Chapter V: Part III: (Concluded) (2)

Dear Sir William,--On Saturday, to my great pleasure, I received a copy of the Darwin Commemoration volume. I at once began reading your most excellent paper on the Geographical Distribution of Plants. It is intensely interesting to me, both because it so clearly brings out Darwin's views and so judiciously expounds his arguments--even when you intimate a difference of opinion--but especially because you bring out so clearly and strongly his views on the general permanence of continents and oceans, which to-day, as much as ever, wants insisting upon. I may just mention here that none of the people who still insist on former continents where now are deep oceans have ever dealt with the almost physical impossibility of such a change having occurred without breaking the continuity of terrestrial life, owing to the mean depth of the ocean being at least six times the mean height of the land, and its area nearly three times, so that the whole mass of the land of the existing continents would be required to build up even _one small_ continent in the depths of the Atlantic or Pacific! I have demonstrated this, with a diagram, in my "Darwinism" (Chap, XII.), and it has never been either refuted or noticed, but passed by as if it did not exist! Your whole discussion of Dispersal and Distribution is also admirable, and I was much interested with your quotations from Guppy, whose book I have not seen, but must read.

Most valuable to me also are your numerous references to Darwin's letters, so that the article serves as a compendious index to the five volumes, as regards this subject.

Especially admirable is the way in which you have always kept Darwin before us as the centre of the whole discussion, while at the same time fairly stating the sometimes adverse views of those who differ from him on certain points....--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

_The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. June 25, 1909._

Dear Dr. Wallace,--It is difficult for me to tell you how gratified I am by your extraordinarily kind letter.... The truth is that success was easy. It has been my immense good fortune to know most of those who played in the drama. The story simply wanted a straightforward amanuensis to tell itself. But it is a real pleasure to me to know that I have met with some measure of success.

There are many essays in the book that you will not like any more than I do. The secret of this lies in the fact, which you pointed out in your memorable speech at the Linnean Celebration, that no one but a naturalist can really understand Darwin.

I did not go to Cambridge--I had my hands full here. I was not sorry for the excuse. There seemed to me a note of insincerity about the whole business. I am short-tempered. I cannot stand being told that the origin of species has still to be discovered, and that specific differences have no "reality" (Bateson's Essay, p. 89). People are of course at liberty to hold such opinions, but decency might have presented another occasion for ventilating them.--Yours sincerely,

W.T. THISELTON-DYER.

* * * * *

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

_The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. July 11, 1909._

Dear Mr. Wallace,-- ... I have just got F. Darwin's "Foundations." He tries to make out that his father could have dispensed with Malthus. But the selection death-rate in a slightly varying large population is _the_ pith of the whole business. The Darwin-Wallace theory is, as you say, "the continuous adjustment of the organic to the inorganic world." It is what mathematicians call "a moving equilibrium." In fact, I have always maintained that it is a mathematical conception.

It seemed to me there was a touch of insincerity about the whole celebration,[37] as the younger Cambridge School as a whole do not even begin to understand the theory.... I take it that the reason is, as you pointed out, that none of them are naturalists.--Yours sincerely,

W.T. THISELTON-DYER.

* * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. December 28, 1909._

Dear Dr. Archdall Reid,--Many thanks for your very interesting and complimentary letter. I am very glad to hear of your new book, which I doubt not will be very interesting and instructive. The subjects you treat are, however, so very complex, and require so much accurate knowledge of the facts, and so much sound reasoning upon them, that I cannot possibly undertake the labour and thought required before I should feel justified in expressing an opinion upon your treatment of them....

I rejoice to hear that you have exposed the fallacy of the claims of the Mendelians. I have also tried to do so, but I find it quite impossible for me to follow their detailed studies and arguments. It wants a mathematical mind, which I have not.

But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever-varying conditions. Moreover, when crossed they reproduce the same pair of types in the same proportions as at first, and therefore without selection; they are antagonistic to evolution by continually reproducing injurious or useless characters--which is the reason they are so rarely found in nature, but are mostly artificial breeds or sports. My view is, therefore, that Mendelian characters are of the nature of abnormalities or monstrosities, and that the "Mendelian laws" serve the purpose of eliminating them when, as usually, they are not useful, and thus preventing them from interfering with the normal process of natural selection and adaptation of the more plastic races. I am also glad to hear of your new argument for non-inheritance of acquired characters.--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne, February 8, 1911._

Dear Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer,--I thank you very much for taking so much trouble as you have done in writing your views of my new book.[38] I am glad to find that you agree with much of what I have said in the more evolutionary part of it, and that you differ only on some of my suggested interpretations of the facts. I have always felt the disadvantage I have been under--more especially during the last twenty years--in having not a single good biologist anywhere near me, with whom I could discuss matters of theory or obtain information as to matters of fact. I am therefore the more pleased that you do not seem to have come across any serious misstatements in the botanical portions, as to which I have had to trust entirely to second-hand information, often obtained through a long and varied correspondence.

As to your disagreement from me in the conclusions arrived at and strenuously advocated in the latter portions of my work, I am not surprised. I am afraid, now, that I have not expressed myself sufficiently clearly as to the fundamental phenomena which seem to me absolutely to necessitate a guiding mind and organising power. Hardly one of my critics (I think absolutely not one) has noticed the distinction I have tried and intended to draw between Evolution on the one hand, and the fundamental powers and properties of Life--growth, assimilation, reproduction, heredity, etc.--on the other. In Evolution I recognise the action of Natural Selection as universal and capable of explaining all the facts of the continuous development of species from species, "from amoeba to man." But this, as Darwin, Weismann, Kerner, Lloyd-Morgan, and even Huxley have seen, has nothing whatever to do with the basic mysteries of life--growth, etc. etc. The chemists think they have done wonders when they have produced in their laboratories certain organic substances--always by the use of other organic products--which life builds up within each organism, and from the few simple elements available in air, earth, and water, innumerable structures--bone, horn, hair, skin, blood, muscle, etc. etc.; and these are not amorphous--mere lumps of dead matter--but organised to serve certain definite purposes in each living organism. I have dwelt on this in my chapter on "The Mystery of the Cell." Now I have been unable to find any attempt by any biologist or physiologist to grapple with this problem. One and all, they shirk it, or simply state it to be insoluble. It is here that I state guidance and organising power are essential. My little physiological parable or allegory (p. 296) I think sets forth the difficulty fairly, though by no means adequately, yet not one of about fifty reviews I have read even mentions it.

If you know of any writer of sufficient knowledge and mental power, who has fully recognised and fairly grappled with this fundamental problem, I should be very glad to be referred to him. I have been able to find no approach to it. Yet I am at once howled at, or sneered at, for pointing out the facts that such problems exist, that they are not in any way touched by Evolution, but are far before it, and the forces, laws and agencies involved are those of existences possessed of powers, mental and physical, far beyond those mere mechanical, physical, or chemical forces we see at work in nature....--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

_The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. February 12, 1911._

Dear Mr. Wallace,-- ... You must let me correct you on one technical point in your letter. It is no longer possible to say that chemists effect the synthesis of organic products "by the use of other organic substances." From what has been already effected, it cannot be doubted that eventually every organic substance will be built up from "the few simple elements available in air, earth and water." I think you may take it from me that this does not admit of dispute....

At any rate we are in agreement as to Natural Selection being capable of explaining evolution "from amoeba to man."

It is generally admitted that that is a mechanical or scientific explanation. That is to say, it invokes nothing but intelligible actions and causes.

De Vries, however, asserts that the Darwinian theory is _not_ scientific at all, and that is of course a position he has a right to take up.

But if we admit that it is scientific, then we are precluded from admitting a "directive power."

This was von Baer's position, also that of Kant and of Weismann.

But von Baer remarks that the naturalist is not precluded from asking "whether the _totality_ of details leads him to a general and final basis of intentional design." I have no objection to this, and offer it as an olive-branch which you can throw to your howling and sneering critics.

As to "structures organised to serve certain definite purposes," surely they offer no more difficulty as regards "scientific" explanation than the apparatus by which an orchid is fertilised.

We can work back to the amoeba to find ourselves face to face with a scarcely organised mass of protoplasm. And then we find ourselves face to face with a problem which will, perhaps, for ever remain insoluble scientifically. But as for that, so is the primeval material of which it (protoplasm) is composed. "Matter" itself is evaporating, for it is being resolved by physical research into something which is intangible.

We cannot form the slightest idea how protoplasm came into existence. It is impossible to regard it as a mere substance. It is a mechanism. Although the chemist may hope to make eventually all the substances which protoplasm fabricates, and will probably do so, he can only build them up by the most complicated processes. Protoplasm appears to be able to manufacture them straight off in a way of which the chemist cannot form the slightest conception. This is one aspect of the mystery of _life_. Herbert Spencer's definition tells one nothing.

Science can only explain nature as it reveals itself to the senses in terms of consciousness. The explanation may be all wrong in the eyes of omniscience. All one can say is that it is a practical working basis, and is good enough for mundane purposes. But if I am asked if I can solve the riddle of the Universe I can only answer, No. Brunetière then retorts that science is bankrupt. But this is equivocal. It only means that it cannot meet demands beyond its power to satisfy.

I entirely sympathise with anyone who seeks an answer from some other non-scientific source. But I keep scientific explanations and spiritual craving wholly distinct.

The whole point of evolution, as formulated by Lyell and Darwin, is to explain phenomena by known causes. Now, directive power is not a known cause. Determinism compels me to believe that every event is inevitable. If we admit a directive power, the order of nature becomes capricious and unintelligible. Excuse my saying all this. But that is the dilemma as it presents itself to _my_ mind. If it does not trouble other people, I can only say, so much the better for them. Briefly, I am afraid I must say that it is ultra-scientific. I think that would have been pretty much Darwin's view.

I do not think that it is quite fair to say that biologists shirk the problem. In my opinion they are not called upon to face it. Bastian, I suppose, believed that he had bridged the gulf between lifeless and living matter. And here is a man, of whom I know nothing, who has apparently got the whole thing cut and dried.--Yours sincerely,

W.T. THISELTON-DYER.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. May 28, 1912._

My dear Poulton,--Thanks for your paper on Darwin and Bergson.[39] I have read nothing of Bergson's, and although he evidently has much in common with my own views, yet all vague ideas--like "an internal development force"--seem to me of no real value as an explanation of Nature.

I claim to have shown the necessity of an ever-present Mind as the primal cause both of all physical and biological evolution. This Mind works by and through the primal forces of nature--by means of Natural Selection in the world of life; and I do not think I could read a book which rejects this method in favour of a vague "law of sympathy." He might as well reject gravitation, electrical repulsion, etc. etc., as explaining the motions of cosmical bodies....--Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. BEN R. MILLER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset, January 18, 1913._

Dear Sir,--Thanks for your kind congratulations, and for the small pamphlet[40] you have sent me. I have read it with much interest, as the writer was evidently a man of thought and talent. The first lecture certainly gives an approach to Darwin's theory, perhaps nearer than any other, as he almost implies the "survival of the fittest" as the cause of progressive modification. But his language is imaginative and obscure. He uses "education" apparently in the sense of what we should term "effect of the environment."

The second lecture is even a more exact anticipation of the modern views as to microbes, including their transmission by flies and other insects and the probability that the blood of healthy persons contains a sufficiency of destroyers of the pathogenic germs--such as the white blood-corpuscles--to preserve us in health.

But he is so anti-clerical and anti-Biblical that it is no wonder he could not get a hearing in Boston in 1847.--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. April 2, 1913._

My dear Poulton,--About two months ago an American ... sent me the enclosed booklet,[41] which he had been told was very rare, and contained an anticipation of Darwinism.

This it certainly does, but the writer was highly imaginative, and, like all the other anticipators of Darwin, did not perceive the whole scope of his idea, being, as he himself says, not sufficiently acquainted with the facts of nature.

His anticipations, however, of diverging lines of descent from a common ancestor, and of the transmission of disease germs by means of insects, are perfectly clear and very striking.

As you yourself made known one of the anticipators of Darwin, whom he himself had overlooked, you are the right person to make this known in any way you think proper. As you have so recently been in America, you might perhaps ascertain from the librarian of the public library in Boston, or from some of your biological friends there, what is known of the writer and of his subsequent history.

If the house at Down is ever dedicated to Darwin's memory it would seem best to preserve this little book there; if not you can dispose of it as you think best.--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.--Two of my books have been translated into Japanese: will you ascertain whether the Bodleian would like to have them?

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON[42]

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset, June 3, 1913._

My dear Poulton,--I am very glad you have changed your view about the "Sleeper" lectures being a "fake." The writer was too earnest, and too clear a thinker, to descend to any such trick. And for what? "Agnostic" is not in Shakespeare, but it may well have been used by someone before Huxley. The parts of your Address of which you send me slips are excellent, and I am sure will be of great interest to your audience. I quite agree with your proposal that the "Lectures" shall be given to the Linnean Society.--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. August 26, 1913._

Dear Mr. Smedley,--I am glad to see you looking so jolly. I return the photo to give to some other friend. Mr. Marchant, the lecturer you heard, is a great friend of mine, but is now less dogmatic. The Piltdown skull does not prove much, if anything!

The papers are wrong about me. I am not writing anything now; perhaps shall write no more. Too many letters and home business. Too much bothered with many slight ailments, which altogether keep me busy attending to them. I am like Job, who said "the grasshopper was a burthen" to him! I suppose its creaking song.--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. W.J. FARMER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. 1913._

Dear Sir,-- ... I presume your question "Why?" as to the varying colour of individual hairs and feathers, and the regular varying of adjacent hairs, etc., to form the surface pattern, applies to the ultimate cause which enables those patterns to be hereditary, and, in the case of birds, to be reproduced after moulting yearly.

The purpose, or end they serve, I have, I think, sufficiently dealt with in my "Darwinism"; the method by which such useful tints and markings are produced, because useful, is, I think, clearly explained by the law of Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest, acting through the universal facts of heredity and variation.

But the "why"--which goes further back, to the directing agency which not only brings each special cell of the highly complex structure of a feather into its exactly right position, but, further, carries pigments or produces surface striæ (in the case of the metallic or interference colours) also to their exactly right place, and nowhere else--is the mystery, which, if we knew, we should (as Tennyson said of the flower in the wall) "know what God and Man is."

The idea that "cells" are all conscious beings and go to their right places has been put forward by Butler in his wonderful book "Life and Habit," and now even Haeckel seems to adopt it. All theories of heredity, including Darwin's pangenesis, do not touch it, and it seems to me as fundamental as life and consciousness, and to be absolutely inconceivable by us till we know what life is, what spirit is, and what matter is; and it is probable that we must develop in the spirit world some few thousand million years before we get to this knowledge--if then!

My book, "Man's Place in the Universe," shows, I think, indications of the vast importance of that Universe as the producer of Man which so many scientific men to-day try to belittle, because of what may be, in the infinite!--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.