WCP1883

Letter (WCP1883.1773)

[1]

Down.

Bromley.

Kent. S.E.

Oct 12 & 13th [1867]1

My dear Wallace

I ordered the journal a long time ago, but by some oversight rec[eived]d it only yesterday & read it.2 You will think my praise not worth having from being so indiscriminate, but if I am to speak the truth, I must say I admire every word.—

You have just touched on the points which I particularly wished to see noticed. I am glad you had the courage to take up Angraecum after the Duke’s attack;3 for I [2] believe the principle in this case alluded to may be widely applied. I like the illustration Figure but I wish the artist4 had drawn a better sphynx.5

With respect to Beauty y[ou]r remarks on hideous objects & on flowers not being made beautiful except when of practical use to them strike me as very good.

On this one point of Beauty I can hardly think that the Duke was quite candid. I have used in the concluding paragraph of my present book6 precisely the same [3] argument as you have, even bringing in the bull dog, with respect to variations not having been specially ordained. Your metaphor of the river is new to me & admirable; but y[ou]r other metaphor in which you compare the classification & complex machines does not seem to me quite appropriate, tho’ I cannot point out what seems deficient. The point which seems to me strong is that all naturalists admit that there is a natural classification, & it is this which descent explains. I wish you had [4] insisted a little more against the N. British on the reviewer assuming that each variation which appears is a strongly marked one;7 though by implication you have made this very plain. Nothing in y[ou]r whole article has struck me more than y[ou]r view with respect to the limit of fleetness in the race horse & other such cases; I shall try & quote you on this head in the proof of my concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation, tho’ in the case of wheat I hit upon something analogous. I am glad you praise the Duke’s book for I was much struck with it. [5] The part about flight seemed to me at first very good, but as the wing is articulated by a ball & socket joint, I suspect the Duke w[oul]d find it very difficult to give any reason against the belief that the wing strikes the air more or less obliquely. I have been very glad to see your article & the drawing of the butterfly in "Science Gossip."8 By the way I cannot but think that you push protection [6] too far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I have also this m[ornin]g read an excellent abstract in Gard[eners']. Chron[icle]. of y[ou]r paper on nests;9 I was not by any means fully converted by y[ou]r letter, but I think now I am so; & I hope it will be published somewhere in extenso. It strikes me as a capital generalization, & appears to me even more original than it did at first.

[7] I have had an excellent & cautious letter from Mr Leach [Geach] of Singapore10 with some valuable answers on expression which I owe to you.

I heartily congratulate you on the birth of "Herbert Spencer"11, & may he deserve his name, but I hope he will copy his father’s style & not his namesake’s. Pray observe, though I fear I am a month too late, when tears are first secreted enough to overflow; & write down dates.

I have finished Vol. 1 of my book12 & I hope it the whole will be out by the end of Nov; if you [8] have the patience to read it through, which is very doubtful, you will find I think a large accumulation of facts which will be of service to you in y[ou]r future papers, & they c[oul]d not be put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the noble art of reasoning.

Have you changed y[ou]r house to Westbourne Grove??13

Believe me | my dear Wallace | yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin [signature]

This letter is so badly expressed that it is barely intelligible, but I am tired with Proofs[.]

[9] P.S. Mr Warington14 has lately read an excellent & spirited abstract of the "Origin" before the Victoria Inst[itute].15 & as this is a most orthodox body he has gained the name of the Devil’s Advocate. The discussion which followed during 3 consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked. If you w[oul]d care to see the number I c[oul]d send it you.

[10] I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the table on the Duke, when you make him create the Angraecum & moth by special creation.—

1
ARW adds "1867" as a red crayon annotation at the upper right-hand corner of page 1. The Darwin Correspondence Project have established the year of 1867 as the correct date for this letter.
2
Charles Darwin refers to the Quarterly Journal of Science and ARW's article, 'Creation by Law'. See Wallace, A. R. 1867. Creation by Law. Quarterly Journal of Science. 4: 471-88.
3
Darwin refers to George John Douglas Campbell, the eighth Duke of Argyll, who had attacked Darwin's account of the development of the orchid Angraecum sesquipedale. (Campbell, G. J. D. 1867. The Reign of Law. London: Alexander Strahan. pp.45-46).
4
Wood, Thomas W. (1839-1910). British zoological illustrator.
5
Darwin's refers to Thomas W. Wood's illustration 'Sphinx Moth Fertilizing Angroegum Sesquipedale in the Forests of Madadascar'. (Wallace, A. R. 1867. Creation by Law. Quarterly Journal of Science. 4. Plate facing p.471.)
6
Darwin, C. 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, 2 vols. London, UK: John Murray
7
Jenkin, H. F. C. 1867. 'The Origins of Species'. North British Review. 46: 277-302.
8
Darwin refers to ARW's article 'The Disguises of Insects' published in Hardwicke's Science-Gossip which included two illustrations of butterflies: 'Orange-tip Butterfly' and 'Indian Butterflies at Rest.' See Wallace, A.R. 1867. The Disguises of Insects. Hardwicke's Science-Gossip 3: (1 Sept. 1867) 193-198.
9
Wallace, A. R. 1867. Birds' Nests and Plumage, Or the Relation Between Sexual Differences of Colour and the Mode of Nidification in Birds. The Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. No. 41. (12 October 1867). 1047-1048.
10
Geach, Frederick F. (1835-1890). English mining engineer and friend of ARW.
11
Wallace, Herbert Spencer ("Bertie") (1867-1874). Son of ARW.
12
Darwin, C. 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, 2 vols. London, UK: John Murray.
13
ARW changed his London address from 9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park to 7612 Westbourne Grove Terrace where he stayed with his sister, Frances Sims and brother-in-law, Thomas Sims. (Beccaloni, G. 2008. [2010]. Homes Sweet Homes: A Biographical Tour of Wallace's Many Places of Residence. In: Smith, C. & Beccaloni, G. W. (Eds). Natural Selection and Beyond: The Intellectual Legacy of Alfred Russel Wallace. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [pp.28-29]).
14
Warington, George (fl. 1840-1874). British chemist and religious author.
15
The Victoria Institute or Philosophical Society of Great Britain was founded in 1865 by James Reddie. The primary goal of the society was to "defend the revealed truth of Holy Scripture [...] against the opposition of Science falsely so-called." The membership of the Victoria Institute reached a high point of 1,246 in 1897 but eventually declined to less than one third of that figure during the early twentieth century. (Anonymous. 1865. Scientia Scientiarum; being some Account of the Origin and Objects of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain. 5-30. Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute. London: R. Hardwicke, Vol. 1. [p.5]).

Editorial information

Status: Edited (but not proofed) transcription [Letter (WCP1883.1773)]

For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon

Revision history

Transcribed by Darwin Correspondence Project [2012-07-02] Transcription checked by Beros, Matt [2019-12-20]

Published letter (WCP1883.5966)

[]

[1] [p. 189]

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. October 12 and 13, 1867.

My dear Wallace, — I ordered the journal a long time ago, but by some oversight received it only yesterday and read it. You will think my praise not worth having from being so indiscriminate, but if I am to speak the truth, I must say I admire every word.

You have just touched on the points which I particularly wished to see noticed. I am glad you had the courage to take up Angroecum1 after the Duke's [of Argyll] attack; for I believe the principle in this case may be widely applied. I like the figure, but I wish the artist had drawn a better sphinx.

With respect to beauty, your remarks on hideous objects and on flowers not being made beautiful except when of practical use to them strike me as very good.

On this one point of beauty, I can hardly think that the Duke was quite candid. I have used in the concluding paragraph of my present book precisely the same argument as you have, even bringing in the bulldog,2 with respect to variations not having been specially ordained. Your [2] [p. 190] metaphor of the river3 is new to me, and admirable; but your other metaphor, in which you compare classification and complex machines, does not seem to me quite appropriate, though I cannot point out what seems deficient. The point which seems to me strong is that all naturalists admit that there is a natural classification, and it is this which descent explains. I wish you had insisted a little more against the North British4 reviewer assuming that each variation which appears is a strongly marked one; though by implication you have made this very plain. Nothing in your whole article has struck me more than your view with respect to the limit of fleetness in the racehorse and other such cases; I shall try and quote you on this head in the proof of my concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation, though in the case of wheat I hit upon something analogous. I am glad you praise the Duke's book, for I was much struck with it, The part about flight seemed to me at first very good, but as the wing is articulated by a ball-and-socket joint, I suspect the Duke would find it very difficult to give any reason against the belief that the wing strikes the air more or less obliquely. I have been very glad to see your article and the drawing of the butterfly in Science Gossip. By the way, I cannot but think that you push protection too [3] [p. 191] far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I have also this morning read an excellent abstract in the Gardeners Chronicle of your paper on nests;5 I was not by any means fully converted by your letter, but I think now I am so; and I hope it will be published somewhere in extenso. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and appears to me even more original than it did at first.

I have had an excellent and cautious letter from Mr. Geach of Singapore with some valuable answers on expression, which I owe to you.

I heartily congratulate you on the birth of "Herbert Spencer," and may he deserve his name, but I hope he will copy his father's style and not his namesake's. Pray observe, though I fear I am a month too late, when tears are first secreted enough to overflow; and write down date.

I have finished Vol. I. of my book, and I hope the whole will be out by the end of November; if you have the patience to read it through, which is very doubtful, you will find, I think, a large accumulation of facts which will be of service to you in your future papers, and they could not be put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the noble art of reasoning.

Have you changed your house to Westbourne Grove?

Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

This letter is so badly expressed that it is barely intelligible, but I am tired with proofs.

P.S. — Mr. Warington has lately read an excellent and spirited abstract of the "Origin" before the Victoria Institute, and as this is a most orthodox body he has gained [4] [p. 192] the name of the devil's advocate. The discussion which followed during three consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked. If you would care to see the number I could lend it you,

I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the table on the Duke, when you make him create the Angroecum and moth by special creation.

1
A footnote here reads: "Angroecum sesquipedale, a Madagascar orchid, with a whip-like nectary, 11 to 12 in. in length, which, according to Darwin ("Fertilisation of Orchids," 2nd Edit., p. 163), is adapted to the visits of a moth with a proboscis of corresponding length. He points out that there is no difficulty in believing in the existence of such a moth as F. Muller had described (Nature, 1873, p. 223), a Brazilian sphinx-moth with a trunk 10 to 11 in. in length. Moreover, Forbes had given evidence to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar (Nature, 1873, p. 121). The case of Angroecum was put forward by the Duke of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of the Deity. Mr. Wallace shows (p. 470, Quarterly Journal of Science, 1867) that both proboscis and nectary might be increased in length by means of Natural Selection. It may be added that Hermann Mullet has shown good grounds for believing that mutual specialisation of this kind is beneficial both to insect and to plant."
2
A footnote here reads: ""Variation of Animals and Plants," 1st Edit., ii. 431. "Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?""
3
A footnote here reads: "See Wallace, Quarterly Journ. of Sci., 1867, pp. 477-8. He imagined an observer examining a great river system, and finding everywhere adaptations which reveal the design of the Creator. "He would see special adaptations to the wants of man in the broad, quiet, navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial plains, that would support a large population, while the rocky streams and mountain torrents were confined to those sterile regions suitable for a small population of shepherds and herdsmen.""
4
A footnote here reads: "At p. 485 Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin's review in the North British Review, 1867. The review strives to show that there are strict limitations to variation, since the most rigorous and long-continued selection does not indefinitely increase such a quality as the fleetness of a racehorse. On this Wallace remarks that the argument "fails to meet the real question," which is not whether indefinite change is possible, but "whether such differences as do occur in nature could have been produced by the accumulation of variations by selection.""
5
A footnote here reads: "Abstract of a paper on "Birds' Nests and Plumage," read before the British Association. See Gard. Chron., 1867, p. 1047."

Editorial information

Status: Draft transcription [Published letter (WCP1883.5966)]

For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon

Revision history

Transcribed by Congerton, John [2019-12-17]

Please cite as “WCP1883,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on 20 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/wallace/letters/WCP1883