After a time the boy told him he had found a blackbird's nest, and had seen this crested bird near it and believed he belonged to it. He continued watching the nest till the young were hatched. After a time he told Mr. O'C. that two of the young birds seemed as if they would have topknots. He was told to get one of them as soon as it was fledged. However, he was too late, and they left the nest, but luckily he found them near and knocked one down with a stone, which Mr. O'C. had stuffed and exhibited. It has a fine crest, something like that of a Polish fowl, but _larger_ in proportion to the bird, and very regular and well formed. The male must have been almost like the Umbrella bird in miniature, the crest is so large and expanded.--A.R.W.

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. September 22, 1865._

Dear Wallace,--I am much obliged for your extract; I never heard of such a case, though such a variation is perhaps the most likely of any to occur in a state of nature and be inherited, inasmuch as all domesticated birds present races with a tuft or with reversed feathers on their heads. I have sometimes thought that the progenitor of the whole class must have been a crested animal.

Do you make any progress with your Journal of travels? I am the more anxious that you should do so as I have lately read with much interest some papers by you on the ouran-outang, etc., in the _Annals_, of which I have lately been reading the latter volumes, I have always thought that Journals of this nature do considerable good by advancing the taste for natural history; I know in my own case that nothing ever stimulated my zeal so much as reading Humboldt's Personal Narrative. I have not yet received the last part of _Linnean Transactions_, but your paper[47] at present will be rather beyond my strength, for though somewhat better I can as yet do hardly anything but lie on the sofa and be read aloud to. By the way, have you read Tylor and Lecky?[48] Both these books have interested me much. I suppose you have read Lubbock?[49] In the last chapter there is a note about you in which I most cordially concur.[50] I see you were at the British Association, but I have heard nothing of it except what I have picked up in the _Reader_. I have heard a rumour that the _Reader_ is sold to the Anthropological Society. If you do not begrudge the trouble of another note (for my sole channel of news through Hooker is closed by his illness), I should much like to hear whether the _Reader_ is thus sold. I should be very sorry for it, as the paper would thus become sectional in its tendency. If you write, tell me what you are doing yourself.

The only news which I have about the "Origin" is that Fritz Müller published a few months ago a remarkable book[51] in its favour, and secondly that a second French edition is just coming out.--Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regents Park. October 2, 1865._

Dear Darwin,--I was just leaving town for a few days when I received your letter, or should have replied at once.

The _Reader_ has no doubt changed hands, and I am inclined to think for the better. It is purchased, I believe, by a gentleman who is a Fellow of the Anthropological Society, but I see no signs of its being made a special organ of that Society. The Editor (and, I believe, proprietor) is a Mr. Bendyshe, the most talented man in the Society, and, judging from his speaking, which I have often heard, I should say the articles on "Simeon and Simony," "Metropolitan Sewage," and "France and Mexico," are his, and these are in my opinion superior to anything that has been in the _Reader_ for a long time; they have the point and brilliancy which are wanted to make leading articles readable and popular. The articles on Mill's Political Economy and on Mazzini are also first-rate. He has introduced also the plan of having two, and now three, important articles in each number--one political or social, one literary, and one scientific. Under the old regime they never had an editor above mediocrity, except Masson (? Musson); there was a want of unity among the proprietors as to the aims and objects of the journal; and there was a want of capital to secure the services of good writers. This seems to me to be now all changed for the better, and I only hope the rumour of that _bête noire_, the Anthropological Society, having anything to do with it may not cause our best men of science to withdraw their support and contributions.

I have read Tylor, and am reading Lecky. I found the former somewhat disconnected and unsatisfactory from the absence of any definite result or any decided opinion on most of the matters treated of.

Lecky I like much, though he is rather tedious and obscure at times. Most of what he says has been said so much more forcibly by Buckle, whose work I have read for the second time with increased admiration, although with a clear view of some of his errors. Nevertheless, his is I think unapproachably the grandest work of the present century, and the one most likely to liberalise opinion. Lubbock's book is very good, but his concluding chapter very weak. Why are men of science so dreadfully afraid to say what they think and believe?

In reply to your kind inquiries about myself, I can only say that I am ashamed of my laziness. I have done nothing lately but write a paper on Pigeons for the _Ibis_, and am drawing up a Catalogue of my Collection of Birds.

As to my "Travels," I cannot bring myself to undertake them yet, and perhaps never shall, unless I should be fortunate enough to get a wife who would incite me thereto and assist me therein--which is not likely.

I am glad to hear that the "Origin" is still working its revolutionary way on the Continent. Will Müller's book on it be translated?

I am glad to hear you are a little better. My poor friend Spruce is still worse than you are, and I fear now will not recover. He wants to write a book if he gets well enough.--With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 22, 1866._

My dear Wallace,--I thank you for your paper on Pigeons,[52] which interested me, as everything that you write does. Who would ever have dreamed that monkeys influenced the distribution of pigeons and parrots! But I have had a still higher satisfaction; for I finished yesterday your paper in the _Linnean Transactions_.[53] It is admirably done. I cannot conceive that the most firm believer in Species could read it without being staggered. Such papers will make many more converts among naturalists than long-winded books such as I shall write if I have strength.

I have been particularly struck with your remarks on dimorphism; but I cannot quite understand one point (p. 22), and should be grateful for an explanation, for I want fully to understand you.[54] How can one female form be selected and the intermediate forms die out, without also the other extreme form also dying out from not having the advantages of the first selected form? for, as I understand, both female forms occur on the same island. I quite agree with your distinction between dimorphic forms and varieties; but I doubt whether your criterion of dimorphic forms not producing intermediate offspring will suffice; for I know of a good many varieties, which must be so called, that will not blend or intermix, but produce offspring quite like either parent.

I have been particularly struck with your remarks on geological distribution in Celebes. It is impossible that anything could be better put, and [it] would give a cold shudder to the immutable naturalists.

And now I am going to ask a question which you will not like. How does your Journal get on? It will be a shame if you do not popularise your researches.

My health is so far improved that I am able to work one or two hours a day.--Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park, N.W. February 4, 1866._

My dear Darwin,--I am very glad to hear you are a little better, and hope we shall soon have the pleasure of seeing your volume on "Variation under Domestication." I do not see the difficulty you seem to feel about two or more female forms of one species. The _most common_ or _typical_ female form must have certain characters or qualities which are sufficiently advantageous to it to enable it to maintain its existence; in general, such as vary much from it die out. But occasionally a variation may occur which has special advantageous characters of its own (such as mimicking a protected species), and then this variation will maintain itself by selection. In no less than three of my _polymorphic_ species of Papilio, one of the female forms mimics the _Polydorus_ group, which, like the _Æneas_ group in America, seems to have some special protection. In two or three other cases one of the female forms is confined to a restricted locality, to the conditions of which it is probably specially adapted. In other cases one of the female forms resembles the male, and perhaps receives a protection from the abundance of the males, in the crowd of which it is passed over. I think these considerations render the production of two or three forms of female very conceivable. The physiological difficulty is to me greater, of how each of two forms of female produces offspring like the other female as well as like itself, but no intermediates?

If you "know varieties that will not blend or intermix, but produce offspring quite like either parents," is not that the very physiological test of a species which is wanting for the _complete proof_ of the origin of species?

I have by no means given up the idea of writing my Travels, but I think I shall be able to do it better for the delay, as I can introduce chapters giving popular sketches of the subjects treated of in my various papers.

I hope, if things go as I wish this summer, to begin work at it next winter. But I feel myself incorrigibly lazy, and have no such system of collecting and arranging facts or of making the most of my materials as you and many of our hard-working naturalists possess in perfection.--With best wishes, believe me, dear Darwin, yours most sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Bromley, S.E. Tuesday, February, 1866._

My dear Wallace,--After I had dispatched my last note, the simple explanation which you give had occurred to me, and seems satisfactory. I do not think you understand what I mean by the non-blending of certain varieties. It does not refer to fertility. An instance will explain. I crossed the Painted Lady and Purple sweet peas, which are very differently coloured varieties, and got, even out of the same pod, both varieties perfect, but none intermediate. Something of this kind, I should think, must occur at first with your butterflies and the three forms of Lythrum; though these cases are in appearance so wonderful, I do not know that they are really more so than every female in the world producing distinct male and female offspring.