"A few summary words. On the 'Origin of Species' Mr. Darwin has nothing, and is never likely to have anything, to say; but on the vastly important subject of inheritance, the transmission of peculiarities once acquired through successive generations, this work is a valuable store-house of facts for curious students and practical breeders."), showing profound contempt of me?...It is a shame that he should have said that I have taken much from Pouchet, without acknowledgment; for I took literally nothing, there being nothing to take. There is a capital review in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" which will sell the book if anything will. I don't quite see whether I or the writer is in a muddle about man CAUSING variability. If a man drops a bit of iron into sulphuric acid he does not cause the affinities to come into play, yet he may be said to make sulphate of iron.
I do not know how to avoid ambiguity.
After what the "Pall Mall Gazette" and the "Chronicle" have said I do not care a d--.
I fear Pangenesis is stillborn; Bates says he has read it twice, and is not sure that he understands it. H. Spencer says the view is quite different from his (and this is a great relief to me, as I feared to be accused of plagiarism, but utterly failed to be sure what he meant, so thought it safest to give my view as almost the same as his), and he says he is not sure he understands it...Am I not a poor devil? yet I took such pains, Imust think that I expressed myself clearly. Old Sir H. Holland says he has read it twice, and thinks it very tough; but believes that sooner or later "some view akin to it" will be accepted.
You will think me very self-sufficient, when I declare that I feel SURE if Pangenesis is now stillborn it will, thank God, at some future time reappear, begotten by some other father, and christened by some other name.
Have you ever met with any tangible and clear view of what takes place in generation, whether by seeds or buds, or how a long-lost character can possibly reappear; or how the male element can possibly affect the mother plant, or the mother animal, so that her future progeny are affected? Now all these points and many others are connected together, whether truly or falsely is another question, by Pangenesis. You see I die hard, and stick up for my poor child.
This letter is written for my own satisfaction, and not for yours. So bear it.
Yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO A. NEWTON. (Prof. of Zoology at Cambridge.)Down, February 9 [1870].
Dear Newton, I suppose it would be universally held extremely wrong for a defendant to write to a Judge to express his satisfaction at a judgment in his favour;and yet I am going thus to act. I have just read what you have said in the 'Record' ('Zoological Record.' The volume for 1868, published December 1869.) about my pigeon chapters, and it has gratified me beyond measure. Ihave sometimes felt a little disappointed that the labour of so many years seemed to be almost thrown away, for you are the first man capable of forming a judgment (excepting partly Quatrefages), who seems to have thought anything of this part of my work. The amount of labour, correspondence, and care, which the subject cost me, is more than you could well suppose. I thought the article in the "Athenaeum" was very unjust;but now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for your sympathy and too warm praise. What labour you have bestowed on your part of the 'Record'! I ought to be ashamed to speak of my amount of work. Ithoroughly enjoyed the Sunday, which you and the others spent here, and I remain, dear Newton, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE.
Down, February 27 [1868].
My dear Wallace, You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased by what you say about 'Pangenesis.' None of my friends will speak out...Hooker, as far as Iunderstand him, which I hardly do at present, seems to think that the hypothesis is little more than saying that organisms have such and such potentialities. What you say exactly and fully expresses my feeling, viz. that it is a relief to have some feasible explanation of the various facts, which can be given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It has certainly been an immense relief to my mind; for I have been stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that some relation existed between the various classes of facts. I now hear from H. Spencer that his views quoted in my foot-note refer to something quite distinct, as you seem to have perceived.
I shall be very glad to hear at some future day your criticisms on the "causes of variability." Indeed I feel sure that I am right about sterility and natural selection...I do not quite understand your case, and we think that a word or two is misplaced. I wish sometime you would consider the case under the following point of view:--If sterility is caused or accumulated through natural selection, than as every degree exists up to absolute barrenness, natural selection must have the power of increasing it. Now take two species, A and B, and assume that they are (by any means) half-sterile, i.e. produce half the full number of offspring.
Now try and make (by natural selection) A and B absolutely sterile when crossed, and you will find how difficult it is. I grant indeed, it is certain, that the degree of sterility of the individuals A and B will vary, but any such extra-sterile individuals of, we will say A, if they should hereafter breed with other individuals of A, will bequeath no advantage to their progeny, by which these families will tend to increase in number over other families of A, which are not more sterile when crossed with B. But Ido not know that I have made this any clearer than in the chapter in my book. It is a most difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and over again on paper with diagrams.
