Is glad CD does not believe he is biased by an odium theologicum. Comments on the first volume of Descent. Is convinced of the truth of evolution, but believes natural selection plays only a secondary role and that man is fundamentally different from the rest of creation.
7, North Bank, | N.W.
My dear Sir
I am exceedingly concerned to hear you have been confined to your bed-room & that you are still more or less unwell— I regret you should have taken the trouble to reply to me so quickly and I beg that in future you will never hurry to do so as I shall always attribute your silence to some accidental hindrance.
I am very glad you do not now think that I was biassed by an odium theologicum you will be still more convinced that I was not, when we have had a chat. It was by no means unnatural that you should have thought I was.
I do not think that my facts as to geographical distribution tell against evolution— It is quite conceivable to me that pleurodont lizards might have been evolved independently in two places & that Solenodon & Centetes might have had only a remote common ancestry.
It is fortunate for science, my dear Sir, that you did take what you will forgive me for calling an exaggerated view of the action of ``Natural Selection'' since but for that, you would not have brought the world to see the truth of the doctrine of Evolution henceforth indisputably associated with your name & labours.
I cannot agree with you in thinking I should have done better to have ``given up natural selection altogether''. at p. 240 I have said what I believe Nat. Selection does do & which seems to me no trifling or unimportant work subordinate as it may be.
I have referred to my notes as to the the phrase you speak of—
Unfortunately I have no copy of your work on ``An. & plants u.
I have now read the first part of Vol. I. you have kindly sent me and excepting my strong divergence as to the ``Moral sense'' &c I have been delighted with it. Your remark as to an objector revealing his descent by the very act of sneering is capital. As to man's relationship (as regards his animality) to other animals I am quite disposed to agree with you and to think that his bodily distinctness is rather under than over that of a family. In my fragments on the back & limb-bones of the Primates I showed my conviction that as regards those parts he was far more like the higher Apes than the higher Apes were like the lower ones & although I could not speak of the whole, of his organization, because I had not worked at it, I was inclined to suspect that all it's details would tell the same story. This does not of course prevent my regarding him in the light of his spiritual nature & something different from the whole visible creation and being really therefore (as I think I once before said to you) more different from a Gorilla than is a Gorilla from a lump of granite.
My little book, in spite of it's opposition to some of your views, will tend I think to make what you say as to man's descent less unpalatable to many, & will therefore hinder some from withholding that appreciation which is your due. I mean that if through what I have said some see that they can hold all you say as regards man's animality without giving up a fraction of truths of another order they will thereby be less indisposed to do you justice.
I look forward with interest to see what you will say as to sexual selection in Apes and whether you think the coyness of the Simian maiden has caused the blush to mantle not on her own cheek but to permanently tinge the livery of her admirer—
With very kind regards & the hope you may soon be in your usual
health at last & thanking you for your promise of a visit when
you can manage it I remain | My dear Sir | Your's very truly | S
Your notion as to the explanation of lunar periodicity is very ingenious though I know you only throw it out as a suggestion
- f1 7458.f1See letter to St G. J. Mivart, 26 January .
- f2 7458.f2Odium theologicum: `hatred of the kind which proverbially characterizes theological disputes' (OED).
- f3 7458.f3The existence of pleurodont lizards in South America and Madagascar, and of Centetes (now Hemicentetes, the tenrec) and Solenodon (members of the same infraclass, Eutheria) in Madagascar and the West Indies respectively was discussed in Mivart 1871a, pp. 147--8.
- f4 7458.f4In Mivart 1871a, pp. 240--1, Mivart puts forward a view of an innate force by which new species, which are not monstrosities but `harmonious wholes', are from time to time manifested by ordinary generation; these new species being markedly distinct from the old ones, and the change being stimulated by external conditions. He listed his beliefs on natural selection: `That ``Natural Selection'' rigorously destroys monstrosities, and abortive and feeble attempts at the performance of the evolutionary process. | That ``Natural Selection'' removes the antecedent species rapidly when the new one evolved is more in harmony with surrounding conditions. | That ``Natural Selection'' favours and develops useful variations, though it is impotent to originate them or to erect the physiological barrier which seems to exist between species.'
- f5 7458.f5See letter to Francis Darwin, [after 21 January 1871], n. 2.
- f6 7458.f6CD discussed morality in chapter 5 of Descent (On the development of the intellectual and moral faculties during primeval and civilised times).
- f7 7458.f7In Descent 1: 127, CD wrote: `He who rejects with scorn the belief that the shape of his own canines, and their occasional great development in other men, are due to our early progenitors having been provided with these formidable weapons, will probably reveal by sneering the line of his descent. For though he no longer intends, nor has the power, to use these teeth as weapons, he will unconsciously retract his ``snarling muscles'' … so as to expose them ready for action, like a dog prepared to fight.'
- f8 7458.f8In Descent 1: 194--5, CD wrote: `Although, as we have now seen, man has no just right to form a separate Order for his own reception, he may perhaps claim a distinct Sub-order or Family.' He remarked that Thomas Henry Huxley classified humans in their own suborder of the Primates, but added, `under a genealogical point of view it appears that this rank is too high, and that man ought to form merely a Family, or possibly even a Sub-family.'
- f9 7458.f9Mivart's papers on the appendicular and axial skeleton of the primates are Mivart 1865, 1866, and 1867.
- f10 7458.f10Mivart refers to his On the genesis of species (Mivart 1871a).
- f11 7458.f11In Descent 1: 212 n. 27, CD suggested that if vertebrates descended from tidal animals, this would explain why so many vital processes ran their course according to lunar periods.