Earlt/ Anf/iropolof/iral lictu'arches 7i> 



of natural selection as man in the age of tribes ; and that a nation wa« not 

 stable when it pro<liice(l too many self-reliant 'fore-oxen,' or, worse still, 

 when each ruininunt and stolid ox no longer oinaidered the common deter- 

 mination of the herd as binding on his conscience. If»' nii'/ht .v.., ,!t.. ,« 

 illustration the Ireland of the twentieth century 1 



The world has seen numerous travellers, many men of nu-chanicui gt^niua, 

 and not a few students of nature who gnisped the ti volution of human 

 societies. Hut Cralton tiie Cambridi'e mathematician, Galt<^)n the ox-rider, 



• • • 



Ciidton of the wiive-machine, and (Jalton the eugenist, st^em at fii"st sight so 

 widely incongruous, and yet rightly estimated are necessary features of that 

 all-round individuality — observant, constructive, calculating, and enthusi- 

 astic — of Galton the anthropologist, using that term in its widest sense, 

 who by oiiginality of method, wide experience of men and ripe judgment 

 of atVairs inHuenced the development of many younger men in the last 

 quarter of the nineteenth century. 



The paper just di.scussed was taken somewhat out of its proper order 

 because it springs so directly from Galton's travel-experience, and liecause it 

 indicates so clearly the growing tendencies of Galton's mind. But the reader 

 nuist rememln^r that Galton did not suddenly ru.sh to the conviction, that 

 from this time onward dominated his view of life, namely that the psychical 

 characters in man, and also in the lower animals, are hereditary. He had 

 been working on this subject for at least six or .seven years. The best evidence 

 of this is the paper written in 1864 on " Hereditary Talent and Character" 

 (see our p. 70). It is singular how this foundation stone of Galton's anthro- 

 pological work — the equal inheritance of the psychical and physical characters 

 — has been disregarded even by some of his professed fiillowers. As for the 

 psychologists by calling they at first left this fundamental problem to others, 

 and later, instead of observing and experimenting themselves, Wii-st^d energy 

 in futile criticisms. Few men are willintj to admit that their folly on the 

 one hapd is inbred, or that their talent \vluch has led to success is not a pro- 

 duct of their own free industry. Even men of quite rejisonable intelligence 

 daily confuse the possession of knowledge with mental endowment, and, as a 

 result of their confusion, assert that psychical characters are chiefly the result 

 of training. Another very common argument is of the following kind : A 

 dictionary of biography is appealed to and it is found that far more dis- 

 tinguished men are sons of mediocre parents than of distinguished parents. 

 It is then asserted that talent cannot Im; inlierited. The fallacy is fairly 

 flagi-ant, if examined, but is sufliciently plausible to be often reneated. Let 

 us suppose that one parent in a thousand is distinguished, ana, the rate of 



reproduction being the same, one offspring in ten to distinguished parents 

 is distinguished, but only one oti'spring to the hundred in the case of non- 

 distinguished parents. Then in a community of 10 distinguished and 10,000 



non-distinguished parents we shall have one distinguished individual l)orn of 

 distinguished parents and 100 distinguished individuals born of mediocrity. 

 The fallacy consists in emphasising the 100 against the unit, and over- 

 looking the fact that the distinguished parent produces distinction at ten 



10— s 



