1 2^-4 Life and Letters of Francis Galton 



and she may put you to confusion by distinguishing between the social and 

 honoumble duty of parentage, and the individuaHstic and onerous duties of 

 marriage. We may nmch desire, I fear now in vain, to see Galton's replies 

 to these letters ; but I do not think he saw how the emancipation of women 

 must change the aspect of his proposals for race-betterment'. Had he done 

 so, he must surely have given us some light on one of the most difficult 



f)roblems of our present day civilisation. 1 cannot find trace of it in Galton's 

 ater writings on eugenics, and the present legislative pittance to lying-in 

 mothers of the artizan classes is only a travesty of what the eugenist under- 

 stands by the endowment of the physically and p.sychically abler mothers in 

 each caste of our modern highly differentiated social organisjition. 



We have further evidence, however, of the manner m which Hereditary 

 Genius stirred up men by its suggestions, if not to new investigations, at 

 any rate to the publication of work they had in mind. Noteworthy in this 

 respect is Alphonse de Candolle's book : Histoire des Sciences et des Savants 

 depuis deux Siecles, publi.shed in 1872. It shows undoubted signs of 

 Galton's influence, if only as an irritant, and one may reasonably question 

 how and when it would have been issued, but for the Hereditary Genius of 

 1869. De Candolle, son of the still more distinguished bottmist, wa.s, as befits 

 a botanist, more impreased than Galton with the influence of environment, 

 and he quite possibly gave too little weight to the selective immigration 

 into Switzerland, which has gone on at various periods to the great advantage 

 of the intellectual life of that little country. Certainly some of his criticisms 

 of Galton appear to me hasty and unjustified, and counter-criticisms against 

 his own work could be easily raised, were it worth doing. The main jioint 

 is that after a certain amount of friction these two able men became friends 

 and mutually inspired each other's ideas and work. Just as we may consider 

 De Candolle's work as brought to birth — perhaps prematurely — by Galton's 

 Hereditai'y (renius, so Galton's Erajlisli Men of Science, their Nature and 

 Nurture of 1874, while an extension of the corresponding chapter in the 

 Hereditary Genius, was prompted by De Candolle's Histoire des Sciences'. 



The correspondence between these two men gives a greater insight into 

 Galton's manner of thought at this period than any other record — except his 

 writings — which has been preserved from that date. Conununications with 

 English scientific friends — Darwin excepted — were largely verbal. They are 

 lost in the after-dinner talks of the Athenaeum and of the Royal Society clubs. 



' He was not oppostHl to the academic education of women — witness the following letter of 

 CbarleH Darwin to his 8on George of Feb. 27 [1881]: 



"You will have heard of the triumph of the Indies at Cambridge [Grace of Senate admitting 

 women to University examinations carried by 398 to 32]. The majority was so enormous that 

 many men on both sides did not think it worth vnting. The minority was received with jeers. 

 Horace was sent to the Ladies College to communicate the success and was receivwl with 

 enthusiasm. Frank and F. Gallon went up to vote. We had F. Galton to Down last Sunday. 

 He was splendid fun and told us no end of odd things." A VeiUury of Family Letters, 1904, 

 Vol. II, p. 315. 



But Gallon naturally did not realise all that would flow from the movement. 



< "I thought that a somewhat similar investigation might be made with advantage into the 

 hiatory of English men of 8cien«»." MemorUs, p. 291. 



