CAMBRIDGE. 1867-1873
Most men feel that their University life is one of the most marked phases of their career. Even to those who come up from a public school, with all the prestige and with all the friendships, the sense of fellowship, the hundred and one influences, the customs of a great school 'lying thick' upon them, realise more and more, as time goes on, how great a part Oxford or Cambridge plays in their lives; how it is in their University life they make their intellectual choice, and receive the bias which, for good or for evil, will influence their whole life.
And to this raw boy, fresh from a secluded and somewhat narrow atmosphere, plunged for the first time into a great society, brought for the first time under some of the influences of the then 'Zeitgeist,' into contact with some of the leaders of thought, entrance into the University was the beginning of an entirely new life.
He entered Cambridge, half-educated, utterly untrained, with no knowledge of men or of books. He left it, to all intents and purposes, a trained worker and earnest thinker, with his life work begun—that work which was an unwearied search after truth, a work characterised by an ever-increasing reverence for goodness, and, as years went on, by a disregard for applause or for reward. His Cambridge life was happy; he made several friends, chief of whom was Mr. Proby Cautley, the present rector of Quainton near Aylesbury.
He enjoyed boating, and once narrowly escaped drowning in the Cam.[3]
At first George Romanes fell completely under Evangelical influences, at that time practically the most potent religious force in Cambridge. He was a regular communicant, and it is touching to look at the little Bible he used while at Cambridge, worn, and marked, and pencilled, with references to sermons which had evidently caught the boy's attention. He used to attend meetings for Greek Testament study, and enjoyed hearing the distinguished preachers who visited the University.
But of the intellectual influences in the religious world of the University he knew nothing. F. D. Maurice was still in Cambridge, but he seems to have repelled rather than to have attracted George Romanes, nor did he ever come under the influence of Westcott, or of Lightfoot, or of Hort.
And, when the intellectual struggles began, he seems in early years to have owed very little to any Christian writer, Bishop Butler alone excepted.
His summers were spent in Ross-shire, and there is no doubt these months were of great use to him. He was perfectly unharassed so far as pecuniary cares or family ambition were concerned, and he had abundant time to think. Years afterwards, Mr. Darwin said to him: 'Above all, Romanes, cultivate the habit of meditation,' and Mr. Romanes always quoted this as a most valuable bit of advice. His intellectual development was rapid in these Cambridge years, and it is not improbable that his slowly growing mind had not been ill served by being allowed to mature in absolute freedom, although he himself bitterly regretted and, through his whole life, deplored the lack of early training, and of mental discipline.
Through these early Cambridge years he still cherished the idea of Holy Orders, and with his friend, Mr. Cautley, he had many talks about the career they both intended to choose. They spent a part of one long vacation together, and occupied themselves in reading theology—such books as 'Pearson on the Creed,' Hooker's 'Ecclesiastical Polity,' Bishop Butler's 'Analogy,' and in writing sermons. Some of Mr. Romanes' are still extant, and are curious bits of boyish composition—crude, unformed in style, and yet full of thought, and showing a remarkable knowledge of the Bible.
He seems to have been, for the rest, a bright, good-tempered, popular lad, always much chaffed for absent-minded mistakes, for his long legs, for his peculiar name; and he certainly gave no one the faintest idea of any particular ability, any likelihood of future distinction.[4] Some slight chance, as it seemed, turned his attention to natural science; one or two friends were reading for the Natural Science Tripos, and George Romanes ceased to read mathematics and began to work at natural science, competing for and winning a scholarship in that subject.
Eighteen months only remained for him to work for his Tripos, and it is not surprising that he only obtained a Second Class. In the Tripos of 1870, in the same list among the First-Class men, Mr. Francis Darwin's name appears.
Mr. Romanes had gone but a little distance along the road on which he was destined to travel very far. He had up to this time read none of Mr. Darwin's books, and to a question on Natural Selection which occurred in the Tripos papers he could give no answer.
By this time he had abandoned the idea of Holy Orders, perhaps on account of the opposition at home, perhaps because of the first beginnings of the intellectual struggles of doubt and of bewilderment. He began to study medicine, and made a lifelong friendship with Dr. Latham, the well-known Cambridge physician, of whose kindness Mr. Romanes often spoke, and to whom he dedicated his first book, which was the Burney Prize for 1873. But he also began to study physiology under the direction of Dr. Michael Foster, the present Professor of Physiology at Cambridge, to whom she owes her famous medical school, at that time in its very early beginnings.
Science entirely fascinated him; his first plunge into real scientific work opened to him a new life, gave him the first sense of power and of capacity. Now he read Mr. Darwin's books, and it is impossible to overrate the extraordinary effect they had on the young man's mind. Something of the feeling which Keats describes in the sonnet 'On Looking into Chapman's Homer' seems to have been his:
'Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when, with eagle eyes,
He stared at the Pacific—and all his men
Looked at each other with a wild surmise
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.'
About the spring of 1872 Mr. Romanes began to show signs of ill-health. He was harassed by faintness and incessant lassitude, but struggled on, going up to Scotland in the summer and beginning to shoot, under the belief that all he wanted was hard exercise. At last he broke down and was declared to be suffering from a bad attack of typhoid fever. He had a very hard struggle for life, and owed a great deal to Dr. Latham, who from Cambridge kept up a constant telegraphic communication with the Ross-shire doctors. It was a long and weary convalescence, beguiled in part by writing an essay on 'Christian Prayer and General Laws,' the subject assigned for the Burney Prize Essay of 1873.
Much of this essay was dictated to one or other of his sisters, and it is a curious fact that his first book and his last should have been on theological subjects. Both were written when he was struggling with great bodily weakness, and in these months of early manhood he showed the same almost pathetic desire to work, the same activity of thought which he displayed more than twenty years later in the last days of his life.
The essay was successful, and its author was more than once claimed as a champion of faith on the strength of it.
It is a very hard bit of reading, and of course has to some extent the drawback of a prize essay, a work written not simply to convince the public, but to impress examiners. It is full of knowledge and of intellectual agility, but is perhaps needlessly difficult in style. His success was absolutely unexpected by his family, and made him very happy, as the following letters show, written in the first glow of success.
To Mrs. Romanes.
18 Cornwall Terrace.
My dearest Mother,—Your letter of surprise and rejoicing has been to me one of the best parts of the result. All the letters of congratulation which are now coming in mention you: 'How delighted your mother will be,' &c.; and it is a great thing for me to find that you are so. Without appreciative sympathy success soon palls; but the two combined go to make up the best happiness.
I went to Cambridge yesterday to get the manuscript, and as there happened to be a congregation in the afternoon, I also took my degree. I saw all my friends, who were overflowing with delight. Indeed, I never before realised how great the competition is, for I never had an opportunity of knowing how the successful man is lionised. The Caius dons especially are up in the air about it, as this is the first time in the history of the college that one of its members has got the Burney; so that, as Ferrers writes to me, 'when the same year produces a Senior Wrangler and a Burney Prizeman, the college may be said to be looking up.' I was invited to breakfast with the Professor of Divinity (who is the principal adjudicator), and I found him very pleasant indeed. Afterwards I went to the Vice-Chancellor, from whom I got the well-remembered 'pages' (but now with Prize I. written across them); and lastly, to the third adjudicator, the master of Christ's. They all said more in praise of the essay than I would care to repeat, but, to tell you the simple truth, I was perfectly astonished. For example, 'In the history of the Burney Prize there have only been two equals and no superiors.'
The Vice-Chancellor told me that there was another essay well deserving of a prize which was written by a man of whom I dare say you will remember I said I was most afraid, viz., Mr. ——. I knew him very well when we were undergraduates, and three years ago he obtained the Trinity Scholarship in Philosophy, open to all competitors, and ended up eighteen months ago by graduating as Senior of the Moral Science Tripos. It is a great satisfaction to me that the man who was universally admitted to be the best of the Cambridge metaphysicians should have written, and that, notwithstanding, the decision should have been given unanimously in my favour.
To James Romanes, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace: April 24.
My dearest James,—I am sure you will be as much pleased with the result of my labours as I am myself. I remember so well our speculating upon the probable chances of success, and how low we set them down. Had I known for certain that —— was going to compete, I think I should have given up altogether. His essay does seem to have been extraordinarily good, and yet he cannot get a second prize, because the foundation requires that every penny of the interest shall go to the first man. As this seems rather hard lines for ——, I have to-day written to the Divinity Professor offering to share the prize money, on condition that the University recognise —— as a prizeman.
The extraordinary thing about the whole affair is, not so much the award, as the opinion which the adjudicators entertain of the work. I do not know how it is that, stranded on a sandbank and in a half dead-and-alive state, without thinking I was doing anything unusual, I should have written the prize essay. But I don't care how it is so long as it is so, as —— writes, 'You certainly have achieved a great success, handicapped as you were in so many ways.' This, of course, relates to the award; but, as I said before, what surprised me most is that I should not only be first, but such a good first. The praise given by each of the adjudicators separately, in as strong terms as it is possible in donnish phraseology to convey it, was very gratifying to me, especially as pronounced in the studiously dignified manner of the Vice-Chancellor.
I hope soon to see you and tell you more about the whole thing; for one of the best parts of it is, that 'if one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.'
Ever your loving Brother,
Geo. J. Romanes.
During his convalescence Mr. Romanes finally abandoned the idea of a profession and resolved to devote himself to scientific research.
It was about this time that a letter of his in 'Nature' (see 'Nature,' vol. viii. p. 101) attracted Mr. Darwin's attention, and caused him to send a friendly little note to the youthful writer.
Probably Mr. Darwin had little idea of the effect his letter produced on its recipient, who was then recovering from his long illness. That Darwin should actually write to him seemed too good to believe. It was a great encouragement to go on with scientific work.
Up to 1873 or 1874 Mr. Romanes had been working, when at Cambridge, in Dr. Michael Foster's laboratory, and was a member of that band who formed the nucleus of what was destined to be the famous physiological school of Cambridge. Side by side with Mr. Romanes were working Mr. Gaskell, Mr. Dew Smith, and others now well known for their work and achievements.
In some ways Mr. Romanes suffered from not remaining at Cambridge and becoming a permanent member of the band.
It is impossible not to feel that had he stayed on at the University he would have devoted himself more and more to strictly experimental work and less to what may be called philosophical natural history. Some will regard his removal as a misfortune, and others as a happy accident, but the might-have-beens of life are never very profitable subjects for speculation.
In order to be with his now widowed mother, he returned to London, and made his home with her and his sisters. They spent their summers at Dunskaith, and Mr. Romanes embarked on researches on the nervous system of the Medusæ. He began also to work in the physiological laboratory of University College under Dr. Sharpey and Dr. Burdon Sanderson. Both he regarded as masters and friends, and perhaps, next to Mr. Darwin, Dr. Sanderson was the scientific friend George Romanes most valued and loved, although it is impossible to overrate what he owed to Cambridge, and to those early longings for biological study which were inspired by Dr. Foster.
As has been said, a letter in 'Nature' attracted Mr. Darwin's notice, and somewhere about 1874 he invited Mr. Romanes to call on him.
From that time began an unbroken friendship, marked on one side by absolute worship, reverence, and affection, on the other by an almost fatherly kindness and a wonderful interest in the younger man's work and in his career. That first meeting was a real epoch in Mr. Romanes' life. Mr. Darwin met him, as he often used to tell, with outstretched hands, a bright smile, and a 'How glad I am that you are so young!'
Perhaps no hero-worship was ever more unselfish, more utterly loyal, or more fully rewarded. As time went on, and intimacy increased, and restraint wore off, Mr. Romanes found that the great master was as much to be admired for his personal character as for his wonderful gifts, and to the youth who never, in the darkest days of utter scepticism, parted with the love for goodness, for beauty of character, this was an overwhelming joy.
In a poem written about 1884 Mr. Romanes has expressed something of what he felt for Mr. Darwin, and in this he has poured out his 'hero-worship' in terms which were to him the expressions of simple truth.
It is interesting to look over the long series of letters from 1874 to 1882 and notice how the formal 'Dear Mr. Romanes' drops into the familiar 'Dear Romanes,' and the letters become more and more affectionate, intimate, personal.
About this time also Mr. Romanes made many other scientific friends, Professor Schäfer, Professor Cossar Ewart, Mr. Francis Darwin, Dr. Pye Smith, Professor R. Lankester, Professor Clifford, Dr. Lauder Brunton, and many more; and as his work became known it is pleasant to see with what kindness of welcome the new recruit was welcomed to the scientific army by such men as Professor Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, Sir Joseph Hooker, Mr. Busk, Mr. F. Galton, and Mr. Spottiswoode, then President of the Royal Society.
Just at that time there was a set of rising young biologists who all seemed destined to do good work, and it is melancholy to look back and to see 'how of that not too numerous band a number have been taken from us in the prime of life, Garrod, Frank Balfour, Moseley, H. Carpenter, Milnes Marshall, Romanes.'[5]
At Dunskaith a little laboratory was fitted up in an adjoining cottage, and here during the summer Mr. Romanes worked constantly for some years, diversifying his labours by shooting. It was in his country home also that he began those series of observations on animals which he worked up into the 'Animal Intelligence' of the International Scientific Series, perhaps the most popular of his books. The terrier Mathal was his special companion, and he observed various traits of her intelligence which are recorded in 'Mental Evolution in Animals,' pp. 156, 157, 158. It was also at Dunskaith that he began his first attempts at verse making, but for some years these did not come to much.
His scientific work at Dunskaith led to a paper communicated to the Royal Society in 1875, and entitled 'Preliminary Observations on the Locomotor System of Medusæ.'
This paper the Royal Society honoured by making it the Croonian Lecture, an honour awarded to the best biological paper of each year.[6]
Mr. Romanes had worked for two years, or rather two summers, very constantly and very strenuously on the Medusæ. He set himself to try and discover whether or not the rudiments of a nervous system existed in these creatures. Agassiz had maintained it did, others considered his deductions premature, and Huxley, in his 'Classification of Animals,' summed up the much-debated question by saying that 'no nervous system had yet been discovered in Medusæ.'
Microscopically, it had already been shown that in some forms of Medusæ there are present certain fine fibres running along the margin of the swimming bell, from their appearance said to be nerves, but in no case had it been shown that they functioned as such. Thus it was to solve this question, whether or not a nervous system, known to be present in all animals higher in the zoological scale, makes its first appearance in the Medusæ, that Mr. Romanes entered upon a long series of physiological experiments, first on the group of small 'naked-eyed' Medusæ, and then on the larger 'covered-eyed' form, the latter division containing the common jelly-fish. These names, 'naked-eyed' and 'covered-eyed,' are given to the two groups on account of a difference in their sense organs, which are situated on the margin of the umbrella or swimming bell, and are protected by a hood of gelatinous matter in the 'covered-eyed' forms, so called in contradistinction to the 'naked-eyed' group, where the hood is absent.
Romanes first carefully observed the movements of the Medusæ, which, it will be remembered, are effected by the dilatation and contraction of the entire swimming bell, and he found that if, in the 'naked-eyed' group, the extreme margin of this swimming bell be excised, immediate, total, and permanent paralysis of the whole organ took place. This result was obtained with every species of this group which he examined; he therefore concluded that in the margin of all these forms there is situated a localised system of centres of spontaneity, having for one of its functions the origination of impulses to which the contraction of the swimming bell is, under ordinary circumstances, exclusively due. This deduction was confirmed by the behaviour of the severed thread-like portion of the margin, which continued its rhythmical contractions quite unimpaired by its severance from the main organism, the latter remaining perfectly motionless. In the 'covered-eyed' forms Romanes found that excision of the margin of the umbrella, or rather excision of the sense organs or marginal bodies, produced paralysis; in this case, the paralysis was of a temporary character, as in the great majority of cases contractions were resumed after a variable period. From this series of experiments he was led to believe that in the 'covered-eyed' Medusæ the margin is the principal, but not the exclusive, seat of spontaneity, there being other locomotor centres scattered throughout the general contractile tissue of the swimming bell.
Having demonstrated the existence of a central nervous system capable of originating impulses, Romanes had yet to prove the identity of this nervous tissue of the Medusæ with that of nervous tissues in general: therefore, he next proceeded to test whether it was also capable of responding to external stimulation by light, heat, electricity, &c.
As regards appreciation of light, he was able to prove conclusively for at least two species of the 'naked-eyed' forms that as long as their marginal bodies remained intact they would always respond to luminous stimulation, and would crowd along a beam of light cast through a darkened bell jar in which they were swimming; if their marginal bodies were removed, they remained indifferent to light. With regard to the 'covered-eyed' forms, he obtained sufficient evidence to induce him to believe they possessed a visual sense localised in their marginal sense organs.
The effects of electrical stimulation agreed in all respects with those produced on the excitable tissues of other animals. He next experimentally investigated in the jelly-fish the paths along which the nervous impulses must pass in their passage from the locomotor centres, where they originate, to the general contractile tissues of the animal.
The results of these experiments led him to infer the existence of a very fine plexus of nerve fibres, in which the constituent threads cross and re-cross one another without actually coalescing. This conclusion, which he arrived at from purely experimental grounds, was some years afterwards confirmed by minute histological research.
Finally, the effect of various poisons, chloroform, alcohol, &c., was tried, and the striking resemblance of their action on the nervous system of the Medusæ with that which they exert on that of higher animals supports the belief that nerve tissue when it first appears in the scene of life has the same fundamental properties as it has in higher animals.
This piece of work was important, as the facts threw light, as Professor Sanderson has said, on elementary questions of physiology relating to excitability and conduction, and it was a characteristic of Mr. Romanes that in all his work, of whatever kind, he was always searching for principles. The minutest detail never escaped his attention if it appeared at all likely in any way to throw light on some biological or psychological problem. Only a trained scientific worker can appreciate the amount of labour these Royal Society papers represented. In 1875 he gave a Friday evening lecture at the Royal Institution on his work on Medusæ.
He was also at this time working on the subject of 'Pangenesis,'[7] and a series of letters to Mr. Darwin and to Professor Schäfer may interest some readers.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.:
January 14, 1875.
Dear Mr. Darwin,—I should very much like to see the papers to which you allude. A priori one would have thought the bisecting plan the more hopeful, but if the other has yielded positive results, in the case of an eye and tubers, I think it would be worth while to try the effect of transplanting various kinds of pips into the pulps of kindred varieties of fruit; for the homological relations in this case would be pretty much the same as in the other, with the exception of the bud being an impregnated one. If positive results ensued, however, this last-mentioned fact would be all the better for 'Pangenesis.'
You have doubtless observed the very remarkable case given in the 'Gardener's Chronicle' for January 2—I mean the vine in which the scion appears to have notably affected the stock. Altogether vines seem very promising; and as their buds admit of being planted in the ground, it would be much more easy to try the bisecting plan in their case than in others, where one half-bud, besides requiring to be fitted to the other half, has also to have its shield fitted into the bark. All one's energies might then be expended in coaxing adhesion, and if once this were obtained, I think there would here be the best chance of obtaining a hybrid; for then all, or nearly all, the cells of the future branch would be in the state of gemmules. I am very sanguine about the buds growing under these circumstances, for the vigour with which bisected seeds germinate is perfectly astonishing.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
P.S.—I have been to see Dr. Hooker, and found his kindness and courtesy quite what you led me to expect. Such men are rare.
April 21, 1875.
In returning you ——'s papers, I should like to say that the one on 'Inheritance' appears to me quite destitute of intelligible meaning. It is a jumble of the same confused ideas upon heredity about which I complained when you were at this house. How in the world can 'force' act without any material on which to act? Yet, unless we assume that it can, the whole discussion is either meaningless, or else assumes the truth of some such theory as 'Pangenesis.' In other words, as it must be 'unthinkable' that force should act independently of matter, the doctrine of its persistence can only be made to bear upon the question of heredity, by supposing that there is a material connection between corporeal and germinal cells—i.e. by granting the existence of force-carriers, call them gemmules, or physiological units, or what we please.
Lawson Tait says (p. 60)—'The process of growth of the ovum after impregnation can be followed only after the assumption either expressed or unconsciously accepted of such a hypothesis as is contained in Mr. Darwin's "Pangenesis;"' and it is interesting, as showing the truth of the remark, to compare, for example, p. 29 of the other pamphlet—for, of course, 'Pangenesis' assumes the truth of the persistence of force as the prime condition of its possibility. If ever I have occasion to prepare a paper about heredity, I think it would be worth while to point out the absurdity of thinking that we explain anything by vague allusions to the most ultimate generalisation of science. We might just as well say that Canadian institutions resemble British ones because force is persistent. This doubtless is the ultimate reason, but our explanation would be scientifically valueless if we neglected to observe that the Canadian colony was founded by British individuals.
The leaf from 'Nature' arrived last night. I had previously intended to try mangold-wurzel, as I hear it has well-marked varieties. The reference, therefore, will be valuable to me.
Before closing, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking you again for the very pleasant time I spent at Down. The place was one which I had long wished to see, and now that I have seen it, I am sure it will ever remain one of the most agreeable and interesting of memory's pictures.
With kind regards to Mrs. Darwin, I remain, very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
To Professor E. Schäfer.
Dunskaith, Ross-shire.
My dear Schäfer,—I am glad to hear that your rest has been beneficial, and also about all the other news you give.
I should like to have your opinion about the meaning of the following facts.
In Sarsia gentle irritation of a tentacle or an eye-speck causes the polypite to respond, but not the bell (stronger irritation, of course, causes both to respond); this seems to show that there are nervous connections between the eye-specks and the polypite. By introducing cuts between former and latter, these connections may be destroyed—the tolerance of the tissue to such sections being variable in different cases, but never being anything remarkable. So far, then, the matter seems favourable to the nerve-plexus theory.
In another disc-shaped species of naked-eyed Medusæ with a long polypite, which I have called Tiaropsis indicans, from its habit of applying this long polypite to any part of the bell which is being injured, the localising function of the polypite is destroyed as regards any area of bell-tissue between which and the polypite a circumferential section has been introduced. In other words, the connections between the bell and the polypite, on which localising function of the latter depends, are exclusively radial. But not so the connections between the bell and the polypite, which render it possible for the one to be aware that something is wrong somewhere in the other. For if the whole animal be cut into a spiral with the polypite at one end, irritation of the other end of the spiral, or any part of its length, causes the polypite to sway about from side to side trying to find the offending body. And here it is important to observe that wherever a portion of one of the radial tubes occurs in the course of the spiral, irritation of that portion causes a much stronger response on the part of the polypite than does irritation of any of the general bell-tissue, even though this be situated much nearer to the polypite. This seems to show that the nervous plexus, if present, has its constituent fibres aggregated into trunks in the course of the nutriment tubes.
Thus far, then, I should be inclined to adopt the nerve-plexus theory. But lastly, we come to another species with a very large bell and a very small polypite. Irritation of margin or radial tubes causes the animal to go into a violent spasm, but irritation of the general muscular layer only causes an ordinary locomotor contraction. On cutting the whole animal into a spiral, and irritating the extreme end of several marginal strips, the entire muscular part of the spiral goes into spasm. On interposing a great number of interdigitating cuts in the course of the spiral, there is no difference in these results. Now the question is, What is the nature of the tissue that conducts impressions from the ganglionic tissue to the muscular, making the latter go into a spasm? A spasm is as different as possible from an ordinary contraction, and will continue to pass long after the ordinary contractions have been blocked by severity of section. It is scarcely possible to suppose a nerve-plexus here—the tolerance towards section being so great, although it varies in different cases. Besides, suppose this to be a segment of animal cut as represented. On irritating margin at a all the bell goes into a spasm, and it is evident that whatever the nature of the conductile tissue, all the connections must pass through the tract of tissue at b. Yet on irritating that tract no spasm is given. I cannot understand this on any view as to the nature of the conductile tissue.
Fig. 1.
Altogether, then, this part of the inquiry is very perplexing. Other parts are definite enough. All the poisons, for instance, yield very definite results, which are in conformity with their actions elsewhere.
I have had no time to do anything at the histology as yet. Would it be worth while for me to send you various species in a little sea water? They would arrive in a tolerably fresh condition, but would require to be examined at once. I might try sending some in spirit and others in chromic acid. I have made a few preliminary experiments with the galvanometer on Sarsia, placing one electrode on the margin and another on the muscular sheet, but without any decided results. I also tried placing a Sarsia in one beaker and simple sea water in another, connecting by means of the electrodes, but no disturbance was observable.
June 4.
I am working very hard just now, as there are so many irons to keep hot at once. It is too soon yet to see the results of spring grafting on the many plants I have operated on, and I have not had time to do anything with animals since I left London.
The Medusæ have now come on in their legion, and occupy my undivided attention. The results so far have proved as definite as they are interesting and important. The following is a summary of the principal.
All genera of naked-eyed yet examined become immediately and permanently paralysed (except polypite) upon excision of margin, but not so with the covered-eyed.
The organism thus mutilated responds with a single contraction to a nip with the forceps, also to various chemical stimuli. The chain of ganglia do the same, and further resemble the mutilated organism in contracting once to both make and break of direct or of induced shock. They differ, however, in one important particular: the severed margin retains its sensibility to the induced shock much longer than to the direct, while with the necto-calyx the converse is the case—the latter responding vigorously to make and break of direct current after it has ceased to be affected by even interrupted current with secondary coil pushed up to zero (one cell).
A strange and, so far as I am aware, an unparalleled phenomenon is sometimes manifested by Sarsia after removal of ganglia. It only happens in about one case out of ten, and never except in response to either chemical or electrical stimulation. A bell quite paralysed, and which may have responded normally enough to stimulation for a number of times, suddenly begins an active shivering motion, which may last from a minute to half an hour. This motion is totally different from anything exhibited by the animal when alive, and after ceasing never recommences without fresh stimulation. The shivering appearance, I think, is due to the various systems of muscles contracting without co-ordination, but why it should take place in some cases and not in others, I am quite unable to determine.
Irritability of bell to shocks increases progressively from centre to circumference, and is greatest when electrodes are placed on marginal canal. Also a similar progressive increase is observable on approaching one of the radial canals, and is greatest when electrodes are placed on one of these. (I may observe that however neat a person's fingers may be it would be simply impossible to conduct these and other observations of the same nature without a mechanical stage. The electrodes must be needle-points passed through cords, the latter being supported by a copper wire fixed to the stage, and therefore moveable with it; and I defy anybody to get the electrodes into the field, and at the same time upon the marginal canal, unless they all move together.)
Fig. 2.
Sarsia stands an astonishing amount of section without losing nervous conductibility. For instance, the whole organism may be cut into a three-turned spiral, and on irritating the end, the whole contracts; yet a moment's thought will show how trying this mode of section is to nervous connections. As the animal may be cut, as in the following diagram, which represents the whole organism in projection—the dotted lines being the canals, and the thick ones the cuts—on now irritating any part of the animal, the whole contracts, but the co-ordination power is lost, both in spontaneous contraction and for those in response to stimuli.
If the entire margin be cut out in a continuous piece save a small portion to unite it with the bell, and if the distal end be now irritated, a main of contraction runs along the entire severed part till it arrives at the small united part, when the whole bell contracts. I should like to try whether under such circumstances the margin would be thrown into a state of electrotonus, but only having one cell I am not able to make out this point satisfactorily.
The severed margin continues its rhythmical contractions for two or three days. I am now trying the effect of different chemical stimuli, and if you can suggest any further line of experimentation, of course I shall be very pleased. Only, if you can think of anything which might be tried and which is not mentioned in this letter, please write soon, as the Sarsia will not last much longer, and they are the best adapted for my purposes.
I remain, very sincerely yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
P.S.—I should have said that neither gold nor silver brings out any nervous tissue.
Medusa muscle is not doubly refracting, but then none that I have here seen is striated, and unstriated muscle is not doubly refracting anywhere, is it?
Dunskaith: June 24.
Many thanks for your long and suggestive letter. The poisons also are most acceptable. I have waited before writing to try effect of the latter, but the weather has been so stormy that no jelly-fish could be got.
The most interesting observations I have made since writing before are the following. Unmutilated Sarsia in a dark room seek a beam of light thrown into the bell-jar containing them, and this as keenly as do moths. But when the so-called eye-specks are cut out, the animal no longer cares for light.
I have only come across two species of luminous Medusæ—both, I believe, as yet undescribed—and in these the light is emitted from the margin alone, and, with electrical stimulus, is strictly confined to the intra-polar regions, being strongest at the two poles.
There is no doubt at all about the muscular nature of the fibres we saw. In the larger kinds of Medusæ (the covered-eyed) these fibres are much coarser, and are clearly seen to be arranged in concentric bundles, having four or five fibres in each bundle. Alternating with these bundles, and about the same width as these, are strands of undifferentiated protoplasm. These strands are not spontaneously contractile, although their dimensions are altered by the contraction of the muscular branch on each of their sides. No part of the tissue is doubly refracting in the fresh state. Is there any way of treating it with a view of bringing out this property if latent, so to speak? The peculiarity is not due to the transparency of the tissue, for I find that the muscular fibre of the transparent osseous fish Leptocephalus is as doubly-refracting as could be wished. There are no signs of striæ, but Agassiz says that in some of the Mediterranean species striæ are well marked. But if both striated and unstriated fibres are elsewhere doubly-refracting, it does not, I suppose, much signify whether or not the muscles of Medusæ are striated—so far, I mean, as the peculiarity in question is concerned.
I wish you would say what you think about this peculiarity in relation to a subject that I have been working up. You no doubt remember that in ——'s paper that we heard read, he said that the snail's heart had no nerves or ganglia, but nevertheless behaved like nervous tissue in responding to electrical stimulation. He hence concluded that in undifferentiated tissue of this kind, nerve and muscle were, so to speak, amalgamated. Now it was principally with the view of testing this idea about 'physiological continuity' that I tried the mode of spiral and other sections mentioned in my last letter. The result of these sections, it seems to me, is to preclude, on the one hand, the supposition that the muscular tissue of Medusæ is merely muscular (for no muscle would respond to local stimulus throughout its substance when so severely cut), and, on the other hand, the supposition of a nervous plexus (for this would require to be so very intricate, and the hypothesis of scattered cells is without microscopical evidence here or elsewhere). I think, therefore, that we are driven to conclude that the muscular tissue of Medusæ, though more differentiated into fibres than is the contractile tissue of the snail's heart, is, as much as the latter, an instance of 'physiological continuity.' (Whether or not the interfascicular protoplasmic substance before spoken of is the seat of this physiological continuity is here immaterial.) Dr. Foster fully agrees with me in this deduction from my experiments, and is very pleased about the latter, thus affording additional support to his views. But what I want to ask you is, supposing the interfascicular substance to have no share in conducting stimulus (and I have no evidence of its presence in Sarsia), and hence that the properties of nerve and muscle are united in the contractile fibres of Medusæ—supposing this, do you think that the peculiarity you observed in the molecular conformation of this tissue, considered as muscular, is likely to have anything to do with this peculiarity in its function?
I know you do not like theory, so I shall return to fact. There can be no doubt whatever that the seat of spontaneity is as much localised in the margin as the sensibility to stimulus is diffused throughout the bell. There must, therefore, be some structural difference in the tissue here to correspond to this great functional difference. Agassiz is very positive in describing a chain of cells running round the inner part of the marginal canal. Now, although I sometimes see a thin cord-like appearance here, I should not dare to say it was nervous. Gold certainly stains it, but it also stains many other parts of the tissue, and until I can see cells here I cannot be sure about a visible nervous cord. The cord I do see may be the wall of the marginal canal. I intend to persevere, however, trying your suggestions, also osmic acid.
I can get no indications of electrical disturbance during contraction in the way you suggest—at least not with Sarsia; but I intend to try with some of the larger Medusæ.
Some apparatus is coming from Cambridge to enable me to test for electrotonus and Pflüger's law. I shall apply it to the luminous Medusæ also, whose light, I forgot to say, is seen under the microscope in the dark to proceed not only from the margin alone, but from that particular part of the margin where Agassiz describes his chain of nervous cells.
Geo. J. Romanes.
From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.
Down, Beckenham, Kent: July 18, 1875.
I have been much interested by your letter, and am truly delighted at the prospect of success. Such energy as yours is almost sure to command victory. The world will be much more influenced by experiments on animals than on plants. But in any case I think a large number of successful results will be necessary to convince physiologists. It is rash to be sanguine, but it will be splendid if you succeed. My object in writing has been to say that it has only just occurred to me that I have not sent you a copy of my 'Insectivorous Plants;' if you would care to have a copy, and do not possess one, send me a postcard, and one shall be sent. If I do not hear, I shall understand.
Yours very sincerely,
Ch. Darwin.
Dunskaith, Nigg P.O., Ross-shire, N.B.: July 20, 1875.
My dear Mr. Darwin,—Your letter arrived just in time to prevent my sending an order to my bookseller for 'Insectivorous Plants,' for, of course, it is needless to say that I shall highly value a copy from yourself. At first I intended to wait until I should have more time to enjoy the work, but a passage in this week's 'Nature' determined me to get a copy at once. This passage was one about reflex action, and I am very anxious to see what you say about this, because in a paper I have prepared for the 'B.A.' on Medusæ I have had occasion to insist upon the occurrence of reflex action in the case of these, notwithstanding the absence of any distinguishable system of afferent and efferent nerves. But as physiologists have been so long accustomed to associate the phenomena of reflex action with some such distinguishable system, I was afraid that they might think me rather audacious in propounding the doctrine, that there is such a thing as reflex action without well-defined structural channels for it to occur in. But if you have found something of the same sort in plants, of course I shall be very glad to have your authority to quote. And I think it follows deductively from the general theory of evolution, that reflex action ought to be present before the lines in which it flows are sufficiently differentiated to become distinguishable as nerves.
I am very glad that you are pleased with my progress so far.
From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.
Down, Beckenham, Kent: Sept. 24.
I shall be very glad to propose you for Linnean Soc., as I have just done for my son Francis. There is no doubt about your election. I have written for blank form. Please let me have your title, B.A. or M.A., and title of any book or papers, to which I could add 'various contributions to "Nature."' Also shall I say 'attached to Physiology and Zoology'? When I have signed whole, shall I send a paper to Hooker and others at Kew; or do you wish it sent to some one else for signature? Three signatures are required. The paper will have to be read twice or thrice when Soc. meets in November. But you could get books out of library or out of that of Royal Soc. by my signature or that of any other member.
I am terribly sorry about the onions, as I expected great things from them, the seeds coming, I believe, always true. As tubers of potatoes graft so well, would it not be good to try other tubers as of dahlias and other plants? I have been re-writing a large portion of the chapter on Pangenesis, and it has been awfully hard work. I will, of course, send you a copy when the work is printed. How I do hope that your fowls will survive! F. Galton was here for a few hours yesterday; I see that he is much less sceptical about Pangenesis than he was.
Dunskaith, Nigg, Ross-shire, N.B., Sept. 29, 1875.
My dear Mr. Darwin,—Many thanks for your kind letter. I am an M.A. and a fellow of the Philosophical Society of Cambridge, but otherwise I am nothing, nor have I any publication worth alluding to. I suppose, however, this will not matter if I am proposed by yourself, Dr. Hooker, and Mr. Dyer. I think there would be no harm in saying 'attached to Physiology and Zoology.' I may read a paper before the Linnean next November on some new species of Medusæ, but I think it is better not to allude to any contributions in advance.
Your letter about Pangenesis made me long for success more even than does the biological importance of the problem.[8] Yesterday I dug up all my potatoes. Some of the produce looked suspicious, but more than this I should not dare to say. By this post I send you a box containing some of the best specimens, thinking you may like to see them. The lots marked A and B are sent for comparison with the others, being the kinds I grafted together. If you think it worth while to have the eyes of any of the other lots planted, you might either do so yourself or send them back to me. Lot C is the queerest, and to my perhaps too partial eye looks very like a mixture. In the case of this graft the seed potato was rotten when dug up yesterday, and this may account for the small size of the tubers sent.
I did try dahlias and peonies, but in the former the 'finger and toe' shape of the tubers, with the eyes situated in the worst parts for cutting out clearly, prevented me from getting adhesion in any one case. With the peonies I was too late in beginning. It was also too late in the year when I began Pangenesis to try the spring flowers, but I hope to do so extensively this winter. Next year I shall try grafting beets and mangolds by cutting the young white root into a square shape and placing four red roots all round. In this way the white one will have a maximum surface exposed to the influence of the red ones. I shall also try grafting the crown of the red in the root of the white variety, and vice versâ. I have already done this very successfully with carrots—making a little hole in the top of the root, and fitting in the crown like a cork in a bottle.
I shall look forward with great interest to the appearance of the new edition of the 'Variation.' I only wish I had begun Pangenesis a year earlier, when perhaps by this time the graft-hybrid question might have been settled. Perhaps, however, it is as well to have this question once more presented in its a priori form, for if it can soon afterwards be proved that a graft hybrid is possible, the theoretical importance of the fact may be more generally appreciated.
A day or two ago I saw on a farm near this a beautiful specimen of striping on a horse. The animal is a dark dun cob, with a very divided shoulder stripe coming off from the spinal one on either side. Each shoulder stripe then divides into three prongs, and each prong ends in a sharp point. All the legs are black as far as the knees (carpi and tarsi), and above the black part for a considerable distance all four legs are deeply marked with numerous stripes. I can get no history of parentage. If you would like a drawing I can send one, but perhaps you have already as many cases as you want in the 'Variation.'
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
To Professor E. Schäfer.
Dunskaith: Sept. 1875.
My dear Schäfer,—I have to apologise for having left your last letter so long unanswered, but there has really been nothing going on here to make it worth while writing.
I gave my careful consideration to all you said about publishing, and at one time nearly decided to wait another year. But eventually I sent in the paper.[9] It seems to me that the histology can very well wait for future treatment—that its absence is not sufficient justification for withholding the results I have already observed. These results, after all, are the most important; for they prove that some structural modification there must be; whether or not this modification is visible is of subordinate interest. Besides, I do not, of course, intend to abandon the microscopical part of the subject altogether. In my view, inquiry into function in this case must certainly always precede inquiry into structure; for although, when all the work shall have been collected into one monograph, the histology must occupy the first place in order of presentation, very little way could have been made by following this order of investigation.
I also had to reflect, that if I postponed publication, it would be impossible to expect the R.S. to publish the results in extenso,—i.e., I should have to bring out the work through some other medium.
And in addition to all this, there came a letter from Foster preaching high morality about it being the duty of all scientific workers to give their results to others as soon as possible.
As I said before, I thank you very much for the consideration and advice you have given, but I know that you would not like me to feel that the expression of your opinion in a matter with which you are not so fully acquainted as myself should lay me under any obligation to be led by it, after mature consideration seemed to show that the best course for me to follow was the one which I took.
Hoping soon to see you, I remain, very sincerely yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
P.S.—I forgot to say that I acted upon your suggestion about the Linnean, and have been proposed by Darwin, Hooker, and Huxley.
From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.
Down, Beckenham, Kent: July 12, 1875.
I am correcting a second edition of 'Var. under Dom.,' and find that I must do it pretty fully. Therefore I give a short abstract of potato graft hybrids, and I want to know whether I did not send you a reference about beet. Did you look to this, and can you tell me anything about it? I hope with all my heart that you are getting on pretty well with your experiments; I have been led to think a good deal on the subject, and am convinced of its high importance, though it will take years of hammering before physiologists will admit that the sexual organs only collect the generative elements.
The edition will be published in November, and then you will see all that I have collected, but I believe that you saw all the more important cases. The case of vine in 'Gardeners' Chronicle' which I sent you I think may only be a bud-variation, not due to grafting.
I have heard indirectly of your splendid success with nerves of Medusæ. We have been at Abinger Hall for a month for rest which I much required, and I saw there the cut-leaved vine, which seems splendid for graft hybridisation.
Yours very sincerely,
Ch. Darwin.
To C. Darwin, Esq.
Dunskaith: July 14, 1875.
I was very glad to receive your letter, having been previously undecided whether to write and let you know how I am getting on, or to wait until I got a veritable hybrid.
In one of your letters you advised me to look up the 'beet' case, but I could nowhere find any references to it. Dr. Hooker told me that although he could not then remember the man's name, he remembered that the experimenter did not save the seed, but dug up his roots for exhibition. I forget whether it was Dr. Masters, Bentham, or Mr. Dyer who told me that the experiment had been performed in Ireland, although they could not remember by whom. But if the experimenter did not save the seed, the mere fact of his sticking two roots together would have no bearing on Pangenesis, and so I did not take any trouble to find out who the experimenter was.
As you have heard about the Medusæ, I fear you will infer that they must have diverted my attention from Pangenesis; but although it is true that they have consumed a great deal of time and energy, I have done my best to keep Pangenesis in the foreground.
The proximate success of my grafting is all that I can desire, although, of course, it is as yet too early in the year to know what the ultimate success will be. I mean that, although I cannot yet tell whether the tissue of one variety is affecting that of the other, I have obtained intimate adhesion in the great majority of experiments. Potatoes, however, are an exception, for at first I began with a method which I thought very cunning, and which I still think would have been successful but for one little oversight. The method was to punch out the eyes with an electroplated cork-borer, and replace them in a flat-bottomed hole of a slightly smaller size made with another instrument in the other tuber. The fit, of course, was always perfect; but what I went wrong in was not having the cork-borers made of the best steel; for after I got about one hundred potatoes planted out, I found that the inserted plugs did not adhere. I therefore tried some sections with an exceedingly sharp knife that surgeons use for amputating, and the surfaces cut with this always adhered under pressure. The knife, however, must be set up in a guide, in order to get the surfaces perfectly flat. Next year I shall get cork-borers made of the same steel as this knife is made of, and then hope to turn out graft-hybrids by the score. Even this year, however, a great many of my potatoes are coming up, so I hope that some of the eyes may have struck. I think it is desirable to get some easy way of experimenting with potatoes (such as the cork-boring plan), and one independent of delicacy in manipulation, for then everybody could verify the results for himself, and not, as now, look with suspicion upon the success of other people.
With beans I get very good adhesion of the young shoots, but the parts which grow after the operation always continue separate. In some cases I am trying a succession of operations as the plant grows.
With beetroots and mangold-wurzel of all varieties, adhesion is certain to occur with my method of getting up great pressure by allowing the plants to grow for a few days inside the binding. I have therefore made grafts of all ages, beginning with roots only an inch or two long and as thin as threads.
The other vegetables also are doing well, but with flowers I have had no success. The vine-cuttings were too young to do anything with this year, but I hear from my cousin, who has charge of them, that they are doing well. They certainly have very extraordinary leaves.
This year I never expected to be more than one in which to gain experience, for embryo grafting, as it has never been tried by anybody, cannot be learned about except by experiments. But as I am a young man yet, and hope to do a good deal of 'hammering,' I shall not let Pangenesis alone until I feel quite sure that it does not admit of being any further driven home by experimental work; and even if I never get positive results, I shall always continue to believe in the theory.
I am very sorry to hear that you 'much needed rest,' and do earnestly hope that you will not work too hard over the new edition of one of the most laborious treatises in our language—a treatise to which we always refer for every kind of information that we cannot find anywhere else.
Dunskaith: November 7.
I have to-day sent you a beautifully successful graft. It is of a red and white carrot, each bisected longitudinally, and two of the opposite halves joined. You will see that the union is very intimate, and that the originally red half has become wholly white. The graft was made about three months ago, at which time the carrots were very small, but the colours very decided. I think, therefore, that unless red carrots ever turn into white ones—which, I suppose, is absurd—the specimen I send is a graft-hybrid so far as the parts in contact are concerned. It will be of great importance, as you observed in your last letter, in a case like this, to see if the other parts are affected—i.e. to get the plant to seed if possible. This, I suppose, can only be done at this late season with so young a plant by putting it in a greenhouse. Perhaps, therefore, you might pot it, as soon as it arrives, and keep it till I go up. If you do not care, to take charge of it altogether, I can then get a home for it somewhere in the South. It will not require a deep pot, for I see that I have cut through the end of one of the roots. It would be as well, before potting, to cut off the end of the other root also, so that the one half may not grow longer than the other, and thus perhaps assert an undue amount of influence during the subsequent history of the hybrid. If the plant when you get it, or after potting, shows signs of drooping, I should suggest clipping off the older leaves to check evaporation: having found this a good plan with beets, &c.
In the same box with the hybrid there is another carrot. This is for comparison, it having been from the same seed and grafted (upon the crown) at the same time as the originally red half of the hybrid.
I am doubtful about the potatoes I sent. On looking over a number of 'red flukes,' I find some here and there are mottled. At any rate, I shall try other varieties next year, and not say anything about this doubtful case.
I forgot to say that the hybrid carrot is the only specimen of longitudinal grafting which I tried with carrots, having been somewhat disheartened with this method by the persistent way in which beets and mangolds refuse to blend when grafted longitudinally. There have thus been no failures with carrots grafted in this way.
If it is not too late, I may suggest that the passage in the 'Variation' about the deformity of the sternum in poultry had better be modified. I have this year tried some experiments upon Brahma chickens, and find that the deformity in question is caused by lazy habits of roosting—the constantly recurring pressure of the roost upon the cartilaginous sternum causing it to yield at the place where the pressure is exerted. The experiments consisted merely in confining some of a brood of young chickens in a place without any roost, and allowing the others to go about with all the March chickens. The former lot have the sternum quite straight, and the latter lot have it deeply notched.
I write to thank you for the copy of the new edition of the 'Variation' which I received a few days ago. I am very glad to see that you have thought my views about rudimentary organs worth a place, and that you speak so well of them.
The chapter on Pangenesis is admirable. The case is so strong, that it makes me more anxious than ever to get positive results in this year's experiments. I mean there seems less doubt than ever that such results must be obtainable if one hammers long enough. I did not know that there were so many cases of graft-hybridisation in potatoes. Perhaps it will be better this year to give one's main energies to other vegetables.
I find that a German, Dr. Eimer, is on the scent of the jelly-fish, but he does not seem to have done much work as yet. It is arranged that I am to have a Friday evening at the Institution soon after Easter, to tell the people about my own work.
From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.
6 Queen Anne Street: April 29, 1876.
I must have the pleasure of saying that I have just heard that your lecture was a splendid success in all ways. I further hear that you were as cool as the Arctic regions. It is evident that there is no occasion for you to feel your pulse under the circumstances which we discussed.
Yours very sincerely,
Ch. Darwin.
To C. Darwin, Esq.
I write to thank you for the slip about graft hybrids, and to say that as yet I have obtained no results myself. This place is too far north to admit of the seeds ripening properly after the plants have been thrown back several weeks by the operation. This applies especially to onions, so next year—the neck of Medusæ having now been broken—I intend to wait in London till all the grafting and planting out is finished. I do not think you will regret my not having followed such a course this year when you come to read the paper I am now writing. I never did such a successful four months' work, and if as many years suffice to answer all the burning questions that are raised by it, I think they will require to be years well spent.
And this makes me remember that I have to apologise for the inordinate time I have kept your copy of Professor Häckel's essay on Perigenesis. Since you sent it I have scarcely had any time for reading, and as you said there was no hurry about returning it, I have let it stand over till this paper is off my hands.
Lankester seems to have doubled up Slade in fine style. I suppose the latter has always trusted to his customers not liking to resort to violent methods. His defence in the 'Times' about the locked slates was unusually weak. 'Once a thief always a thief' applies, I suppose, to his case; but it is hard to understand how Wallace could not have seen him inverting the table on his head. In this we have another of those perplexing contradictions with which the whole subject appears to be teeming. I do hope next winter to settle for myself the simple issue between Ghost versus Goose.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
To C. Darwin, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace.
Professor Häckel's paper on the Medusæ is called 'Beitrag zur Naturgeschichte der Hydromedusen' (Leipzig, 1865). Professor Huxley has lent me his copy, but says he wants it returned in a week or two. I ought certainly to have the work by me next summer, so I thought that if you happen to have it and can spare it till next autumn, I need not send to Germany for it, remembering what you said when I last saw you. I should also much like to see the other paper of Häckel's about cutting up the ova of Medusæ.
I have an idea that you are afraid I am neglecting Pangenesis for Medusæ. If so, I should like to assure you that such is not the case. Last year I gave more time to the former than to the latter inquiry; and although the results proved very disproportionate, this was only due to the fact that the one line of work was more difficult than the other. However, I always expected that the first year would require to be spent in breaking up the ground, and I am quite satisfied with the experience which this work has brought me. I confess, however, that but for personal reasons I should have postponed Pangenesis and worked the Medusæ right through in one year. There is a glitter about immediate results which is very alluring.
From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.
I will send the books off by railway on Monday or Tuesday. You may keep that on Medusæ until I ask for it, which will probably be never. That on Siphonophora I should like to have back at some future time.
So far from thinking that you have neglected Pangenesis, I have been astonished and pleased that your splendid work on the jelly-fishes did not make you throw every other subject to the dogs. Even if your experiments turn out a failure, I believe that there will be some compensation in the skill you will have acquired.
P.S.—I have been having more correspondence with Galton about Pangenesis, and my confusion is more confounded with respect to the points in which he differs from me.
About this time Mr. Romanes made the acquaintance of Mr. Herbert Spencer and also that of Mr. G. H. Lewes, and of the wonderful woman known to the outer world as George Eliot, and to a small circle of friends as Mrs. Lewes.
Mr. Romanes was one of the favoured few who were allowed to join the charmed circle at the Priory on Sunday afternoons. He enjoyed the few talks he had with George Eliot, and, amongst other reminiscences, he told a characteristic story of Lewes. One afternoon, when there were very few people at the Priory, the conversation drifted on to the Bible, and George Eliot and Mr. Romanes began a discussion on the merits of the two translations of the Psalms best known to English people—the Bible and the Prayer Book version. They 'quoted' at each other for a short time, and then Lewes, who had not his Bible at his finger ends to the extent the other two had, exclaimed impatiently, 'Come, we've had enough of this; we might as well be in a Sunday school.' Both George Eliot and Mr. Romanes, by the way, preferred the Bible version.
In one of the letters to Mr. Darwin, Mr. Romanes alludes to the question of spiritualism, and his own determination to investigate the question so far as in him lay for himself.
He worked a good deal at spiritualism for a year or two, and he never could assure himself that there was absolutely nothing in spiritualism, no unknown phenomena underlying the mass of fraud, and trickery, and vulgarity which have surrounded the so-called manifestations.
He was always willing to investigate such subjects as hypnotism, thought reading, &c., and in 1880 he wrote an article for the September number of the 'Nineteenth Century.' in which he pleads for a candid and unprejudiced investigation of the facts. The article was a review of Heidenhain's "Der sogenannte thierische Magnetismus."
The work on Pangenesis and on Medusæ went on through 1876, and some letters to and from Mr. Darwin are here inserted.
From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.
Dear Romanes.—As you are interested in Pangenesis, and will some day, I hope, convert an 'airy nothing' into a substantial theory, therefore I send by this post an essay by Häckel, attacking 'Pan.,' and substituting a molecular hypothesis. If I understand his views rightly, he would say that with a bird which strengthened its wings by use, the formative protoplasm of the strengthened parts becomes changed, and its molecular vibrations consequently changed, and that their vibrations are transmitted throughout the whole frame of the bird. How he explains reversion to a remote ancestor I know not. Perhaps I have misunderstood him, though I have skimmed the whole with some care. He lays much stress on inheritance being a form of unconscious memory, but how far this is part of his molecular vibration I do not understand. His views make nothing clearer to me, but this may be my fault. No one, I presume, would doubt about molecular movements of some kind. His essay is clever and striking. If you read it (but you must not on my account), I should much like to hear your judgment, and you can return it at any time.
We have come here for rest for me, which I much needed, and shall remain here for about ten days more, and then home to work, which is my sole pleasure in life. I hope your splendid Medusæ work and your experiments on Pan. are going on well. I heard from my son Frank yesterday that he was feverish with a cold, and could not dine with the Physiologists, which I am very sorry for, as I should have heard what they think about the new Bill.[10] I see that you are one of the secretaries to this young society. I was very much gratified by the wholly unexpected honour of being elected one of the hon. members. This mark of sympathy has pleased me to a very high degree.
Believe me, yours very sincerely,
Ch. Darwin.
Häckel gives reference to a paper on Pan. of which I have never heard.
I fear that you will have difficulty in reading my scrawl.
Do you know who are the other hon. members of your Society?
From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin.
Dunskaith, Nigg, Ross-shire, N.B.: June 1, 1876.
Many thanks for your long and kind letter. Also for the accompanying essay. It seems to me, from your epitome of the latter, that if Pangenesis is 'airy,' Perigenesis must be almost vacuous. However, I anticipate much pleasure in reading the work, for anything by Häckel on such a subject cannot fail to be interesting.
I am sorry to hear that you 'much needed rest,' and also about Frank. I had hoped, too, that you would have mentioned Mrs. Litchfield.
Having been away from London for several weeks, I cannot say anything about the feeling with regard to the Bill. Sanderson and Foster think it 'stringent,' and so I suppose will all the Physiologists. The former wants me to write articles in the 'Fortnightly,' 'to make people take more sensible views on vivisection:' but I cannot see that it would be of any use. The heat of battle is not the time for us to expect fanatics to listen to 'sense.' Do you not think so?
I am sure the Physiological Society will be very pleased that you like being an hon. member, for it was on your account that honorary membership was instituted. At the committee meeting which was called to frame the constitution of the Society, the chairman (Dr. Foster) ejaculated with reference to you—'Let us pile on him all the honour we possibly can,' a sentiment which was heartily enough responded to by all present; but when it came to considering what form the expression of it was to take, it was found that a nascent society could do nothing further than make honorary members. Accordingly you were made an hon. member all by yourself; but later on it was thought, on the one hand, that you might feel lonely, and on the other that in a Physiological Society the most suitable companion for you was Dr. Sharpey.
Perhaps a 'secretary' ought not to be giving all the details about committee meetings, but if not, I know you will take it in confidence. It seems to me that you never fully realise the height of your pedestal, so that I am glad of any little opportunity of this kind to show you the angle at which the upturned faces are inclined. I am glad, too, to see from the inscription in Häckel's essay, that he is still doing his best to show that in Germany this angle is fast being lost in horizontality.
As the spring was so backward, the plants at Kew were too small to graft before I had to leave for the Medusæ. But this does not much matter, as I had a lot of vegetables planted down here also, which are doing well. Pangenesis I always expected would require a good deal of patience, and one year's work on such a subject only counts for apprenticeship. If, by the time I am a skilled workman, I am not able to send anything to the international exhibitions, I shall not envy any one else who may resolve to enter the same trade.
I am working hard at the jelly-fish just now, and have succeeded in extracting several new confessions. The nerve-plexus theory, in particular, is coming out with greater clearness. The new poisons, too, are giving very interesting results. I suppose you do not happen to know where I could get any snake poison. The 'Phil. Trans.' seem very long in coming out. I have not yet got the proofs of my paper.
June 6, 1877.
I am very glad you sent me the extract from Lamarck, for I had just been to the R.S., hunting up several of the older authors to see whether any mention had been made of the theory before Spencer wrote.
While at Down I forgot my speculations about inter-crossing, and, therefore, although I do not think they are much worth, I send you a copy of my notes. The ideas are not clearly put—having been jotted down a few years ago merely to preserve them—but no doubt you will be able to understand them. Do not trouble to return the MS.
I had intended to ask you while at Down if you happen to know whether stinging nettles are endemic plants in South America. The reason I should like to know is, that last year it occurred to me that the stinging property probably has reference to some widely distributed class of animals, and being told—rightly or wrongly, I do not know—that ruminants do not object to them, I tried whether my tame rabbits would eat freshly plucked nettles. I found they would not do so even when very hungry, but in the same out-house with the rabbits there were confined a number of guinea-pigs, and these always set upon the nettles with great avidity. Their noses were tremendously stung, however, so that between every few nibbles they had to stop and scratch vigorously. After this process had been gone through several times, the guinea-pig would generally become furious, and thinking apparently that its pain must have had some more obvious cause than the nettles, would fall upon its nearest neighbour at the feast, when a guinea-pig fight would ensue. I have seldom seen a more amusing spectacle than twenty or thirty of these animals closely packed round a bunch of nettles, a third part or so eating with apparent relish, another third scratching their noses, and the remaining third fighting with one another. But what I want to ask you is this. Does it not seem that the marked difference in the behaviour of the rabbits and the guinea-pigs points to inherited experience on the part of the former which is absent in the case of the latter? If nettles are not endemic in South America, this inference would seem almost irresistible. Dr. Hooker tells me nettles grow there now, but he does not know whether they did so before America was visited by Europeans. Possibly there might be some way of ascertaining.
I have now made a number of grafts at Kew. In about a month, I should think, one could see which are coming up as single and which as double sprouts. If, therefore, Frank is going to work in the laboratory in July, he might perhaps look over the bed (which is just outside the door), and reject the double-stalked specimens. I could trust him to do this better than any one at Kew, and if the useless specimens were rejected, there would afterwards be much less trouble in protecting the valuable ones. But do not suggest it unless you think it would be quite agreeable to him. If he is in town within the next fortnight, I wish he would look me up.
June 16.
I have deferred answering your letter until having had a talk with Mr. Galton about rudimentary organs. He thinks with me that if the normal size of a useful organ is maintained in a species, when natural selection is removed, the average size will tend to become progressively reduced by inter-crossing, and this down to whatever extent economy of growth remains operative in placing a premium on variations below the average at any given stage in the history of reduction.
I think I thoroughly well know your views about natural selection. In writing the manuscript note, so far as I remember, I had in view the possibility which Huxley somewhere advocates, that nature may sometimes make a considerable leap by selecting from single variations. But it was not because of this point that I sent you the note; it was with reference to the possibility of natural selection acting on organic types as distinguished from individuals—a possibility which you once told me did not seem at all clear, although Wallace maintained it in conversation.
I do not myself think that Allen[11] made out his points, although I do think that he has made an effort in the right direction. It seems to me that his fundamental principle has probably much truth in it, viz. that æsthetic pleasure in its last analysis is an effect of normal or not excessive stimulation.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
From C. Darwin, Esq.
Down, Beckenham, Kent: August 9.
My dear Romanes,—I have read your two articles in 'Nature,' and nothing can be clearer or more interesting, though I had gathered your conclusions clearly from your other papers. It seems to me that unless you can show that your muslin (in your simile) is rather coarse, the transmission may be considered as passing in any direction from cell or unit of structure to cell or unit; and in this case the transmission would be as in Dionæa, but more easily effected in certain lines or directions than in others. It is splendid work, and I hope you are getting on well in all respects. The Mr. Lawless to whom you refer is the Hon. Miss Lawless, as I know, for she sent me a very good manuscript about the fertilisation of plants, which I have recommended her to send to 'Nature.'
As for myself, Frank and I have been working like slaves on the bloom on plants, with very poor success; as usual, almost everything goes differently from what I had anticipated. But I have been absolutely delighted at two things: Cohn, of Breslau, has seen all the phenomena described by Frank in Dipsacus, and thinks it a very remarkable discovery, and is going to work with all reagents on the filaments as Frank did, but no doubt he will know much better how to do it. He will not pronounce whether the filaments are some colloid substance or living protoplasm; I think he rather leans to latter, and he quite sees that Frank does not pronounce dogmatically on the question.
The second point which delighted me, seeing that half of the botanists throughout Europe have published that the digestion of meat by plants is of no use to them—(a mere pathological phenomenon as one man says!)—is that Frank has been feeding under exactly similar conditions a large number of plants of Drosera, and the effect is wonderful. On the fed side the leaves are much larger, differently coloured, and more numerous—flower stalks taller and more numerous, and, I believe, far more seed-capsules, but these not yet counted. It is particularly interesting that the leaves fed on meat contain very many more starch granules (no doubt owing to more protoplasm being first formed), so that sections stained with iodine of fed and unfed leaves are to the naked eye of very different colour.
There, I have boasted to my heart's content; and do you do the same, and tell me what you have been doing.
Yours very sincerely,
Ch. Darwin.
From G. J. Romanes.
Dunskaith, Ross-shire: August 11, 1877.
I was very pleased to get your long and genial letter, which I will answer seriatim.
The 'muslin' in the hypothetical plexus seems to be very coarse in some specimens and finer in others—the young and active individuals enduring severer forms of section than the old. And in exploring by graduated stimuli, areas of different degrees of excitability may be mapped out, and these areas are pretty large, averaging about the size of one's finger-nails. I am rather inclined to think that these areas are determined by the course of well-differentiated nerve-tracts, while the less-differentiated ones are probably more like muslin in their mesh. But the only reason why I resort to the supposition of nerve-tracts at all is because of the sudden blocking of contractile waves by section, and the fact that stimulus (tentacular) waves very often continue to pass after the contractile ones have been thus blocked.
I am sorry I made the ungallant mistake about Miss Lawless, but I had no means of knowing. If I had known I should not have written the letter, because I am almost sure the movements of the Medusa were accidental, and my pointing out this source of error may be discouraging to a lady observer.
I remember thinking you were too diffident about the bloom, but I suppose that is the advantage of experience; it keeps one from forming too high hopes at the first.
The rest of your letter contains glorious news. Cohn, I suppose, is about the best man in Europe to take up the subject, and although I cannot conceive what else he can do than Frank has done already, it is no doubt most desirable that his opinion should be formed by working at the problems himself.
The other item about the effects of feeding Drosera is really most important, and in particular about the starch. I have heard the doubts you allude to expressed in several quarters, but this will set them all at rest. It was just the one thing required to cap the work on insectivorous plants. What capital work Frank is doing!
I have nothing in the way of boasting to set off against it. The year has been a very bad one for jelly-fish, so that sometimes I have not been able to work at them for several days at a time. The most important new observation is perhaps the following.
Fig. 3.
Suppose a portion of Aurelia to be cut into the form of a pair of trousers, in such a way that a ganglion, a, occupies the bottom of one of the legs. Usually, of course, contractile waves starting from a course along to b, and thence round to c and backwards to d. But in one specimen I observed that every now and then the exact converse took place—viz. the contractile wave starting at d to course to c, b, and a. On now excising the ganglion at a both sets of contractile waves ceased—thus showing that even in the case where they started from d it was the ganglion at a which started them. This power on the part of Medusoid ganglia to discharge their influence at a distance from their own seat I have also observed in other forms of section, and it affords the best kind of evidence in favour of nerves.
On the days when I could get no jelly-fish I took to star-fish. I want, if possible, to make out the functions of the sand-canal and the aviculæ; but as yet I have only discovered the difficulties to be overcome. I had intended to make a cell to cover the calcareous plate at the end of the sand-canal, and to fill the cell with dye, in order to test Siebold's hypothesis that the whole apparatus is a filter for the ambulacral system; but Providence seems to have specially designed that no substance in creation should be adapted for sticking to the back of a starfish.
The aviculæ are very puzzling things. I am sure Allen is wrong in his hypothesis of their function being to remove parasitical growths; for, on the one hand, parasites are swarming around them unheeded, and on the other, they go snapping away apparently at nothing. It is more easy, however, to say what they are not than what they are.
I went a few days ago to see the vine. It is now five feet high and vigorous, but I believe spring is the proper time for grafting.
With best thanks for your 'boasting' and good wishes, I remain very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
From C. Darwin, Esq.
Down: June 4.
Sir Joseph Fayrer supplied me with cobra poison. It is very precious, but I have no doubt that by explaining your motive he would give you a little, and your best plan of applying would be through Lauder Brunton.
Your letter has made me as proud and conceited as ten peacocks. I am inclined to think that writing against the bigots about vivisection is as hopeless as stemming a torrent with a reed. Frank, who has just come here, and who speaks with indignation on the subject, takes an opposite line, and perhaps he is right; anyhow he had the best of an argument with me on the subject. By the way, I think Frank has made a fine discovery, but I won't say what, for fear it should break down. It seems to me the Physiologists are now in the position of a persecuted religious sect, and they must grin and bear the persecution, however cruel and unjust, as well as they can.
I shall be very glad to hear what you think about Häckel; perhaps I have shamefully misrepresented him. About the other subject (never mentioned to a human being) I shall be glad to hear, but I fear that I am a wretched bigot on the subject.[12]
Yours very sincerely,
Charles Darwin.
The rest has done me much good. We return on the 10th. My daughter is certainly better a good deal, but not up to her former poor standard.
From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.
Dunskaith, Nigg, Ross-shire: June 11.
We had a good laugh over some parts of your letter. I have not, as yet, had time to read any of Häckel's book.
I am delighted to hear about the discovery, and hope, if it turns out well, to have my stimulated curiosity satisfied with regard to it. If it is as interesting as the observations about the seeds, people will think Frank a very lucky fellow to hook so many good fish in such a short time.
Not having heard his arguments about the article-writing, I am still strongly of your opinion, and, being besides ill able to afford any time just now, I shall not bother with it. When I think that in this one county (Ross, and still more in Cromarty) there are more rabbits expressly bred every year for trapping than could be vivisected in all the physiological laboratories in Europe during the next thousand years, it seems hopeless to reason with people who, knowing such facts, expend all their energies in straining at a wonderfully small gnat, while swallowing, as an article of daily food, such an enormously large camel.
From C. Darwin, Esq.
Down: August 10.
Dear Romanes,—When I wrote yesterday, I had not received to-day's 'Nature,' and I thought that your lecture was finished. This final part is one of the grandest essays which I ever read.
It was very foolish of me to demur to your lines of conveyance like the threads in muslin, knowing how you have considered the subject, but still I must confess I cannot feel quite easy. Every one, I suppose, thinks on what he has himself seen, and with Drosera, a bit of meat put on any one gland on the disc causes all the surrounding tentacles to bend to this point; and here there can hardly be differentiated lines of conveyance. It seems to me that the tentacles probably bend to that point whence a molecular wave strikes them, which passes through the cellular tissue with equal ease in all directions in this particular case. But what a fine case that of the Aurelia is!
Forgive me for bothering you with another note.
Yours very sincerely,
C. Darwin.
From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.
Dunskaith, Ross-shire, N.B.: August 13, 1877.
I thought you had given me quite enough praise in your first letter, but am not on that account the less pleased at the high compliment you pay me in the second one. The ending up was what the people at the Institution[13] seemed to like best.
Pray do not think that I have yet made up my mind about the 'muslin.' On the contrary, the more I work at the tissues of Aurelia the more puzzled I become, so that I am thankful for all criticisms. If Aurelia stood alone, I should be inclined to take your view, and attribute blocking of contractile waves in spiral strips, &c., to some accidental strain previously suffered by the tissue at the area of blocking. But the fact that in Tiaropsis the polypite is so quick and precise in localising a needle prick, seems to show that here there must be something more definite in the way of conducting tissue than in Drosera, although I confess it is most astonishing how precise the localising function, as described by you, is in the latter. In 'Nature' I did not express my doubts, but it was because I feared there may yet turn out to be a skeleton in the cupboard that I kept all these more or less fishy deductions out of the R.S. papers. Further work may perhaps make the matter more certain one way or another. Possibly the microscope may show something, and so I have asked Schäfer to come down, who, as I know from experience, is what spiritualists call 'a sensitive'—I mean he can see ghosts of things where other people can't. But still, if he can make out anything in the jelly of Aurelia, I shall confess it to be the best case of clairvoyance I ever knew.
I am very glad you have drawn my attention prominently to the localising function in Drosera, as it is very likely I have been too keen in my scent after nerves; and I believe it is chiefly by comparing lines of work that in such novel phenomena truth is to be got at. And this reminds me of an observation which I think ought to be made on some of the excitable plants. It is a fact not generally known, even to professed physiologists, that if you pass a constant current through an excised muscle two or three times successively in the same direction, the responses to make and break become much more feeble than at first, so that unless you began with a strong current for the first of the series, you have to strengthen it for the third or fourth of the series in order to procure a contraction. But on now reversing the direction of the current, the muscle is tremendously excitable for the first stimulation, less so for the second, and so on. Now this rapidly exhausting effect of passing the current successively in the same direction, and the wonderful effect of reversing it, point, I believe, to something very fundamental in the constitution of muscular tissue. The complementary effects in question are quite as decided in the jelly-fish as in frog's muscle; so I think it would be very interesting to try the experiment on the contractile tissues of plants. But there are so many things to write about that I am afraid of 'bothering you,' and this with much more reason that you can have to be afraid of 'bothering' me.
Aurelia is, as you say, 'a fine case,' and I often wish you could see the experiments.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
The leading Physiologists felt the importance of co-operation and of alliance, and a society entitled the Physiological Society was formed of which Mr. Romanes and Professor Gerald Yeo were the first honorary secretaries.
In 1876 Mr. Romanes made his first appearance at the British Association; he recounts his experiences in the following letter.
To Miss C. E. Romanes.
British Association, Glasgow: Monday, 1876.
My dearest Puffin,—I have received all your letters, and had a good laugh over them; it is evident that I must get back soon to pilot the way. We shall indeed have a jolly time.
I have just got out from the section room, and my work is over. I had a splendid audience both as to number and quality.
When I had finished, all the great guns had their say, Professor Häckel leading off with a tremendous eulogium on the work, laying special stress on the great difficulty of conducting an inquiry of the kind, and complimenting me highly on the success obtained. Sanderson then made a long speech, and then Stirling and Balfour, &c.
The latter stated it as his opinion that my investigation is the most important that has as yet been conducted in any department of invertebrate physiology. The discussion was then cut short by the president to leave time for the other papers, my own exposition having taken so long. I replied briefly.
Shortly after this, Mr. Romanes delivered a lecture on the Evidences of Organic Evolution, which he reprinted in the 'Fortnightly,' and afterwards worked up into a little book called 'The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution.' About this lecture Mr. Darwin wrote:—
Down.
My dear Romanes,—I have just finished your lecture. It is an admirable scientific argument and most powerful. I wish that it could be sown broadcast throughout the land. Your courage is marvellous, and I wonder that you were not stoned on the spot. And in Scotland! Do please tell me how it was received in the Lecture Hall. About man being made like a monkey (p. 37) is quite new to me; and the argument in an earlier place on the law of parsimony admirably put. Yes, p. 21 is new to me. All strikes me as very clear, and considering small space you have chosen your lines of reasoning excellently.
But I am tired, so good night!
C. Darwin.
The few last pages are awfully powerful in my opinion.
Sunday Morning.—The above was written last night in an enthusiasm of the moment, and now this dark, dismal Sunday morning I fully agree with what I said.
I am very sorry to hear about the failure in the graft experiments, and not from your own fault or ill-luck. Trollope, in one of his novels, gives us a maxim of constant use by a brick-maker, 'It is dogged as does it!' and I have often and often thought this is the motto for every scientific worker. I am sure it is yours if you do not give up Pangenesis with wicked imprecations. By the way, G. Jäger has just brought out in 'Kosmos' a chemical sort of Pangenesis, bearing chiefly on inheritance.
I cannot conceive why I have not offered my garden for your experiments. I would attend to the plants, as far as mere care goes, with pleasure, but Down is an awkward place to reach.
C. D.
(Would it be worth while to try if the 'Fortnightly' would publish it?)
To this Mr. Romanes replied:
18 Cornwall Terrace: Dec. 2, 1877.
It was most kind of you to write me such a long and glowing letter. In one way it is a good thing that all the world are not so big-hearted as yourself—it would make young men awfully conceited. Yet I value your opinion more than the opinion of anybody, because in other things I have always found your judgment more deep and sound than anybody's. However, I will go to Huxley next Saturday for an antidote, as it is quite true what he said about himself at Cambridge, that he is not given to making panegyrics.
On the whole, as I have said, I was surprised how well it was taken. And still more so in Yorkshire last week—where I was lecturing at Leeds and Halifax on Medusæ, and took occasion to wind up about you and your degree. I was perfectly astonished at the reception you got among such popular audiences. What a change you have lived to see! If ever human being had a right to cry 'Vici'—but you know it all better than I do.
About the grafts, I thought it most natural that you should not like the bother of having them done at Down, when there are such a multitude of other gardens belonging to do-nothing people. But as you have mentioned it, I may suggest that in the case of onions there is a difficulty in all the gardens I know—viz., that they are more or less infested with onion worms. If, therefore, you should know any part of your garden where onions have not grown for some years, I might do the grafts here in pots, and bring the promising ones to plant out at Down in May. Seed could then be saved in the following autumn. All the other plants could be grown in the other gardens, and well attended to.
That is a very interesting letter in 'Nature.' What do you think of Dr. Sanderson's paper in the same number, as to its philosophy and expression? I have sent a letter about animal psychology which I think will interest you.
With kind regards to all, I remain, very sincerely and most respectfully (this is a bow which I specially reserve for you, and would make it lower, but for the fear of making myself ridiculous),
Geo. J. Romanes.
P.S.—I fear Mr. Morley would think my lecture too long, and not original enough for the 'Fortnightly.'[14]
Early in the year 1878, a great sorrow fell on the Romanes family. The elder of the two sisters, Georgina, died in April, and to her brother, her junior by two or three years, her loss was very great. She was a brilliant musician, and had done much to prevent her young brother from becoming too entirely absorbed in science, and in keeping alive in him the passionate love for music which was always one of his characteristics.
They went much together to concerts, and the house was the centre of a good deal of musical society. Among the many musicians who came and went may be mentioned Gounod. He had a great admiration and liking for Miss Romanes, and used to make her sing to him. And also there was Dr. Joachim who with characteristic kindness came in the last days of Georgina's life and played, as only he can play, to her.
From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace: April 10, 1878.
Many thanks for your kind expressions of sympathy. When the sad event occurred I had some thoughts of sending you an announcement; but as you had scarcely ever seen my sister, I afterwards felt that you might think it superfluous in me to let you know.
The blow is indeed felt by us to be one of dire severity, the more so because we only had about a fortnight's warning of its advent. My sister did not pass through much suffering, but there was something painfully pathetic about her death, not only because she was so young and had always been so strong, but also because the ties of affection by which she was bound to us, and we to her, were more than ordinarily tender. And when in her delirium she reverted to the time when our positions were reversed, and when by weeks and months of arduous heroism she saved my life by constant nursing—upon my word it was unbearable.[15] The blank which her death has created in our small family is very distressing. She always used to be so proud of my work that I feel that half the pleasure of working will now be gone—but I do not know why I am running on like this. Of course it will give me every pleasure to go to Down before leaving for Scotland. If you have no preference about time, I suppose it would be best to go when you return home in May, as the onions might possibly be then ready for grafting. Unless, therefore, I hear from you to the contrary, I shall write again some time between the middle and end of May.
Then came a second appearance at the British Association. Mr. Romanes was asked to deliver one of the evening lectures at the meeting of 1878, which took place at Dublin.
The subject was animal intelligence, and seems to have excited a good deal of attention. The following letters relate to the lecture and to his book on Animal Intelligence:
To C. Darwin, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: June 18.
Very many thanks for your permission to use your observations, as well as for the additional information which you have supplied. If all the manuscript chapter on instinct is of the same quality as the enclosed portion, it must be very valuable. Time will prevent me from treating very fully of instinct in my lecture, but when I come to write the book for the International Science Series on Comparative Psychology, I shall try to say all that I can on instinct. Your letter, therefore, induces me to say that I hope your notes will be published somewhere before my book comes out (i.e. within a year or so), or, if you have no intention of publishing the notes, that you would, as you say, let me read the manuscript, as the references, &c., would be much more important for the purposes of the book than for those of the lecture. But, of course, I should not ask to publish your work in my book, unless you have no intention of publishing it yourself. I do not know why you have kept it so long unpublished, and your having offered me the manuscript for preparing my lecture makes me think that you might not object to lending it me for preparing my book. But please understand that I only think this on the supposition that, from its unsuitable length, isolated character, or other reason, you do not see your way to publishing the chapter yourself.
From C. Darwin, Esq.
Down: June 19.
My dear Romanes,—You are quite welcome to have my longer chapter on instinct. It was abstracted for the Origin. I have never had time to work it up in a state fit for publication, and it is so much more interesting to observe than to write. It is very unlikely that I should ever find time to prepare my several long chapters for publication, as the material collected since the publication of the Origin has been so enormous. But I have sometimes thought that when incapacitated for observing, I would look over my manuscripts, and see whether any deserved publication. You are, therefore, heartily welcome to use it, and should you desire to do so at any time, inform me and it shall be sent.
Yours very sincerely,
Charles Darwin.
From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.
18 Cornwall Terrace: June 21, 1878.
I am of course very glad to hear that you have no objection to letting me have the benefit of consulting your notes.
Most observers are in a frantic hurry to publish their work, but what you say about your own feelings seems to me very characteristic. Like the bees, you ought to have some one to take the honey, when you make it to give to the world—not, however, that I want to play the part of a thieving wasp. I will send you my manuscript about instinct (or the proofs when out), and you can strike out anything that you would rather publish yourself.
I shall not be able to begin my book till after the jelly-fish season is over. This will be in September or October; but I will let you know when I want to read up about instinct.
With very many thanks, I remain, yours very sincerely and most respectfully,
Geo. J. Romanes.
The Palace, Dublin: August 17, 1878.
Your letter and enclosure about the geese arrived the day after I left Dunskaith, but have been forwarded here, which accounts for my delay in answering, for I only arrived in Dublin a few days ago.
I am sorry to hear about the onions, and can only quote the beatitude which is particularly applicable to a worker in science, Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed.
But I am still more sorry to hear of your feeling knocked up. I meet your son here, who tells me about you.
Yesterday was the evening of my big lecture, and I send you a copy as well as a newspaper account. (The latter was in type before delivery, and so no 'applauses,' &c. are put in.) The thing was a most enormous success, far surpassing my utmost expectations. I had a number of jokes which do not appear in the printed lecture, and I never saw an audience laugh so much. The applause also was really extraordinary, especially at some places, and most of all at the mention of your name at the grand finale. In fact, it was here tremendous, and a most impressive sight to see such a multitude of people so enthusiastic. I expected an outburst, but the loud and long-continued cheering beat anything that ever I heard before. I do not know whether your son was there, but if so he will tell you.
Hooker, Huxley, Allen, and Sir W. Thomson, Flower, D. Galton, and a lot of other good men were present, and had nothing but praise to give, Captain Galton going so far as to say that it was the most successful lecture he had ever heard. So I am quite conceited.
Ever your devoted worshipper,
Geo. J. Romanes.
From C. Darwin, Esq.
August 20, 1878.
My dear Romanes,—I am most heartily glad that your lecture (just received and read) has been so eminently successful. You have indeed passed a most magnificent eulogium on me, and I wonder that you were not afraid of hearing 'Oh! oh!' or some other sign of disapprobation. Many persons think that what I have done in science has been much overrated, and I very often think so myself; but my comfort is that I have never consciously done anything to gain applause. Enough and too much about my dear self. The sole fault that I find with your lecture is that it is too short, and this is a rare fault. It strikes me as admirably clear and interesting. I meant to have remonstrated that you had not discussed sufficiently the necessity of signs for the formation of abstract ideas of any complexity, and then I came on to the discussion on deaf mutes. This latter seems to me one of the richest of all the mines, and is worth working carefully for years and very deeply. I should like to read whole chapters on this one head, and others on the minds of the higher idiots. Nothing can be better, as it seems to me, than your several lines or sources of evidence, and the manner in which you have arranged the whole subject. Your book will assuredly be worth years of hard labour, and stick to your subject. By the way, I was pleased at your discussing the selection of varying instincts or mental tendencies, for I have often been disappointed by no one ever having noticed this notion.
I have just finished La Psychologie, son présent et son avenir, 1876, by Delbœuf (a mathematician and physicist of Belgium), in about one hundred pages; it has interested me a good deal, but why I hardly know; it is rather like Herbert Spencer; if you do not know it, and would care to see it, send me a post-card.
Thank Heaven we return home on Thursday, and I shall be able to go on with my humdrum work, and that makes me forget my daily discomfort.
Have you ever thought of keeping a young monkey,[16] so as to observe its mind? At a house where we have been staying there were Sir A. and Lady Hobhouse, not long ago returned from India, and she and he kept three young monkeys, and told me some curious particulars. One was that the monkey was very fond of looking through her eyeglass at objects, and moved the glass nearer and further so as to vary the focus. This struck me, as Frank's son, nearly two years old (and we think much of his intellect!), is very fond of looking through my pocket lens, and I have quite in vain endeavoured to teach him not to put the glass close down on the object, but he will always do so. Therefore I conclude that a child just under two years is inferior in intellect to a monkey.
Once again I heartily congratulate you on your well-earned present and I feel assured grand future success.
Yours very truly,
Ch. Darwin.
P.S. 28th.—Can you spare time to come down here any day this week, except Saturday, to dine and sleep here? We should be very glad indeed if you can come. If so, I would suggest your leaving Charing Cross by the 4.12 train, and we would send a carriage to Orpington to meet you, and send you back next morning. In this case let us have a line fixing your day. It will be dull for you, for none of my sons except Frank are at home.
The extraordinary modesty, the absolute simplicity, the fatherly kindness, which breathe in this letter, cannot but give some idea of what Mr. Darwin was and why he was so much loved.
Dunskaith, Ross-shire: August 29, 1878.
My dear Mr. Darwin,—I only returned here yesterday and found your letter awaiting me.
Your letter has made me as proud as Punch, and as you have such a good opinion of the line of work, I think I shall adopt your plan of working up the subject well before I publish the book. The greatest difficulty I had in writing the lecture was to make it short enough, but it will be splendid to be able to spread oneself over the whole subject in a book. I was at one time in doubt whether it would be better to spend time over this subject or over something more purely physiological, but of late I had begun to incline towards the former, and your opinion has now settled mine.
I have not previously heard of the book by the Belgian physicist, and should much like to read it. I have already such a number of your books that I fear you must sometimes miss them; but I can return any of them at a minute's notice.
I had thought of keeping a monkey and teaching its young ideas how to shoot, and wrote to Frank Buckland for his advice as to the best kind to get, but he has never answered my letter. The case about the lens is a capital one.
I have such a host of letters to answer, which have accumulated during my absence, that I must make this a short one. Your 'congratulations' are of more value to me than any of the others, and I thank you for them much.
Ever your devoted disciple,
Geo. J. Romanes.
P.S.—Science is not a world where a man need trouble himself about getting more credit than is due.
From C. Darwin.
Down: Sept. 2, 1878.
My dear Romanes,—Many thanks for your letter. I am delighted to hear that you mean to work the comparative psychology well. I thought your letter to the 'Times' very good indeed. Bartlett, at the Zoological Gardens, I feel sure, would advise you infinitely better about hardiness, intellect, price, &c., of monkeys than F. Buckland, but with him it must be vivâ voce.
Frank says you ought to keep an idiot, a deaf mute, a monkey, and a baby in your house!
Ever yours sincerely,
Ch. Darwin.
Dunskaith, Ross-shire, N.B.: Sept. 10, 1878.
My dear Mr. Darwin,—Having been away for a week's deer-stalking in the hills, I have only to-day received your letter together with the book. Thank you very much for both, and also for the hints about Espinas and Bartlett. I am glad you thought well of the letter to the 'Times.' In a book I shall be able to make more evident what I mean.
Frank's idea of 'a happy family' is a very good one; but I think my mother would begin to wish that my scientific inquiries had taken some other direction.
The baby too, I fear, would stand a poor chance of showing itself the fittest in the struggle for existence.
I am now going to write my concluding paper on Medusæ, also to try some experiments on luminosity of marine animals.
Ever sincerely and most respectfully yours,
Geo. J. Romanes.
In addition to other scientific and purely philosophical work, Mr. Romanes had, even while writing his Burney Prize, entered on that period of conflict between faith and scepticism which grew more and more strenuous, more painful, as the years went on, which never really ceased until within a few weeks of his death, and which was destined to end in a chastened, a purified, and a victorious faith. His was a religious nature, keenly alive to religious emotion, profoundly influenced by Christian ideals, by Christian modes of thought. As time went on he felt, like all philosophically minded men, the impossibility of a purely materialistic position, and as he pondered on the final, ultimate mysteries, on[17] 'God, Immortality, Duty,' he arrived very slowly, very painfully, but very surely, at the Christian position.
But these years were, to him and to many, years of peculiar and of extraordinary difficulty. Roughly speaking, the time between 1860 and 1880 was a time of great perplexity to those who wished to adhere to the faith of Christendom.
It is impossible to exaggerate the influence which Mr. Darwin's great work has had on every department of science, of literature, and also of art. Thirty-six years have passed away since the publication of the 'Origin of Species,' and we have lived to see that again tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Now we see that a man can fully accept the doctrine of evolution, and yet can also believe in a personal God and in the doctrines which logically follow on such a belief. But it was not so at first. To many on both sides the new teaching seemed to threaten destruction to Theism, at least to Theism as understood either by Newman or by Martineau.
Again, in philosophy Herbert Spencer seemed to many to have constructed a lasting system of philosophy, a system sufficient to account for all things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth. And German criticism seemed to many to be rapidly destroying the credibility of the early documents of Christianity.
Many a noble soul made shipwreck of its faith, nor is this disaster wonderful. For popular theology had made many unwise, many untenable claims, and the ground had to be cleared before the battle could be fought out on its real issues. There were some who, amidst all the strife of tongues, kept their heads, remembered bygone storms, and did not lose their courage, their whole-heartedness, but they were few, and were not over much heard or heeded.[18] For the most part, those on the Christian side adopted the line taken by the Bishop of Oxford in his review of Mr. Darwin's 'Origin of Species' in the 'Quarterly Review,' and in his famous speech at Oxford during the British Association of 1860.
Certainly the outlook now is more encouraging than it was twenty years ago.
It has been well and eloquently said by one than whom none is more qualified to speak on this subject:[19] 'It is quite certain that this scientific obstacle has been, in the main, removed. In part, it has been through the theologians abandoning false claims, and learning, if somewhat unwillingly, that they have no "Bible revelation" in matters of science; in part, it has been through its becoming continually more apparent, that the limits of scientific "explanation" of nature are soon reached; that the ultimate causes, forces, conditions of nature are as unexplained as ever, or rather postulate as ever for their explanation a Divine mind. Thus, if one "argument from design" was destroyed, another was only brought into prominence. No account which science can give, by discovery or conjecture, of the method of creation, can ever weaken the argument which lies from the universality of law, order, and beauty in the universe to the universality of mind. The mind of man looks forth into nature, and finds nowhere unintelligible chance, but everywhere an order, a system, a law, a beauty, which corresponds, as greater to less, to his own rational and spiritual intuitions, methods, and expectations. Universal order, intelligibility, beauty, mean that something akin to the human spirit, something of which the human spirit is an offshoot and a reflection, is in the universe before it is in man.
'Or, again, a prolonged period of controversy and reflection has resulted in making it fairly apparent that no scientific doctrine or conjecture about the dim origins of the spiritual life of man can affect the argument from its development and persistence. It has developed and persisted, as one of the most prominent features of human life, solely on the postulate of God. And is it not out of analogy with all that science teaches us to imagine that so important, continuous, and universal a development of human faculty could have arisen and persisted unless it were in correspondence with reality?
'In fact we may almost say that the obstacles to belief on the side of science were gone when once it was admitted that God Who has revealed to us His nature and ours, and made this revelation in part through an historical process and in the literature of a nation, has yet, and for obvious reasons, given us no revelation at all on matters which fall within the domain of scientific research.
'A similar removal of obstacles must be claimed in the region of historical criticism. There, again, it has become apparent that, whatever turns out true about this or that Old Testament narrative, no question really vital to the Christian religion can be said to be at stake in this field; while in the region of the New Testament the most sifting criticism has had a result emphatically reassuring. The critical evidence justifies, or more than justifies, the belief of the Church which is expressed in her Creeds.'
But this has been a hard-won fight for most—
'Friends, companions, and train
The avalanche swept from our side,'[20]
and no one felt the strain, the positive agony of soul, in greater degree than did George Romanes. Step by step he abandoned the position he had maintained in his Burney Prize, with no great pauses, rather, as it seems, with startling rapidity, and with sad and with reluctant backward glances he took up a position of agnosticism, for a time almost of materialism. He wrote a book, published in 1876, which was entitled 'A Candid Examination of Theism.' It is almost needless to discuss the work, as it has been dealt with by its author in his posthumous 'Thoughts on Religion.' It is an able piece of work, and is marked throughout by a lofty spirit, a profound sadness, and a belief (which years after he criticised sharply) in the exclusive light of the scientific method in the Court of Reason.
His education had been on strictly scientific lines, and the limitations of thought produced by such education are clearly seen in that essay; 'limitations' which the philosophical and the metaphysical tendencies of his mind soon led him to overstep.
The reaction against the conclusions of the essay set in far sooner than has been at all suspected. Perhaps the first published mark of reaction is the Rede Lecture[21] of 1885.
Yet anyone who reads carefully the conclusion of the 'Candid Examination'[22] will see the note of 'longing and thirsting for God.'
There are many who abandon belief for various reasons, and who in various methods stifle regret and call in stoicism to their aid. There are those who really care very little about the 'ultimate problems,' and who find the world of sense quite enough to occupy them. And there are souls who seem to be constantly crying out in their darkness for light, the burden of whose cry seems to be: 'Fecisti nos ad te, Domine, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te.' These last have within them the capacity for holiness, the capacity for a real and tremendous power to witness for the truth, to do and to suffer pro causa Dei. To this class George Romanes belonged. By nature he was deeply and truly religious, and interested and absorbed as he was in science, it is no exaggeration to say he was just as keenly interested in theology, that is to say, in the deepest and ultimate problems of theology. By the questions which divide Christians he was not greatly attracted, and he never could see any reason for the bitterness which exists between e.g. Roman and Anglican.
This is anticipating. In 1878 he had touched the very depths of scepticism, and he would have rejected the idea of a possibility of return, and would have rejected it in terms of unmeasured regret.
A letter from Mr. Darwin is interesting.
Down: December 5, 1878.
My dear Romanes,—I am much pleased to send my photograph to the future Mrs. Romanes.
I have read your anonymous book—some parts twice over—with very great interest; it seems admirably, and here and there very eloquently written, but from not understanding metaphysical terms I could not always follow you. For the sake of outsiders, if there is another edition, could you make it clear what is the difference between treating a subject under a 'scientific,' 'logical,' 'symbolical,' and 'formal' point of views or manner? With regard to your great leading idea, I should like sometimes to hear from you verbally (for to answer would be too long for letters) what you would say if a theologian addressed you as follows:
'I grant you the attraction of gravity, persistence of force (or conservation of energy), and one kind of matter, though the latter is an immense admission; but I maintain that God must have given such attributes to this force, independently of its persistence, that under certain conditions it develops or changes into light, heat, electricity, galvanism, perhaps even life.
'You cannot prove that force (which physicists define as that which causes motion) would inevitably thus change its character under the above conditions. Again I maintain that matter, though it may in the future be eternal, was created by God with the most marvellous affinities, leading to complex definite compounds and with polarities leading to beautiful crystals, &c. &c. You cannot prove that matter would necessarily possess these attributes. Therefore you have no right to say that you have "demonstrated" that all natural laws necessarily follow from gravity, the persistence of force, and existence of matter. If you say that nebulous matter existed aboriginally and from eternity with all its present complex powers in a potential state, you seem to me to beg the whole question.'
Please observe it is not I, but a theologian who has thus addressed you, but I could not answer him. In your present 'idiotic' state of mind, you will wish me at the devil for bothering you.[23]
Yours very sincerely,
Ch. Darwin.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park: Sunday, Dec. 1878.
My dear Mr. Darwin,—Many thanks for your portrait—not only from myself but also from the 'future Mrs. Romanes.'
I am glad that you think well of the literary style of the book on Theism. As regards the remarks of the supposed theologian, I have no doubt that he is entitled to them. The only question is whether I have been successful in making out that all natural cases must reasonably be supposed to follow from the conservation of energy. If so, as the transmutations of energy from heat to electricity &c. all take place in accordance with law, and as the phenomena of polarity in crystals &c. do the same, it follows that neither these nor any other class of phenomena afford any better evidence of Deity than do any other class of phenomena. Therefore, if all laws follow from the persistence of force, the question of Deity or no Deity would simply become the question as to whether force requires to be created or is self-existent. And if we say it is created, the fact of self-existence still requires to be met in the Creator.
Of course it may be denied that all laws do follow from the persistence of force. And this is what I mean by the distinction between a scientific and a logical proof. For in the last resort all scientific proof goes upon the assumption that energy is permanent, so that if from this assumption all natural laws and processes admit of being deduced, it follows that for a scientific cosmology no further assumption is required; all the phenomena of Nature receive their last or ultimate scientific explanation in this the most ultimate of scientific hypotheses. But now logic may come in and say, 'This hypothesis of the persistence of force is no doubt verified and found constantly true within the range of science (i.e. experience), so that thus far it is not only an hypothesis but a fact. But before logic can consent to allow this ultimate fact of science to be made the ultimate basis of all cosmology, I must be shown that it is ultimate, not merely in relation to human modes of research, but also in a sense absolute to all else.'
But the more I think about the whole thing the more am I convinced that you put it into a nutshell when you were here, and that there is about as much use in trying to illuminate the subject with the light of intellect as there would be in trying to illuminate the midnight sky with a candle. I intend, therefore, to drop it, and to take the advice of the poet, 'Believe it not, regret it not, but wait it out, O Man.'
G. J. R.
I return the papers, having taken down the references. The books I shall return when read, but honey-mooning may prolong the time.