An Early Darwin Manuscript" The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

PETER J. VORZ1MMER Depart men t of History Temple University, Philadelphia

INTRODUCTION

In Volume VI of the collection of Darwin Papers and Letters at the Cambridge University Library, there are 14 handwritten manuscript pages in ink which the official University handlist describes as "first sketch of species theory, 1842. "1 Even to those reasonably well acquainted with the details of Darwiniana this would not, at first glance, seem at all puzzling. However, also in Volume VI one finds 35 pages of autograph manuscript, written in pencil, which constitute the published "Sketch of 1842." This has been universally acknowl- edged to be Darwin's first sketch of his evolution theory. Darwin made several explicit references to this pencil sketch and indicated in his Journal that he wrote it at Maer and Shrewsbury in May and June of 1842.2

The manuscript of the "Sketch of 1842" was long thought to have gone the way of so many Darwin drafts and notes - the blank sides having subsequently been used for household lists or for children's drawings, the sheets were thrown away. However, as Charles's son Francis relates in his Introduction to his Foundation o f the Origin

o f Species a (in which he first published both the "Sketch of 1842" and the "Essay of 1844," in the year following Iris mother's death in 1896, a small bundle of manuscript papers was found in a closet beneath the staircase in their house at Down, Kent. This bundle consisted of a number of foolscap-size sheets, folded lengthwise in half, bound with a piece of narrow ribbon. Written on the covering sheet, in Darwin's own hand, was "First Pencil Sketch of Species Theory - 1842."

1. Handlist of Darwin at the University Library Cambridge (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1960), p. 5.

2. Gavin de Beer, ed., "Darwin's Journal," Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Histo- ricalSeries, 2, no. 1 (1959), p. 9.

3. Francis Darwin, ed., The Foundations of the Origin of Species; Two Essays Written in 1842 and 1844 by Charles Darwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), pp. 55-58.

Journal of the History of Biology, vol. 8, no. 2 (FaU 1975), pp. 191-217. Copyright 01975 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland.

PETER J. VORZIMMER

This bundle of sheets contained, in fact, the following: 13 pages in ink in Darwin's hand constituting a single draft with title, section numbers, and end; 1 page, also in ink in Darwin's hand, written on both sides (one side containing an outline and a list of omissions, the other a long paragraph intended as an "introduction"; and finally, 35 pages written in pencil in Darwin's hand which comprise the entitled "Pencil Sketch of 1842."

These items were included in the original 1942 grant of the Darwin collections to the Cambridge University Library and were placed in Box 6 (now Volume VI) of that collection. The Handlist of Darwin Papers (later printed in 1960) listed the contents of the box as "First 'pencil' sketch of species theory, 1842; first sketch of species theory, 1842; sketch of species theory sent to Asa Gray, 1857."

This seems to be where the puzzlement enters. Ostensibly one has two "Sketches" of 1842. Yet only one is readily identifiable as Darwin's acknowledged pencil sketch of that year. What does one make of the 13-page ink sketch which someone saw fit to label equally as 1842? It is this item which I hope to show here as being a draft written some time around July of 1839 as a preliminary draft on the subject of "the principles of variation in animal and vegetable organisms under the effects of domesticity" (see Fig. 1).

If one accepts my conclusions about the date of these manuscript pages, then what we have here is, in fact, Darwin's earliest attempt to put a key aspect of his theory into a coherent draft-essay form. Further, the accompanying outline represents, both crudely and succinctly, Darwin's earliest synopsis of his evolutionary argument. Both documents would therefore be of considerable import for under- standing the evolution of Darwin's thought.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAFT MANUSCRIPT

The manuscript consists of 14 sheets of foolscap white paper, without watermarks, measuring 8" X 13 1/4" (20.3 x 33.3 cm), attached to the first 14 sheets of what is now Volume VI of the Darwin Papers and Letters collection. The f'trst 13 of these sheets constitute, in terms of their contents, a single draft entity. The first of these sheets has, on one side, Darwin's ink notation on the upper half, referring to "First Pencil Sketch of Species Theory - 1842." The dark and dusty nature of the upper half, the clear crease across the middle, and the clean lower half, help to confirm this first sheet as the wrap-around covering sheet of the bundle "discovered" below stairs in 1896. These 13 sheets were written

192

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

Fig. 1. Draft of 1839, p. 1. (Courtesy of Univ_ Library, Cambridge.)

193

PETER J. VORZIMMER

in ink, wholly in Darwin's hand, and, except for three special instances involving notes, on one side of the paper only. There are, however, both pen and pencil additions made to the manuscript.

The emendations made in pen can clearly be seen to be what one might call "running changes and corrections," meaning they were made at the time Darwin was composing the original and are alterations in the form of fairly immediate afterthoughts. Those made in pencil are clear- ly and, in the main, interlineations plus one of two comments made at

the foot of a page where there was room, or along the side margin (writ- ten horizontally) where there was not. (I would suggest that these penciled additions were made in early May of 1842 when Darwin next seems to have taken up the idea of a fuller sketch of his theory as a whole - at which time he seems to have consistently used pencil.)

The fourteenth manuscript page (see Fig. 2), although readily discern- ible as not being a textual part of the draft, seems to have, from the beginning, been considered related to it. This is not only because - un- like the 35 penciled pages of the remainder of the bundle - it is written in pen but because, on what appears to be its principal face, it contains an outline of the draft and additionally a list of "Omissions" which are not, in fact, dealt with in the draft.

On the other side of this fourteenth page (see Fig. 3) is the "Introduc- tion." The words "Maer May 1842" and "useless" can be seen as obvious additions at the top of the page, appearing side by side but in separate "boxes." (It is my interpretation that these words were added by Darwin at Maer in May 1842, when he reread this earlier attempt, and wrote it off as "useless." It seems most likely that it was at this point he made his vertical pencil stroke down the page, his usual way of indicating to himself that he was done with a particular piece of writing - and also added his penciled comment at the bottom: "This page was thought of as introduction.")

Following this fourteenth page in Volume VI are the 35 penciled manuscript pages by Darwin that comprise the "Pencil Sketch of 1842." These are written, for the most part, on cheaper, light tan or buff-colored paper, of slightly larger size, 9" X 14 3/4" (23.2 x 37 cm.), and, in one or two instances, on watermarked bond paper of the same size and color.

DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS

The 13-page draft amounts to a short essay on the titled subject of "the principles of variation in animal and vegetable organisms under the

194

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outl ine and Draft of 1839"

Fig. 2. The fourteenth manuscript page: outline and omissions. (Courtesy of Univ. Library, Cambridge.)

195

PETER J. VORZIMMER

Fig. 3. Reverse side of the fourteenth manuscript page: Introduction. [Courtesy of Univ. Library, Cambridge.)

196

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

effects of domesticity." A reading reveals that under this general subject are covered such items as the causes of variation, the continued extension of incipient variation, the effects of crossing, the role of artificial selection and isolation, and the extension of change from slight individual variation to larger varietal change. The draft is some 3000 words long. The same subject in the actual pencil "Sketch of 1842" (see Fig. 4) consists of only some 670 words in 6 paragraphs. The analogous section of the "Essay of 1844" (see Fig. 5), discounting completely new subject additions, is not much longer and bears numerous textual resemblances to both.

The contents of these pages, begun with the heading "Chapter I," are consistent with the item labeled "I - The Principles of Var. in domestic organisms" on the single-sheet "Outline." Together with the instruction "Chapter - Number each paragraph," also appearing on the top of this outline page, they seem to confirm the relationship between this four- teenth page and the 13 pages of draft. (A complete transcript of all 14 pages appears at the end of this paper.)

ESTABLISHING A HISTORICAL-CHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXT

In discussing my interpretations of this draft manuscript with a good number of my fellow historians of biology, I have been consistently reminded of one seemingly unassailable piece of documentary evidence that would appear to preclude a date attribution earlier than 1842. In his autobiographical recollection of 1876, Darwin comments on his reading of Malthus in late 1838: "Here, the'n, I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages. ''4 This passage clearly places a heavy burden of proof - or an equally weighty form of reinter- pretation - on any scholar trying to establish any form of draft prior to May 1842. For the moment, however, I would like to make no assump- tions whatever and simply treat each of the three equally logical possibilities as to the chronological position of the draft.

First is that this draft represents a transition between the "Sketch of 1842" and the "Essay of 1844" and thus lies between them in date. This is the view of at least one eminent Darwin scholar familiar with

4. Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters o f Charles Darwin (London, John Murray, 1888), 83.

197

PETER J. VORZIMMER

Fig. 4. "Sketch of 1842," p. 1. (Courtesy of Univ. Library, Cambridge.J

198

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

Fig. 5. "Essay of 1844," p. 1. (Courtesy of Univ. Library, Cambridge.)

199

PETER J. VORZIMMER

these items s and finds some positive support in the Darwin autobio- graphical comment, in the draft's apparent intermediate length of sub- ject treatment between "Sketch" and "Essay," and in its having been written in ink - a logical follow-up to a first try in pencil. With this view, I am agreed on at least two points: that the draft predates the "Essay" and that it was employed in the preparation of the first section of that work. The strongest point against this view is that the listed "omissions" in the draft are restored in the "Sketch," something both unlikely and unnecessary if the draft came after it.

Second is that this draft represents a transition between the "Essay" and the Origin (or at least the "long version" of the Origin). 6 This strictly logical possibility is at first blush made appealing by the fact that the first two chapters of the "long version" o f the On~n have never been found. However, Robert Stauffer, who has devoted nearly twenty years to a study and transcription of the "long version," seems to have eliminated this possibility. He has noted that this draft is not on the blue paper which clearly identifies the existing chapters of the "long version." Nor does he feel it has the detail, style, arrangement, presentation, or parallel structure of either the "long version" or the Origin. Because it also lacks elements which are clearly post-"Essay" and pre-Origin, it would seem that this is hardly a viable interpretation.

Third, the only remaining logical alternative is that the draft predates not only the "Essay of 1844," but also the "Sketch of 1842." Further, if one accepts a pre-"Sketch" draft, it will be important to at least attempt to confirm a more specific date within that large span of time extending backward from 1842. The evidence given to support the contention that we now have an "Outline and Draft of 1839" will be discussed under three categories: First the contextual evidence based on Darwin's thought and activities between reading Malthus (October 1838) and the "Sketch of 1842;" second, the supporting documentary evidence indicating, specifically, the year 1839; and third, the internal evidence arising from the content o f the documents themselves.

5. Robert Stauffer of the Department of History, University of Wisconsin at Madison, in a personal communication in Cambridge during the summer of 1973. Subsequently he has expanded his view to believing the "Draft" is a second- generation expansion of pt. 1, paragraph 1, of the "Sketch" and is a precursor of chapt. 1 of the "Essay." He was not apprised of the Brougham citation at the time, nor do I believe he has made a detailed physical investigation of the ms. recently.

6. Robert Stauffer, Charles Darwin's "'Natural Selection" Being the Second Part of His Big Species Book 1856-58, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1975).

200

An Early Darwin Manuscript : The "Out l ine and Draft o f 1839"

The Evidence from Context

When Darwin re turned to London f rom Shrewsbury on May 20,

18397, he found a nmber o f replies to his "Ques t ions on Breeding ' '8

awaiting him. In these replies were answers and opinions on some o f the

points that had been t roubl ing him. 9 Because o f the leading nature o f

some of the questions, it is clear tha t in many instances he wanted

cor robora t ion and conf i rmat ion o f views he already held. Because only

two replies are extant , we cannot direct ly demonst ra te the ex ten t to

which he got that conf i rmat ion . However , the many references that

appear in the pages o f the F o u r t h Transmuta t ion N o t e b o o k wri t ten

precisely at this t ime, 1° references in let ters and i tems in the later

" S k e t c h " and "Essay" bear out his in format iona l debt to con tempora ry

breeders.

Darwin was, in a very real sense, ready to put pen to paper. He had

the mot ive force o f his mechan ism f rom Malthus and, despite his

immedia te and avowed de te rmina t ion no t to rush into writ ing, he now

had fur ther suppor t in the fo rm of the argument f rom artificial selec-

t ion. He m a y well have felt he was holding f i rmly to his resolut ion with

regard to his theory as a whole, yet still at least hoping to set down

7. "Darwin's Journal," p. 9. 8. Peter J. Vorzimmer, "Darwin's 'Questions about the Breeding of Animals,' "

J. Hist. BioL, 2, no. 1 (1969), 269-281. The .text of the extant replies can be found in Peter J. Gautrey's "Darwin's °Questions about the Breeding of Animals,' " J . Soc. for Bibliog. in Nat. Hist., 5, no_ 3 (1969), 220-225.

9. For a photofacsimile of the "Questions," see Gavin de Beer's Charles Darwin's "Questions about the Breeding of Animals," De Beer has given the wrong date for the paper. For a fuller description accompanying a transcription see my article on Darwin's "Questions."

10. For example, on p. 141 of the fourth transmutation notebook, dated May 4, there is a breeding reference to William Herbert (p. 176 of de Beer's transcription appearing in "Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species," p. 4, Bull Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Historical Series, 2, no. 4 (1960). On p. 148 of the same notebook there is a reference to Thomas Andrew Knight (de Beer, p. 178); on p. 182 a reference to a letter from Knight (de Beer, p. 183); on p. 162 a reference to a personal communication from Henslow of May 27 (de Beer, p. 180). Also from de Beer's "Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species,'" '"Pages Excised by Darwin," Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Historical Series, 3, no. 5 (1967), 175, there is a June 18 reference to Eyton (ms. p. 168); on p. 174 (de Beer, p. 175) there is a June 26 reference to the breeder Yarrell; and on p. 165 (de Beer, p. 174) a May 29 reference to Henslow on the subject. These do not appear to refer to any published works and the explicit use of the phrases such as "Henslow says," "Eyton tells me," etc., seems to indicate some sort of personal communication, undoubtedly one in reply to the "Questions."

201

PETER J. VORZ1MMER

clearly his ideas on variation under domestication and the achievements of artificial selection.

Why do both of Darwin's current notebooks - the fourth and last transmutation notebook and the "N" n o t e b o o k - both end in July 1839? I have not, to date, seen any suggestion put forward. Since the transmutation notebooks ends on the subject of artificial selection and domestic breeding (from replies to the "Questions"), the assertion of Darwin's writing a draft essay on the subject seems quite plausible. With regard to writing down his ideas, Darwin was far too methodical a man not to put down, in some sort of coherent draft form, some of his ideas regarding part of his argument.

The period from the reading of Malthus in October 1838 to Darwin's preparation of the "Questions" in April 1839 is quite important to an understanding of Darwin's frame of mind in 1839. Malthus had provided the key - t h e f o r c e - behind the selective process. Darwin was at no time more acutely aware that it remained for him to demon- strate the efficacy of selection and, moreover, that it could succeed in the face of what was known of the phenomena of breeding and in- heritance. Thus he composed the "Questions" and thus, when he received answers that seemed at least not to preclude a selective process of speciation, he at least, sometime in July of 1839, felt free to explore on paper that part of his theory which amounted to the analogy from domestic selection.

Part of Darwin's overall strategy, which seems not to have changed from the first recorded glimmerings of early 1837 practically to the end of his life, was to describe his theory in a logically sequential manner. That is, he would begin by first describing the sources of variation: domestic, then wild. Then he would turn the factors contributing to the struggle for existence. And so on. "Natural Selection" was Darwin's theory; the "analogy from domestication" was a subsidiary but essen- tial argument that always constituted a part of it. Thus I believe there is much in the historical-chronological context to indicate an "Outline and Draft o f 1839" and nothing which seems absolutely to preclude one.

Unfortunately, from a more detailed documentary point of view, Darwin is quiet about his work in the summer of 1839_ He was clearly and uninterruptedly in London between May 20 and August 23. ix We have ample evidence that after the latter date and up to June 10, 1840, Darwin was busy with as other things. The only other period which

11. "Darwin's Journal," p. 9.

202

An,Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

Darwin's records allow for work of this nature up to May of 1842 was between bouts o f illness while he was at Maer and Shrewsbury in the summer of 1840, when his journal notes that he "did a good deal o f Species work. ''~2

The Evidence from Documents

In his "Introduction" to Foundations o f the Origin o f Species,

Darwin's son Francis considers four different pieces of evidence which clearly state the year 1839 as the one in which Darwin first began to write down elements of his theory. 131 think that it was because Francis was clearly and unequivocally attempting to validate the writing of the "Sketch of 1842" that he was so unremitting in serially putting down each of the four items of evidence for 1839. His error, it seems, was in seeing no alternative except the elimination through mutual exclusivity between these 1839 items and the "Sketch of 1842." Furthermore, even a cursory reading reveals that the "Draft of 1839" and the "Sketch of 1842" are two very different things. Let us first, however, reexamine the four documented references in chronological order:

June 29, 1858. Darwin sent Hooker the bound copy of the "Essay of 1844." " I send my sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own handwriting that you did read it. I really cannot bear to look at it. ''14 There is no evidence to indicate that Darwin sent the manuscript to Hooker before 1858. In fact, the only indication of a prior Hooker reading is the inference stemming from Hooker's visit of four days at Down in 1846 when Darwin was unwe'll. ~s This accords well with a reference of 1858 in which Darwin refers to Hooker's having read the manuscript "some dozen years before. ''~6 Before sending the bound copy in 1858, Darwin added at the top of the contents page in his own hand: This was sketched in 1839 & copied out in full as was written & read by you in 1844 ''~7 (See Fig. 6). We shall see how Francis Darwin was to discount this as a lapse of memory on the part of his father.

12. Ibid., p. 10. 13. Foundations, p. 58_ 14. Life and Letters of Darwin, II, 120. 15. Life and Letters of Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (London: John Murray,

1902), I, 222. 16. Life and Letters of Darwin, II, 121. 17. Volume 113 of the Darwin Papers and Letters, Cambridge University

Library.

203

PETER J. VORZIMMER

Fig. 6. Part of Contents page of"Essay of 1844," (Courtesy of Univ. LiOrary, Cam- bridge.)

204

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

June 30, 1858. On this date, Lyell and Hooker jointly communicated to the Secretary of the Linnean Society the following items: an extract from Darwin's "Essay of 1844," part of a letter from Darwin to Asa Gray written in 1857, and Alfred Russel Wallace's draft on species, is In their letter to the Secretary they referred to Darwin's extract of the 1844 Essay as having been sketched in 1839. We know that Darwin saw all the proofs of these materials prior to their publication in the Linnean Society Journal and made no attempt to correct this state- ment, though he made a number of other corrections.

January 25, 1859. Darwin, in writing to Wallace about their joint publication and extolling the greater virtues of Wallace's contribution, comments, "It puts my extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty years ago!), which I must say in apology were never for an instant intended for publication, into the shade. ''19

May 31, 1876. Darwin's autobiography, which most scholars have considered a credible source of information, also contains a reference to 1839. "I gained much by my delay in publishing," says Darwin, "from about 1839, when the theory was dearly conceived, to 1859. ''~° Admit- tedly, Darwin could here be referring to that final addition of Malthus- ian struggle which came to himin 1838, for he refers to an act of mind and not necessarily to an act of demonstration, such as a draft. Yet the date is 1839 and it would seem that the ever-methodical Darwin would not have trusted memory alone in reconstructing kis life story at age 67 without reference to his detailed diary.

Thus we are left with four quite distinct references to 1839. It seems that, unlike Francis, we can hardly dismiss all four as mistakes or lapses of memory. Besides which, Francis and innumerable others have accepted most other dates in the notebooks and autobiography at face value. Why reject these?

lnternal Evidence

In the "draft of 1839" Darwin does describe the blending effects in hereditary transmission, yet nowhere in this draft does he seem to recognize any negative effects or impediments to a selective process. In the "Sketch of 1842," however, such effects are recognized almost at

18. Gavin de Beer, ed., Evolution by Natural Sel¢ction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 215.

19. Life and Letters of Darwin, II, 146. 20. Darwin, Autobiography, Ed. Nora Barlow (London: Collins, 1958), p. 47_

205

PETER J. VORZIMMER

the outset: in the fourth paragraph alone Darwin notes that the beneficial variations will be "demolished," " lost ," "des t royed," and the whole net effect, a few lines later, "counteracted. ''2~ These feelings are echoed again, in some cases more forcefully ("obl i tera ted" appears in

1844) in the "Essay of 1844." Let us now turn to the manuscript page containing the "Outl ine" and

"Omissions." I t should be kept in mind that i f indeed we have here a document of 1839, it must be considered an extremely important piece of Darwiniana. The crude simplicity of a three-point outline, together with the conspicuous absence o f the term "Natural Selection, ''22 is consistent with a pre-1842 draft. We find frequent use of the term in the "Sketch of 1842" - it even being used to label a particular section only a few pages after the beginning, z3

While it must be admitted that Darwin does not directly deal with natural selection in these draft pages, nevertheless, toward the end, where he alludes to a possible carry-over application to the wild state (as well as more specifically in i tem III of the "Outl ine") , he seems certain to have employed the term had he already coined it in his mind.

Turning now to the section labeled "Omissions," which appears on the same sheet, we have what seems to be the strongest evidence sup- porting an 1839 draft. As noted before, it hardly seems likely that the omissions were thought of before the writing o f the draft. Since Darwin first learned of the vis medicatrix - listed as the first omit ted i t e m - from the pages of his copy of Lord Brougham's Dissertations, 24

published in 1839 and f'mished by Darwin on February 7, 1 8 4 0 y we

21. De Beer, Evolution, p. 42. 22. Camille Limoges, La selection naturelle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de

France, 1970), pp. 104-105. Limoges has found in Youatt's book on the horse, read by Darwin in March 1840, the first recorded use by Darwin of the phrase "Natural Selection," written at the top of a page and consistent with other markings made at the time of the first reading. It is striking that this comes only just after the reading of Brougham and the writing of the "Draft," which comes close to, but does not actually contain the phrase.

23. De Beer, Evolution, p. 96. 24. Dissertations on Subjects o[ Science connected with Natural Theology

(London: C. Knight, 1839). Darwin's annotated copy may be found in the Darwin Library Collection at the Cambridge University Library.

25. On ms. p. 7 in the Darwin Collection DAR ~119, being a list of "Books Read" in Darwin's own hand, there is the notation "February 7, 1840, Brougham's Dissertattion (finished)." This is further confirmed in DAR ~:120, "Alphabetical Index of Books Read" prepared by Catherine Darwin for her father. The ninth item under the letters "B" is "Brougham's Dissertations Feb. 1840."

206

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

have every reason to believe that the draft was written before that date .26

SUMMARY

The sum total of historical, contextual, and internal evidence lend considerable weight to the attribution of the second half of 1839 -part icular ly the period July 20, 1839 (last notebook entry) to August 23, 1839 (began other work and left London). The fact that the "Sketch" contain's the "Draft 's" omissions restored; the Darwin marginalia of May 1842 in which he rejects a work previous to the date; the answers provided by breeders on this particular subject in the period immediately before; the incontrovertible reading of Brougham ending on February 7, 1840 (thus suggesting the latest possible date for the writing of the "Draft"); and, in general, the crude simplicity of the "Outline" and the much-corrected nature of this beginning on domestic variation and selection - a l l tend to provide the kind of background that forces one to reappraise the four documentary citations by Darwin in which he himself refers to an 1839 beginning.

While the discovery by Limoges of the term "Natural Selection" pen- cried into Youatt's book, which Darwin read in early 1840 after Brougham (and thus, purportedly, after writing the "Draft"), doe~ leave open the logical possibility of a later inclusion of the marginalia, never- theless there now seems a kind of "neatness of fit" of two hitherto unrelated facts. For those well-versed in Darwiniana, this kind of esthetic sense of pieces fitting seems to be the stuff of which the best estimations are made. We are unlikely ever to know for certain.

TRANSCRIPT OF THE "OUTLINE AND DRAFT OF 1839"

Note on Apparatus

Material in < > is material written in ink and deleted (as a form of

26. It may also be worth pointing out that only.a few items later on the same page of his reading list appears the item "Youatt on the horse," in which, as noted above, Camille Limoges finds the term "Natural Selection" used, purportedly, for the first time.

207

PETER J. VORZIMMER

running correction) by Darwin at more or less the same time as he was writing the original.

Material in [ ] is material written in pencil and deleted by Darwin - both at probably a much later date, the most likely being May 1842, when Darwin was preparing to begin the "Sketch" o f that year.

Material in ( ) is parenthetical material entered in ink by Darwin in the writing o f the original.

Material in italics is additional material in pencil, again probably added in 1842.

The end of a manuscript page is denoted by a / . Material in "~ >> is material written in ink and added as a note by

Darwin on the reverse side of the original. The draft is given first, followed by the fourteenth manuscript page

containing the Outline, Omissions, and Introduction.

CHAFFER I

On the principles of variation in animal and vegetable organisms under the effects of domesticity.

Sect. 1 An organism placed under conditions, different from those to which it has been adapted by nature, sometimes varies during its in- dividual life in an extremely small degree & in trifling respects; for instance in size, fatness, colour (as birds from peculiar foods & certain flowers) quality of covering (cats & sheep transported to hot countries), some habits of mind as tameness & temper. These changes are only sometimes to be distinguished in individual lives & are chiefly to be inferred from what takes place when an organism is exposed for several generations to the proper influences. In individual animals, however, habits seem to effect the body in the development of the muscular system of the whole or of particular parts of the body & together witil the circulatory & nervous systems attached to such muscules. Disuse on the other hand causes similar parts to become less & in extreme cases, (when use from an accident is prevented)*/ to become atrophied & shrivelled.

* At the bottom of this first ms. page, Darwin has added, in pencil, the following: "[I do not] if I might adduce plants because I know of no change [whether] except planting in soil dug same summer & the succeeding flower buds may partly be considered as another individual."

208

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

Sect. 2 When a < individual organism > plant is propagated for long periods in domesticity by buds, which is generally considered as a mere extension of the individual, the variation is < sometimes > greater than happens in the life of an < animal > individual plant in its strictest sense. This variation, however, is < exceedingly > in most cases small, for instance in the degeneration of the same sort of heartease during succeeding years if badly treated & the improvement & "breaking" of tulips from the same bulb "doubling & singling" when well treated &c. < So marked is this, that constancy is given as a character by florists in their lists. > Sometimes a single bud suddenly assumes a considerably different character, which can be propagated with certainty by budding or grafting &c; for instance, the appearance of moss roses on common roses - o f nectarines [hereditary] on peach-trees- of different coloured chrysanthemums & sweet-williams on same r o o t - of single branch with variegated leaves &c, &c.

Sect. 3 < When an organism [There is reason to suppose in some cases for Hybridisation but not in all cases] propogated for many generations in domesticity (as alluded to in Sect. 1) the variation is greater in amount & almost endless in kinds. There seems no part of the body outside or inside which does not vary in some small degree; anatomists dispute what is the "beau ideal" form of the liver, as painters do of the nose or lips. The dispositions, intelligence, and even instincts likewise vary in slight degree (breeds of horses, cattle & dogs & fighting cocks & pigeons). < The effects of > Habits, which we have stated affect in small degree organisms. > /

(3) It may be remarked that, from considering the number of organisms which have been domesticated in < all times & places > end- less diversities of coutry &locality, it seems that the influence of domestication resolves itself into < f o l l o w . . . > conditions different from those under which nature placed the organism, together with these new conditions seldom or never being persistent for very long periods owing to the mutability of the affairs, habits & knowledge of men. In most cases, but not in all may be < super > added a super- abundance of food; & when once several races have been produced (or originally existed in a wild state) the effects produced by crossing them. It may be observed that rearing forest-trees from seed in their native country, in sommon < land > soil not highly manured < & scarcely differing > deserves the < term > title of domestication; for the seeds in this case are not allowed to sow themselves & struggle against other

209

PETER J. VORZIMMER

trees & weeds & so be raised only under the conditions for which nature adapted them. < It is improbable . . . > ]

(4) The most favourable < conditions > circumstances for variation seems to be propagation for many generations in domesticity. < By domesticity, > Considering the number of organisms which have been domesticated in all times & places; the influence of domesticity seems to resolve itself into conditions different from those under which nature placed the organisms together with their new conditions being seldom or never persistent for centuries < together > owing to the mutability of the affairs & knowledge of man; in most but not all cases may be superadded a superabundance of food; & occasional crossing the breed with other races. I conclude that this is the case < domes- ticity is highly favourable to variation > from the vast number of races < of organisms > which it is known in some cases & may be inferred in others, have < probably > descended in domesticity from one parent < race > source, < & from the v a s t . . . > In the few instances, when the cause of variation has been observed, it appears that the new con- ditions produce but little effect for several generations, & then that as if by an accumulated effect, the original character of the species gives way or "breaks" &numerous varieties are produced. It is probably an analogous result from the accumulated effects of domesticity, which causes the seminal offspring of plants long & highly cultivated by bulbs, slips, buds & grafts by which the individual plant is placed under many conditions to vary in so extraordinary a manner, [more than in any animal] when there is reason to believe all crossing has been avoided; thus from a simple capsule of a potato seed almost endless varieties have been raised & from a single apple two or more kinds. /

This tendency to variation is increased < no doubt > in a great degree by crossing, probably more than by the mere < introduction > blend- ing of the two parent < original stocks > forms & this lead some authors to conclude that variation is confined to cross-bred organisms, but the history of the Potato, the Dahlia, the scotch rose, &c, [the Guinea Pig & Rabbit] will overthrow this notion. The direct effect of certain external conditions, as abundance of food on size & fatness, habits of activity on the muscular system, & in the periods of maturity & breeding as in birds, cattle, & plants, climates on colour & perhaps nature of covering, stimulants as wine on certain parts of the body, effect of unknown injurious influence on the body as tendency to goitre, plica polonica, &c, &c, "~ four unreadable words cross out >> treatment on the temp, or tameness, or courage < in fighting >, or sagacity, habitual peculiar movements, as in paces of horses, - t h e

210

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

effect of disuse on the muscular system (as iri ducks wings) and on certain qualities of the mind (as in wild rabbits when tamed) are shown clearly only < as observed in Sect. I > [ - although we must suppose that a c t i o n - ] when the organisms are bred for several generations under the suitable conditions. This fact can only be explained, by the slight changes slowly gained by the < growth of the > growing powers (whether natural or morbid) of the body & by slight changes in the mind similarly acquired tending to be < being > transmitted to the offspring, which offspring being similarly exposed goes on acquiring the peculiarity in question, until the full effect which the/external in- fluence < tends to > can produce, or the life of the organism will permit, is acquired. There is no reason for supposing that change produced suddenly on the body, as mutilations or lesions from inflam- mation become hereditary. Endless [teeth - as when might be filled at corresponding ages] curious examples show that congenital peculiarities (which can not be attributed to any peculiarity of exposure in parents as extra or defective joints, hairy bodies, &c,) tend to appear in the offspring, that is become hereditary. < When a peculiarity is not hered- itary it will be called a - is distinctive of a variety when hereditary >.

(5) Here a distinction in the varieties of organism which I believe is of very great importance, must be pointed out. We have seen that some are produced by the prolonged effect of external treatment, conditions, & habits on the parents, but there are others which spring from the manner in which the reproductive system acts, especially under domes- ticity, & which cannot with any probability be attributed as the direct effects of the conditions to which the parents have been exposed. Thus we know that a score or more of plants obviously different from each other have been raised from the same seed capsule; < here > in this case where both parents draw their nomishment from the same roots in the same flower [& exposed to exactly the same conditions] it seems im- possible to attribute these several varieties directly to external in- fluences, but they must be attributed to the laws of reproduction them- selves. We see the same thing but less obviously in the difference of children of same parents, < even > sometimes in twins, < or > and in the same litters of < some > animals. It will hereafter be shown that the varieties thus produced, although not the direct effect of external conditions, seem at least when most plentifully / produced to be the indirect effect, from changes of external conditions having a more decided effect (independent of state of health) on the reproductive system both in the animal & vegetable kingdoms than on any other part of the body.

211

PETER J. VORZIMMER

(6) The varieties produced by the direct effects of external con- ditions & habits & the accidents of the reproductive system are almost endless in kind and number. I state this both from the number of varieties of all old (& some comparatively new) domesticated organisms (leaving out of question the races of dogs & some other animals which perhaps or probably have descended from several wild stocks) & from the close comparison of individuals of the same race or sub-race. Every part of the external form, habits of body & mind seem occasionally to vary in some small degree. Anatomists dispute what is the "beau ideal" form of a liver, as painters do of the nose or lips. ~ Note aa, inserted from reverse side, = Every part of the frame becomes unsettled in a small degree; the reproductive powers under domesticity seem to fail in transmitting such exact likeness as under the natural condition. - t h e model, in which the young may be said to be cast, varies slightly in every part inside & outside. >> From the extraordinary number o f varieties of plants produced in the same country & under nearly similar

treatment, I conclude, that the differences produced by the accidents < action > of the reproductive system under domesticity, are more < important > numerous than those [directly] resulting from changes (from external causes directly) effected on successive individuals & accumulated by hereditary transmission in their offspring. /

(7) In crossing races considerably different, as each parent transmits its form, a third race or more will be produced, according to the pre- ponderance of the characters of either parent. Should the two parent forms be kept pure, the number of races < will > may be thus greatly increased, as soon as two or more are once formed, or if two or more originally existed. There is, moreover, some reason for believing that crossing races gives a great tendency to vary, so that < additional > races, additional to those produced by the unequal blending of the parent forms may arise: the production of races by this means (without a careful selection of the intermediate forms) is, however, counteracted by the tendency < in all varieties especially > in cross-< breeding > breeds to revert to either parent form. < Probably > Crossing races is now the most effective means of increasing the number of distinct races. If however the two parent races differ but little and are allowed to cross quite freely, so that no pure-bred animals of either parent- breed are left < these > such two races are destroyed and fused to- gether: hence large numbers of races of the same < exist only > species of the domesticated animals exist together only in highly civilized & enclosed countries; even want of care for a few years will destroy the care of a much longer period - (compare, for instance, the cattle, sheep

212

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

& horses < peas, potatoes & wheat > of S. America with those of Great Britain). These remarks apply to all terrestrial animals, for all have separate sexes & their races may cross - many plants have & it can be shown that the greater pa r t / and < probably > perhaps all plants occasionally cross each other. - The supposed ill-effects of breeding in & in & the good effects of occasional crossing the breed with indivi- duals of a different family perhaps support the probability < that all organisms > (which I believe can be deduced from structure) that < all > most organisms occasionally cross each other & therefore that races of such organisms might cross.

(8) Experience shows that the readiest way to < produce > form new races is carefully to watch the [occasional] < m a n y > slight varieties < b o r n > produced by the accidents of the reproductive system under domesticity, & in animals carefully to cross them with the likest forms, or if none such can be found carefully to select such of the offspring, as take most after the < one > selected < parent > [father or mother]; in most plants it is only necessary to guard against a cross from the pollen of some other individual [& to continue selecting]. This careful selection & prevention of crossing must be continued for many generations, for though 'like produce like' yet it is found that there / is a constant tendency to [vary & especially] revert to the original form. After several generations this tendency lessens & the race becomes "true" - that is it < does > varies less. In all cases the external con- ditions < will > & habits of the organism will tend to modify the new race; < but > and these effects may be partly or wholly counteracted or on the other hand strengthened by" selections. < It is wonder- f u l . . . > Agriculturists &horticulturists often give their powers of selection wider scope by crossing true races. It is wonderful the effect which only a few years of selection, & without crossing in some cases, has produced on many breeds of animals in Great Britain; and yet some of these breeds < are > were very true, so that it would have been thought that little scope was given for selection. Even [the most experienced] breeders have doubted the possibility of [that which] < what > has been certainly effected, when they have compared the < offspring > new races with the old [as with the G. Western sheep]. This, moreover, has been done by continued selecting such slight dif- ferences in the offspring that to an unpractised eye would be absolutely undistinguishable - External nature / under domesticity will adapt the size & form to the amount of food, against which man will in vain struggle - external nature will adapt or influence the colour & in some degree nature of covering to the external - will affect especial external

213

PETER J. VORZIMMER

organs in a singular manner < but > by unknown influences, but man < will > can select by patience races adapted to ends, which can have no < influence > [relation whatever to] on the organism - [thus] will select & therefore in one sense make a race of sheep which cannot climb over walls, will make other races of sheep have long covering & another short & finer - will in the same sense make one race adapted to hung one kind of prey & another a second kind - will make the fat lie mixed with the meat in one breed < beast > & make it accumulate in the bowels in another for the tallow-chandler - will previously deter- mine how the feather on a bird vary (bantams and canary) shall be coloured, that the legs of one breed of pigeons shall be elongated & the beak in another breed be shor tened- shall make the leaves of one breed & the buds of another breed of the same plant good to eat at different times of the year &c, &c, &c. In saying man makes the breed, let it not be confounded with man making the individuals originally <possessed > given by nature with the desirable qualities in such degree, man only < accumulates & > adds together & makes a per- manent gift of nature's bounty. It would have been an astonding fact if nature had made so many races, many of them adapted to such frivol- ous ends, & man had only taken advantage of which he found ready made; - but we know such has not been the case. < a l though. . . > But in several instances man probably has taken advantage of & adopted breeds produced < by > < wholly > by the effects of external nature, to his own peculiar ends. /

(11) Man's power in making breeds is limited, independently of the above conditions, by the possibility of the variation of the different parts of the [non- or imperfect hereditariness] organism, on which he is acting. Some parts vary very much more readily than others, but it < may be doubted whether > [seems that] all parts under domesticity do < not > occasionally vary in some slightly degree. There are prob- ably many unknown laws of variation, < the variation of different parts are governed by laws in concordance together > [We shall have to dis- cuss period of existence when variation supervenes.] dependent on laws of growth; for instance if < one half o f > the two halves of the body varying together; & if the head become much elongated, the extrem- ities, it is thought, generally will be so. The most marked tendency in variation is to return to < parental > ancestral forms. Even when man meets with the primary variation to select from he must be limited by the health & life of the organism, he has already made pigeons which feed with difficulty and do not rear their own young & sheep with so strong a tendency to inflammation (from their tendency to early

214

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

maturity & powers of fattening) that they cannot live in < most some localities - he succeeded < attempted to > in making < breed > a family of oxen with such large hinder quarters, < that he 2> but was checked by the frequent death of the cows when bringing forth calves of this structure, in this case, however, with long time cows might probably have been selected with an inheritable structure which would have permitted the birth of calves with this desired structure. The < whole > amount of variation produced under domestication is quite unknown; for all the most useful animals & man plants have been cultivated so long that their wild source is not known & in many cases there seems reason to believe that the present races have descended from a mixture of wild races, or species, which have inter-bred. /

(10) To sumup. Man makes breeds or races 1st by < selecting > directly exposing

organisms to conditions different from those under which they were placed by nature and 2nd with greater effect by selecting the varieties which orginate either from the < laws > mode of action of the repro- ductive system (& taking care) under domesticity or from crossing al- ready established breeds & carefully continuing to select the kind he wants & keeping the new breed from crossing with others. After many generations he may in some degree relax his care, the tendency to < revert > recession to the parent stock will be < is > diminished. "~ Note B, inserted from the reverse side = So that instead of continued selection of a few out of many of the yearly offspring, he will have only occasionally to < d e s . . . 2> remove some one which departs from the new type. And should a cross accidentally take place, its effects will be obvious &easily remedied; &indeed the breed being < supposed to be > well-established, such accidental cross-bred animals would (if not selected) be soon blended &repeated crossing & recession into the parent new breed. >> < & should a cross occasionally with another breed accidentally happen, the effect will be obvious & easily removed and the half-breeds even if left to themselves < the half-breeds > from not being numerous by recession to the pure would tend by crossing would become pure. > < The > Domestication < producing ~ produc- ing variation in the individual offspring, man has to attend only to selection which implies isolation. < if he want to produce several breeds

by selection close if these have but a breed he can s lowly . . . > By these means he can < adapt > produce infinitely numerous races, most curiously adapted to ends either most important or frivolous; at the same < nature > time that the surrounding conditions modify his labours. < within > < Hereafter we will treat of the <possible >

215

PETER J. VORZIMMER

< probable > amount of variation in different breeds which < man can probably > man could produce. >

(END)

Chapter - Number each paragraph

I. The Principles of Var. in domestic organisms. II. The possible & probable application of these same principles to

wild animals & consequently the possible & probable foundation of wild races. Analogous to the domestic ones of plants & animals.

III. The (proofs) reasons for & against believing that such races have really been produced - forming what are called species.

Memoranda

Omissions

II. Introduce trifling characters pervading groups of species, like bars

in pidgeons = species - not to be distinguished from races.

Vis medicatrix is a form of hereditariness acting on individuals as when nails have grown on stumps of fingers.

No progression from old ages to present but taking existing scene as im- perfect index of what probably have existed. There is a tendency to complication; natural effect of my theory.

Extent of my theory - having nothing to do with first origin of life, grow(th), multiplication, mind & (or with any attempt to find out whether descended from o n e form & what that form was.

Maer, May 1842 useless

Geology shows us that vast succession of organisms have inhabited the earth. They appeared to have come & disappeared suddenly in groups. But in later periods we have reason to believe they have come on & disappeared from the scene one by one & we must believe that some have disappeared within late periods. We are thus led to ask whether

216

An Early Darwin Manuscript: The "Outline and Draft of 1839"

their appearance be not rather due to some regular cause or law of nature & not to infinitely numerous separate miracles. Looking further we see the fossils o f any one country are more particularly related to the living organisms of that country than to any other; we ask can they be descended from.these fossils? We see isld near continent & different parts o f this continent whether separated by space, change of temp, great rivers or mountains, inhabited by different species which have evident relationships.

Affinity - unity of type - foetal state - abortive organs - hybrids like mongrels - difficulty of testing species from varieties - if species given up, genera must - we know that extinction within certain limits is possible, we ask for limits of this variation who can answer?

(This page was thought of as introduction)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Mr. Peter Gautrey of the Manuscript Room of the Cambridge University Library for his unflagging help - now extend- ing over some eighteen years. He has never failed to give sober and expert advice on Darwin matters and without his help such work could hardly be done at all. I have also received invaluable aid from another mentor of nearly twenty years' standing, Dr. Sidney Smith o f St. Cathafine's College, Cambridge, who has helped with transcriptions, scooting around the closed stacks to reappear with just the fight

11

documents, and has always served to keep vaulting ego and enthusiasm as well-chained as possible.

217