WCP1709

[1]

Broadstone, Wimborne

Jan[uar]^y.. 5th. 1908

Dear Oliver Lodge¹

I shall be much pleased to answer your letter to the best of my ability.

And 1st. I think you are mistaken in thinking that Weismann's² theories are becoming "dogmas" with any students of heredity, however much they may be with the misinformed. I will therefore state, briefly, the position of the doctrine as I see it. Down to the time of all Darwin's chief works, the heredity of acquired characters was a universally accepted dogma, supposed to be formed on absolute facts of nature.

Darwin accepted it, hesitatingly, [2] because he formed no certain proofs of its action & because his theory ^{(of nat[ural]. selection)} did not require it[.] But a number of his critics, foreign and English, adduced facts which seemed to prove it, which a whole school arose in America chiefly— the Neo-Lamarckians— who strove to show that it was the main cause of species-modification. Therefore Darwin evolved his theory of "Pangenesis" which I and others accepted, provisionally, because it was the only theory put forward that seemed adequate to explain "inheritance", including that of acquired characters. In case you forget it (or never read it) I must say, that it was a theory— that every "body cell" from bone, muscle, blood, skin, hair, feathers &c &c &c. were [3] perpetually, during life, giving off ultraminute "gemmules", which, bearing with them all the potentialities of the aggregates of cells of which they formed part, (bone, hair &c texture colour &c.,) permeated the whole body to the sperm-cells, which they penetrated & modified, so that these cells acquired the power of transmitting, in the minutest detail, every character of the individual parents, both inherent and acquired during life!

This of course was awfully cumbrous and almost unthinkable,— but it was the only theory that, if admitted, seems to explain the facts.

But Galton³ had doubts, and tried experiments, by transfusing the blood of pure bred black rabbits into individuals of other colonies (white or gray) to the extend of half the blood of each!

Then breeding from there, he found [4] that in no case was the offspring modified!

A little later Weisman, from a long series of embryological observations & experiments, came to the conclusion, that as a fact, there was no indication of— hardly any possibility of— such a continuous interchange between the germs & body-cells, as Darwin supposed.

He then attacked the supposed evidence for the facts of such "heredity"— showed that in all cases they were doubtful, while there were large bodies of evidence against their heredity. At the same time other observers everywhere, sought out evidence on both sides— the result being— that, in the opinion of the [5] bulk of biologists today, there is absolutely not one good fact supporting such transmission of an individually acquired character. In all I have written on the subject I have treated it, throughout, as a question of evidence, never of theory or dogma. If you can find time to read my Chapter XVI. of Vol. I. of my "Studies &c." you will see that I answer all H. Spencers⁴ supposed facts, & some others that influenced Darwin. Mr. Platt Ball⁵ in his little book "Use and Disuse", also discussed there and other cases, with similar results.

As to the "disease" question, the whole subject has been thoroughly & acutely investigated by Mr. Archdall Reid⁶ in his works— "The Present Evolution of Man"— and [6] "The Principles of Heredity"— and he comes to the conclusion that disease itself is never transmitted— the tendency to acquire special diseases under suitable conditions, is transmitted, & ^this explains all the facts. A.R. is a doctor, & a very acute reasoner.

Again in Mr. John Spargo's⁷ fine little book— "The Bitter Cry of the Children" he states in the Preface, that, the evidence given before the "British Interdepartmental Committee" by recognised leaders of the Medical Profession, was, that "the number of children born healthy and strong is not greater among the well-to-do classes than among the very poorest"; and Mr. J. S. says, this evidence was so strong, & so supported by American experts— that he was forced to abandon his previous view [7] of "antenatal degeneration:— !

Finally— with regard to the non-inheritance of the effects of education &c. &. I have pointed out in my chap[ter]. on "Human Progress Past and Future"— in my Studies Vol. II.— pp 505-509— that such inheritance would have been wholly evil, & that it ^is the greatest of blessings that it is [1 word illeg.] ^{such effects are not inherited} & that children are not cursed by the hereditary effects of then ancestral vile conditions, and erroneous teaching. There is, to me, no more encouraging feature of human nature than the fact (as I maintain[?]) that the child is not burdened [8] with ^{the cumulative effects of} ancestral faults & errors, but only with its ancestral nature, and is therefore always ^ready to respond to a true education & training, whenever we give it; while the race will be advanced & can only be advanced— by ^some such a system of truly "natural" selection which ^as will inevitably arise under rational social conditions— such as I have pointed out in the latter pages of the same Chapter.

Mr E.D. Girdlestone⁸ is a very old & highly esteemed friend of mine, & one whom I believe I helped to turn [9] into a Spiritualist. He was already a Socialist. He is one of acutest & clearest thinkers I know.

My just mention here that Neo-Lamarckism is now dying out in American, and that a new school of experimental biologists are arising who are mostly thorough Darwinists and wholly against transmission of acquired characters.

I shall be much pleased to have a proof or copy of your paper on "Immortality" but not for criticism, as I am much occupied, and [10] have moreover undertaken to write another book in which I shall myself deal with the evidences of the future Life.

Believe me | Yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S. &c. &c.

P.S. The first of our[?] living English biologists (in the broader sense) Prof. Llody-Morgate, is dead against [11] the "inheritance of acquired characters". May say that it is to avoid this cumbrous phrase at every moment, that I and other use the term "Weismannism" as the only word available— It expresses our assurance of the fact of non-transmission, not our acceptance of Weismann's theories in all these detials, or at all. I myself find them too complex even fully to understand!

A.R.W. [signature]