fJarlji Anf/iro/wloffi'ral Rfine.arche» 99 



keystone of the arch by aid of which mankind shall jtass to a higher future — 

 those. I say, have never properly understood his niesHage to his generation ; 

 it is hard to Ixjlieve that they have read, even 8U|)<'r(icially, his writinjjH. 



With 'Poets,' 'Musicians' and 'Painters' Galton is more brief than he 

 luis been in the case of men of action and of reason. 



"Thn PiwU and Artists noncrally iiro iiioii of \\\n\\ lixpiratioiiH, Imt, for all tlmt, tlicy ure » 



''•Wisuous, orotic ruco oxcce'dinj^ly irromiliir in their way of lifo. Kv«mi »Ii« mMtti ninl virtu*- 



prnacliiiig l)iiMt<> in s|>okf>i> of liy Hocoiircio in niiwt Nevi'r»» tt-rniH'. '1' lin- 



pliiyoi curly in youth, when thoy are first Hhukon liy the t(*ni}>vHtuoU' , -'.">.) 



Almost all the able kindred of poets are in the first dej,'rf'c. 



"Poets are not the founders of fanulies. The reason is, I think, simple and it app!i«a to 

 artists generally. To bo a great arti.st requires a rare and so to siieak unnatural correlation of 

 ({ualitius. A poet, besides hia genius, must have the severity, and stedfaMt unrncntnejut of th<Me 

 whose dispositions affonl few ti'niptationa to plejisure, and he must, at tli' me, have the 



utmost delight in the exerci.so of his senses and affections. This is a rari- c, only to be 



formal by some happy accident, and is therefore uii.stable in itdieritunce. I -ii \..-. ["-.ii. who 

 have strong sensuous tastes go utterly a.stray and fail in life, and this tt-ndem y I- . 1. .n .\ -Ihiwn 

 by numerous instances mentioned in the following apjiendix, who have inherited the dani^iiout 

 part of a poet's character and not his other (|ualities that redeem and control it." (p. 2-7.) 



Uante having been put aside, and recent revelations having rather dis- 

 credited Wordsworth, must we look on Goethe alone as the one poet who 

 with fitedfa.st eanie.stness took the utmost delight in the exerci.se of his 

 senses? Or, shall we pin our faith solely to Milton, with perhaps Samuel 

 Rogers lurking in the background? Galton was writing in his 47th year, 

 and as we all know 20 and GO are the dangerous ages for men. Would he 

 have written forty years later with less condemnation, with a grejiter sense 

 of the impenetrable mist which screens from our gaze the links between 

 creative genius and sex ? One of the most brilliant women of our day once 

 said to tlie present writer : " I am most creative, when my senses dominate 



Tl ' 



lal 



Galton could sit to an artist and count the numl^r of his bnush- or 

 mallet-strokes', while to another the fascination is to watch the features of 

 the man o.scillating lietween gratification and despair us he strives to impart 

 his ideal version of a crude reality to a refractory medium. I do not think 

 Galton had a very clear appreciation of the artistic nature — I do not say of art. 



But if he had less feeling for men of poetry than for men of science, 

 he had almost no sympathy at all for ' Divines.' This is not to say that his 

 accounts in the " Appendix to Divines" (pp. 283-98) are not fair, I believe 

 they are, and, I think, he even exaggerates the importance of some of his 

 selected men of piety. In order to be impartial he selects the 19G names 



' " Amid 80 much virtue, amid so much knowle<lge as have been alwve shown existing in 

 this wondrous poet, lustfulness found mo-st ample place, and not only in his youthful, but ia 

 his mature yoai-s ; which vice, although it is natural, and common and almost of necessity, of 

 a truth cannot be rightly excusetl, much less commended. But who among mortals shall be 

 the just judge to condemn him? Not I." Thus Boccaccio, and these tiie words 0*ItOD had in 

 mind. 



" Letter of February C, 1907. 'See NiMmn, June 29, 1906. 



me most. " The wise man strives 

 will echo Gal ton's Boccaccio-lik 



s to hold the bridle firmly, but in his old aire 

 e cry : " But who am I to piiss judgment ? ' 



