l*xiirliol(Kjic(il. InvcMiyulions '11 \ 



new, if now fainiliur ideivs, hut it was a lecture of .suggeslion, and siccordingly 

 the reader must not expect to find in it statistics of actual niea«ureinent« of 

 character. It serves to explain, however, the links in (Jalton's own mind 

 between his work on Heredity, his pajier on Twins and his study of Free-will. 

 At the very time (Jalton wius writing this lecture he was collecting data by 



aid of his Family Il(K;ords (s»'«i our (!haj)ter XIII) on the distribution of one 



fihiuse of cliaracter, namely, Temper in Enfjjlish Families. A First Report on 

 lis results wa.s jniblished in the Fortiiu/litli/ lirricir, July, 1887'. The paj»er 



from more than one standpoint is slightly di.s{ippointinij, and as (Jalton 

 himself remarks he had to set to work on rough materials with rude tcKjls 

 (p. 29). The criticisms that one may raise are of the following kinds. 

 Ihe descriptions of temper are all verbal, and although many epithets are 

 usetl, (Jalton in the main classifies into 'Good Temper' and 'Bad Temper.' 

 His 'Good Temper' contains not only the 'forbearing' and 'self-controlle*!' 

 but the 'submissive,' 'timid' and 'yielding.' His 'Had Temper' contains 

 not only the 'quick tempered,' but the 'bickering' and the 'sullen.' My own 

 investigations seem to suggest a fundamental aifference in 'Good Temper' 

 between the Self-controlled and the Weak class, and the Sullen cannot 

 profitably be put in the same category with the Choleric. Galton does indeed 

 make a five-group classification, namely: (l) mild; (2) docile; (3) fretful; 

 (4) violent; (5) ma.sterful. The distinction, however, between (1) and (2) 

 is not that of self-controlled and weak good temper, and it is not clear 

 whether such a marked clii-ss as the sullen has l)een put into (3), (4) or (5). 

 Another defect of Galton's material was the large proportion of cases, over 

 50 °/^, in which no record of temper was given at all. He calls these neutral 

 and says that approximately 



Good Tempered : Neutral Tempered : Bad Tempered :: 1 : 2 : 1, 



and he finds in the approximate equality of the Good and Bad Tempered, 

 and their total being equal to the Neutral Tempered, definite evidence of the 

 correctness of the records in this respect. I fail to be convinced by Galton's 

 arguments, for it seems to me that they would have equal application to 

 any cla-ssification into alternate cjitegories, e.g. criminal and non-criminal, 

 with a neutral class for those of whom nothing was known, or nothing 

 recorded. On the basis of his classification, omitting the 50 °/, of 'neutnds,' 

 Galton deduces that there is no selective mating in human marriage with 

 regard to temper', but he concludes that there is emphatic testimony to the 

 heredity of temper. His method of establishing tlie latter conclusion is 

 somewhat arbitrary and somewhat elementary, but it has undoubtedly been 

 confirmed by later work. He rather weakens his position, however, by 

 introducing a caveat that he does not propose to deal with temper as an 

 unchangeable characteristic. It is difficult to grasp how under such con- 

 ditions it is possible to assert that temper is 



"nevertheless as hereditary as any other quality." (p. 30.) 



' "Good and l?iid Tenipor in English Families," Vol. xui, N.S. pp. 21-30. A wrong year 

 and locus are assigned to this paper in Galton's Memories, p. 328. 

 ' This is not confirmed by more recent researches. 



