Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1

by Alfred Russel Wallace; Sir James Marchant

Dear Bates,—Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I have myself suffered much in the same way as you describe, and I think more severely. The kind of tædium vitæ you mention I also occasionally experience here. I impute it to a too monotonous existence. [pg 073] I know not how or to whom to express fully my admiration of Darwin's book. To him it would seem flattery, to others self-praise; but I do honestly believe that with however much patience I had worked up and experimented on the subject, I could never have approached the completeness of his book—its vast accumulation of evidence, its overwhelming argument, and its admirable tone and spirit. I really feel thankful that it has not been left to me to give the theory to the public. Mr. Darwin has created a new science and a new philosophy, and I believe that never has such a complete illustration of a new branch of human knowledge been due to the labours and researches of a single man. Never have such vast masses of widely scattered and hitherto utterly disconnected facts been combined into a system, and brought to bear upon the establishment of such a grand and new and simple philosophy!...—In haste, yours faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW, THOMAS SIMS

Delli, Timor. March 15, 1861[15]

My dear Thomas,—I will now try and write you a few lines in reply to your last three letters, which I have not before had time and inclination to do. First, about your one-eyed and two-eyed theory of art, etc. etc. I do not altogether agree with you. We do not see all objects wider with two eyes than with one. A spherical or curved object we do see so, because our right and left eye each see a portion of the surface not seen by the other, but for that very reason the portion seen perfectly with both eyes is less than with one. Thus [see diagram on next page] we only see from A to A with both our eyes, the two side portions Ab Ab being [pg 074]seen with but one eye, and therefore (when we are using both eyes) being seen obscurely. But if we look at a flat object, whether square or oblique to the line of vision, we see it of exactly the same size with two eyes as with one because the one eye can see no part of it that the other does not see also. But in painting I believe that this difference of proportion, where it does exist, is far too small to be given by any artist and also too small to affect the picture if given.

Again, I entirely deny that by any means the exact effect of a landscape with objects at various distances from the eye can be given on a fiat surface; and moreover that the monocular clear outlined view is quite as true and good on the whole as the binocular hazy outlined view, and for this reason: we cannot and do not see clearly or look at two objects at once, if at different distances from us. In a real view our eyes are directed successively at every object, which we then see clearly and with distinct outlines, everything else—nearer and farther—being indistinct; but being able to change the focal angle of our two eyes and their angle of direction with great rapidity, we are enabled to glance rapidly at each object in succession and thus obtain a general and detailed view of the whole. A house, a tree, a spire, the leaves of a shrub in the foreground, are each seen (while we direct our eyes to them) with perfect definition and sharpness of outline. Now a monocular photo gives the clearness of outline and accuracy of definition, and thus [pg 075]represents every individual part of a landscape just as we see it when looking at that part. Now I maintain that this is right, because no painting can represent an object both distinct and indistinct. The only question is, Shall a painting show us objects as we see them when looking at them, or as we see them when looking at something else near them? The only approach painters can make to this varying effect of binocular vision, and what they often do, is to give the most important and main feature of their painting distinct as we should see it when looking at it in nature, while all around has a subdued tone and haziness of outline like that produced by seeing the real objects when our vision is not absolutely directed to them. But then if, as in nature, when you turn your gaze to one of these objects in order to see it clearly, you cannot do so, this is a defect. Again, I believe that we actually see in a good photograph better than in nature, because the best camera lenses are more perfectly adjusted than our eyes, and give objects at varying distances with better definition. Thus in a picture we see at the same time near and distinct objects easily and clearly, which in reality we cannot do. If we could do so, everyone must acknowledge that our vision would be so much the more perfect and our appreciation of the beauties of nature more intense and complete; and in so far as a good landscape painting gives us this power it is better than nature itself; and I think this may account for that excessive and entrancing beauty of a good landscape or of a good panorama. You will think these ideas horribly heterodox, but if we all thought alike there would be nothing to write about and nothing to learn. I quite agree with you, however, as to artists using both eyes to paint and to see their paintings, but I think you quite mistake the theory of looking through the "catalogue"; it is not because the picture can be seen better with one eye, but [pg 076]because its effect can be better seen when all lateral objects are hidden—the catalogue does this. A double tube would be better, but that cannot be extemporised so easily. Have you ever tried a stereograph taken with the camera only the distance apart of the eyes? That must give nature. When the angle is greater the views in the stereoscope show us, not nature, but a perfect reduced model of nature seen nearer the eye.

It is curious that you should put Turner and the Pre-Raphaelites as opposed and representing binocular and monocular painting when Turner himself praises up the Pre-Raphaelites and calls Holman Hunt the greatest living painter!!...

Now for Mr. Darwin's book. You quite misunderstand Mr. D.'s statement in the preface and his sentiments. I have, of course, been in correspondence with him since I first sent him my little essay. His conduct has been most liberal and disinterested. I think anyone who reads the Linnean Society papers and his book will see it. I do back him up in his whole round of conclusions and look upon him as the Newton of Natural History.