498 READINGS IN EVOLUTION, GENETICS, AND EUGENICS 



at once that neither Mr. Galton nor any other responsible person has 

 ever asserted that we can produce genius at will. The difficulties in 

 the way of such a project at present are almost innumerable. 

 One or two may be cited. 



In the first place, there is the cardinal but by no means univer- 

 sal difficulty that the genius is too commonly so occupied with the 

 development and expansion of his own individuality that he has little 

 time or energy for the purposes of the race. This, of course, is an 

 example of Spencer's great generalization as to the antagonism or 

 inverse ratio between individuation and genesis. 



Again, there is the generalization of heredity formulated by 

 Mr. Galton, and named by him the law of regression towards mediocrity. 

 It asserts that the children of those who are above or below the mean of 

 a race, tend to return towards that mean. The children of the born 

 criminal will be probably somewhat less criminal in tendency than he, 

 though more criminal than the average citizen. The children of the 

 man of genius, if he has any, will probably be nearer mediocrity than 

 he, though on the average possessing greater talent than the average 

 citizen. It is thus not in the nature of sheer genius to reproduce on its 

 own level. It is only the critics who are totally ignorant of the elemen- 

 tary facts of heredity that attribute to the eugenist an expectation of 

 which no one knows the absurdity so well as he does. 



On the other hand, it is impossible to question that the hereditary 

 transmission of genius or great talent does occur. One may cite at 

 random such cases as that of the Bach family, Thomas and Matthew 

 Arnold, James and John Stuart Mill; and the reader who is inclined 

 to believe that there is no law or likelihood in this matter, must 

 certainly make himself acquainted with Mr. Galton's Hereditary 

 Genius, and with such a paper as that which he printed in Sociological 

 Papers, 1904, furnishing an "index to achievements of near kinsfolk 

 of some of the Fellows of the Royal Society." There is, of course, the 

 obvious fallacy involved in the possibility that not heredity but 

 environment was really responsible for many of these cases. It must 

 have been a great thing to have such a father as James Mill. But it 

 would be equally idle to imagine that the evidence can be dismissed 

 with this criticism. A Matthew Arnold, a John Stuart Mill, could not 

 be manufactured out of any chance material by an ideal education 

 continued for a thousand years. 



The transmission of genius. One single instance of the trans- 

 mission of genius or great talent in a family may be cited. We shall 



