The House Where Darwin Lived
Home to the naturalist for 40 years, the estate near London was always evolving
- By Rebecca Stott
- Smithsonian magazine, February 2013, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 2)
The father in Down House did barnacles and he did bees and he did carnivorous plants and he did worms. And if the father did them, so did the children. These children were willing and happy assistants to their attentive father, fascinated by his explanations of the natural world. As soon as they were old enough, they were recruited to oversee certain experiments—to observe seeds growing on saucers arranged on windowsills, or to play music to worms, or to follow and map the flight path of the honeybees across the Down House gardens. They were also the subject of his studies; he watched them play and laugh and cry, keeping notebooks full of observations of the young human animals they were.
One of the most striking things about visiting this house in autumn is the exquisite Virginia creeper that has stretched its way up and over the painted white brickwork. The flame-red leaves had almost all fallen, leaving just the delicate black branches of the stems, as intricate as sea fans. It struck me too as I walked around the house how many family trees English Heritage has assembled on the interior walls to illustrate the kinship connections between the Darwins and the Wedgwoods (Emma Wedgwood, from the wealthy manufacturing family whose potteries produced fine porcelain, and Charles Darwin were first cousins). Those branching patterns seemed to be replicated everywhere inside and outside the house, like branches but also like nets. “We may all be netted together,” Darwin wrote in an early notebook, referring to his gathering conviction that all races came from a common ancestor.
Walking around this house you do get a strong sense of nettedness, of the intricate kinships between its diverse human and animal members. In the last years of his life, Darwin became obsessed with earthworms. He brought them into the house in glass jars full of soil to observe their reactions to things, getting the children to serenade them in the billiards room—bassoon, piano and whistle—flashing lights at them to determine how sensitive they were, feeding them odd kinds of food, including herbs and raw meat. They were, he knew, the great workers, the overlooked, the toilers and tillers of the soil. All life on the planet depended upon the work they did. “It may be doubted,” he wrote, no doubt thinking of the continual turning of the planet, birth to death, death to birth, “whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world as have these lowly organised creatures.”
The whole house is much the same as it was when Darwin lived there, except, of course, that when Darwin lived there it was always changing. That is the trouble with such houses, preserved for the nation: They fix a place in a moment in time, and Darwin and his family were never still, never fixed. They and the house they lived in evolved.
It is tempting to think about Down House and its occupants moving through time like fast-frame photography, like the lyrical “Time Passes” section of Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, in which she describes an empty holiday house on the Outer Hebrides over a period of ten years. As I stood on the stairs for a moment, visitors passing, overhearing scraps of conversation, looking down the long corridor to the tall window framing trees ahead, I was convinced I felt time move. It had something to do with the sound of the piano playing in one of the exhibition rooms, I think, which reminded me that Darwin would have heard family sounds as he worked, children thumping up and down those stairs, nursemaids calling, builders sawing and hammering somewhere, working on some repair or a new extension, Emma playing the piano in the drawing room, dogs barking, the muffled voices of gardeners on the lawn outside.
But Down House is not a ghostly place; it’s not a tomb or a stone memorial. It is still as open to the garden and the sun as it ever was. It continues to move through time. There are gourds and pumpkins in the garden, scores of pots of drosera and orchids in the greenhouses; the gardeners tend the trees and the orchards, and in the kitchen garden children weave in and out of the pathways playing hide-and-seek. Bees still make honey here; birds catch their worms; and under the ground the worms grind away, turning over the soil.
Darwin built himself the Sandwalk, a sand-surfaced path on which he could walk and think, soon after they moved into the house. He walked it several times a day, almost every day of the year. It began at the gate at the end of the kitchen garden. On one side it followed the ridge of a hill so that the views looked down over open meadows, and on the other, as it circled back toward the house, it took him into the cool darkness of the wood he had planted. Those looped repetitions through the same ground were a kind of meditation. He came to know the interdependent life of this little wood as it changed through the seasons; he came to understand the sense of life and death all intricately netted together. He came to know its light and its darkness.
Down House knew loss as it knew life. Charles and Emma lost their first baby only days after moving in here; they lost their daughter Annie in her tenth year. Annie’s distraught father nursed her at her bedside in a water-cure establishment many miles away from Emma, who was too heavily pregnant to reach him or their dying daughter. After Annie’s death, he remembered his daughter running ahead of him on the Sandwalk, turning to dance or smile. Her absence, the traumatic memory of her painful death from an undiagnosed illness, was a continual reminder of the fragility of life that tempered the daily joy afforded him by his growing children. The Sandwalk and Down House itself, in all its netted, interdependent beauty and wonder, were places of emotional chiaroscuro.
When Darwin finally finished Origin of Species, a book written through sleepless nights and at white-hot speed, he allowed himself to compose a little prose poetry on its final page, now one of the most quoted passages of all his writing. “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank,” he wrote, “clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms...have all been produced by laws acting around us....Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals directly follows....From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” This passage is, I think, also a poem about his home, a poem about the evolving world he and Emma had created together at Down House.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (6)
Myth of the Finches In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance it comes out in an interview with Senator Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) that he did not shoot Liberty Valance; the event that set him on the road to fame and success. The reporter closes out with the famous quote: “This is the west sir, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” And so it is with Darwin’s finches. The legend is that the finches were very important to Darwin’s development of the theory of evolution. Yet if you word search On the Origin of Species you will find that the word “finch” is only used 3 times – twice in discussions about pigeons and once about canaries. Not once does he mention the Galapagos finches. Darwin did not know until he returned to England after his voyage on the Beagle that he had misidentified the birds he collected in the Galapagos. He thought they were mockingbirds or other passerines. In addition, when he did collect birds in the Galapagos, he did not label which island they came from so, even after he learned they were all finches, he did not have the data or perspective to understand this wonderful example of his theory. In fact, it was in the 1870s, forty years after Darwin’s voyage and more than 10 years after publication of On the Origin of Species, before an ornithologist, Osbert Salvin, noticed the variability of the beaks, legs, wingspan, and weights that the significance of “Darwin’s finches” became apparent. Darwin did mention the finches in "Voyage of the Beagle" and there is a hint that he may have understood their importance, but he did not follow up. The picture of stuffed finches on page 62 of the February 2013 issue helps perpetuate the myth that the Galapagos finches “. . . helped him [Darwin] articulate the principle of natural selection.”
Posted by WallyD on March 13,2013 | 12:03 PM
@Joy Charles and Emma Darwin, as first cousins, were descendants of the Wedgewood family, an extremely wealthy industrialist family. Charles earned most of his money shrewdly investing in the then fast-expanding UK railway network. The estate also provided an income with hay sold from the meadows. Science projects funded by Darwin in his will still run today - such as Index Kewensis. Darwin treated his staff well, even by modern standards. He built a sizeable wing for them onto his house, so they had as good a living conditions as he had, paid them pensions, Emma Darwin made a reading room in the village for workers – much to the dismay of the local vicar – many of the long term employees were thought of as members of the family and have neighbouring plots in the village churchyard. At its height, he provided for a household of 24 with his staff included. Darwin also founded, and volunteered for, a ‘friendly society’ so that locals could invest and buy winter fuel when it was cheaper during the summer months. The village still uses land on the estate he gave them the use of for sports. Darwin also volunteered himself for local civic duties. Considering the era he lived in, Darwin acknowledged a lot of the privileges he had and worked hard to help the lives of others around him. I'd recommend reading his autobiography and letters on the Darwin Correspondence Project website to get a better idea of the man.
Posted by Sorbus on January 30,2013 | 08:03 AM
I loved this article, but you sent me to Google with a burning question: How in the world could Darwin have afforded a life like this!? What a charmed schedule and life he had, following his passions and nestled in hiking trails. And to think, he was gifted such a sheltered existence while siring 10 children and probably never having to handwash a single cloth diaper or cook a single meal! Whether the life of his servants was even half as idyllic -- I somehow doubt that. Darwin brought many gifts to the human endeavor of inquiry and learning. It sounds like he was a nice person to boot. And, like many other people we might admire (Thomas Jefferson, etc.), he was on the receiving end of a society extreme in its wealth and poverty. It takes the poverty of many dozens of people to create the extravagent life of one Charles Darwin. It always strikes me as a disservice to hail the accomplishments of a person without directly acknowledging the very broken and painful economic reality they benefited from.
Posted by Joy on January 27,2013 | 11:30 AM
Great article !!!
Posted by pamella on January 25,2013 | 08:17 AM
So beautifully written,thank you.
Posted by G Schuil on January 25,2013 | 07:57 AM
Excellent essay, thank you. More writing by this author, please.
Posted by Elizabeth Stein on January 25,2013 | 07:07 AM