WCP6790

[1]

Transcript of Charles Darwin's letter to Charles Kingsley

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E.

June 10

My dear Mr. Kingsley

I have been deeply interested by your letter. I have looked through my whole large collection of pamphlets on the "Origin" & the only thing which I can find at all answering to yr description is that which I send by this post by Cap. Hutton. I dare say you know his name; he is a very acute observer. Please sometime return it to me.

I have just finished reading the Duke's book & N.Brit.Rev; & I shd very much like for my own sake to make some remarks on them, & as my amanuensis writes so clearly, I hope it will not plague you. The Duke's book strikes me as very well written, very interesting, honest & clever & very arrogant. How coolly he says that even J.S.Mill does not know what he means. Clever as the book is, I think some parts are weak, as about rudimentary organs, & about the diversified structure of humming birds. How strange it is that he shd freely admit that every details of structure is of service in the flowers of orchids, & not in the beak of birds.

His argument with respect to diversity of structure is much the same as if he were to say that a mechanic wd succeed better in England if he cd do a little work in many trades, than by being a first-rate workman in one trade. I shd like you to read what I have said upon diversity of structure at 226 in the new Ed. of Origin, which I have ordered to be sent to you. Please also read what I have said (p. 238) on Beauty.) Other explanations with respect to beauty will no doubt be found out: I think the enclosed ingenious letter of Wallace is worth yr notice. Is it not absurd to speak of beauty as existing independently of any sentient being to appreciate it? And yet the Duke seems to me thus to speak.

With respect to the Deity having created objects beautiful for his own pleasure, I have not a word to say against it but such a view cd hardly come into a scientific book. In regard to the difference between female birds I believe what you say is very true; & I can shew with fowls that the 2 sexes often vary in correlation. I am glad that you are inclined to admit sexual selection. I have lately been attending much to this subject, & am more than ever convinced of the truth of the view. You will see in the discussion on beauty that I allude the to the cause of female birds not being beautiful; but Mr. Wallace is going to generalize the same view to a grand extent, for he finds there is almost always a relation between the nature of the nest & the beauty of the female. No doubt sexual selection seems very improbable when one looks at a peacock's tail, but it is an error to suppose that the female selects each detail of colour. She merely selects beauty, & laws of growth determine the varied zones of colour; thus a circular spot wd almost certainly become developed into circular zones, in the same manner as I have seen the black wing-bar in pigeons become converted into 3 bars of colour elegantly shaded into each other. The [2]

Darwin to Kingsley, page 2 (June 10)

Duke is not quite fair in his attack on me with respect to "correlation of growth"; for I have defined what I mean by it; tho' the term may be a bad one, whilst he uses another definition: "correlation of variation" wd perhaps have been a better term for me. He depreciates the importance of natural selection, but I presume he wd not deny that Bakewell, Collins, etc ^&c had in one sense made our improved breeds of cattle; yet of course the initial variations have naturally arisen; but until selected, they remained unimportant, & in this same sense natural selection seems to me all-important.

The N.Brit.Rev. seems to me one of the most telling Reviews of the hostile kind, & shews much ability, but not, as you say, much knowledge. The R. lays great stress on our domestic races having been rapidly formed, but I can shew that this is a complete error; it is the work of centuries, probably in some cases of 1000s of years. With respect to the antiquity of the world & the uniformity of its changes, I cannot implicitly believe the mathematicians, seeing what widely different results Haughton, Hopkins & Thompson have arrived at. By the way I had a note from Lyell this mg, who does not seem to value this article enough. Is not there not great doubt on the bearing of the attraction of gravity with respect to the conservation of energy? The glacial period may make one doubt whether the temperature of the universe is so simple a question. No one can long study the Geolog. work done during the glacial period, no & not end profoundly impressed with the necessary lapse of time; & the crrst crust of the earth at this recent period…¹

(apparently the next 4 pages are missing; the letter continues:)

²...of facts. Pray excuse this unreasonable letter, which you may not think worth the labour of reading; but it has done me good to express my opinion on the 2 works in question, so I hope & think you will forgive me —

With very sincere thanks for letter believe me my dear Mr. Kingsley

yours sincerely

Charles Darwin

Do you know who wrote the article in N.B.Review?

**********

Note: all words or sentences underlined are in Darwin's hand; the body of the letter is in the hand of his "amanuensis."