<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0007" id="link2H_4_0007"></SPAN></p>
<h2> WRITTEN MAY 1ST, 1881. </h2>
<p>'The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation' was published in the autumn
of 1876; and the results there arrived at explain, as I believe, the
endless and wonderful contrivances for the transportal of pollen from one
plant to another of the same species. I now believe, however, chiefly from
the observations of Hermann Muller, that I ought to have insisted more
strongly than I did on the many adaptations for self-fertilisation; though
I was well aware of many such adaptations. A much enlarged edition of my
'Fertilisation of Orchids' was published in 1877.</p>
<p>In this same year 'The Different Forms of Flowers, etc.,' appeared, and in
1880 a second edition. This book consists chiefly of the several papers on
Heterostyled flowers originally published by the Linnean Society,
corrected, with much new matter added, together with observations on some
other cases in which the same plant bears two kinds of flowers. As before
remarked, no little discovery of mine ever gave me so much pleasure as the
making out the meaning of heterostyled flowers. The results of crossing
such flowers in an illegitimate manner, I believe to be very important, as
bearing on the sterility of hybrids; although these results have been
noticed by only a few persons.</p>
<p>In 1879, I had a translation of Dr. Ernst Krause's 'Life of Erasmus
Darwin' published, and I added a sketch of his character and habits from
material in my possession. Many persons have been much interested by this
little life, and I am surprised that only 800 or 900 copies were sold.</p>
<p>In 1880 I published, with [my son] Frank's assistance, our 'Power of
Movement in Plants.' This was a tough piece of work. The book bears
somewhat the same relation to my little book on 'Climbing Plants,' which
'Cross-Fertilisation' did to the 'Fertilisation of Orchids;' for in
accordance with the principle of evolution it was impossible to account
for climbing plants having been developed in so many widely different
groups unless all kinds of plants possess some slight power of movement of
an analogous kind. This I proved to be the case; and I was further led to
a rather wide generalisation, viz. that the great and important classes of
movements, excited by light, the attraction of gravity, etc., are all
modified forms of the fundamental movement of circumnutation. It has
always pleased me to exalt plants in the scale of organised beings; and I
therefore felt an especial pleasure in showing how many and what admirably
well adapted movements the tip of a root possesses.</p>
<p>I have now (May 1, 1881) sent to the printers the MS. of a little book on
'The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms.' This is a
subject of but small importance; and I know not whether it will interest
any readers (Between November 1881 and February 1884, 8500 copies have
been sold.), but it has interested me. It is the completion of a short
paper read before the Geological Society more than forty years ago, and
has revived old geological thoughts.</p>
<p>I have now mentioned all the books which I have published, and these have
been the milestones in my life, so that little remains to be said. I am
not conscious of any change in my mind during the last thirty years,
excepting in one point presently to be mentioned; nor, indeed, could any
change have been expected unless one of general deterioration. But my
father lived to his eighty-third year with his mind as lively as ever it
was, and all his faculties undimmed; and I hope that I may die before my
mind fails to a sensible extent. I think that I have become a little more
skilful in guessing right explanations and in devising experimental tests;
but this may probably be the result of mere practice, and of a larger
store of knowledge. I have as much difficulty as ever in expressing myself
clearly and concisely; and this difficulty has caused me a very great loss
of time; but it has had the compensating advantage of forcing me to think
long and intently about every sentence, and thus I have been led to see
errors in reasoning and in my own observations or those of others.</p>
<p>There seems to be a sort of fatality in my mind leading me to put at first
my statement or proposition in a wrong or awkward form. Formerly I used to
think about my sentences before writing them down; but for several years I
have found that it saves time to scribble in a vile hand whole pages as
quickly as I possibly can, contracting half the words; and then correct
deliberately. Sentences thus scribbled down are often better ones than I
could have written deliberately.</p>
<p>Having said thus much about my manner of writing, I will add that with my
large books I spend a good deal of time over the general arrangement of
the matter. I first make the rudest outline in two or three pages, and
then a larger one in several pages, a few words or one word standing for a
whole discussion or series of facts. Each one of these headings is again
enlarged and often transferred before I begin to write in extenso. As in
several of my books facts observed by others have been very extensively
used, and as I have always had several quite distinct subjects in hand at
the same time, I may mention that I keep from thirty to forty large
portfolios, in cabinets with labelled shelves, into which I can at once
put a detached reference or memorandum. I have bought many books, and at
their ends I make an index of all the facts that concern my work; or, if
the book is not my own, write out a separate abstract, and of such
abstracts I have a large drawer full. Before beginning on any subject I
look to all the short indexes and make a general and classified index, and
by taking the one or more proper portfolios I have all the information
collected during my life ready for use.</p>
<p>I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty
or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many
kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge,
and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took
intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have
also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very
great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of
poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so
intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste
for pictures or music. Music generally sets me thinking too energetically
on what I have been at work on, instead of giving me pleasure. I retain
some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the exquisite
delight which it formerly did. On the other hand, novels which are works
of the imagination, though not of a very high order, have been for years a
wonderful relief and pleasure to me, and I often bless all novelists. A
surprising number have been read aloud to me, and I like all if moderately
good, and if they do not end unhappily—against which a law ought to
be passed. A novel, according to my taste, does not come into the first
class unless it contains some person whom one can thoroughly love, and if
a pretty woman all the better.</p>
<p>This curious and lamentable loss of the higher aesthetic tastes is all the
odder, as books on history, biographies, and travels (independently of any
scientific facts which they may contain), and essays on all sorts of
subjects interest me as much as ever they did. My mind seems to have
become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large
collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that
part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot
conceive. A man with a mind more highly organised or better constituted
than mine, would not, I suppose, have thus suffered; and if I had to live
my life again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to
some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now
atrophied would thus have been kept active through use. The loss of these
tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the
intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the
emotional part of our nature.</p>
<p>My books have sold largely in England, have been translated into many
languages, and passed through several editions in foreign countries. I
have heard it said that the success of a work abroad is the best test of
its enduring value. I doubt whether this is at all trustworthy; but judged
by this standard my name ought to last for a few years. Therefore it may
be worth while to try to analyse the mental qualities and the conditions
on which my success has depended; though I am aware that no man can do
this correctly.</p>
<p>I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so remarkable in
some clever men, for instance, Huxley. I am therefore a poor critic: a
paper or book, when first read, generally excites my admiration, and it is
only after considerable reflection that I perceive the weak points. My
power to follow a long and purely abstract train of thought is very
limited; and therefore I could never have succeeded with metaphysics or
mathematics. My memory is extensive, yet hazy: it suffices to make me
cautious by vaguely telling me that I have observed or read something
opposed to the conclusion which I am drawing, or on the other hand in
favour of it; and after a time I can generally recollect where to search
for my authority. So poor in one sense is my memory, that I have never
been able to remember for more than a few days a single date or a line of
poetry.</p>
<p>Some of my critics have said, "Oh, he is a good observer, but he has no
power of reasoning!" I do not think that this can be true, for the 'Origin
of Species' is one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has
convinced not a few able men. No one could have written it without having
some power of reasoning. I have a fair share of invention, and of common
sense or judgment, such as every fairly successful lawyer or doctor must
have, but not, I believe, in any higher degree.</p>
<p>On the favourable side of the balance, I think that I am superior to the
common run of men in noticing things which easily escape attention, and in
observing them carefully. My industry has been nearly as great as it could
have been in the observation and collection of facts. What is far more
important, my love of natural science has been steady and ardent.</p>
<p>This pure love has, however, been much aided by the ambition to be
esteemed by my fellow naturalists. From my early youth I have had the
strongest desire to understand or explain whatever I observed,—that
is, to group all facts under some general laws. These causes combined have
given me the patience to reflect or ponder for any number of years over
any unexplained problem. As far as I can judge, I am not apt to follow
blindly the lead of other men. I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind
free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot
resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be
opposed to it. Indeed, I have had no choice but to act in this manner, for
with the exception of the Coral Reefs, I cannot remember a single
first-formed hypothesis which had not after a time to be given up or
greatly modified. This has naturally led me to distrust greatly deductive
reasoning in the mixed sciences. On the other hand, I am not very
sceptical,—a frame of mind which I believe to be injurious to the
progress of science. A good deal of scepticism in a scientific man is
advisable to avoid much loss of time, but I have met with not a few men,
who, I feel sure, have often thus been deterred from experiment or
observations, which would have proved directly or indirectly serviceable.</p>
<p>In illustration, I will give the oddest case which I have known. A
gentleman (who, as I afterwards heard, is a good local botanist) wrote to
me from the Eastern counties that the seed or beans of the common
field-bean had this year everywhere grown on the wrong side of the pod. I
wrote back, asking for further information, as I did not understand what
was meant; but I did not receive any answer for a very long time. I then
saw in two newspapers, one published in Kent and the other in Yorkshire,
paragraphs stating that it was a most remarkable fact that "the beans this
year had all grown on the wrong side." So I thought there must be some
foundation for so general a statement. Accordingly, I went to my gardener,
an old Kentish man, and asked him whether he had heard anything about it,
and he answered, "Oh, no, sir, it must be a mistake, for the beans grow on
the wrong side only on leap-year, and this is not leap-year." I then asked
him how they grew in common years and how on leap-years, but soon found
that he knew absolutely nothing of how they grew at any time, but he stuck
to his belief.</p>
<p>After a time I heard from my first informant, who, with many apologies,
said that he should not have written to me had he not heard the statement
from several intelligent farmers; but that he had since spoken again to
every one of them, and not one knew in the least what he had himself
meant. So that here a belief—if indeed a statement with no definite
idea attached to it can be called a belief—had spread over almost
the whole of England without any vestige of evidence.</p>
<p>I have known in the course of my life only three intentionally falsified
statements, and one of these may have been a hoax (and there have been
several scientific hoaxes) which, however, took in an American
Agricultural Journal. It related to the formation in Holland of a new
breed of oxen by the crossing of distinct species of Bos (some of which I
happen to know are sterile together), and the author had the impudence to
state that he had corresponded with me, and that I had been deeply
impressed with the importance of his result. The article was sent to me by
the editor of an English Agricultural Journal, asking for my opinion
before republishing it.</p>
<p>A second case was an account of several varieties, raised by the author
from several species of Primula, which had spontaneously yielded a full
complement of seed, although the parent plants had been carefully
protected from the access of insects. This account was published before I
had discovered the meaning of heterostylism, and the whole statement must
have been fraudulent, or there was neglect in excluding insects so gross
as to be scarcely credible.</p>
<p>The third case was more curious: Mr. Huth published in his book on
'Consanguineous Marriage' some long extracts from a Belgian author, who
stated that he had interbred rabbits in the closest manner for very many
generations, without the least injurious effects. The account was
published in a most respectable Journal, that of the Royal Society of
Belgium; but I could not avoid feeling doubts—I hardly know why,
except that there were no accidents of any kind, and my experience in
breeding animals made me think this very improbable.</p>
<p>So with much hesitation I wrote to Professor Van Beneden, asking him
whether the author was a trustworthy man. I soon heard in answer that the
Society had been greatly shocked by discovering that the whole account was
a fraud. (The falseness of the published statements on which Mr. Huth
relied has been pointed out by himself in a slip inserted in all the
copies of his book which then remained unsold.) The writer had been
publicly challenged in the Journal to say where he had resided and kept
his large stock of rabbits while carrying on his experiments, which must
have consumed several years, and no answer could be extracted from him.</p>
<p>My habits are methodical, and this has been of not a little use for my
particular line of work. Lastly, I have had ample leisure from not having
to earn my own bread. Even ill-health, though it has annihilated several
years of my life, has saved me from the distractions of society and
amusement.</p>
<p>Therefore my success as a man of science, whatever this may have amounted
to, has been determined, as far as I can judge, by complex and diversified
mental qualities and conditions. Of these, the most important have been—the
love of science—unbounded patience in long reflecting over any
subject—industry in observing and collecting facts—and a fair
share of invention as well as of common sense. With such moderate
abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that I should have
influenced to a considerable extent the belief of scientific men on some
important points.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />