416 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
offspring (and Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge), contributed an
article on "The Genesis of Double Stars." Charles Darwin (just plain Charles, for
Victoria never did grant him a knighthood) had the good sense to publish his
greatest work at age 50—and the centenary of his birth therefore coincided with
the 50th anniversary of the Origin. A grand occasion for a double celebration.
Cambridge University Press, at Darwin's alma mater, published the
proceedings of his centennial party without delay in the right year of 1909, under
the editorship of botanist A. C. Seward. The choice of participants had been
ecumenical, ranging in profession from the great anthropologist J. G. Frazer (of
The Golden Bough) to the equally celebrated historian J. B. Bury, and in attitude
from such Darwinian stalwarts as Hooker and Weismann to such active opponents
as William Bateson. All participants had their say and delivered both their praises
and their criticisms. In this medley of maximal diversity, however, only one
statement seemed so egregious to the editor that he felt compelled to make a public
statement.
In his short preface, editor Seward acknowledged the pluralism of his volume
in expressing "the divergence of views among biologists in regard to the origin of
species" (1909, p. vii). Then, in a single sour note, he cried "foul" about one
passage: "In regard to the interpretation of a passage in the Origin of Species
quoted on page 71, it seemed advisable to add an editorial footnote; but, with this
exception, I have not felt it necessary to record any opinion on views stated in
these essays" (Seward, 1909, p. v).
Turning to page 71, we find ourselves in the midst of an article on "Variation"
by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries (following Weismann and preceding Bateson
in a fascinating bridge between opposites). De Vries had won widespread fame for
his "Mutation Theory" on the origin of species (2-vol-ume German edition in 1901
and 1903; English translation in 1909). Most biologists viewed this saltational
proposal (correctly so, I shall argue) as anti-Darwinian in mechanism. Yet de Vries
persisted in trying to cover himself with the mantle of Darwin's presumed (though
posthumous) approval. In the offending passage, de Vries twisted both logic and
literary interpretation to argue that Darwin had really meant to identify saltational
variation as the source of evolutionary change—whereas plain sense and everyone
else's reading indicated that Darwin had favored insensible variation and rejected
sports. De Vries wrote:
Returning to the variations, which afford the material for... natural
selection, we may distinguish two main kinds... Certain variations
constantly occur, especially such as are connected with size, weight, color,
etc. They are usually too small for natural selection to act upon, having
hardly any influence in the struggle for life: others are more rare, occurring
only from time to time, perhaps once or twice in a century, perhaps even
only once in a thousand years. Moreover, these are of another type, not
simply affecting size, number or weight, but bringing about something new,
which may be useful or not. ... In his criticism of miscellaneous