skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project

To G. J. Romanes   12 November 1881

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.)

Nov. 12th 1881

My dear Romanes

I must write to say how very much I admire your letter in the last “Nature”. I subscribe to every word that you say, & it could not be expressed more clearly or vigorously.— After the Dukes last letter & flourish about me, I thought it paltry not to say that I agreed with what you had said.1 But after writing 2 folio pages, I found I could not say what I wished to say without taking up too much space, & what I had written did not please me at all, so I tore it up, & now by all the Gods I rejoice that I did so, for you have put the case incomparably better that I had done or could do.—

Moreover I hate controversy, & it wastes much time, at least with a man who like myself can work for only a short time in a day.— How in the world you get through all your work astonishes me!—

Now do not make me feel guilty by answering this letter & losing some of your time.—

You ought not to swear at Roux’s book which has led you into this controversy, for I am sure that your last letter was well worth writing—not that it will produce any effect on the Duke.2

Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin

Footnotes

Romanes and George Douglas Campbell, eighth duke of Argyll, had exchanged a series of letters in Nature (see Nature, 20 October 1881, p. 581, 27 October 1881, p. 604, 3 November 1881, pp. 6–7, and 10 November 1881, pp. 29–30). Campbell’s most recent letter defended the design argument, namely, that many ‘exquisite adaptations’ of nature were only explicable as the work of physical forces under the ‘direction and control of Mind’; Campbell added: ‘Mr Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection no more touches this argument than his hand could touch the fixed stars’ (Nature, 3 November 1881, pp. 6–7). Romanes drew a distinction between ‘scientific’ and ‘metaphysical teleology’, claiming that CD had shown ‘special adaptations’ to be the result of ‘physical causes’, and that theistic explanations (e.g., for the uniformity of nature), were ‘transcendental or extra-scientific’ (Nature, 10 November 1881, p. 30).
The controversy with Campbell had been prompted by Romanes’s review of Wilhelm Roux’s Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus. Ein Beitrag zur Vervollständigung der mechanischen Zweckmässigkeitslehre (The struggle of the parts in the organism. A contribution to the completion of the mechanistic theory of fitness; Roux 1881). The review was published in Nature, 29 September 1881, pp. 505–6. It began with a brief summary of the argument from design, and claimed that CD had brought this argument to an abrupt end.

Bibliography

Roux, Wilhelm. 1881. Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus. Ein Beitrag zur Vervollständigung der mechanischen Zweckmässigkeitslehre. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.

Summary

Discusses GJR’s controversy with the Duke [of Argyll] concerning Roux’s book [Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus (1881)].

Letter details

Letter no.
DCP-LETT-13479
From
Charles Robert Darwin
To
George John Romanes
Sent from
Down
Source of text
American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.601)
Physical description
ALS 4pp

Please cite as

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 13479,” accessed on 1 May 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13479.xml

letter