CHAPTER II. London, 1879-1890

LONDON, 1879-1890

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ Church, Oxford.

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

Yours truly, GEO. J. ROMANES.

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

Glasgow: 1880.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

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

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

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

From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.

Down: February 3, 1880.

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

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

Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

February 6, 1880.

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

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

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

April 22, 1880.

As soon as I received your first intimation about Schneider's