WCP3978

[1]

30, Cumberland Road

Kew

7th Jan 1911.

My dear Meldola,

When I wrote a review of C.D's geological books, he sent me a letter in which, acknowledging the impropriety of corresponding with a reviewer in his judicial capacity, he thought he might transgress in the case of a friendly reviewer. I think that I may avail myself of this defence in the case of such a very friendly review [sic] as yourself.

I am greatly astonished by your statement that you cannot find evidence that Darwin had pondered on "the inheritance of acquired characters." It is true [2] that the question of the possibility of any acquired character ^{being transmitted} has been brought into prominence by Weismann's work, and especially by the Weismann-Spencer Controversy — but the question was one that was very much to the fore in the writings of the two Cuviers and their adherents in their controversies with Lamarck. They constantly asserted that acquired characters (like those addressed by Lamarck) were not transmitted or if any were so transmitted, they were only little ones, and not transmitted far. The second volume of Lyell's Principles, which Darwin treated almost like his Bible, reproduces all these arguments of Cuvierian School, with which Lyell had frequent intercourse. If you care to turn to this volume (published in 1832) you will find [3] a statement of admission as follows :—

1^o. "The organization of individuals is capable of being modified to a limited extent by the force of external causes."

2^o. "These modifications are, to a certain extent, transmissible to their offspring."

3^o. "There are fixed limits beyond which the descendants from common parents can never deviate from a certain type."

In the summary of Chapter III p.36 we find "Acquired peculiarities which become hereditary have a close connection with the habits or instincts of the species in a wild state." In the text of the chapter this point is enlarged upon (as to habits &c though not to structure).

In the "Recapitulation" (p.64) we find "Some acquired peculiarities of form, structure, and instinct are transmissible to the offspring; but these consist of such qualities and attributes only as are intimately related to the natural wants & propensities of the Species". [4]

Unfortunately all the early intercourse between Lyell & Darwin was by word of mouth. I have often thought what splendid materials for history would exist if a set of letters like those between Darwin & Hooker had existed in Lyell's case. It seems to me that the passage you refer to in the Origin is a reference to this Cuvierian objection as stated by Lyell. It is the anti-Lamarckian argument that "though acquired characters are sometimes transmitted, yet that those which would be of service for the Lamarckian theory, could not be transmitted". The admission was enough for Darwin, and the bolder assertion of Weismann, that no acquired characters are transmitted, had not then presented itself. It was with these general ideas in my mind that I wrote the passage on p.155.

I like your phrases "nervous caution" & "circumvent" in the case of Lyell. [5]

It is very startling to compare the letters of Herschel, Whewell & others, in which Lyell "let himself go", with the cautious & often reactionary statements in his printed works. Darwin, also, though long convinced that evolution must be true of Man, as of other animals, only put one saving clause on the subject in the Origin. But it is hard to realise at this date how very, very cautious they had to be to be read at all.

I think there can be no doubt that both Lyell & Darwin long had such fluctuations in opinion, as they dealt with the evidence — sometimes they were convinced, at other times doubtful at others despairing about "the mystery of mysteries" — But Lyell wrote 30 years earlier than Darwin, and was, I think, constitutionally "more timid". He told me so himself on one occasion. [6]

I think both Lyell & Darwin would hear me out in wishing to keep Geology distinct from Cosmogony. They both feared that dallying with "the beginning" — and the "philosophical" as distinct from Scientific methods [—] was dangerous.

Has not our dear old friend Wallace — especially in his last book — delightful as it is in many ways — shown how dangerous it is to coquet with that seductive damsel "high philosophy"? But I have no objection — nor would Lyell have had — to geologists playing with "Catastrophism" to any extent before the Geological Record began. [7]

Pray excuse this long rambling screed. It is very good of you to say all the kind things you have about my little book. I hope it may be useful — especially I could wish that it might have some influence in showing that recent evolutionary theories are developments of and not rivals of Darwinism, and that the sober steady work of research is more valuable than splendid imaginings.

With many thanks for your kindness, | Yours very faithfully

John W. Jud [signature]