Corre^jtomfinn' with Afp/ioimr de CandoUe 151 



pre-8tHtiHticul and early statiHtical days were t'SHoiitially tIjoHe of I^aplace's 

 'esprit juste.' 



Althoiij^h rjalton doalsOnly with 1 80 selected iiiuin^, In- idtisidcrH xwm liie 

 Britisli Isles contain l)etwec'n the ajjes of 50 and (55 almost ."500 men of this first 

 clafls scientific status, and taking tlie male popidation between the same ages, 

 he concludes that their frequency is ahout 1 in 10,000. He then pnK-eeds to 

 consider whether scientific distinction is more fiwjuent than this among the 

 relatives of scientific men. (Jf the al)ove mtio, however, little use is miule, 

 In'cause it includes men who lack the sjime etlucation and opporf unity. What 

 (Jalton actually does is to tiike two groups of relatives of the scientific men, 

 naniely (1) grandparents and uncles, ahout 660, and (2) brothers and male 

 cousins, ahout I4.")0, and iiKiuire the nundK>r of distinguislie<l individuals 

 anutng the.se; and he finds tlieir number much greater than in the case of men 

 with like education and o])portunity in the community at large, the latter ratio 

 l)eing derived from school and university data. The method, though rough, 

 is probably ade(|uate for (xalton's purpose. It should Ije observed, however, 

 that his environment l)eing taken as approximately constant, Galton is really 

 attet'nptingto measure a 'partial'ti-ssociation, which is probably les« intense than 

 the total association '. However both the pedigrees provided and the stsitistics 

 suffice to show that men of marked scientific ability come from able families. 



Galton next jn'oceeds to analyse thecpialities on which his correspondents 

 consitlered their success to have depended. In each cjise he points out how 

 often these (pialities were present in the parents, or relatives of the scienti.sts. 

 The chief (pialities are (I ) Ener;/i/ much above the average — lK)th physical and 

 mental ; (li) Health — "it is positively startling." Galton remarks, "to observe 

 in these returns the strongly hereditary character of good and indifferent 

 constitutions"; (3) /Vr.srt'cra«ce— also frequently reported in the parents; 

 (4) Pvactiad business habits — fully a lialf of those who possess these accredit 

 one or both parents with the same faculty; (5) (ilood Memoi'y — "heredity 

 abundantly illustrated," about 30 cases of esjiecial good memory, and 13 of 

 poor memory; (6) Independence of Character — 50 corres[)ondents possess it 

 in excess^ — strong evidence of its presence in the families of these scientists; 

 (7) Mechanical Aptitude — found to exist largely in chemists, geologists, 

 biologists and statisticians as well as in physicists and engineers. Galton then 

 turns to religion and religious bias, having previously pointed out that the 

 clergy are badly represented among men of science (pp. 25-26) or among their 

 parents (p. 24). On this point it seems to me that such a question: "Has 

 the religion taught in your youth had any deterrent effect on the freedom of 

 your researches?" can scarcely be accurately answered by the subject him- 

 self. If he has cast off the religion of his youth, he may believe that he 

 thinks freely; on the other hand if he is still a devout believer he would Ije 

 unlikely to admit that his religious views hampered his scientific research. 

 The scientific authors of the Bridgewater Treatises no doubt would have 

 said their science was not the poorer for their religious bias, but we, who 



For exiimple, if we endeavourerl to measure the resemblance between brothers by taking 

 I jions of 6 foot fathers only, we should reach a value 40 °/, too small. 



