114 Life and Letters of Francis Galton 



Science. We cannot assume that the bulk of those who did not reply 

 omitted to do so because their families presented no noteworthy members. 

 We thus obtain no wholly trustworthy general picture of the frequency with 

 which noteworthy men of science arise from noteworthy or commonplace 

 families. Further in the 63 families dealt with as noteworthy we feel the 

 definition is too arbitrary, several scarcely reach real distinction, and for 

 those that do and are well worthy of record a trained genealogist could have 

 given a truer picture and more interesting account of the family (with a 

 pedigree chart !) from fairly accessible sources. We have indeed no certainty 

 that our sample is a "random" one. Galton in hisPreface of xhii pages, which 

 forms the more valuable part of the book, admits that the facts given are 

 "avowedly bald and imperfect," but considers that they lead to certain im- 

 portant conclusions, for example he considers they show "that a considerable 

 proportion of the noteworthy members in a population spring from com- 

 paratively few families" (p. ix). This is very likely true, but it is difficult 

 to accept it on evidence which does not indicate how many noteworthy 

 persons there are in the population or how many we are to expect in a 

 family, and deals only with what is probably not a truly random sample of 

 even the men of science in the population, i.e. 63 out of a total which in 

 1914 was fixed at 1729 for the British Empire*. 



Galton notes several important points, which may be of value as cautions 

 to future circularisers. I cite some of them : 



"The questions were not unreasonably numerous, nor were they inquisitorial; nevertheless, 

 it proved that not one-half of those addressed cared to answer them. It was, of course, desirable 

 to know a great deal more than could have been asked for or published with propriety, such as 

 the proneness of particular families to grave constitutional disease. Indeed the secret history of 

 a family is quite as important in its eugenic aspect as its public history; but one cannot expect 

 persons to freely unlock their dark closets and drag forth family skeletons into the light of day." 

 (pp. ix-x.) 



Galton accordingly only asked for information on points which " could be 

 stated openly without the smallest offence to any of the persons concerned." 

 One matter astonished Galton; he found it extraordinarily difficult to 

 obtain even for near kin the number of kinsfolk of each person in each 

 specific degree of kinship. Sometimes the omission was no doubt due to 

 oversight or inertia, but Galton was surprised to find in how many cases 

 the number of near kin was avowedly unknown. 



"Emigration, foreign service, feuds between near connections, differences of social position, 

 faintness of family interest, each produced their several effects, with the result as I have reason 

 to believe, that hardly one-half of the persons addressed were able, without first making inquiries 

 of others, to reckon the number of their uncles, adult nephews, and first cousins. The isolation 

 of some few from even their nearest relatives was occasionally so complete that the number of 

 their brothers was unknown." (pp. x-xi.) 



Galton (p. xiii) states that he uses the epithet "noteworthy" to corre- 

 spond in all branches of effort to that which would rank with an F.R.S. among 

 scientific men. He considers that the term covers all those who appear in 

 the Dictionary of National Biograj)hy, and about half those who appear in 



* Who's W/to in Science, 1914. 



