Characterisation, especially by Letters 487 



and I think too fastidious and timid. I have often considered what seems wanted and been 

 very desirous of discovering someone who was disposed to throw himself into so useful and such 

 high-class work. He might practically found a science, the material for which is now too chaotic. 



Faithfully yours, Francis Galton. 



42, Rutland Gate, S.W. June 9, 1895. 



Dear Sir, "Would you give me the pleasure of your company at dinner at the Royal Society 

 Club next Thursday. The enclosed card gives all needful particulars except that it is not the 

 custom to dress. You can get away easily by 8|. There are many topics I should like to have 

 the opportunity of talking over. Might I venture in the interim to send you a brief MS. on 

 a new point of very wide application? I propose to send it to the Royal Society if I can persuade 

 some mathematician to communicate a brief supplement to it, much as MacAlister did to one 

 of my papers, H. Watson to another, and Dickson to a third. I can work out the problem in 

 definite cases but it wants generalising. If your occupations preclude the chance of your being 

 able to do this, of course you will tell me; otherwise I fancy that a pretty little stroke of work 

 might be the result. Faithfully yours, Francis Galton. 



Karl Pearson and Burbury are I know both full of "law of frequency" work, so I do not 

 like to trouble either of them with the problem. 



42, Rutland Gate, S.W. June 29, 1895. 



Dear Mb Sheppard, I am rejoiced at your success in arriving at such wide generalisation 

 of the problem. It will be far better that you should write the paper wholly by yourself, and 

 I feel no doubt that it would be a very acceptable one to the Royal Society. After the recess 

 we shall I hope discuss this. For the present, there is no need. During the vacation you may 

 find time to do what you propose about the table. I am quite indifferent as to the fate of my 

 preamble, the real object with me being to get the problem properly solved. The passage on my 

 p. 12 was indeed most bunglingly as well as inaccurately expressed. What I meant is written 

 in the enclosed (to which 12a is put for the page). I should like to keep your MS. for a few days 

 longer, being extremely busy just now. Then, before going abroad, I will return all the papers, — 

 mine, partly for possible convenience to you in future reference and more especially with some 

 curiosity to learn hereafter how far my little tables prove correct. 



Very faithfully yours, Francis Galton. 



We leave town on Wednesday. 



42, Rutland Gate, S.W. July 6, 1896. 



Dear Mr Sheppard, So far as I can judge, you seem to have boiled down the original 

 very judiciously, but I am much below par and not able to read it carefully, only to look through 

 it. The question is, — whether in its present form it is suitable for publication? I should say 

 decidedly so, in the pages of any mathematical serial other than the Royal Society. Whether 

 or no it be suitable for the Transactions of the Royal Society, Forsyth would be the judge; but, 

 for the Proceedings of the Royal Society, I think decidedly that under the new Regulations, 

 the part you have sent me is not suitable. On the other hand, the Introduction of which you 

 speak ought to be the very thing for the Proceedings, and would serve as the "Abstract" if the 

 complete paper were offered for the Transactions. I would therefore urge that particular pains 

 should be taken with the Introduction, the business of which is to explain to members of the Royal 

 Society generally, what the paper is about, and wherein its novelty consists. Imagine that it has 

 been just read to any small representative body of those men, — such as John Venn, Frank Darwin, 

 Inglis Palgrave, who are all statisticians but not especially mathematical. The test would be 

 that they should severally be able afterwards to give a lucid and consistent account, though 

 probably a very imperfect one, of what you desired to show. It was to that end that I suggested 

 the introduction of a few interesting types of problems that your methods enable statisticians 

 to deal with, which otherwise would be very difficult problems. Of course the Introduction 

 would contain your tables, or adequate samples of them. If the Introduction fulfilled the end 

 proposed, it would certainly be translated into French and German, and reprinted in America, 

 and your labours would become widely known and set many persons thinking. It ought to be 

 a work of art — simple, clear of unnecessary detail and readable. I think you have a great 

 opportunity of becoming an exponent of modern theories of statistics and should be delighted 

 if you would rise to the occasion. Very faithfully yours, Francis Galton. 



