[page] 338

[…]

March 14th (1861) Down, Bruly (?) (4), Kent

Dear Sir

I am much obliged for your long letter, as I always like to know how naturalists view the subject. I feel not a shade of surprise at your entirely rejecting my views: my surprise is that I have been successful in converting some few eminent Botanists, Zoologists and Geologists. In several cases the conversion has been very slow and that is the only sort of conversion which I respect (5). I entirely

 

(4) This word Bruly (?) is badly scribbled; should it read Bromley?

(5) DARWIN was perhaps thinking here of J.D. HOOKER and of CHARLES LYELL to whom he wrote on Nov. 23, 1859: "To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and HOOKER, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace." (The life and letters of CHARLES DARWIN, vol. 2, 229, 1887). On March 3, 1860, DARWIN enclosed in a letter to HOOKER a memorandum- of the scientists who had already accepted his views. I quote it from the same book p. 293: […]

[page] 339

[Facsimile]

[page] 340

agree with you that there is no more (p. 2) direct proof of variation being unlimited in amount than there is that it is strictly limited. In a new and corrected Edit. of the Origin, which will appear in about a week or two, I have printed this as emphatically as I could. I did not formerly explicitly say this (but indirectly in several places) because I thought it was obvious. The manner in which I wish to approach the whole subject, and in which it seems to me it may fairly be approached, I can best (p. 3) illustrate in the case of Light. The ether is hypothetical, as are its undulations; but as the undulatory hypothesis groups together and explains a multitude of phenomena, it is universally now admitted as the true theory. The undulations in the ether are considered in some degree probable, because sound is produced by undulations in air. So natural selection, I look at as in some degree probable, or possible, because we know what artificial selection can do. But I believe in nat. selection, not (p. 4) because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups and explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession and Distribution. I have no space to discuss the many points alluded to in your letter. I cannot see such perfection in structure as you do. In the new Edit. I have attempted to explain how it is that (p. 5) many low forms have not progressed to a higher grade of organisation. I did not allude to the very curious subject of "alternate generations" because I did not, and do not yet, see, how it has any special bearing on my views. I look at alternate generations, as not essentially differring from various stages in any one individual larva—a form of generation being merily added at some stage. (p. 6) Under the point of view I see no essential difference between alternate generations and metempsychosis: you, I presume, take some very different view. I forget what AGASSIZ says on the subject. I quite agree with you that AGASSIZ' Review (6) is not in the least unfair. He misunderstands me a good deal. His (p. 7) "categories of thought," "prophetic types" and his views on classification are to me merely empty sounds. To others they seem full of meaning.

I received several months ago and thank you for, a very curious pamphlet on representative form (7) (or some such title) which interested me very much. With (p. 8) the best thanks, I remain,

Dear Sir Yours very faithfully CHARLES DARWIN.

I am much pleased at and grateful for a sentence which you kindly copy from a recent letter from AGASSIZ. I once saw him, and was charmed with him.