The Foundations of the Origin of Species Two Essays written in 1842 and 1844 · Charles Darwin
INTRODUCTION
We know from the contents of Charles Darwin's Note Book of 1837 that he was at that time a convinced Evolutionist{1}. Nor can there be any doubt that, when he started on board the _Beagle_, such opinions as he had were on the side of immutability. When therefore did the current of his thoughts begin to set in the direction of Evolution? {1} See the extracts in _Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, ii. p. 5. We have first to consider the factors that made for such a change. On his departure in 1831, Henslow gave him vol. I. of Lyell's _Principles_, then just published, with the warning that he was not to believe what he read{2}. But believe he did, and it is certain (as Huxley has forcibly pointed out{3}) that the doctrine of uniformitarianism when applied to Biology leads of necessity to Evolution. If the extermination of a species is no more catastrophic than the natural death of an individual, why should the birth of a species be any more miraculous than the birth of an individual? It is quite clear that this thought was vividly present to Darwin when he was writing out his early thoughts in the 1837 Note Book{4}:-- "Propagation explains why modern animals same type as extinct, which is law almost proved. They die, without they change, like golden pippins; it is a _generation of species_ like generation _of individuals_."
"If _species_ generate other _species_ their race is not utterly cut off." {2} The second volume,--especially important in regard to Evolution,--reached him in the autumn of 1832, as Prof. Judd has pointed out in his most interesting paper in _Darwin and Modern Science_. Cambridge, 1909. {3} Obituary Notice of C. Darwin, _Proc. R. Soc._ vol. 44. Reprinted in Huxley's _Collected Essays_. See also _Life and Letters of C. Darwin_, ii. p. 179. {4} See the extracts in the _Life and Letters_, ii. p. 5. These quotations show that he was struggling to see in the origin of species a process just as scientifically comprehensible as the birth of individuals. They show, I think, that he recognised the two things not merely as similar but as identical. It is impossible to know how soon the ferment of uniformitarianism began to work, but it is fair to suspect that in 1832 he had already begun to see that mutability was the logical conclusion of Lyell's doctrine, though this was not acknowledged by Lyell himself. There were however other factors of change. In his Autobiography{5} he wrote:--"During the voyage of the _Beagle_ I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly, by the manner in which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southward over the Continent; and thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of the Galapagos archipelago, and more especially by the manner in which they differ slightly on each island of the group; none of the islands appearing to be very ancient in a geological sense. It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many others, could only be explained on the supposition that species gradually become modified; and the subject haunted me."
Let us for a moment confine our attention to the passage, above quoted, from the Autobiography and to what is said in the Introduction to the _Origin_, Ed. i., viz. "When on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent." These words, occurring where they do, can only mean one thing,--namely that the facts suggested an evolutionary interpretation. And this being so it must be true that his thoughts _began to flow in the direction of Descent_ at this early date. I am inclined to think that the "new light which was rising in his mind{8}" had not yet attained any effective degree of steadiness or brightness. I think so because in his Pocket Book under the date 1837 he wrote, "In July opened first note-book on 'transmutation of species.' Had been greatly struck _from about month of previous March_{9} on character of South American fossils, and species on Galapagos Archipelago. These facts origin (_especially latter_), of all my views." But he did not visit the Galapagos till 1835 and I therefore find it hard to believe that his evolutionary views attained any strength or permanence until at any rate quite late in the voyage. The Galapagos facts are strongly against Huxley's view, for Darwin's attention was "thoroughly aroused{10}" by comparing the birds shot by himself and by others on board. The case must have struck him at once,--without waiting for accurate determinations,--as a microcosm of evolution.
"1842. May 18th went to Maer. June 15th to Shrewsbury, and on 18th to Capel Curig.... During my stay at Maer and Shrewsbury (five years after commencement) wrote pencil sketch of my species theory." Again in a letter to Lyell (June 18, 1858) he speaks of his "MS. sketch written out in 1842{18}." In the _Origin of Species_, Ed. i. p. 1, he speaks of beginning his speculations in 1837 and of allowing himself to draw up some "short notes" after "five years' work," _i.e._ in 1842. So far there seems no doubt as to 1842 being the date of the first sketch; but there is evidence in favour of an earlier date{19}. Thus across the Table of Contents of the bound copy of the 1844 MS. is written in my father's hand "This was sketched in 1839." Again in a letter to Mr Wallace{20} (Jan. 25, 1859) he speaks of his own contributions to the Linnean paper{21} of July 1, 1858, as "written in 1839, now just twenty years ago." This statement as it stands is undoubtedly incorrect, since the extracts are from the MS. of 1844, about the date of which no doubt exists; but even if it could be supposed to refer to the 1842 Essay, it must, I think, be rejected.
I can only account for his mistake by the supposition that my father had in mind the date (1839) at which the framework of his theory was laid down. It is worth noting that in his Autobiography (p. 88) he speaks of the time "about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived." However this may be there can be no doubt that 1842 is the correct date. Since the publication of _Life and Letters_ I have gained fresh evidence on this head. A small packet containing 13 pp. of MS. came to light in 1896. On the outside is written "First Pencil Sketch of Species Theory. Written at Maer and Shrewsbury during May and June 1842." It is not however written in pencil, and it consists of a single chapter on _The Principles of Variation in Domestic Organisms_. A single unnumbered page is written in pencil, and is headed "Maer, May 1842, useless"; it also bears the words "This page was thought of as introduction." It consists of the briefest sketch of the geological evidence for evolution, together with words intended as headings for discussion,--such as "Affinity,--unity of type,--foetal state,--abortive organs." {18} _Life and Letters_, ii. p. 116. {19} _Life and Letters_, ii. p. 10. {20} _Life and Letters_, ii. p. 146. {21} _J. Linn. Soc. Zool._ iii. p. 45.
The back of this "useless" page is of some interest, although it does not bear on the question of date,--the matter immediately before us. It seems to be an outline of the Essay or sketch of 1842, consisting of the titles of the three chapters of which it was to have consisted. "I. The Principles of Var. in domestic organisms. "II. The possible and probable application of these same principles to wild animals and consequently the possible and probable production of wild races, analogous to the domestic ones of plants and animals. "III. The reasons for and against believing that such races have really been produced, forming what are called species." It will be seen that Chapter III as originally designed corresponds to Part II (p. 22) of the Essay of 1842, which is (p. 7) defined by the author as discussing "whether the characters and relations of animated things are such as favour the idea of wild species being races descended from a common stock." Again at p. 23 the author asks "What then is the evidence in favour of it (the theory of descent) and what the evidence against it." The generalised section of his Essay having been originally Chapter III{22} accounts for the curious error which occurs in pp. 18 and 22 where the second Part of the Essay is called Part III.
In the matter of punctuation I have given myself a free hand. I may no doubt have misinterpreted the author's meaning in so doing, but without such punctuation, the number of repellantly crabbed sentences would have been even greater than at present. In dealing with the Essay of 1844, I have corrected some obvious slips without indicating such alterations, because the MS. being legible, there is no danger of changing the author's meaning. The sections into which the Essay of 1842 is divided are in the original merely indicated by a gap in the MS. or by a line drawn across the page. No titles are given except in the case of Sec. VIII.; and Sec. II. is the only section which has a number in the original. I might equally well have made sections of what are now subsections, _e.g. Natural Selection_ p. 7, or _Extermination_ p. 28. But since the present sketch is the germ of the Essay of 1844, it seemed best to preserve the identity between the two works, by using such of the author's divisions as correspond to the chapters of the enlarged version of 1844. The geological discussion with which Part II begins corresponds to two chapters (IV and V) of the 1844 Essay. I have therefore described it as Sec.Sec. IV. and V., although I cannot make sure of its having originally consisted of two sections. With this exception the ten sections of the Essay of 1842 correspond to the ten chapters of that of 1844.
The _Origin of Species_ differs from the sketch of 1842 in not being divided into two parts. But the two volumes resemble each other in general structure. Both begin with a statement of what may be called the mechanism of evolution,--variation and selection: in both the argument proceeds from the study of domestic organisms to that of animals and plants in a state of nature. This is followed in both by a discussion of the _Difficulties on Theory_ and this by a section _Instinct_ which in both cases is treated as a special case of difficulty. If I had to divide the _Origin_ (first edition) into two parts without any knowledge of earlier MS., I should, I think, make Part II begin with Ch. VI, _Difficulties on Theory_. A possible reason why this part of the argument is given in Part I of the Essay of 1842 may be found in the Essay of 1844, where it is clear that the chapter on instinct is placed in Part I because the author thought it of importance to show that heredity and variation occur in mental attributes. The whole question is perhaps an instance of the sort of difficulty which made the author give up the division of his argument into two Parts when he wrote the _Origin_. As matters stand Sec.Sec. IV. and V. of the 1842 Essay correspond to the geological chapters, IX and X, in the _Origin_. From this point onwards the material is grouped in the same order in both works: geographical distribution; affinities and classification; unity of type and morphology; abortive or rudimentary organs; recapitulation and conclusion.
In enlarging the Essay of 1842 into that of 1844, the author retained the sections of the sketch as chapters in the completer presentment. It follows that what has been said of the relation of the earlier Essay to the _Origin_ is generally true of the 1844 Essay. In the latter, however, the geological discussion is, clearly instead of obscurely, divided into two chapters, which correspond roughly with Chapters IX and X of the _Origin_. But part of the contents of Chapter X (_Origin_) occurs in Chapter VI (1844) on Geographical Distribution. The treatment of distribution is particularly full and interesting in the 1844 Essay, but the arrangement of the material, especially the introduction of Sec. III. p. 183, leads to some repetition which is avoided in the _Origin_. It should be noted that Hybridism, which has a separate chapter (VIII) in the _Origin_, is treated in Chapter II of the Essay. Finally that Chapter XIII (_Origin_) corresponds to Chapters VII, VIII and IX of the work of 1844.
The fact that in 1842, seventeen years before the publication of the _Origin_, my father should have been able to write out so full an outline of his future work, is very remarkable. In his Autobiography{25} he writes of the 1844 Essay, "But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance.... This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified." The absence of the principle of divergence is of course also a characteristic of the sketch of 1842. But at p. 37, the author is not far from this point of view. The passage referred to is: "If any species, _A_, in changing gets an advantage and that advantage ... is inherited, _A_ will be the progenitor of several genera or even families in the hard struggle of nature. _A_ will go on beating out other forms, it might come that _A_ would people <the> earth,--we may now not have one descendant on our globe of the one or several original creations{26}." But if the descendants of _A_ have peopled the earth by beating out other forms, they must have diverged in occupying the innumerable diverse modes of life from which they expelled their predecessors. What I wrote{27} on this subject in 1887 is I think true: "Descent with modification implies divergence, and we become so habituated to a belief in descent, and therefore in divergence, that we do not notice the absence of proof that divergence is in itself an advantage."
I have spoken of the hurried and condensed manner in which the sketch of 1842 is written; the style of the later Essay (1844) is more finished. It has, however, the air of an uncorrected MS. rather than of a book which has gone through the ordeal of proof sheets. It has not all the force and conciseness of the _Origin_, but it has a certain freshness which gives it a character of its own. It must be remembered that the _Origin_ was an abstract or condensation of a much bigger book, whereas the Essay of 1844 was an expansion of the sketch of 1842. It is not therefore surprising that in the _Origin_ there is occasionally evident a chafing against the author's self-imposed limitation. Whereas in the 1844 Essay there is an air of freedom, as if the author were letting himself go, rather than applying the curb. This quality of freshness and the fact that some questions were more fully discussed in 1844 than in 1859, makes the earlier work good reading even to those who are familiar with the _Origin_. The writing of this Essay "during the summer of 1844," as stated in the Autobiography{30}, and "from memory," as Darwin says elsewhere{31}, was a remarkable achievement, and possibly renders more conceivable the still greater feat of the writing of the _Origin_ between July 1858 and September 1859.
"If there should be any difficulty in getting an editor who would go thoroughly into the subject, and think of the bearing of the passages marked in the books and copied out of scraps of paper, then let my sketch be published as it is, stating that it was done several years ago{34}, and from memory without consulting any works, and with no intention of publication in its present form." {34} The words "several years ago, and" seem to have been added at a later date. The idea that the sketch of 1844 might remain, in the event of his death, as the only record of his work, seems to have been long in his mind, for in August, 1854, when he had finished with the Cirripedes, and was thinking of beginning his "species work," he added on the back of the above letter, "Hooker by far best man to edit my species volume. August 1854." I have called attention in footnotes to many points in which the _Origin_ agrees with the _Foundations_. One of the most interesting is the final sentence, practically the same in the Essays of 1842 and 1844, and almost identical with the concluding words of the _Origin_. I have elsewhere pointed out{35} that the ancestry of this eloquent passage may be traced one stage further back,--to the Note Book of 1837. I have given this sentence as an appropriate motto for the _Foundations_ in its character of a study of general laws. It will be remembered that a corresponding motto from Whewell's _Bridgewater Treatise_ is printed opposite the title-page of the _Origin of Species_.
Among other interesting points may be mentioned the "good effects of crossing" being "possibly analogous to good effects of change in condition,"--a principle which he upheld on experimental grounds in his _Cross and Self-Fertilisation_ in 1876. In conclusion, I desire to express my thanks to Mr Wallace for a footnote he was good enough to supply: and to Professor Bateson, Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, Dr Gadow, Professor Judd, Dr Marr, Col. Prain and Dr Stapf for information on various points. I am also indebted to Mr Rutherford, of the University Library, for his careful copy of the manuscript of 1842. _June 9, 1909._ EXPLANATION OF SIGNS, &c. [] Means that the words so enclosed are erased in the original MS. <> Indicates an insertion by the Editor. _Origin_, Ed. vi. refers to the Popular Edition.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.