I 



Correxponflf'Hft' in't/i AljihniiMf ile CandoUr 135 



42, UUTLAND (lATK, I^XDOX. Dte. 37/72. 



Dkar Sik, I tliiiiik v<jii tiuK'li tor yniir voluino which I r<)c<'ivc<| about a fortniKlit lince and 

 which I hiivc inid iiiul rc-rciul witli can* hikI with t»rnjit in.Htrucli<in Ut iiiyielf. Allow me to con- 

 griituiiiti- you OH th<' hajipy idfii of iiccHptiiij{ tli« noniiiiatioii»of tlitf PVench Acji^l 'iir 



IxkHos a.H r(>lial)l<i diploiiiiiH of scientific cniinRnc(>, uiid on tliUH obtaining a hoI: iir 



l-eAHuning. I must liowevcr express no Kniali surprise at the contrast l)etwe<>n youi iit 



on my theories and your own conclusionii. You iMiy and imply that my views on iry 



genius are wrong and tliat you are going to correct them ; well, I read on, and tin<l to my 

 aatonishnient that so fur from correcting them you re-enunciatu them. I am perfectly unable 

 to discover on what particulars, speaking broadly, your conclusions have invalidated mine. 

 They have largely supplemoiit«d theui, by thoroughly working out a bmncii of the inquiry into 

 which I never professed to enter, but I literally cannot ««■<) that your conclusions, so far as 

 heredity is concerne<l, differ in any niarke<l way from mine. You say that race is Hll-im|M)rtant 

 (p. "253 etc.) — that families of the same race differ from each other more widely than the races 

 tliemselves (p. 'J')H) — that physicnl form is certainly hereditary and that intellect is depeixlent 

 on structure and must therefore be inheritwl (p 32()) that for success, an individual must 

 both "vouloir et/«>iM'()Jr" (p. 92) — that the natural facultii-s must bo above mi'<liocrily (p. 106) 

 and very many other similar remarks. I never sjiid, nor thought, that H|>ecial aptitudes were 

 inherited so strongly as to bo irresistible, which s«!ems to Ije a dogma you are plea»e<l to ascribe 

 to me ami then to repudiate. My whole book, including the geneJilogical tables, shows that 

 ability — the ''pouvoir" — may manifest itself in many ways. I feel the injustice you have done to 

 me strongly, and one reason that I did not write earlier was that I might first hear the inde- 

 pendent verdict of some scientific man who had read both Iwoks. This I have nowdone, having seen 

 Mr Darwin whose opinion confirms mine in every particular. Let me, before proceeding to more 

 agreeable subjects, complain of yet another misrt^presentation. You say (p. 3H0) that I deny or 

 doubt (contester) the gixnl tendencies of children reart'<l in the families of clergymen — I never 

 said anj'thing of the sort. What I did .siiy was against the "pious," that is the ovrr-re/it/iottt. 

 My genealogies are full of clergymen: — in the list you give, p. 3S1, I doubt if any of the parents 

 are known to have been "pious". — though you might have (juott'd llnlUr in your favour. Let 

 me en passant remark alnmt the last paragraph of your fo'jtnote to p. 383, the sons of English 

 clergy are or were hardly ever sent into the army, becau.se their partMits could not afford it, 

 and therefore their sons could not lH'com(> (ienerals. Sometimes, but very rarely, they toerr put 

 into the Navij, which is a less costly pr<jfe.ssion, and Admiral I»rd Nelson was one of such. 



I regret very much that you did not succeed in working out the genealogies of the scientific 

 discoverers, on whom you rely, and on both sides. However there is no denying the fact, that 

 as a whole they are specialists, rather than illustrious men, and are therefore stmiewhat obscure 

 to fame. Man against man, they would l)e nowhere in compi-tition with a great statesman — 

 but they have owed more to concentration and the narrowing of their faculties than to a general 

 prodigality of their nature. Such men are more easily afilnited by circumstances than the bom 

 geniuses alx)ut whom T chiefly busied myself, and an« therefore all the more suitable subjects 

 for an inquiry like yours, into the effects of different circumstances. 



t)ne of the most striking things to me in your lKK)k is the chilling influence on scientific 

 curiosity you prove to i-esult from religious authority. The figun« you give seem to me of the 

 highest importance. I am also greatly impresse<l with the conditions of fortune (funds not land) 

 and the desire for an Eurojwan rather than a local reputation which you ascrilw to religious 

 and other refugees. — Switzerland's reputation seems made by the Huguenots, Eulerand Halter 

 being the only two in your list of purely native birth. I wish you had given the genealogies 

 of the rest in full.— Have you not made some slip of the jx-n in p. 125 — at the bottom! If you 

 cut off the sons of pasteurs I do not find that equality is re-establishtfl, nearly. — Then see p. 40 

 where out of 20 fathers of associates only 4 were jwsteurs and of all these associates only one 

 wivs Catholic. — There remain 14 non-clergy and 2 Quakers as parents of 16 Protestants to that 

 1 Catholic. Is not 'Protestant' a deceptive word? I fear most of the scientific men would be 

 more truly described as 'infidel' or 'agnostic' 



I How remarkable are your conclusions al>out teaching. I suppose .severe t' es 



many original minds but raises the level. We in England are in the thro< ual 



reform, wanting to know how l)est to teach "How to observe.'' 

 In your table XI of the scientific value of a mill'''" "f ,Iin"..r..iir i ...•.•« T note, what appears fo 

 I 



