The transmission of qualities of different kinds, physical, intellectual, and moral, from parent to offspring, is, in many respects, one of the most interesting, and at the same time one of the most perplexing, topics connected with anthropology. Here, as in many other matters relating to man, the study of natural history is calculated to throw much, and important light on the subject. The hereditary descent of endowments is more apparent, but possibly not more real, more direct, or more extensive in the case of animals than it is in the case of man; and it may fairly be assumed, from all that we know on the subject, that corresponding and very similar, if not identical, influences and results prevail in each case. Breeders of certain animals have put this fact to the test, have experimented much upon it, and base their proceedings upon a knowledge of the principles deducible from these investigations. The entire subject is one which well deserves a careful consideration, although it requires to be followed up with caution. And not only are curious and deeply interesting phenomena observable while so engaged, but some real, practical, and extremely valuable results may be obtained from the labour thus expended.
Mr. Galton has produced a work bearing on the subject upon which we are now writing, for which he is entitled to the thanks of anthropologists generally, and indeed of all who are interested in the study of man, on account of the great pains which he has bestowed on the investigation of the question, the mass of sound and really serviceable matter that he has collected together, and the fair and candid manner in which he has discussed the various and important topics that have come under his notice. His book is, moreover, one of deep interest, and evincing a careful study of his subject. It appears to us, however, that he has taken but a limited view of the entire matter, which we hope that he may be induced to extend by a supplementary chapter in some future edition of his work. He seems, moreover, to consider what he terms genius -- but by which he really means talent or ability of any kind -- as descending somewhat in the way of the worldly possessions that we hold in this life, but are compelled to part with, however reluctantly, when life leaves us, from parent to child, the one transmitting it to the other in pretty much the same state and condition as that in which he himself held it. We are induced, nevertheless, to attempt what is certainly a much more comprehensive, and which we believe to be also a much more complete and correct view of the subject, by regarding talent generally as not merely directly hereditary, but as developing itself in various modes and phases during the progress of its descent, in the manner which we shall proceed to point out. Mr. Galton's book, indeed, affords some striking instances in support of this view of the case. On the whole, it appears to us that his theory is correct as far as it goes, but requires to be extended much further in order to render complete the system which he endeavours to enunciate.
The direct descent from parent to child of what may strictly be termed genius, is, we believe, very rare indeed; and even Mr. Galton is hardly able, with his extensive and accurate researches, to adduce an instance of it. By "genius", however, Mr. Galton does not mean genius in its strict sense; but we infer that in this term he includes any kind or degree of talent above mediocrity. Talent of this sort, which enables a man to hold a respectable rank in his profession, or to rise in the world, is, we believe, just the kind of talent that is most directly hereditary, and passes from father to son very commonly. But it is with regard to the higher endowments in the way of intellectual capacity, and to the transmission of moral qualities, that the subject assumes a much greater degree of interest. It will frequently be found here that the child of a person of talent, we may say genius, is endowed with a degree of ability approaching, if not equal to, that of his progenitor; but that in its kind, and the direction of it, it is quite different, it may be directly opposite. Thus, the son of a great historian may be a poet of ability; the son of a great painter may be eminent as a lawyer; the son of an eminent naturalist may be distinguished as a scholar and an historian. It is difficult to trace out and to account for the cause of this phenomenon. Something is probably due to the mental influence on each other of the intellectual qualities possessed by both the parents, which in their descent thus undergo a change, and are consequently developed differently in the offspring.
Another peculiarity in the descent of qualities, both intellectual and moral, which may occasionally be observable in large families, is what we may term the distribution of the qualities of the parents between the different members of the family. Thus, one child will possess the energy, another the taste, another the logical capacity, possessed by one or other of his parents, while he will lack the other capacities peculiarly exhibited by them. So, as regards the moral qualities of the parents, these will occasionally be observed to be in the same manner split, as it were, and distributed singly among the different members of the family. This distribution of qualities is closely analogous to what may be observed in the breed of animals, as recorded by Professor de Quatrefages, in his valuable work on Anthropology, to which attention was called some time ago in the Anthropological Review* where he remarks that, in the case of the progeny of the animals of different breeds, some of them will exhibit the breed of one parent, some that of the other. In this respect, natural history is capable of throwing much valuable light on questions of anthropology, and on none more than those respecting the descent of qualities and the mode of their transmission.
In the case of physical qualities, which are more observable, and more easy to be traced, than those which are intellectual or moral, we often find that one child resembles one of its parents in one particular characteristic, in form or in feature; another child one of its parents in another respect. This is further instanced by particular children only of the same parents inheriting a disposition to certain diseases of their parents, a well known tendency; and when both parents are tainted with the same disease -- insanity, for instance -- the disposition of the children to imbibe it is peculiarly strong. In such cases, it will, however, frequently be found that some of the children only exhibit this tendency, while others bear no traces of it. So, also, when both parents are extensively endowed with the same kind of peculiar talent, it will sometimes happen that one or two only of the children, out of a large family, will exhibit the same gifts, while the rest are not at all remarkable in this way.
Another phenomenon connected with the hereditary descent of qualities, but which is, in reality, the counterpart of it, is the singular contrariety, both intellectual and moral, which is sometimes exhibited between the parents and the children, and that where education has been tried to the utmost to prevent this difference. Thus, how often does it happen that the sons of a man of great genius are considerably below par in intellectual power! Frequently, too, men of great genius will be found to have sprung from parents of very common-place capacities. So, also, as regards moral qualities, pious parents have not un-frequently profligate children; and not unfrequently profligate parents may be so fortunate as to produce children who prove an honour to society. The injudicious strictness with which pious parents occasionally bring up their children may partially account for the course which they adopt, so contrary to that which they were urged to follow. And the disgrace to which profligate parents are exposed, may influence their children to shun such a course, and to adopt virtuous habits. But influences of this kind cannot be very potent in their operation. The true philosophical way to account for this contrariety, both mental and moral, between parents and children, appears to us to be, to inquire whether there may not be certain operations analogous to, or corresponding with, those of exhaustion and repletion, action and reaction, wearing-out and revivifying, going on in the growth and development of our intellectual and moral qualities, as well as in the properties of our physical frames, which influence the transmission of these qualities, and their manifestation in the offspring. Topics of this kind supply a mine of interesting, and no less useful, inquiry to the anthropologist and the philosopher, which ages may be required to work out and to bring to a successful issue. As in our anatomical studies, the observation of animals, and natural history generally, may afford us here not only very useful hints, but serve extensively to guide us in our researches.
Another remarkable feature with regard to the transmission of qualities from parents to their children, and which has frequently been remarked in the case of physical peculiarities and tendencies to disease, is that one generation is very often passed before the manifestation appears, which is exhibited in the grandchildren instead of the children. Persons often resemble their grandfathers or their grandmothers much more than their fathers or mothers, not only in form and feature, but in particular mental and moral qualities, as also in the disposition to take particular diseases. The same principle may also prevail with regard to the descent of mental and moral endowments. We could point to numerous instances in support of this theory.
Another interesting question connected with the hereditary descent of qualities of different kinds, is the question whether the father or the mother is the parent from which those qualities, or either of them, are inherited. Possibly the intellectual faculties are mainly derived from the father, those which are physical and moral from the mother, with a certain intermixture, or, at any rate, an extensive influence as regards the qualities of each kind in each parent. The influence that each faculty of each kind, belonging to any individual, has upon the other, requires to be carefully kept in view in investigating any subject of this kind.
The precise condition of each of the parents at the time of procreation, and this as regards physical health, mental and moral influences operating at that period, and other peculiar circumstances by which they were surrounded, require each to be taken into account during the institution of an investigation into the mode and other causes of transmission of qualities from parent to children.
Some quaint and curious remarks connected with this part of our subject, which are not altogether undeserving of Mr. Galton's attention, are to be found in a writer of the seventeenth century, Thomas Wright, on "the Passions of the Minde in generall, 1620," who tells us (p. 263), that in pursuing inquiries of this kind we ought to be careful to ascertain, among other things, -- " 1. If his parents were base, wicked, or infected with any notorious vice; if deformed in body, or marked by any monstrositie of nature. 2. If the manner of his begetting was unlawfull, as bastardy, and herein be divers degrees of fornication, adulterie, incest, sacrilege. 3. If he were born at such a time as the influence of the heavens had some extraordinary action in the tempering of his body, as dog daies: as at what time his father was in prison for some demerit: or in time of great plagues or diseases, or commotion in the common weale. 4. If he were borne in a bad place ; as a wicked country, among vitious people : if in a city treacherously inclined, or hath been branded with any notorious vice, or persons infamous. 5. If his mother in her childing died, or was tormented in bringing him into the world, with more vehement pangues than women commonly suffer." He further remarks that "parents naturall propensions to wickednesse, imprint for most part in their children a certain resemblance."
In the case of legislators and statesmen, the fact of the son following the same occupation with the father, and with a certain amount of success, can hardly be allowed to be a proof of hereditary genius, as where a peerage or large estate descends from father to son, the latter is naturally led to follow the pursuit of politics, and to qualify himself to fill the duties which his position entails upon him, and his education is specially directed for this purpose. His rank and position naturally induce him to take part in public life, and he acquires at once a prominence, not from his abilities, but from his standing and fortune. Make bishoprics and judgeships hereditary, and we should soon discover that the sons of these dignitaries were frequently able to fill the offices their progenitors had held. In certain professions and trades we all know that it is very common for the father to bring-up one or more of his sons to succeed him, and the plan is found to answer very successfully. The young men are educated for their future calling, and every care and inducement are exerted to render them proficient in their avocations. No one, however, would think of contending from this, that a "genius" for grocery, for farming, for physic, or even for law, is actually "hereditary".
Mr. Galton remarks, p. 196, that "it appears to be very important to success in science, that a man should have an able mother." And again, p. 329, "there is a common opinion that great men have remarkable mothers." No doubt there are numerous instances in support of this supposition; but there are a great many to the contrary, especially among those adduced by Mr. Galton, who certainly appears to regard the descent of great qualities as being generally from the father. As he rightly remarks, in the case of the mother being a person of talent, the children are, "no doubt, largely indebted to maternal influences ;" and that "a child so circumstanced has the good fortune to be delivered from the ordinary, narrowing, partisan influences of home education" (p. 196). We should, however, rather have inferred that, in such case, his being largely indebted to the judicious and beneficial influences of "home education" was what served mainly to develope the talents he possessed.
The instances adduced by Mr. Galton, pp. 230, 236, of remarkable talent among the members of the families of Coleridge and Wordsworth, afford a striking proof of what we have already stated respecting men of ability having relations who, not only possess an amount of talent corresponding with their own, but, nevertheless, talent of a very different order. Thus, among the Coleridges, one is eminent as a poet and a philosopher, another as a lawyer, another as a philologist, another as an orator and a statesmen, and several as scholars; very recently, too, a female member of this distinguished family has exhibited proof of decided talent, we may say "genius" here, in another line, having produced a very clever and successful work of fiction. So among the Wordsworths, one is distinguished as a poet, another as a divine, another as a lawyer. But the fact of Dibdin's father being "a considerable merchant" (p. 232), we can hardly accept as a case in point of the descent of genius. Some instances are adduced (p. 247) of hereditary painters. They are very rare on the whole, and do not at all bear out our author's opinion of artistic talent being hereditary. Probably the most, perhaps the only, very remarkable instances are those of the Holbeins (not alluded to by Mr. Galton) and the Teniers. The case of the Landseers and the Bonheur family are referred to in the present age, and that of the Carracci's among the ancient masters (p. 251). But the remarkable fact here is, how very few sons of great painters, with all the advantages of instruction from their parents, have ever attained to any proficiency in the art.
Our author, however, not only considers artistic talent hereditary, but he ventures the opinion that "religious gifts are, on the whole, hereditary" (p. 273). His appendix, containing a list of names in support of his theory, we cannot regard as very successful as a piece of evidence. With regard to the "hereditary genius" of Archbishop Abbot, we are informed that, not only was one brother Bishop of Salisbury, but that another was Lord-Mayor of London and a Member of Parliament! With regard to Archbishop Usher, we are told that, "unluckily for the world, he married an heiress, an only daughter, who appears, like many other heiresses, to have inherited a deficiency of prolific power, for she bore him only one daughter" (p. 297). And in another part of this work (p. 131) we are informed that one frequent cause of the extinction of newly created peerages is that the person ennobled, or his son, frequently marries an heiress.
On the subject of " hereditary genius" in the families of bishops and judges, which is clearly evinced, in our author's opinion, by the number of those who obtain high position, we should strongly recommend our candid and very charitable author to consult the late Sydney Smith's letters to Archdeacon Singleton, where, to his astonishment, he will find some very grave doubts expressed as to whether in the case of the preferment of the sons and relations of bishops -- and we might say the case of the offspring of judges is inpoint here -- their promotion has been so entirely owing to " religious gifts" being " hereditary," as to a certain partiality on the part of the excellent prelates and judges who were their progenitors, who no doubt had the fullest opportunity of discerning their peculiar merits, and singularly keen eyes which enabled them to do so, combined with a strong feeling of duty to "provide for those of their own household." We do not say that we altogether blame the distinguished and conscientious personages in question, provided that they are satisfied, as we believe they generally are, of the competency of their proteges to fill the posts to which they are appointed. They do but follow out an established system, for which not so much they as human nature is to blame. But at all events, we do most seriously commend these facts to Mr. Galton's notice, and shall be eager to hear the result of his cogitations thereon.
Among scholars, the case of the Kennedy family (p. 302) is very properly adduced as a remarkable instance of several men of classical eminence being nearly related. We can hardly persuade ourselves, however, that the argument is much strengthened by adding that one member of the family was " Under-Sheriff of Middlesex; Acting Judge of the Sheriff's Court for forty-five years ; a man of eminent capacity"; and that another was "a most successful man of business, founder of important companies" (p. 303.) Mr. Galton has told us something of hereditary divines and hereditary lawyers; we have also heard of hereditary bondsmen; but we did not expect to hear that the "genius" of an oarsman was ever suspected to be hereditary. Mr. Galton has nevertheless favoured us with a chapter on the subject, and adduces, moreover, an appendix containing a list of names in support of his opinion, which is followed by a table of wrestlers who also put in an urgent claim for " hereditary genius" in their art.
Our bachelor readers, who have already been warned to take heed and beware of heiresses, will here find some salutary and practical advice on the important and interesting subject of choosing a wife, to which we beg to direct their serious attention. " A man may be conscious of serious defects in his character, and select a wife to supplement what he wants ; as a shy man may be attracted by a woman who has no other merit than that of a talker and manager; also a young awkward philosopher may accredit the first girl who cares to show an interest in him with greater intelligence than she possesses" (p. 325).
In bringing these remarks to a conclusion, we must again express our opinion of the extreme importance of the general subject before us, its suitableness for investigation by anthropologists, and the wide field that is here open for investigation and for research. We thank Mr. Galton for leading the way. We have canvassed his opinions freely; and, frequently as we differ from him, we must again assert our belief as to the value of his efforts, and the candid manner in which he has conducted his inquiries, which we hope he will prosecute further, and with corresponding success. Vast practical results may, moreover, be obtained by following up the investigations. The philosopher, the naturalist, the biographer, the historian, may alike find occupation here, and may each be able to render something to the common store of information to be obtained. Indeed, it is difficult to say what department of literature may not be mulcted in the service of this great question. Inquiries thus instituted, based on facts, and so worked out as to produce great practical results, are peculiarly within the province of anthropology. They at once raise the science as a lofty branch of philosophical inquiry, and they render it obviously useful by the serviceable application of which they are capable. Professor De Quatrefages has shown us how much may here be accomplished. Mr. Galton has pointed to a new field, where operations promising a rich return may be carried on. It only remains for those ardent in the pursuit of this grand subject, to bring these operations to a result commensurate with their vastness and their value.
George Harris, F.S.A., Journal of Anthropology. Book review on the book by Francis Galton, called Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences, 1870.
Miracles of healing - Christian Miracles or Healing
History of Russia: Christian Versus Barbarian
History of Japan: Early Christian Martyrs
The Jesus of History
The Assyrian Origin of Devil Worshippers
The Christ Of Dogma
The early history of Constantinople
