The three years from 1855 to 1858 were for Wallace crowded with hard work, and perilous voyages by sea and hardships by land. January, 1858, found him at Amboyna, where, in all probability, he found a pile of long-delayed correspondence awaiting him, and among this a letter from Bates referring to the article which had appeared in print September, 1855. In reply he says: "To persons who have not thought much on the subject I fear my paper on the 'Succession of Species' will not appear so clear as it does to you. That paper is, of course, merely the announcement of the theory, not its development. I have prepared the plan and written portions of a work embracing the whole subject, and have endeavoured to prove in detail what I have as yet only indicated.... I have been much gratified by a letter from Darwin, in which he says that he agrees with 'almost every word' of my paper. He is now preparing his great work on 'Species and Varieties,' for which he has been preparing materials for twenty years. He may save me the trouble of writing more on my hypothesis, by proving that there is no difference in nature between the origin of species and of varieties; or he may give me trouble by arriving at another conclusion; but, at all events, his facts will be given for me to work upon. Your collections and my own will furnish most valuable material to illustrate and prove the universal application of the hypothesis. The connection between the succession of affinities and the geographical distribution of a group, worked out species by species, has never yet been shown as we shall be able to show it."

"This letter proves," writes Wallace,[22] "that at this time I had not the least idea of the nature of Darwin's proposed work nor of the definite conclusions he had arrived at, nor had I myself any expectations of a complete solution of the great problem to which my paper was merely the prelude. Yet less than two months later that solution flashed upon me, and to a large extent marked out a different line of work from that which I had up to this time anticipated.... In other parts of this letter I refer to the work I hoped to do myself in describing, cataloguing, and working out the distribution of my insects. I had in fact been bitten by the passion for species and their description, and if neither Darwin nor myself had hit upon 'Natural Selection,' I might have spent the best years of my life in this comparatively profitless work. But the new ideas swept all this away."

This letter was finished after his arrival at Ternate, and a few weeks later he was prostrated by a sharp attack of intermittent fever which obliged him to take a prolonged rest each day, owing to the exhausting hot and cold fits which rapidly succeeded one another.

The little bungalow at Ternate had now come to be regarded as "home" for it was here that he stored all his treasured collections, besides making it the goal of all his wanderings in the Archipelago. One can understand, therefore, that, in spite of the fever, there was a sense of satisfaction in the feeling that he was surrounded with the trophies of his arduous labours as a naturalist, and this passion for species and their descriptions being an ever-present speculation in his mind, his very surroundings would unconsciously conduce towards the line of thought which brought to memory the argument of "positive checks" set forth by Malthus in his "Principles of Population" (read twelve years earlier) as applied to savage and civilised races. "It then," he says, "occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also; and as animals usually breed much more rapidly than does mankind, the destruction every year from these causes must be enormous in order to keep down the numbers of each species, since they evidently do not increase regularly from year to year, as otherwise the world would have been densely crowded with those that breed most quickly.... Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive. Then at once I seemed to see the whole effect of this, that when changes of land and sea, or of climate, or of food-supply, or of enemies occurred—and we know that such changes have always been taking place—and considering the amount of individual variation that my experience as a collector had shown me to exist, then it followed that all the changes necessary for the adaptation of the species to the changing conditions would be brought about; and as great changes in the environment are always slow, there would be ample time for the change to be effected by the survival of the best fitted in every generation. In this way every part of an animal's organism could be modified as required, and in the very process of this modification the unmodified would die out, and thus the definite characters and the clear isolation of each new species would be explained. The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species. For the next hour I thought over the deficiencies in the theories of Lamarck and of the author of the 'Vestiges,' and I saw that my new theory supplemented these views and obviated every important difficulty. I waited anxiously for the termination of my fit (of fever) so that I might at once make notes for a paper on the subject. The same evening I did this pretty fully, and on the two succeeding evenings wrote it out carefully in order to send it to Darwin by the next post, which would leave in a day or two."[23]

The story of the arrival of this letter at Down, and of the swift passage of events between the date on which Darwin received it and the reading of the "joint communications" before the Linnean Society, has been often told. But few, perhaps, have enjoyed the privilege of reading the account of this memorable proceeding as related by Sir Joseph Hooker at the celebration of the event held by the Linnean Society in 1908.

As, therefore, the correspondence (pp. 127-320) between Wallace and Darwin during a long series of years conveys many expressions of their mutual appreciation of each other's work in connection with the origin of species, it will avoid a possible repetition of these if we take a long leap forward and give the notable speeches made by Wallace, Sir Joseph Hooker, Sir E. Ray Lankester, and others at this historical ceremony, which have not been published except in the Proceedings of the Society, now out of print.

The gathering was held on July 1, 1908, at the Institute of Civil Engineers, Great George Street, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the joint communication made by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace to the Linnean Society, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." The large gathering included the President, Dr. Dukinfield H. Scott, distinguished representatives of many scientific Societies and Universities, the Danish and Swedish Ministers, and a representative from the German Embassy. Most of the members of Dr. Wallace's and Mr. Darwin's family were also present.[24] The President opened with some explanatory observations, and then invited Wallace to come forward in order to receive the first Darwin-Wallace Medal. In presenting it he said:

Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace,—We rejoice that we are so happy as to have with us to-day the survivor of the two great naturalists whose crowning work we are here to commemorate.

Your brilliant work in natural history and geography, and as one of the founders of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, is universally honoured and has often received public recognition, as in the awards of the Darwin and Royal Medals of the Royal Society, and of our Medal in 1892.

To-day, in asking you to accept the first Darwin-Wallace Medal, we are offering you of your own, for it is you, equally with your great colleague, who created the occasion we celebrate.

There is nothing in the history of science more delightful or more noble than the story of the relations between yourself and Mr. Darwin, as told in the correspondence now so fully published—the story of a generous rivalry in which each discoverer strives to exalt the claims of the other. We know that Mr. Darwin wrote (April 6th, 1859): "You cannot tell how much I admire your spirit in the manner in which you have taken all that was done about publishing our papers. I had actually written a letter to you stating that I would not publish anything before you had published." Then came the letters of Hooker and Lyell, leading to the publication of the joint papers which they communicated.

You, on your side, always gave the credit to him, and underestimated your own position as the co-discoverer. I need only refer to your calling your great exposition of the joint theory "Darwinism," as the typical example of your generous emphasising of the claims of your illustrious fellow-worker.

It was a remarkable and momentous coincidence that both you and he should have independently arrived at the idea of Natural Selection after reading Malthus's book, and a most happy inspiration that you should have selected Mr. Darwin as the naturalist to whom to communicate your discovery. That theory, in spite of changes in the scientific fashion of the moment, you have always unflinchingly maintained, and still uphold as unshaken by all attacks.

Like Mr. Darwin, you, if I may say so, are above all a naturalist, a student and lover of living animals and plants, as shown in later years by your enthusiasm and success in gardening. It is to such men, those who have learnt the ways of Nature, as Nature really is in the open, to whom your doctrine of Natural Selection specially appeals, and therein lies its great and lasting strength.

Finally, you must allow me to allude to the generous interest you have always shown, and continue to show, in the careers of younger men who are endeavouring to follow in your steps.

I ask you, Dr. Wallace, to accept this Medal, struck in your honour and in that of the great work inaugurated fifty years ago by Mr. Darwin and yourself.

Wallace began his reply by thanking the Council of the Society for the Honour they had done him, and then proceeded:

Since the death of Darwin, in 1882, I have found myself in the somewhat unusual position of receiving credit and praise from popular writers under a complete misapprehension of what my share in Darwin's work really amounted to. It has been stated (not unfrequently) in the daily and weekly press, that Darwin and myself discovered "Natural Selection" simultaneously, while a more daring few have declared that I was the first to discover it, and I gave way to Darwin!

In order to avoid further errors of this kind (which this Celebration may possibly encourage), I think it will be well to give the actual facts as simply and clearly as possible.

The one fact that connects me with Darwin, and which, I am happy to say, has never been doubted, is that the idea of what is now termed "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest," together with its far-reaching consequences, occurred to us independently, and was first jointly announced before this Society fifty years ago.

But, what is often forgotten by the Press and the public is, that the idea occurred to Darwin in 1838, nearly twenty years earlier than to myself (in February, 1858); and that during the whole of that twenty years he had been laboriously collecting evidence from the vast mass of literature of biology, of horticulture, and of agriculture; as well as himself carrying out ingenious experiments and original observations, the extent of which is indicated by the range of subjects discussed in his "Origin of Species," and especially in that wonderful storehouse of knowledge, his "Animals and Plants under Domestication," almost the whole materials for which work had been collected, and to a large extent systematised, during that twenty years.

So far back as 1844, at a time when I had hardly thought of any serious study of nature, Darwin had written an outline of his views, which he communicated to his friends Sir Charles Lyell and Dr. (now Sir Joseph) Hooker. The former strongly urged him to publish an abstract of his theory as soon as possible, lest some other person might precede him; but he always refused till he had got together the whole of the materials for his intended great work. Then, at last, Lyell's prediction was fulfilled, and, without any apparent warning, my letter, with the enclosed essay, came upon him, like a thunderbolt from a cloudless sky! This forced him to what he considered a premature publicity, and his two friends undertook to have our two papers read before this Society.

How different from this long study and preparation—this philosophical caution—this determination not to make known his fruitful conception till he could back it up by overwhelming proofs—was my own conduct.

The idea came to me as it had come to Darwin, in a sudden flash of insight; it was thought out in a few hours—was written down with such a sketch of its various applications and developments as occurred to me at the moment—then copied on thin letter paper and sent off to Darwin—all within one week. I was then (as often since) the "young man in a hurry": he, the painstaking and patient student seeking ever the full demonstration of the truth that he had discovered, rather than to achieve immediate personal fame.

Such being the actual facts of the case, I should have had no cause for complaint if the respective shares of Darwin and myself in regard to the elucidation of Nature's method of organic development had been henceforth estimated as being, roughly, proportional to the time we had each bestowed upon it when it was thus first given to the world—that is to say, as twenty years is to one week. For, he had already made it his own. If the persuasion of his friends had prevailed with him, and he had published his theory after ten years'—fifteen years'—or even eighteen years' elaboration of it—I should have had no part in it whatever, and he would have been at once recognised as the sole and undisputed discoverer and patient investigator of this great law of "Natural Selection" in all its far-reaching consequences.

It was really a singular piece of good luck that gave to me any share whatever in the discovery. During the first half of the nineteenth century (and even earlier) many great biological thinkers and workers had been pondering over the problem and had even suggested ingenious but inadequate solutions. Some of these men were among the greatest intellects of our time, yet, till Darwin, all had failed; and it was only Darwin's extreme desire to perfect his work that allowed me to come in, as a very bad second, in the truly Olympian race in which all philosophical biologists, from Buffon and Erasmus Darwin to Richard Owen and Robert Chambers, were more or less actively engaged.

And this brings me to the very interesting question: Why did so many of the greatest intellects fail, while Darwin and myself hit upon the solution of this problem—a solution which this Celebration proves to have been (and still to be) a satisfying one to a large number of those best able to form a judgment on its merits? As I have found what seems to me a good and precise answer to this question, and one which is of some psychological interest, I will, with your permission, briefly state what it is.

On a careful consideration, we find a curious series of correspondences, both in mind and in environment, which led Darwin and myself, alone among our contemporaries, to reach identically the same theory.

First (and most important, as I believe), in early life both Darwin and myself became ardent beetle-hunters. Now there is certainly no group of organisms that so impresses the collector by the almost infinite number of its specific forms, the endless modifications of structure, shape, colour, and surface-markings that distinguish them from each other, and their innumerable adaptations to diverse environments. These interesting features are exhibited almost as strikingly in temperate as in tropical regions, our own comparatively limited island-fauna possessing more than 3,000 species of this one order of insects.

Again, both Darwin and myself had what he terms "the mere passion for collecting," not that of studying the minutiae of structure, either internal or external. I should describe it rather as an intense interest in the variety of living things—the variety that catches the eye of the observer even among those which are very much alike, but which are soon found to differ in several distinct characters.

Now it is this superficial and almost child-like interest in the outward forms of living things which, though often despised as unscientific, happened to be the only one which would lead us towards a solution of the problem of species. For Nature herself distinguishes her species by just such characters—often exclusively so, always in some degree—very small changes in outline, or in the proportions of appendages—as give a quite distinct and recognisable facies to each, often aided by slight peculiarities in motion or habit; while in a larger number of cases differences of surface-texture, of colour, or in the details of the same general scheme of colour-pattern or of shading, give an unmistakable individuality to closely allied species.

It is the constant search for and detection of these often unexpected differences between very similar creatures that gives such an intellectual charm and fascination to the mere collection of these insects; and when, as in the case of Darwin and myself, the collectors were of a speculative turn of mind, they were constantly led to think upon the "why" and the "how" of all this wonderful variety in nature—this overwhelming and, at first sight, purposeless wealth of specific forms among the very humblest forms of life.

Then, a little later (and with both of us almost accidentally) we became travellers, collectors, and observers, in some of the richest and most interesting portions of the earth; and we thus had forced upon our attention all the strange phenomena of local and geographical distribution, with the numerous problems to which they give rise. Thenceforward our interest in the great mystery of how species came into existence was intensified, and—again to use Darwin's expression—"haunted" us.

Finally, both Darwin and myself, at the critical period when our minds were freshly stored with a considerable body of personal observation and reflection bearing upon the problem to be solved, had our attention directed to the system of positive checks as expounded by Malthus in his "Principles of Population." The effect of that was analogous to that of friction upon the specially prepared match, producing that flash of insight which led us immediately to the simple but universal law of the "survival of the fittest," as the long-sought effective cause of the continuous modification and adaptations of living things.

It is an unimportant detail that Darwin read this book two years after his return from his voyage, while I read it before I went abroad, and it was a sudden recollection of its teachings that caused the solution to flash upon me. I attach much importance, however, to the large amount of solitude we both enjoyed during our travels, which, at the most impressionable period of our lives, gave us ample time for reflection on the phenomena we were daily observing.

This view, of the combination of certain mental faculties and external conditions that led Darwin and myself to an identical conception, also serves to explain why none of our precursors or contemporaries hit upon what is really so very simple a solution of the great problem. Such evolutionists as Robert Chambers, Herbert Spencer, and Huxley, though of great intellect, wide knowledge, and immense power of work, had none of them the special turn of mind that makes the collector and the species-man; while they all—as well as the equally great thinker on similar lines, Sir Charles Lyell—became in early life immersed in different lines of research which engaged their chief attention.

Neither did the actual precursors of Darwin in the statement of the principle—Wells, Matthews and Prichard—possess any adequate knowledge of the class of facts above referred to, or sufficient antecedent interest in the problem itself, which were both needed in order to perceive the application of the principle to the mode of development of the varied forms of life.

And now, to recur to my own position, I may be allowed to make a final remark. I have long since come to see that no one deserves either praise or blame for the ideas that come to him, but only for the actions resulting therefrom. Ideas and beliefs are certainly not voluntary acts. They come to us—we hardly know how or whence, and once they have got possession of us we cannot reject or change them at will. It is for the common good that the promulgation of ideas should be free—uninfluenced either by praise or blame, reward or punishment.

But the actions which result from our ideas may properly be so treated, because it is only by patient thought and work that new ideas, if good and true, become adapted and utilised; while if untrue, or if not adequately presented to the world, they are rejected or forgotten.

I therefore accept the crowning honour you have conferred on me to-day, not for the happy chance through which I became an independent originator of the doctrine of "survival of the fittest," but as a too liberal recognition by you of the moderate amount of time and work I have given to explain and elucidate the theory, to point out some novel applications of it, and (I hope I may add) for my attempts to extend those applications, even in directions which somewhat diverged from those accepted by my honoured friend and teacher Charles Darwin.

Sir Joseph Hooker was now called upon by the President to receive the Darwin-Wallace Medal. In acknowledging the honour that had been paid him, he said:

No thesis or subject was vouchsafed to me by the Council, but, having gratefully accepted the honour, I was bound to find one for myself. It soon dawned upon me that the object sought by my selection might have been that, considering the intimate terms upon which Mr. Darwin extended to me his friendship, I could from my memory contribute to the knowledge of some important events in his career. It having been intimated to me that this was in a measure true, I have selected as such an event one germane to this Celebration and also engraven on my memory, namely, the considerations which determined Mr. Darwin to assent to the course which Sir Charles Lyell and myself had suggested to him, that of presenting to the Society, in one communication, his own and Mr. Wallace's theories on the effect of variation and the struggle for existence on the evolution of species.

You have all read Francis Darwin's fascinating work as editor of his father's "Life and Letters," where you will find (Vol. II., p. 116) a letter addressed, on the 18th of June, 1858, to Sir Charles Lyell by Mr. Darwin, who states that he had on that day received a communication from Mr. Wallace written from the Celebes Islands requesting that it might be sent to him (Sir Charles).

In a covering letter Mr. Darwin pointed out that the enclosure contained a sketch of a theory of Natural Selection as depending on the struggle for existence so identical with one he himself entertained and fully described in MS. in 1842 that he never saw a more striking coincidence: had Mr. Wallace seen his sketch he could not have made a better short abstract, even his terms standing "as heads of chapters." He goes on to say that he would at once write to Mr. Wallace offering to send his MS. to any journal; and concludes: "So my originality is smashed, though my book [the forthcoming 'Origin of Species'], if it will have any value will not be deteriorated, as all know the labour consists in the application of the theory."

After writing to Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Darwin informed me of Mr. Wallace's letter and its enclosure, in a similar strain, only more explicitly announcing his resolve to abandon all claim to priority for his own sketch. I could not but protest against such a course, no doubt reminding him that I had read it and that Sir Charles knew its contents some years before the arrival of Mr. Wallace's letter; and that our withholding our knowledge of its priority would be unjustifiable. I further suggested the simultaneous publication of the two, and offered—should he agree to such a compromise—to write to Mr. Wallace fully informing him of the motives of the course adopted.

In answer Mr. Darwin thanked me warmly for my offer to explain all to Mr. Wallace, and in a later letter he informed me that he was disposed to look favourably on my suggested compromise, but that before making up his mind he desired a second opinion as to whether he could honourably claim priority, and that he proposed applying to Sir Charles Lyell for this. I need not say that this was a relief to me, knowing as I did what Sir Charles's answer must be.

In Vol. II., pp. 117-18, of the "Life and Letters," Mr. Darwin's application to Sir Charles Lyell is given, dated June 26th, with a postscript dated June 27th. In it he requests that the answer shall be sent to me to be forwarded to himself. I have no recollection of reading the answer, which is not to be found either in Darwin's or my own correspondence; it was no doubt satisfactory.

Further action was now left in the hands of Sir Charles and myself, we all agreeing that, whatever action was taken, the result should be offered for publication to the Linnean Society.

On June 29th Mr. Darwin wrote to me in acute distress, being himself very ill, and scarlet fever raging in the family, to which one infant son had succumbed on the previous day, and a daughter was ill with diphtheria. He acknowledged the receipt of the letter from me, adding, "I cannot think now of the subject, but soon will: you shall hear as soon as I can think"; and on the night of the same day he writes again, telling me that he is quite prostrated and can do nothing but send certain papers for which I had asked as essential for completing the prefatory statement to the communication to the Linnean Society of Mr. Wallace's essay....

The communications were read, as was the custom in those days, by the Secretary to the Society. Mr. Darwin himself, owing to his illness and distress, could not be present. Sir Charles Lyell and myself said a few words to emphasise the importance of the subject, but, as recorded in the "Life and Letters" (Vol. II., p. 126), although intense interest was excited, no discussion took place: "the subject was too novel, too ominous, for the old school to enter the lists before armouring." ...

It must also be noticed that for the detailed history given above there is no documentary evidence beyond what Francis Darwin has produced in the "Life and Letters." There are no letters from Lyell relating to it, not even answers to Mr. Darwin's of the 18th, 25th, and 26th of June; and Sir Leonard Lyell has at my request very kindly but vainly searched his uncle's correspondence for any relating to this subject beyond the two above mentioned. There are none of my letters to either Lyell or Darwin, nor other evidence of their having existed beyond the latter's acknowledgment of the receipt of some of them; and, most surprising of all, Mr. Wallace's letter and its enclosure have disappeared. Such is my recollection of this day, the fiftieth anniversary of which we are now celebrating, and of the fortnight that immediately preceded it.

It remains for me to ask your forgiveness for intruding upon your time and attention with the half-century-old real or fancied memories of a nonagenarian as contributions to the history of the most notable event in the annals of Biology that had followed the appearance in 1735 of the "Systema Naturae" of Linnaeus.

Following Sir J. Hooker, the President, referring to Prof. Haeckel, who was unable to be present, said that he was "the great apostle of the Darwin-Wallace theory in Germany ... his enthusiastic and gallant advocacy [having] chiefly contributed to its success in that country.... A man of world-wide reputation, the leader on the Continent of the 'Old Guard' of evolutionary biologists, Prof. Haeckel was one whom the Linnean Society delighted to honour." Two more German scientists were honoured with the Medal, namely Prof. August Weismann (who was also absent), and Prof. Eduard Strasburger, the latter paying a special tribute to Wallace in saying: "When I was young the investigations and the thought of Alfred Russel Wallace brought me a great stimulus. Through his 'Malay Archipelago' a new world of scientific knowledge was unfolded before me. On this occasion I feel it my duty to proclaim it with gratitude." The Medal was then presented to Sir Francis Galton, who delivered a notable speech in responding. The last on this occasion to receive the Medal was Sir E. Ray Lankester, who, in replying to the President's graceful speech, referred to the happy relationships which had existed between the contemporary men of science of his own time, but with special reference to Darwin and Wallace he said:

Never was there a more beautiful example of modesty, of unselfish admiration for another's work, of loyal determination that the other should receive the full merit of his independent labours and thoughts, than was shown by Charles Darwin on that occasion....

Subsequently, throughout all their arduous work and varied publications upon the great doctrine which they on that day unfolded to humanity ... the same complete absence of rivalry characterised these high-minded Englishmen, even when in some outcomes of their doctrine they were not in perfect agreement.... I think I am able to say that great as was the interest excited by the new doctrine in the scientific world, and wild and angry as was the opposition to it in some quarters, few, if any, who took part in the scenes attending the birth and earlier reception of Darwin's "Origin of Species" had a prevision of the enormous and all-important influence which that doctrine was destined to exercise upon every line of human thought.... It is in its application to the problems of human society that there still remains an enormous field of work and discovery for the Darwin-Wallace doctrine.

In the special branch of study which Wallace himself set going—the inquiry into the local variations, races, and species of insects as evidence of descent with modification, and of the mechanism by which that modification is brought about—there is still great work in progress, still an abundant field to be reaped.... Several able observers and experimenters have set themselves the task of improving, if possible, the theoretical structure raised by Darwin and Wallace.... But I venture to express the opinion that they have none of them resulted in any serious modification of the great doctrine submitted to the Linnean Society on July 1st, 1858, by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Not only do the main lines of the theory of Darwin and Wallace remain unchanged, but the more it is challenged by new suggestions and new hypotheses the more brilliantly do the novelty, the importance, and the permanent value of the work by those great men, to-day commemorated by us, shine forth as the one great epoch-making effort of human thought on this subject.

Sir Francis Darwin and Sir William Thiselton-Dyer spoke on behalf of Schools which had sent representatives to the meeting; Prof. Loennberg and Sir Archibald Geikie on behalf of the Academies and Societies; while Lord Avebury delivered the concluding address.

Any summary of this period in the lives of Darwin and Wallace would be incomplete without some distinct reference to one other name, namely, that of Herbert Spencer, whom I have linked with them in the Introduction.

While we owe to Darwin and Wallace a definite theory of organic development, it must be remembered that Spencer included this in the general scheme of Evolution which grew as slowly but surely in his mind—and as independently as did that of the origin of species in the minds of Darwin and Wallace. Huxley recalls: "Within the ranks of biologists, at that time, I met with nobody except Dr. Grant, of University College, who had a word to say for Evolution—and his advocacy was not calculated to advance the cause. Outside these ranks, the only person known to me whose knowledge and capacity compelled respect, and who was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr. Herbert Spencer.... Many and prolonged were the battles we fought on this topic.... I took my stand upon two grounds: first, that up to that time the evidence in favour of transmutation was wholly insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestions respecting the causes of the transmutations assumed ... were in any war adequate to explain the phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, I really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable."[25]

And Prof. Raphael Meldola, in a lecture on Evolution wherein he compares the impression left by each of these great founders of that school upon the current of modern thought, says: "Through all ... his [Spencer's] writings the underlying idea of development can be traced with increasing depth and breadth, expanding in 1850 in his 'Social Statics' to a foreshadowing of the general doctrine of Evolution. In 1852 his views on organic evolution had become so definite that he gave public expression to them in that well-known and powerful essay on 'The Development Hypothesis.' ... In the 'Principles of Psychology,' the first edition of which was published in 1855, the evolutionary principle was dominant. By 1858—the year of the announcement of Natural Selection by Darwin and Wallace—he had conceived the great general scheme and had sketched out the first draft of the prospectus of the Synthetic Philosophy, the final and amended syllabus [being] issued in 1860. The work of Darwin and Spencer from that period, although moving along independent lines, was directed towards the same end, notwithstanding the diversity of materials which they made use of and the differences in their methods of attack; that end was the establishment of Evolution as a great natural principle or law."[26]

In this connection it is especially interesting to note how near Spencer had come to the conception of Natural Selection without grasping its full significance. In an article on a "Theory of Population" (published in the Westminster Review for April, 1852) he wrote: "And here, indeed, without further illustration, it will be seen that premature death, under all its forms and from all its causes, cannot fail to work in the same direction. For as those prematurely carried off must, in the average of cases, be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the least, it unavoidably follows that those left behind to continue the race must be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest—must be the select of their generation. So that whether the dangers of existence be of the kind produced by excess of fertility, or of any other kind, it is clear that by the ceaseless exercise of the faculties needed to contend with them, and by the death of all men who fail to contend with them successfully, there is ensured a constant progress towards a higher degree of skill, intelligence, self-regulation—a better co-ordinance of actions—a more complete life."

Up to the period of the publication of the "Origin of Species" and the first conception of the scheme of the Synthetic Philosophy there had been no communication between Darwin and Spencer beyond the presentation by Spencer of a copy of his Essays to Darwin in 1858, which was duly acknowledged. But by the time the "Origin of Species" had been before the public for eight years, the Darwinian principle of selection had become an integral part of the Spencerian mechanism of organic evolution. Indeed the term "survival of the fittest," approved by both Darwin and Wallace as an alternative for "natural selection," was, as is well known, introduced by Spencer.

Wallace's relations with Spencer, though somewhat controversial at times, were nevertheless cordial and sympathetic. In "My Life" he tells of his first visit, and the impression left upon his mind by their conversation. It occurred somewhere about 1862-3, shortly after he and Bates had read, and been greatly impressed by, Spencer's "First Principles." "Our thoughts," he says, "were full of the great unsolved problem of the origin of life—a problem which Darwin's 'Origin of Species' left in as much obscurity as ever—and we looked to Spencer as the one man living who could give us some clue to it. His wonderful exposition of the fundamental laws and conditions, actions and interactions of the material universe seemed to penetrate so deeply into that 'nature of things' after which the early philosophers searched in vain ... that we hoped he would throw some light on that great problem of problems.... He was very pleasant, spoke appreciatively of what we had both done for the practical exposition of evolution, and hoped we would continue to work at the subject. But when we touched upon the great problem, and whether he had arrived at even one of the first steps towards its solution, our hopes were dashed at once. That, he said, was too fundamental a problem to even think of solving at present. We did not yet know enough of matter in its essential constitution nor of the various forces of nature; and all he could say was that everything pointed to its having been a development out of matter—a phase of that continuous process of evolution by which the whole universe had been brought to its present condition. And so we had to wait and work contentedly at minor problems. And now, after forty years, though Spencer and Darwin and Weismann have thrown floods of light on the phenomena of life, its essential nature and its origin remain as great a mystery as ever. Whatever light we do possess is from a source which Spencer and Darwin neglected or ignored."[27]

In his presidential address to the Entomological Society in 1872 Wallace made some special allusion to Spencer's theory of the origin of instincts, and on receiving a copy of the address Spencer wrote: "It is gratifying to me to find that your extended knowledge does not lead you to scepticism respecting the speculation of mine which you quote, but rather enables you to cite further facts in justification of it. Possibly your exposition will lead some of those, in whose lines of investigation the question lies, to give deliberate attention to it." A further proof of his confidence was shown by asking Wallace (in 1874) to look over the proofs of the first six chapters of his "Principles of Sociology" in order that he might have the benefit of his criticisms alike as naturalist, anthropologist, and traveller.

This brief reference to the illustrious group of men to whom we owe the foundations of this new epoch of evolutionary thought—and not the foundations only, but also the patient building up of the structure upon which each one continued to perform his allotted task—and the prefatory notes and the footnotes attached to the letters will serve to elucidate the historical correspondence between Darwin and Wallace which follows.



PART II (Continued)



II.—The Complete Extant Correspondence between Wallace and Darwin

[1857—81]

"I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect—and very few things in my life have been more satisfactory to me—that we have never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in some senses rivals. I believe I can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is true of you."—DARWIN to Wallace.

"To have thus inspired and retained this friendly feeling, notwithstanding our many differences of opinion, I feel to be one of the greatest honours of my life."—WALLACE to Darwin.

"I think the way he [Wallace] carries on controversy is perfectly beautiful, and in future histories of science the Wallace-Darwin episode will form one of the few bright points among rival claimants."—ERASMUS DARWIN to his niece, Henrietta Darwin, 1871.

The first eight letters from Darwin to Wallace were found amongst the latter's papers, carefully preserved in an envelope on the outside of which he had written the words reproduced on the next page. Neither Wallace's part of this correspondence, nor the original MS. of his essay "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type," which he sent to Darwin from Ternate, has been discovered. But these eight letters from Darwin explain themselves and reveal the inner story of the independent discovery of the theory of Natural Selection.

With respect to the letters which follow the first eight, both sides of the correspondence, with few exceptions, have been brought together. Some of the letters have already appeared in "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" and "More Letters," others in "My Life," by A.R. Wallace, whilst many have not before been published.

Some of these letters, in themselves, have little more than ephemeral interest, and parts of other letters could have been eliminated, from the point of view of lightening this volume and of economising the reader's attention. But I decided, with the fullest approval of the Wallace and Darwin families, that the letters of these illustrious correspondents should be here presented as a whole, without mutilation.



Many of the notes of explanation to the Wallace letters have been gathered from his own writings, and are mainly in his own words, and in such cases the reader has the advantage of perusing letters annotated by their author, while most of the notes to the Darwin letters are by Sir F. Darwin.

* * * * *

LETTER I

C. DARWIN to A.R. WALLACE

Down, Bromley, Kent, May 1, 1857.

My dear Sir,—I am much obliged for your letter of Oct. 10th from Celebes, received a few days ago: in a laborious undertaking, sympathy is a valuable and real encouragement. By your letter, and even still more by your paper in the Annals,[28] a year or more ago, I can plainly see that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent have come to similar conclusions. In regard to the paper in the Annals, I agree to the truth of almost every word of your paper; and I daresay that you will agree with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty closely with any theoretical paper; for it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions from the very same fact. This summer will make the twentieth year (!) since I opened my first note-book on the question how and in what way do species and varieties differ from each other. I am now preparing my work for publication, but I find the subject so very large, that though I have written many chapters, I do not suppose I shall go to press for two years.

I have never heard how long you intend staying in the Malay Archipelago; I wish I might profit by the publication of your Travels there before my work appears, for no doubt you will reap a large harvest of facts.

I have acted already in accordance with your advice of keeping domestic varieties, and those appearing in a state of nature, distinct; but I have sometimes doubted of the wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad to be backed by your opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt the truth of the now very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic animals having descended from several wild stocks; though I do not doubt that it is so in some cases. I think there is rather better evidence on the sterility of hybrid animals than you seem to admit: and in regard to plants, the collection of carefully recorded facts by Koelreuter and Gaertner (and Herbert) is enormous. I most entirely agree with you on the little effect of "climatic conditions" which one sees referred to ad nauseam in all books: I suppose some very little effect must be attributed to such influences, but I fully believe that they are very slight. It is really impossible to explain my views in the compass of a letter as to causes and means of variation in a state of nature; but I have slowly adopted a distinct and tangible idea—whether true or false others must judge; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a doctrine by its author seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee of truth.

I have been rather disappointed at my results in the poultry line; but if you should, after receiving this, stumble on any curious domestic breed, I should be very glad to have it; but I can plainly see that the result will not be at all worth the trouble which I have taken. The case is different with the domestic pigeons; from its study I have learned much. The Rajah has sent me some of his pigeons and fowls and cats' skins from the interior of Borneo and from Singapore. Can you tell me positively that black jaguars or leopards are believed generally or always to pair with black? I do not think colour of offspring good evidence. Is the case of parrots fed on fat of fish turning colour mentioned in your Travels? I remember a case of parrots with (I think) poison from some toad put into hollow whence primaries had been removed.

One of the subjects on which I have been experimenting, and which cost me much trouble, is the means of distribution of all organic beings found on oceanic islands; and any facts on this subject would be most gratefully received.

Land-molluscs are a great perplexity to me. This is a very dull letter, but I am a good deal out of health, and am writing this, not from my home, as dated, but from a water-cure establishment.

With most sincere good wishes for your success in every way, I remain, my dear Sir, yours sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

LETTER II

C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE

Down, Bromley, Kent. December 22, 1867.

My dear Sir,—I thank you for your letter of Sept. 27th. I am extremely glad to hear that you are attending to distribution in accordance with theoretical ideas. I am a firm believer that without speculation there is no good and original observation. Few travellers have attended to such points as you are now at work on; and indeed the whole subject of distribution of animals is dreadfully behind that of plants. You say that you have been somewhat surprised at no notice having been taken of your paper in the Annals. I cannot say that I am; for so very few naturalists care for anything beyond the mere description of species. But you must not suppose that your paper has not been attended to: two very good men, Sir C. Lyell, and Mr. E. Blyth at Calcutta, specially called my attention to it. Though agreeing with you on your conclusions in the paper, I believe I go much further than you; but it is too long a subject to enter on my speculative notions. I have not yet seen your paper on distribution of animals in the Aru Islands: I shall read it with the utmost interest; for I think that the most interesting quarter of the whole globe in respect to distribution; and I have long been very imperfectly trying to collect data from the Malay Archipelago. I shall be quite prepared to subscribe to your doctrine of subsidence: indeed from the quite independent evidence of the coral reefs I coloured my original map in my Coral volumes colours [sic] of the Aru Islands as one of subsidence, but got frightened and left it uncoloured. But I can see that you are inclined to go much further than I am in regard to the former connection of oceanic islands with continents. Ever since poor E. Forbes propounded this doctrine, it has been eagerly followed; and Hooker elaborately discusses the former connection of all the Antarctic islands and New Zealand and South America. About a year ago I discussed the subject much with Lyell and Hooker (for I shall have to treat of it) and wrote out my arguments in opposition; but you will be glad to hear that neither Lyell nor Hooker thought much of my arguments; nevertheless, for once in my life I dare withstand the almost preternatural sagacity of Lyell. You ask about land-shells on islands far distant from continents: Madeira has a few identical with those of Europe, and here the evidence is really good, as some of them are sub-fossil. In the Pacific islands there are cases of identity, which I cannot at present persuade myself to account for by introduction through man's agency; although Dr. Aug. Gould has conclusively shown that many land-shells have thus been distributed over the Pacific by man's agency. These cases of introduction are most plaguing. Have you not found it so in the Malay Archipelago? It has seemed to me, in the lists of mammals of Timor and other islands, that several in all probability have been naturalised.

Since writing before, I have experimented a little on some land-molluscs, and have found sea-water not quite so deadly as I anticipated. You ask whether I shall discuss Man: I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices, though I fully admit that it is the highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist. My work, on which I have now been at work more or less for twenty years, will not fix or settle anything; but I hope it will aid by giving a large collection of facts with one definite end. I get on very slowly, partly from ill-health, partly from being a very slow worker. I have got about half written; but I do not suppose I shall publish under a couple of years. I have now been three whole months on one chapter on hybridism!

I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three or four years more: what a wonderful deal you will have seen; and what an interesting area, the grand Malay Archipelago and the richest parts of South America! I infinitely admire and honour your zeal and courage in the good cause of natural science; and you have my very sincere and cordial good wishes for success of all kinds; and may all your theories succeed, except that on oceanic islands, on which subject I will do battle to the death.—Pray believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

* * * * *

LETTER III

C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE

Down, Bromley, Kent. January 25, 1859.

My dear Sir,—I was extremely much pleased at receiving three days ago your letter to me and that to Dr. Hooker. Permit me to say how heartily I admire the spirit in which they are written. Though I had absolutely nothing whatever to do in leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought a fair course of action, yet I naturally could not but feel anxious to hear what your impression would be. I owe indirectly much to you and them; for I almost think that Lyell would have proved right and I should never have completed my larger work, for I have found my abstract[29] hard enough with my poor health; but now, thank God, I am in my last chapter but one. My abstract will make a small volume of 400 or 500 pages. Whenever published, I will of course send you a copy, and then you will see what I mean about the part which I believe selection has played with domestic productions. It is a very different part, as you suppose, from that played by "natural selection."

I sent off, by same address as this note, a copy of the Journal of the Linnean Society, and subsequently I have sent some half-dozen copies of the Paper. I have many other copies at your disposal; and I sent two to your friend Dr. Davies (?), author of works on men's skulls.

I am glad to hear that you have been attending to birds' nests; I have done so, though almost exclusively under one point of view, viz. to show that instincts vary, so that selection could work on and improve them. Few other instincts, so to speak, can be preserved in a museum.

Many thanks for your offer to look after horses' stripes; if there are any donkeys', pray add them.

I am delighted to hear that you have collected bees' combs; when next in London I will inquire of F. Smith and Mr. Saunders. This is an especial hobby of mine, and I think I can throw light on the subject. If you can collect duplicates at no very great expense, I should be glad of specimens for myself, with some bees of each kind. Young growing and irregular combs, and those which have not had pupae, are most valuable for measurements and examination; their edges should be well protected against abrasion.

Everyone whom I have seen has thought your paper very well written and interesting. It puts my extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty years ago!), which I must say in apology were never for an instant intended for publication, in the shade.

You ask about Lyell's frame of mind. I think he is somewhat staggered, but does not give in, and speaks with horror often to me of what a thing it would be and what a job it would be for the next edition of the Principles if he were "perverted." But he is most candid and honest, and I think will end by being perverted. Dr. Hooker has become almost as heterodox as you or I—and I look at Hooker as by far the most capable judge in Europe.

Most cordially do I wish you health and entire success in all your pursuits; and God knows, if admirable zeal and energy deserve success, most amply do you deserve it. I look at my own career as nearly run out; if I can publish my abstract, and perhaps my greater work on the same subject, I shall look at my course as done.—Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

* * * * *

LETTER IV

C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE

Down, Bromley, Kent. April 6, 1859.

My dear Mr. Wallace,—I this morning received your pleasant and friendly note of Nov. 30th. The first part of my MS.[30] is in Murray's hands, to see if he likes to publish it. There is no Preface, but a short Introduction, which must be read by everyone who reads my book. The second paragraph in the Introduction[31] I have had copied verbatim from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think that I have fairly noticed your papers in the Linnean Transactions.[32] You must remember that I am now publishing only an Abstract, and I give no references. I shall of course allude to your paper on Distribution;[33] and I have added that I know from correspondence that your explanation of your law is the same as that which I offer. You are right, that I came to the conclusion that Selection was the principle of change from study of domesticated productions; and then reading Malthus I saw at once how to apply this principle. Geographical distribution and geographical relations of extinct to recent inhabitants of South America first led me to the subject. Especially the case of the Galapagos Islands.

I hope to go to press in early part of next month. It will be a small volume of about 500 pages or so. I will, of course, send you a copy.

I forget whether I told you that Hooker, who is our best British botanist, and perhaps the best in the world, is a full convert, and is now going immediately to publish his confession of faith; and I expect daily to see the proof-sheets. Huxley is changed and believes in mutation of species: whether a convert to us, I do not quite know. We shall live to see all the younger men converts. My neighbour and excellent naturalist, J. Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert. I see by Natural History notices that you are doing great work in the Archipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise with you. For God's sake take care of your health. There have been few such noble labourers in the cause of natural science as you are. Farewell, with every good wish.—Yours sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

P.S.—You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the manner in which you have taken all that was done about publishing our papers. I had actually written a letter to you, stating that I would not publish anything before you had published. I had not sent that letter to the post when I received one from Lyell and Hooker, urging me to send some MS. to them, and allow them to act as they thought fair and honourably to both of us. I did so.

* * * * *

LETTER V

C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE

Down, Bromley, Kent. August 9, 1859.

My dear Mr. Wallace,—I received your letter and memoir[34] on the 7th, and will forward it to-morrow to the Linnean Society. But you will be aware that there is no meeting till beginning of November. Your paper seems to me admirable in matter, style and reasoning; and I thank you for allowing me to read it. Had I read it some months ago I should have profited by it for my forthcoming volume. But my two chapters on this subject are in type; and though not yet corrected, I am so wearied out and weak in health that I am fully resolved not to add one word, and merely improve style. So you will see that my views are nearly the same with yours, and you may rely on it that not one word shall be altered owing to my having read your ideas. Are you aware that Mr. W. Earl published several years ago the view of distribution of animals in the Malay Archipelago in relation to the depth of the sea between the islands? I was much struck with this, and have been in habit of noting all facts on distribution in the Archipelago and elsewhere in this relation. I have been led to conclude that there has been a good deal of naturalisation in the different Malay islands, and which I have thought to certain extent would account for anomalies. Timor has been my greatest puzzle. What do you say to the peculiar Felis there? I wish that you had visited Timor: it has been asserted that a fossil mastodon or elephant's tooth (I forget which) had been found there, which would be a grand fact. I was aware that Celebes was very peculiar; but the relation to Africa is quite new to me and marvellous, and almost passes belief. It is as anomalous as the relation of plants in South-West Australia to the Cape of Good Hope.

I differ wholly from you on colonisation of oceanic islands, but you will have everyone else on your side. I quite agree with respect to all islands not situated far in ocean. I quite agree on little occasional internavigation between lands when once pretty well stocked with inhabitants, but think this does not apply to rising and ill-stocked islands.

Are you aware that annually birds are blown to Madeira, to Azores (and to Bermuda from America). I wish I had given fuller abstract of my reasons for not believing in Forbes's great continental extensions; but it is too late, for I will alter nothing. I am worn out, and must have rest.

Owen, I do not doubt, will bitterly oppose us; but I regard that very little, as he is a poor reasoner and deeply considers the good opinion of the world, especially the aristocratic world.

Hooker is publishing a grand Introduction to the Flora of Australia, and goes the whole length. I have seen proofs of about half.—With every good wish, believe me yours very sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

Excuse this brief note, but I am far from well.

* * * * *

LETTER VI

C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE

Ilkley. November 13, 1859.

My dear Sir,—I have told Murray to send you by post (if possible) a copy of my book, and I hope that you will receive it at nearly the same time with this note. (N.B.—I have got a bad finger, which makes me write extra badly.) If you are so inclined, I should very much like to hear your general impression of the book, as you have thought so profoundly on the subject and in so nearly the same channel with myself. I hope there will be some little new to you, but I fear not much. Remember, it is only an abstract, and very much condensed. God knows what the public will think. No one has read it, except Lyell, with whom I have had much correspondence. Hooker thinks him a complete convert, but he does not seem so in his letters to me. But he is evidently deeply interested in the subject. I do not think your share in the theory will be overlooked by the real judges, as Hooker, Lyell, Asa Gray, etc.

I have heard from Mr. Sclater that your paper on the Malay Archipelago has been read at the Linnean Society, and that he was extremely much interested by it.

I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months owing to the state of my health, and therefore I really have no news to tell you. I am writing this at Ilkley Wells, where I have been with my family for the last six weeks, and shall stay for some few weeks longer. As yet I have profited very little. God knows when I shall have strength for my bigger book.

I sincerely hope that you keep your health: I suppose that you will be thinking of returning soon with your magnificent collection and still grander mental materials. You will be puzzled how to publish. The Royal Society Fund will be worth your consideration.—With every good wish, pray believe me yours very sincerely,

CHARLES DARWIN.

I think that I told you before that Hooker is a complete convert. If I can convert Huxley I shall be content.

* * * * *

LETTER VII

C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 7, 1860.

My dear Wallace,—The addresses which you have sent me are capital, especially that to the Rajah; and I have dispatched two sets of queries. I now enclose a copy to you, and should be very glad of any answers; you must not suppose the P.S. about memory has lately been inserted; please return these queries, as it is my standard copy. The subject is a curious one; I fancy I shall make a rather interesting appendix to my Essay on Man.

I fully admit the probability of "protective adaptation" having come into play with female butterflies as well as with female birds. I have a good many facts which make me believe in sexual selection as applied to man, but whether I shall convince anyone else is very doubtful.—Dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

LETTER VIII

C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE

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 branchiae, because I have not found them to be branchiae; whereas he himself admits, before I wrote on cirripedes, without the least hesitation, that their organs are branchiae. 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 L60), 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 expose 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 Papilionidae 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.