Chapter II: London, 1879-1890 (1)

Mr. Romanes married, on February 11, 1879, Ethel, only daughter of Andrew Duncan, Esq., of Liverpool, whom he had met at the house of her cousin and guardian, Sir James Malcolm, of Balbedie and Grange, Fifeshire.

From 1879 to 1890 Mr. Romanes resided in 18 Cornwall Terrace, which his mother gave up to him, and these eleven years were perhaps the brightest and most fruitful of his life.

It is difficult to give any just idea of the extreme happiness and pleasantness of the home life and of outward circumstances; happiness which only seemed to increase as years went on. He grew more boyish, more playful, and seemed to have an endless capacity for enjoyment, for friendship, for happiness of the best and purest kind.

He greatly enjoyed society, and had full opportunities for seeing the kind he liked best, the cream of the intellectual world of London, and perhaps one may be allowed to say that no one was ever more unspoilt by success, by popularity. He seemed to grow more simple, more single-hearted each year.

The amount of work he did was very considerable. His books, 'Animal Intelligence,' 'Mental Evolution in Animals,' 'Mental Evolution in Man,' 'Jelly-Fish and Star-Fish,' 'Darwin and after Darwin,' 'An Examination of Weismannism,' represent an enormous amount of reading and thought; and besides all these, there was experimental work in University College and in his own laboratory in Scotland, and a succession of important articles in reviews, chiefly the 'Nineteenth Century,' 'Fortnightly' and 'Contemporary' Reviews, and 'Nature.'[24]

It would be quite absurd to deny that Mr. Romanes liked a fair and free fight, and there was a good deal of scientific controversy, but he was absolutely incapable of anything but fairness, and never imported into private life any quarrel in print. He had plenty of stiff fights, chiefly with Mr. Thiselton-Dyer, Professor Lankester, and Mr. Wallace, but the first two were always his friends, and with the latter he had a very slight acquaintance. The following letter, though it belongs to a later date, will show his feelings on the subject of controversy:

Christ Church, Oxford.

Dear Professor Meldola,--I trust that our differences--and
_disagreements_--as presented in 'Nature,' will not disturb our
relations in private. Anyhow, I send the inclosed circular, which
I am addressing to English biologists, and hope you will testify
to your desire for 'facts' by signing the memorial.

Yours truly,
GEO. J. ROMANES.

He lectured a good deal in provincial towns, and gave several Friday evening discourses at the Royal Institution. Lecturing, even in days of failing health, was always a pleasure, never a burden to him. The following letter is a mock triumphant description of a lecture in Glasgow, written purely to amuse his wife, and provoke some mock depreciatory remarks.

Glasgow: 1880.

Now for my news. Everything was splendid, much the best thing in
the way of lecturing that I have done since Dublin,[25] and I was
so sorry that you were not there.

First of all we had a dinner given by my host in my honour, the
guests being all the chief men in the University, including
Professor Caird[26] and the biggest of all big swells, Sir W.
Thomson.[27]

The dinner was to me highly interesting, as I talked nearly all
the time to Sir William, who is a wonderful psychological study.

We then went to the lecture, where Sir William took the chair,
and introduced me to the audience with such a glowing oration
that it would have startled you. (It quite astonished me.)
The audience being thus led to suppose that I was one of the
brightest of all bright lights, received me very warmly; I got
enthusiastic, discarded my notes, and swam along in the most
magnificent style even for me, which, you know, is the highest
praise I can bestow upon myself. I spoke for an hour and a half;
at the end the people applauded so, I felt really awfully sorry
you were not there. There seems to be a cruel fate preventing you
from witnessing my performances.

The vote of thanks was proposed by Professor McKendrick. I was
met by another storm of applause; I began to feel quite overcome.
But I said a few words with all becoming humility, and then Sir
William summed up.

Here is an affectionate outburst to his mother, written about this time:

'When thou art feeble, old, and grey,
My healthy arm shall be thy stay,
My mother.'

_When._ But you are not yet either so feeble, old, or grey as to
make me imagine that you have lost a needful prop in the absence
of your 'peerless son!' And I am sure you are not more proud of
him than he is of you. With your eyes as bright as the bright
starlight, and your face as ruddy as the morning, I am glad you
are _my_ mother.

In 1881 Mr. Romanes was at Garvock, Perthshire. And he was for a short time also at Oban, working with his friend Professor Ewart on _Echinodermata_, and their joint paper was made the 'Croonian Lecture.'[28]

This was the last bit of work on marine zoology, excepting a trifling research on the smelling power of anemones, at which he worked with Mr. Walter Herries Pollock, who had been tempted to make a temporary excursion from the paths of literature into the walks of science. They contributed a joint paper to the Linnean Society on indications of smell in Actinia, and it is greatly to be feared, such is the frivolity of literary men, that Mr. Pollock regarded the whole affair as a very good joke.

The following letters describe the work of the years 1880 and 1881. The summer of 1879 and 1880 had been spent at Westfield.

_From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin_, _Esq._

By this post I return you Häckel's essay on Perigenesis. Although
I have kept it so long, I have only just read it, as you said
there was no need to return it at any particular time.

To me it seems that whatever merit Häckel's views may have in
this matter, they certainly have no claim to be regarded as
_original_; for I cannot see that his 'Plastidules' differ in
anything but in name from Spencer's 'Physiological Units.' Why
he does not acknowledge this, it is difficult to understand.
Anyhow, the theories being the same, the same objections apply;
and to me it has always seemed that this theory is unsatisfactory
because so general. As you observe in your letter, everyone
believes in molecular movements of some kind; but to offer
this as a full explanation of heredity seems to me like saying
that the cause, say, of an obscure disease like diabetes, is
the persistence of force. No doubt this is the ultimate cause,
but the pathologist requires some more proximate causes if his
science is to be of any value. Similarly, I do not see that
biology gains anything by a theory which is really but little
better than a restatement of the mystery of heredity in terms
of the highest abstraction. Pangenesis at least has the merit
of supplying us with some conceivable carriers, so to speak, of
the modified protoplasm from the various organs or parts of the
parent to the corresponding organs or parts of the offspring, and
the multiplication of gemmules seems to me to avoid a difficulty
with which Perigenesis (as stated by Häckel) is beset, viz. that
atavism sometimes occurs over too large a gap to be reasonably
attributed to what remains of the original 'stem-vibrations'
after their characters have been successively modified at each
'bifurcation.' But it would be tedious to enter into details.
Perigenesis, in my opinion, is 'more simple' than Pangenesis,
only because its terms are so much more general.

P.S.--I forgot to tell you, when we were at lunch, that the seed
of the grafted beets is ready for sowing; also that the vine is
now four feet high, and so, I should think, might be grafted next
spring.

_From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes._

Down: February 3, 1880.

I will keep your diagram for a few days[29] but I find it very
difficult now to think over new subjects, so that it is not
likely that I shall be able to send any criticisms; but you may
rely on it that I will do my best.

I am glad you like Guthrie's book. If you care to read a little
book on pure instinct, get Fabre, 'Souvenirs Entomologiques,'
1879. It is really admirable, and very good on the sense of
direction in insects. I have sent him some suggestions such as
rotating the insects, but I do not know whether he will try them.

Yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.

_From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq._

February 6, 1880.

I have to thank you very much for your two letters, and also for
the enclosures from ----, which I now return. The latter convey
exactly the criticism that I should have expected from ----, for
while writing my essay on Theism I had several conversations with
him upon the subject of Spencer's writings, and so know exactly
what he thinks of them. But in none of these conversations could
I get at anything more definite than is conveyed by the returned
letters. In no point of any importance did he make it clear to me
that Spencer was wrong, and the only result of our conversation
was to show me that in ---- opinion it was only my ignorance of
mathematics that prevented me from seeing that Mr. Spencer is
merely a 'word philosopher.' Upon which opinion I reflected,
and still reflect, that the mathematicians must be a singularly
happy race, seeing that they alone of men are competent to think
about the facts of the cosmos. And this reflection becomes
still more startling when supplemented by another, viz. that
although one may not know any mathematics, everybody knows what
mathematics are: they are the sciences of number and measurement,
and as such, one is at a loss to perceive why they should be so
essentially necessary to enable a man to think fairly and well
upon other subjects. But it is, as you once said, that when a man
is to be killed by the sword mathematical, he must not have the
satisfaction of even knowing how he is killed. Of course, in a
general way I quite understand and agree with ---- that Spencer
has done but little service to science. But I believe that he has
done great service to thinking, and all the mathematicians in the
world would not convince me to the contrary, even though they
should all deliver their judgment with the magnificent authority
of a ----.

Coming now to the diagram, I am much obliged to you for your
suggestions. The 'Descent of Man,' with all its references upon
the subject, and also your paper on the 'Baby,' were read, and
the results embodied in the diagram, so I am very glad you did
not take the needless trouble of consulting these works. By
'Love' I intend to denote the complex emotion (dependent on the
representative faculties) which, having been so lately smitten
myself, I am perhaps inclined to place in too exalted a position.
But you did not observe that I placed 'Parental Affection' and
'Social Feeling' very much lower down.

In my essay I carefully explain the two cases of Drosera and
Dionæa as being the best hitherto observed for my purpose in
establishing the principle of discrimination among stimuli, as a
principle displayed by non-nervous tissues.

April 22, 1880.

As soon as I received your first intimation about Schneider's
book I wrote over for it, and received a copy some weeks ago. I
then lent it to Sully, who wanted to read it, so do not yet know
what it is worth. I, together with my wife--who reads French much
more quickly than I can--am now engaged upon all the French
books on animal intelligence which you kindly lent me. I am also
preparing for my Royal Institution lecture on the 7th of May. I
will afterwards publish it in some of the magazines, and, last of
all, in an expanded and more detailed form, it will go into my
book on Animal Intelligence.

I went to see ---- the other day on Spiritualism. He answered
privately a letter that I wrote to 'Nature,' signed 'F.R.S.,'
which was a feeler for some material to investigate. I had
never spoken to ---- before, but although I passed a very
pleasant afternoon with him, I did not learn anything new about
Spiritualism. He seemed to me to have the faculty of deglutition
too well developed. Thus, for instance, he seemed rather queer on
the subject of astrology! and when I asked whether he thought it
worthy of common sense to imagine that, spirits or no spirits,
the conjunctions of _planets_ could exercise any causative
influence on the destinies of children born under them, he
answered that having already 'swallowed so much,' he did not know
where to stop!!

My wife and baby are both flourishing. I noticed that the latter,
at four days old, could always tell which hand I touched,
inclining its head towards that hand.

_From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes._

September 14, 1880.

We send you our best thanks for your magnificent present of game.
I have not tasted black-game for _nearly half a century_, when I
killed some on my father-in-law's land in Staffordshire.

I hope that you are well and strong and do not give up all your
time to shooting. Pray tell Mrs. Romanes, if you turn idle, I
shall say it is her fault, and being an old man, shall scold her.
But you have done too splendid work to turn idle, so I need not
fear, and shall never have audaciously to scold Mrs. Romanes. But
I am writing great rubbish. You refer to some Zoological station
on your coast, and I now remember seeing something about it, and
that more money was wanted for apparatus, therefore I send a
cheque of 5_l._ 5_s._ just to show my goodwill.

Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

We went to the Lakes for three weeks to Coniston, and the scenery
gave me more pleasure than I thought my soul, or whatever remains
of it, was capable of feeling. We saw Ruskin several times, and
he was uncommonly pleasant.

_To C. Darwin, Esq._

18 Cornwall Terrace: November 18, 1880.

Very many thanks for your kind assistance and expressions of
approval. It was stupid of me to forget your article in 'Nature'
about the geese. I now quite well remember reading it when it
came out.

Focke's book is just the very thing I wanted, as it supplies such
a complete history of the subject. If I do not hear from you
again, I shall keep it for a few days to refer to when the proof
which I have sent to press shall be returned with my historical
sketch added.

I have now nearly finished my paper on the physiology of the
locomotor system in Echinoderms. The most important result in it
is the proof, both morphological and physiological, of a nervous
plexus, external to everything, which in Echinus serves to
co-ordinate spines, feet, and pedicellariæ in a wonderful manner.
By the way, I remember once talking with you about the function
of the latter, and thinking it mysterious. There is no doubt
now that this function is to seize bits of seaweed, and hold
them steady till the sucking feet have time to establish their
adhesions, so assisting locomotion of animal when crawling about
seaweed-covered rocks.

November 5, 1880.

I was sorry to hear on my return from Scotland that I had missed
the pleasure of a call from you, and also to hear from Mr.
Teesdale to-day that you had returned to Down, owing, he fears,
to the alarming condition of Miss Wedgwood. I trust, however,
that her state of health may not be so serious as he apprehends.

On my way South I stayed for a couple of days at Newcastle, to
give two lectures on Mental Evolution, and hence my absence
when you called. I stayed with Mr. Newall, who has the monster
telescope, and 'as good luck would have it, Providence was on
my side,' in the matter of giving us a clear sky for observing,
rather a rare thing at Newcastle.

You will be glad to hear that our season's work at the
'Zoological station' has been very successful. A really
interesting research has been conducted by Ewart and myself
jointly on the locomotor system of Echinoderms, he taking the
morphological and I the physiological part. When next I see you
I shall tell you the principal points, but to do so in a letter
would be tedious.

I think it is probable that Mivart and I shall have a magazine
battle some day on Mental Evolution, as I think it is better to
draw him in this way before finally discussing the whole subject
in my book.

18 Cornwall Terrace: November 13, 1880.

I am grieved to hear from Mr. Teesdale that his fears were only
too well founded. Although I had not myself the privilege of Miss
Wedgwood's acquaintance, I know, from what I have been told by
those who had, how greatly your household must feel her loss.

I should not, however, have written only to trouble you with
expressions of sympathy. I desire to ask you one or two questions
with reference to an article on Hybridism which I have written
for the 'Encyclopædia Britannica,' and the corrected proof of
which I send. It is in chief part an epitome of your own chapters
upon the subject, and therefore you need not trouble to read the
whole, unless you care to see whether I have been sufficiently
clear and accurate. But there are two points on which I should
like to have your opinion, both for my own benefit and for that
of my readers. First, I think it is desirable to append a list of
the more important works bearing upon the subject, and if I make
such a list I should not like to trust to my own information,
lest I should do unwitting injustice to some observing writers.
If, therefore, you could, _without taking any special trouble_,
jot down from memory the works you think most deserving of
mention, I think it would be of benefit to the reading public.

_From C. Darwin, Esq._

Down: November 14, 1880.

My dear Romanes,--Many thanks for your kind sympathy. My wife's
sister was, I fully believe, as good and generous a woman as ever
walked this earth.

The proof-sheets have not arrived, but probably will to-morrow. I
shall like to read them, though I may not be able to do so _very_
quickly, as I am bothered with a heap of little jobs which must
be done. I will send by to-day's post a large book by Focke,
received a week or two ago, on Hybrids, and which I have not had
time to look at, but which I see in Table of Contents includes
full history of subject and much else besides. It will aid you
far better than I can; for I have now been so long attending
to other subjects, and with old age, I fear I could make no
suggestions worth anything. Formerly I knew the subject well.

Kölreuter, Gärtner, and Herbert are certainly far the most
trustworthy authorities. There was also a German, whose name I
mention in 'Origin,' who wrote on Hybrid Willows. Naudin, who is
often quoted, I have much less confidence in. By the way, Nägeli
(whom many think the greatest botanist in Germany) wrote a few
years ago on Hybridism; I cannot remember title, but I will hunt
for it if you wish. The title will be sure to be in Focke.

I quite agree with what you say about Passiflora. Herbert
observed an analogous case in Crinum.

November 15, 1880.

I have just read your article. As far as my judgment goes it
is excellent and could not be improved. You have skimmed the
cream off the whole subject. It is also very clear. One or two
sentences near the beginning seem rather too strong, as I have
marked with pencil, without attending to style. I have made one
or two small suggestions. If you can find my account in 'Nature'
(last summer I think)[30] about the hybrid Chinese geese [being
fertile] _inter se_, it would be worth adding, and would require
only two or three lines. I do not suppose you wish to add, but in
my paper on Lythrum, and I think requoted in 'Var. under Dom.'
vol. ii. 2nd edit. bottom of page 167, I have a good sentence
about a man finding two vars. of Lythrum, and testing them by
fertility, and coming to egregiously wrong conclusion.

I think your idea of reference to best books and short history
of subject good. By the way, you have made me quite proud of
my chapter on Hybridism, I had utterly forgotten how good it
appears when dressed up in your article.

Yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.

I have had a hunt and found my little article on Geese, which
please hereafter return.

_From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq._

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: December 10, 1880.

I return by this post the book on Hybridism, with many thanks. It
has been of great use to me in giving an abstract of the history.

I have read your own book with an amount of pleasure that I
cannot express.

One idea occurred to me with reference to luminous stimulation,
which, if it has not already occurred to you, would be well worth
trying. The suggestion suggests itself. How about the period
of latent stimulation in these non-nervous and yet irritable
tissues? And especially with reference to luminous stimulation it
would be most interesting to ascertain whether the tissues are
affected by brief _flashes_ of light. If you had an apparatus to
give bright electrical sparks in a dark room, and were to expose
one of your plants to flashes of timed intervals between each
other, you might ascertain, first, whether _any_ number of sparks
in _any_ length of time would affect the plants at all; and
second, if so, what number in a given time. I should not wonder
(from some of my experiments on Medusæ, see 'Phil. Trans.' vol.
clxvii. pt. ii. pp. 683-4) if it would turn out that a continuous
uninterrupted series of sparks, however bright, would produce no
effect at all, owing to the plant tissues being too sluggish to
admit of being affected by a succession of stimuli each of such
brief duration. But if any effect were produced, it would still
be interesting to make out whether this interrupted source of
flashing light were considerably less effective than a continuous
source of the same intensity.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.

Linnean Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W.:
December 14, 1880.

My dear Mr. Darwin,--I am glad that you think the experiment
worth trying. As you say you have not got the requisite apparatus
for trying it, I have written to Professor Tyndall to see if he
would allow it to be carried through at the Royal Institution.

If I had known you were in town I should have called to tell
you about the Echinoderms. My paper on them is now written (70
pages), so I have begun to come here (Burlington House) to
read up systematically all the literature I can find on animal
intelligence. Hence it is that, having left your letter at home,
and not remembering the address upon it, I have to send this
answer to Down.

---- is a lunatic beneath all contempt--an object of pity were it
not for his vein of malice.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: December 17, 1880.

My dear Mr. Darwin,--Just a line to let you know that Professor
Tyndall has kindly placed at my disposal the apparatus required
to conduct the experiment with flashing light.

Frank's papers at the Linnean were, as you will probably have
heard from other sources, a most brilliant success, as not only
was the attendance enormously large and the interest great,
but his exposition was a masterpiece of scientific reasoning,
rendered with a choice and fluency of language that were really
charming. I knew, of course, that he is a very clever fellow, but
I did not know that he could do that sort of thing so well.

I have now got a monkey. Sclater let me choose one from the Zoo,
and it is a very intelligent, affectionate little animal. I
wanted to keep it in the nursery for purposes of comparison, but
the proposal met with so much opposition that I had to give way.
I am afraid to suggest the idiot, lest I should be told to occupy
the nursery myself.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.

Down, Beckenham, Kent: January 24.

My dear Romanes,--I have been thinking about Pompilius and its
allies. Please take the trouble to read on 'Perforation of the
Corolla by Bees,' p. 425 of my Cross Fertilisation to end of
chapter. Bees show so much intelligence in their acts, that it
seems not improbable to me that the progenitors of Pompilius
originally stung caterpillars and spiders, &c., in any part of
their bodies, and then observed by their intelligence that if
they stung them in one particular place, as between certain
segments on the lower side, their prey was at once paralysed.
It does not seem to me at all incredible that this action should
thus become instinctive, _i.e._ memory transmitted from one
generation to another. It does not seem necessary to suppose that
when Pompilius stung its prey in the ganglion that it intended
or knew that the prey would long keep alive. The development of
the larvæ may have been subsequently modified in relation to
their half-dead instead of wholly dead prey, supposing that the
prey was at first quite killed, which would have required much
stinging. Turn this notion over in your mind, but do not trouble
yourself by answering.

Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

N.B. Once on a time a fool said to himself that at an ancient
period small soft crabs or other creatures stuck to certain
fishes; these struggled violently, and in doing so, discharged
electricity, which annoyed the parasites, so that they often
wriggled away. The fish was very glad, and some of its children
gradually profited in a higher degree and in various ways by
discharging more electricity and by not struggling. The fool who
thought thus persuaded another fool to try an eel in Scotland,
and lo and behold electricity was discharged when it struggled
violently. He then placed in contact with the fish, or near it, a
small medusa or other animal which he cleverly knew was sensitive
to electricity, and when the eel struggled violently, the little
animals in contact showed by their movements that they felt a
slight shock. Ever afterwards men said that the two fools were
not such big fools as they seemed to be.

STULTUS.

_From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin._

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: Sunday, March 1881.

I have got a lot of cats waiting for me at different houses round
Wimbledon Common, and some day next week shall surprise our
coachman by making a round of calls upon the cats, drive them
several miles into the country, and then let them out of their
respective bags. If any return, I shall try them again in other
directions before finally trying the rotation experiment.

I am also getting the experiment on flashing light agoing. The
first apparatus did not answer, so now I have invested in a large
eight-day clock, the pendulum of which I intend to make do the
flashing.

18 Cornwall Terrace. Regent's Park, N.W.: March 24, 1881.

I write to ask you what you think of the following idea as to a
possible method of attacking Pangenesis. Why not, I mean, inarch,
at an early period of their growth, the seed-vessels or ovaries
of plants belonging to different varieties? If adhesion takes
place, the ovary might then be severed from its parent plant, and
left to develop upon the foreign one.

If you think this a possible experiment, now would be the time of
year to try it. Therefore I write to ask whether you do think it
possible, and if so, what plants you may think it would be best
to try it with.

All the cats[31] I have hitherto let out of their respective bags
have shown themselves exceedingly stupid, not one having found
her way back.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.

_From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes._

Down, Beckenham, Kent: March 26, 1881.

You are very plucky about Pangenesis, and I much wish that you
could have any success. I do not understand your scheme. Do you
intend to operate on an ovarium with a single ovule, and to
bisect it after being fertilised? I should fear that this was
quite hopeless. If you intend to operate on ovaria with many
seeds, whether before or after fertilisation, I do not see how
you could possibly distinguish any effect from the union of the
two ovaria. Any operation before fertilisation would, I presume,
quite prevent the act; for very few flowers can be fertilised if
the stem is cut and placed in water. Gärtner, however, says, that
some Liliaceæ can be fertilised under these circumstances.

If Hooker is correct, he found that cutting off or making a hole
into the summit of the ovarium and then inserting pollen caused
the fertilisation of the ovules. This has always stretched my
belief to the cracking point. I think he has published a notice
on this experiment, but forget where, and I think it was on
'Papaver.' Dyer could probably tell you about it. Perhaps your
plan is to remove one half of the ovarium of a one-seeded plant
and join it on to the ovary of another of a distinct var., with
its ovule removed; but this would be a frightfully difficult
operation.

I am very sorry to hear about your ill success with cats, and I
wish you could get some detailed account of the Belgium trials.

Yours very sincerely,
C. DARWIN.

April 16, 1881.

My manuscript on Worms has been sent to printers, so I am going
to amuse myself by scribbling to you on a few points; but
you must not waste your time in answering at any length this
scribble. Firstly, your letter on intelligence was very useful
to me, and I tore up and rewrote what I sent you. I have not
attempted to define intelligence, but have quoted your remarks on
experience, and have shown how far they apply to worms. It seems
to me, that they must be said to work with some intelligence,
anyhow, they are not guided by a blind instinct.

Secondly, I was greatly interested by the abstract in 'Nature'
of your work on Echinoderms; the complexity, with simplicity,
and with such curious co-ordination of the nervous system, is
marvellous; and you showed me before what splendid gymnastic
feats they can perform.

Thirdly, Dr. Roux has sent me a book just published by him,
'Der Kampf der Theile,' &c., 1881 (240 pages in length). He
is manifestly a well-read physiologist and pathologist, and
from his position a good anatomist. It is full of reasoning,
and this in German is very difficult to me, so that I have only
skimmed through each page, here and there reading with a little
more care. As far as I can _imperfectly_ judge, it is the most
important book on evolution which has appeared for some time. I
believe that G. H. Lewes hinted at the same fundamental idea,
viz. that there is a struggle going on _within_ every organism
between the organic molecules, the cells, and the organs. I
_think_ that his basis is that every cell which best performs
its function is as a consequence at the same time best nourished
and best propagates its kind. The book does not touch on mental
phenomena, but there is much discussion on rudimentary or
atrophied parts, to which subject you formerly attended. Now if
you would like to read this book, I will send it after Frank has
glanced at it, for I do not think he will have time to read it
with care. If you read it and are struck with it (but I may be
_wholly_ mistaken about its value), you would do a public service
by analysing and criticising it in 'Nature.' Dr. Roux makes, I
think, a gigantic oversight in never considering plants; these
would simplify the problem for him.

Fourthly, I do not know whether you will discuss in your book
on the 'Mind of Animals' any of the more complex and wonderful
instincts. It is unsatisfactory work, as there can be no
fossilised instincts, and the sole guide is their state in other
members of the same order and mere probability. But if you do
discuss any (and it will perhaps be expected of you) I should
think that you could not select a better case than that of the
sand-wasps, which paralyse their prey, as formerly described
by Fabre in his wonderful paper in 'Annales des Sciences,' and
since amplified in his admirable 'Souvenirs.' Whilst reading this
latter book, I speculated a little on the subject. Astonishing
nonsense is often spoken of the sand-wasp's knowledge of
anatomy. Now will anyone say that the Gauchos on the plains of
La Plata have such knowledge, yet I have often seen them prick
a struggling and lassoed cow on the ground with unerring skill,
which no mere anatomist could imitate. The pointed knife was
infallibly driven in between the vertebræ by a single slight
thrust. I presume that the art was first discovered by chance,
and that each young Gaucho sees exactly how the others do it, and
then with a very little practice learning the art. Now I suppose
that the sand-wasps originally merely killed their prey by
stinging them in many places (see p. 129 of Fabre, 'Souvenirs,'
and page 241), on the lower and softer side of the body, and that
to sting a certain segment was found by far the most successful
method, and was inherited, like the tendency of a bull-dog to pin
the nose of a bull, or of a ferret to bite the cerebellum. It
would not be a very great step in advance to prick the ganglion
of its prey only slightly, and thus to give its larvæ fresh meat
instead of old dry meat. Though Fabre insists so strongly on the
unvarying character of instinct, yet it shows that there is some
variability, as on pp. 176, 177.

I fear that I shall have utterly wearied you with my scribbling
and bad handwriting.

My dear Romanes,
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

_From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq._

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: April 17, 1881.

Your long letter has been most refreshing to me in every way.

I am looking forward with keen interest to the appearance of your
book on Worms, and am unexpectedly glad to hear that my letter
was of any use.

I should very much like to see the book you mention, and from
what you say about sending it I shall not order it. But there is
no need to send it soon, as I have already an accumulation of
books to review for 'Nature.'

I am very glad that you think well of the Echinoderm work.
Several other experiments have occurred to me to try, and I
hope to be able to do so next autumn, as also the interesting
experiment suggested by Frank of rotating by clockwork (as you
did the plants) an Echinus inverted upon its aboral pole, to see
whether it would right itself when the influence of gravity is
removed.

No doubt I must in my second book deal with instincts of all
kinds, complex or otherwise. Your 'speculations' on the sand-wasp
seem to me very pithy--excuse the pun suggested by the analogy
of the cattle--and I think there can be little doubt that such
is the direction in which the explanation is to be sought. I
also think that the difficulty is mitigated by the consideration
that both the ganglion of the spider and the sting of the wasp
are organs situated on the median line of their respective
possessors, and therefore that the origin of the instinct may
have been determined or assisted by the mere anatomical form of
the animals--the wasp not stinging till securely mounted on the
spider's back, and when so mounted the sting might naturally
strike the ganglion. But I have not yet read Fabre's own account,
so this view may not hold. Anyhow, and whatever determining
conditions as to origin may have been, it seems to me there can
be little doubt that natural selection would have developed it in
the way you suggest.

I have now grown a number of seeds exposed to the flashing light,
but am not yet quite sure as to the result. About one seedling
out of ten bends towards the flashing source very decidedly,
while all the rest, although exposed to just the same conditions,
grow perfectly straight. But I shall, no doubt, find out the
reason of this by further trials. It is strange that the same
thing happens when I expose other seedlings to constant light of
exceedingly dim intensity. It looks as if some individuals were
more sensitive to light than others. I do not know whether you
found any evidence of this.

I have just found that this year again I have been too late in
asking them to send me cuttings of the vine for grafting. I did
not know that the sap in vines began to run so early.

I remain ever yours, very sincerely and most respectfully,

GEO. J. ROMANES.

_From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes._

Down: April 18, 1881.

I am extremely glad of your success with the flashing light. If
plants are acted on by light, like some of the lower animals,
there is an additional point of interest, as it seems to me, in
your results. Most botanists believe that light causes a plant
to bend to it in as direct a manner as light affects nitrate of
silver.

I believe that it merely tells the plant to which side to bend,
and I see indications of this belief prevailing even with Sachs.
Now it might be expected that light would act on a plant in
something the same manner as on the lower animals. As you are
at work on this subject, I will call your attention to another
point. Wiesner, of Vienna (who has lately published a good book
on Heliotropism) finds that an intermittent light during 20 m.
produces same effect as a continuous light of same brilliancy
during 60 m. So that Van Tieghem, in the first part of his book,
which has just appeared, remarks, the light during 40 m. out
of the 60 m. produced no effect. I observed an analogous case
described in my book. Wiesner and Tieghem seem to think that this
is explained by calling the whole process 'induction,' borrowing
a term used by some physico-chemists (of whom I believe Roscoe is
one), and implying an agency which does not produce any effect
for some time, and continues its effect for some time after the
cause has ceased. I believe (?) that photographic paper is an
instance. I must ask Leonard whether an interrupted light acts
on it in the same manner as on a plant. At present I must still
believe in my explanation that it is the contrast between light
and darkness which excites a plant.

I have forgotten my main object in writing, viz. to say that I
believe (and have so stated) that seedlings vary much in their
sensitiveness to light; but I did not prove this, for there are
many difficulties, whether time of incipient curvature or amount
of curvature is taken as the criterion. Moreover, they vary
according to age and perhaps from vigour of growth; and there
seems inherent variability, as Strasburger (whom I quote) found
with spores. If the curious anomaly observed by you is due to
varying sensitiveness, ought not _all_ the seedlings to bend if
the flashes were at longer intervals of time? According to my
notion of contrast between light and darkness being the stimulus,
I should expect that if flashes were made sufficiently slow it
would be a powerful stimulus, and that you would _suddenly_
arrive at a period when the result would _suddenly_ become great.
On the other hand, as far as my experience goes, what one expects
rarely happens.

I heartily wish you success, and remain, yours ever very
sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

Do you read the 'Times'? As I had a fair opportunity, I sent a
letter to the 'Times' on Vivisection, which is printed to-day.
I thought it fair to bear my share of the abuse poured in so
atrocious a manner on all physiologists.

_From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq._

18 Cornwall Terrace: April 22.

I have left your last letter so long unanswered in order that I
might be able to let you know the result of the next experiment
I was trying on the seeds with flashing light. I think in the
end the conclusion will be that short flashes, such as I am now
using, influence the seedlings, but only to a comparatively small
degree, so that it is only the more sensitive seedlings that
perceive them.

Your letter in the 'Times' was in every way admirable, and coming
from you will produce more effect than it could from anybody
else. The answer to-day to ---- is also first-rate--just enough
without being too much. It would have been a great mistake to
have descended into a controversy. I thought ---- had more
wit than to adopt such a tack and tone, and am sure that all
physiologists will be for ever grateful to you for such a
trenchant expression of opinion.

I have a little piece of gossip to tell. Yesterday the Council of
the Linnean nominated me Zoological Secretary, and some of the
members having pressed me to accept, I have accepted. I also hear
that your son is to be on the same Council, and that Sir John
Lubbock is to be the new President.

I have at length decided on the arrangement of my material for
the books on Animal Intelligence and Mental Evolution. I shall
reserve all the heavier parts of theoretical discussion for the
second book--making the first the chief repository of facts,
with only a slender network of theory to bind them into mutual
relation, and save the book as much as possible from the danger
that you suggested of being too much matter-of-fact. It will
be an advantage to have the facts in a form to admit of brief
reference when discussing the heavier philosophy in the second
book, which will be the more important, though the less popular,
of the two.

Just then some correspondence had been going on in the 'Times' on the subject of Vivisection, and Mr. Darwin wrote to Mr. Romanes as follows:--

Down, Beckenham, Kent: April 25, 1881.

My dear Romanes,--I was very glad to read your last notes with
much news interesting to me. But I write now to say how I, and
indeed all of us in the house, have admired your letter in the
'Times.'[32] It was so simple and direct. I was particularly glad
about Burdon Sanderson, of whom I have been for several years
a great admirer. I was, also, especially glad to read the last
sentences. I have been bothered with several letters, but none
abusive. Under a selfish point of view I am very glad of the
publication of your letter, as I was at first inclined to think
that I had done mischief by stirring up the mud, now I feel sure
that I have done good....

The following letters relate to the portrait of Mr. Darwin which was painted by the Hon. John Collier for the Linnean Society.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: May 25.

My dear Mr. Darwin,--When at the Linnean this afternoon, I was
told by Dr. M---- that he had obtained your consent to sit for
a portrait for the Society. Now, as it appears to me a great
favour to ask of you to sit for yet another portrait, the least
we can do, if you consent, is to employ a thoroughly good man
to paint it. Therefore, if you have not already entered into
any definite agreement, I write to suggest a little delay (say
of a month), when, as Secretary, I might ascertain the amount
of the subscription on which we might rely, and arrange matters
accordingly. John Collier (Huxley's son-in-law) told me some time
ago that he would dearly like to have you to paint, and I doubt
not that he would do it at less than his ordinary charges if
necessary. He would be sure to do the work well, and so I write
to ascertain whether you would not prefer him, or some other
artist of known ability, to do the work, if I were to undertake
to provide the needful.

Please give to Mrs. Darwin, and take to yourself, our best
thanks for your kind congratulations on the opportune arrival of
another baby--just in time to be worked into the book on Mental
Evolution. Everything is going well.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.

_To C. Darwin, Esq._

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: July 1.

I have told Collier that he had now better write to you direct
at whatever time he intends to make his final arrangements with
you as to place and time of sitting. He has just finished a
portrait of me, which my mother had painted as a present to my
wife. It is exceedingly good, and as all his recent portraits are
the same--notably one of Huxley--I am very glad that he is to
paint you. Besides, he is such a pleasant man to talk to, that
the sittings are not so tedious as they would be with a less
intelligent man.

I shall certainly read the 'Creed of Science' as soon as I can.
The German book on Evolution I have not yet looked at, as I have
been giving all my time to my own book. This is now finished. But
talking of my time, I do not see how the two or three hours which
I have spent in arranging to have a portrait, which will be of so
much historical importance, taken by a competent artist, could
well have been better employed.

You will see that I have got into a row with Carpenter over the
thought-reading. Everybody thinks he made a mistake in lending
himself to Bishop's design of posing as a scientific wonder.
Bishop is a very sly dog, and has played his cards passing well.
In an article which he published two years ago in an American
newspaper, he explains the philosophy of advertising, and says
the first thing to attend to is to catch good names. He has now
succeeded well.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

GEO. J. ROMANES.

Down: August 7.

My dear Romanes,--I received yesterday the enclosed notice, and I
send it to you, as I have thought that if you notice Dr. Roux's
book in 'Nature' or elsewhere the review might possibly be of use
to you. As far as I can judge the book ought to be brought before
English naturalists. You will have heard from Collier that he has
finished my picture. All my family who have seen it think it the
best likeness which has been taken of me, and, as far as I can
judge, this seems true. Collier was the most considerate, kind,
and pleasant painter a sitter could desire.

My dear Romanes,
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.

_To C. Darwin, Esq._

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: August 8, 1881.

Many thanks for the notice of Roux's book. I have not yet looked
at the latter, but Preyer, of Jena (who has been our guest during
the Congress meeting,[33] and who knows the author), does not
think much of it.

I am delighted that the portrait has pleased those who are the
best judges. I saw it the day it came up, and feel no doubt at
all that it is far and away the best of the three. But I did not
like to write and venture this opinion till I knew what you all
thought of it.

I have been very busy this past week with the affairs of the
Congress in relation to Vivisection. It has been resolved by the
Physiological Section to get a vote of the whole Congress upon
the subject, and I had to prepare the resolution and get the
signatures of all the vice-presidents of the Congress, presidents
and vice-presidents of sections, and to arrange for its being put
to the vote of the whole Congress at its last general meeting
to-morrow. The only refusal to sign came appropriately enough
from the president of the section 'Mental Diseases.'

We leave for Scotland to-morrow, when I shall hope to get time
to read Roux's book, though I shall first review 'The Student's
Darwin.'

I remain, very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

GEO. J. ROMANES.

The following letters relate to the burning question of Vivisection:--

Garvock, Perthshire: August 31, 1881.

My dear Mr. Darwin,--It is not often that I write to dun you, and
I am sorry that duty should now impose on me the task of doing
so, but I have no alternative, as you shall immediately see.

The Physiological Society was formed, as you may remember, for
the purpose of obtaining combined action among physiologists on
the subject of Vivisection. The result in the first instance
was to resolve on a tentative policy of silence, with the view
of seeing whether the agitation would not burn itself out. It
is now thought that this policy has been tried sufficiently
long, and that we are losing ground by continuing it. After much
deliberation, therefore, the society has resolved to speak out
upon the subject, and the 'Nineteenth Century' has been involved
as the medium of publication. Arrangements have been made with
Knowles for a symposium-like series of short essays by all the
leaders of biology and medicine in this country--each to write
on a branch of the subject chosen by himself or allotted to him
by the society. In this matter of organising the contributions,
the society is to be represented by Dr. Pye Smith, who combines
science, medicine, and literary culture better than any other
member of our body.

As secretary I am directed to write to all the men whose names
are mentioned in a resolution passed by the society in accordance
with the report of a committee appointed by the society to
consider the subject. Hence these tears.

Of course, your name in this matter is one of the most important,
and as the idea is to get a body of great names, it would
be a disappointment of no small magnitude if yours should
fail. It does not matter so much that you should write a long
dissertation, so long as you allow yourself to stand among this
noble army of martyrs. Two or three pages of the 'Nineteenth
Century' on one, say, of the following topics would be all that
we should want:--

'The limits and safeguards desirable in carrying on scientific
experiments on animals.'

'Mistaken humanity of the agitation: real humanity of
vivisection.'

'The Royal Commission and its report.'

Or any other topic connected with Vivisection on which you may
feel the spirit most to move you to write.

Any further information that you may desire I shall be happy to
give; but please remember how much your assistance is desired.

This is a very delightful place, though not very conducive to
work. If any of your sons are in Scotland and should care for a
few days' sport with other scientific men on the spree, please
tell them that they will find open house and welcome here.

The proofs of my book on Animal Intelligence are coming in. I
hope your work on Worms will be out in time for me to mention it
and its main results.

Ewart has pitched his zoological laboratory at Oban, so as to be
as near this as possible. I shall go down when I can to keep his
pot of sea-eggs upon the boil.

I remain, very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

GEO. J. ROMANES.

Down, Beckenham, Kent: September 2, 1881.