Knvhj AnthropohKjiral lirnettrclw* 11 



diHtinction; it would not Imve affected the validity of his argument had he 

 taken I in 1000. He then takes from biof^raphical dictionaries and other 

 Hourcea tlii! number of distiiij^iiislidd men whoiuvve luul distini^uiHlu'd fiitherH, 

 sons or other rehitiveH, and .shows that they have far more diNtinguished 

 sons than could possibly be anticipated in a like numlx^r of the general 

 population. For example, taking .'^1)1 painters from Bryan's Dictionary tiiere 

 are X\ cases of sons who have renown iis artists. Now supposing eiich {>ainter 

 had on an average 3 sons, we have 33 distinguished in a group of 1 173, or 

 about 1 in 36. Galton's statistics show something of this order — when al- 

 lowance is made for size of family — for the frequency of distinction of all 

 kinds in the sons of a population of fathers of distinction. But in the general 

 population of tiie educated ' distinction is only of the order 1 in 3000 — or 

 1 in 1000 if the rejider prefer. This rough method — ample enough for its 

 purpose — was (lalton's first application of statistics to the problem of heredity. 

 It is the way he convinced himself that the mental characters in man were 

 transmissible. But Galton was not content with merely reaching a truth. 

 His next step was to consider what its relation to race betterment might be, 

 and then — in 1864 — we suddenly find the whole doctrine of eugenics as the 

 salvation of mankind developed half-a-century too early! 



" A.s we cniiiiot duubt tluit tlic traiismLssion of talent is as much through the side uf the 

 mother as through that of the father, liow vastly would the offspring be improved, suppoaing 

 distinguished women to be commonly married to distinguished men, generation after generation, 

 their ijualities being in harmony and not in contrast, according to rules, of which we are now 

 ignorant, but which a study of the subject would be sure to evolve!" (p. 163.) 



Galton next meets the "great and common mistake" of supposing that 

 high intellectual powers are generally associated with puny frames and small 

 physical strength. He says that men of remarkable eminence are almost 

 always men of vast powers of work. He notes how even sedentary workers 

 astonish their friends when on vacation rambles, and how frecjuently men of 

 literary and scientific distinction have been the strongest and most daring of 

 alpine climbers. 



"Most notabilities have been great witei-s and excellent digesters, on literally the same 

 principle tiiat tiie furnace that can raise more steam than is usual for one of ita size must bum 

 more freely and well than is common. Most great men are vigorous animals, with exuberant 

 powers and an extreme devotion t<i a cause. There is no reason to suppo.se that in breeding for 

 the highest order of intelligence, we should pro<iuce a sterile or a feeble race." (p. 164.) 



Galton condemns the civilisation of the Middle Ages that enrolled so 

 many youths of genius in the ranks of a celibate clergy ; and he condenms 

 the costly tone of society to-day which also forces genius to be celibate during 

 the best period of manhood. He finds that very great men are not averse to 

 the other sex, for many have been noted for their illicit intercourses, and 

 in this respect he especially blames great lawyers. But science does not 

 esca})e his censure; he takes the commoners who have Ijeen Presidents of 

 the British Association as a fair list of leutlers in science of the present day, 



' Galton limits his field because nf tli" hiin.li.-ap on the iinmlueftUvl. however talent«l they 

 may lie. 



