The rapidly growing interest in Eugenics, and the scientific
consideration of the world-wide decline in the birth-rate have drawn
attention to the study of the eugenic factors which determine the
production of high ability in offspring. Many distinguished
investigators have conducted long and exhaustive investigations for the
purpose of ascertaining and summarizing all possible biological data
concerning the parentage and birth of the most notable persons born in
European countries, and to a lesser extent in America.
The investigations are now acquiring a fresh importance, because, while
it is becoming recognized that we are gaining a control over the
conditions of birth, the production of children has itself gained an
importance. The world is no longer to be bombarded by an exuberant
stream of babies, good, bad, and indifferent in quality, with mankind to
look on calmly at the struggle for existence among them. Whether we like
it or not, the quantity is steadily diminishing, and the question of
quality is beginning to assume a supreme significance. The question then
is being anxiously asked: "What are the conditions which assure the
finest quality in our children?"
A German scientist, Dr. Vaerting, of Berlin, published just before the
War a treatise on the subject of the most favorable age in parents for
the production of offspring of ability. He treated the question in an
entirely new spirit, not merely as a matter of academic discussion, but
rather as a practical matter of vital importance to the welfare of
modern society. He starts by asserting that "our century has been called
the century of the child," and that for the child all manner of rights
are now being claimed. But, he wisely adds, there is seldom considered
the prime right of all the child's rights, i. e., the right of the child
to the best ability and capacity for efficiency that his parents are
able to transmit to him. The good doctor adds that this right is the
root of all children's rights; and that when the mysteries of
procreation have been so far revealed as to enable this right to be won,
we shall, at the same time renew the spiritual aspect of the nations.
The writer referred to decided that the most easily ascertainable and
measurable factor in the production of ability, and efficiency in
offspring, and a factor of the greatest significance, is the age of the
parents at the child's birth. He investigated a number of cases of men
of ability and efficiency, along these lines, and made a careful summary
of his results. Some of his results are somewhat startling, and may
possibly require the corroboration of other investigators before they
can be accepted as authoritative; but they are worthy of being carefully
considered at the present time, pending such further investigation.
Vaerting found that the fathers who were themselves not notably
intellectual have a decidedly more prolonged power of procreating
distinguished children than is possessed by distinguished fathers. The
former may become the fathers of eminent children from the period of
sexual maturity up to the age of forty-three or beyond. When, however,
the father is himself of high intellectual distinction, the records show
that he was nearly always under thirty, and usually under twenty-five
years of age at the time of the birth of his distinguished son, although
the proportion of youthful fathers in the general population is
relatively small. The eleven youngest fathers on Vaerting's list, from
twenty-one to twenty-five years of age, were with one exception
themselves more or less distinguished; while the fifteen oldest, from
thirty-nine to sixty years of age, were all without exception
undistinguished.
Among the sons on the latter list are to be found much greater names
(such as Goethe, Bach, Kant, Bismarck, Wagner, etc.) than are to be
found among the sons of young and more distinguished fathers, for here
is only one name (Frederick the Great) of the same caliber. The elderly
fathers belonged to the large cities, and were mostly married to wives
very much younger than themselves. Vaerting notes that the most eminent
men have frequently been the sons of fathers who were not engaged in
intellectual avocations at all, but earned their living as humble
craftsmen. He draws the conclusion from these data that strenuous
intellectual energy is much more unfavorable than hard physical labor to
the production of marked ability in the offspring. Intellectual workers,
therefore, he argues, must have their children when young, and we must
so modify our social ideals and economic conditions as to render this
possible.
Vaerting, however, holds that the mother need not be equally young; he
finds some superiority, indeed, provided the father is young, in
somewhat elderly mothers, and there were no mothers under twenty-three
on the list. The rarity of genius among the offspring of distinguished
parents he attributes to the unfortunate tendency to marry too late; and
he finds that the distinguished men who marry late rarely have any
children at all. Speaking generally, and apart from the production of
genius, he holds that women have children too early, before their
psychic development is completed, while men have children too late, when
they have already "in the years of their highest psychic generative
fitness planted their most precious seed in the mud of the street."
The eldest child was found to have by far the best chance of turning
out distinguished, and in this fact Vaerting finds further proof of his
argument. The third son has the next best chance, and then the second,
the comparatively bad position of the second being attributed to the too
brief interval which often follows the birth of the first child. He also
notes that of all the professions the clergy come beyond comparison
first as the parents of distinguished sons (who are, however, rarely of
the highest degree of eminence), lawyers following, while officers in
the army and physicians scarcely figure at all. Vaerting is inclined to
see in this order, especially in the predominance of the clergy, the
favorable influence of an unexhausted reserve of energy and a habit of
chastity on intellectual procreativeness.
It should be remembered, however, that Vaerting's cases on his list were
all those of Germans, and, therefore, the influence of the
characteristic social customs and conditions of the German people must
be taken into account in the consideration.
Havelock Ellis in his well known work "Study of British Genius" dealt on
a still larger scale, and with a somewhat more precise method, with many
of the same questions as illustrated by British cases. After the
publication of Vaerting's work, Ellis re-examined his cases, and
rearranged his data. His results, like those of the German authority,
showed a special tendency for genius to appear in the eldest child,
though there was no indication of notably early marriage in the parents.
He also found a similar predominance of the clergy among the fathers,
and a similar deficiency of army officers and physicians.
Ellis found that the most frequent age of the father was thirty-two
years, but that the average age of the father at the distinguished
child's birth was 36.6 years; and that when the fathers were themselves
distinguished their age was not, as Vaerting found in Germany, notably
low at the birth of their distinguished sons, but higher than the
general average, being 37.5 years. He found fifteen distinguished sons
of distinguished British fathers, but instead of being nearly always
under thirty and usually under twenty-five, as Vaerting found it in
Germany, the British distinguished father has only five times been under
thirty, and among these only twice under twenty-five. Moreover,
precisely the most distinguished of the sons (Francis Bacon and William
Pitt) had the oldest fathers, and the least distinguished sons the
youngest fathers.
Ellis says of his general conclusions resulting from this investigation:
"I made some attempts to ascertain whether different kinds of genius
tend to be produced by fathers who were at different periods of life. I
refrained from publishing the results as I doubted whether the numbers
dealt with were sufficiently large to carry any weight. It may, however,
be worth while to record them, as possibly they are significant. I made
four classes of men of genius: (1) Men of Religion, (2) Poets, (3)
Practical Men, (4) Scientific Men and Sceptics. (It must not, of course,
be supposed that in this last group all the scientific men were
sceptics, or all the sceptics scientific.) The average age of the
fathers at the distinguished son's birth was, in the first group, 35
years; in the second and third group, 37 years; and in the last group,
40 years. (It may be noted, however, that the youngest father of all the
history of British genius, aged sixteen, produced Napier, who introduced
logarithms.)
"It is difficult not to believe that as regards, at all events, the two
most discrepant groups, the first and last, we come upon a significant
indication. It is not unreasonable to suppose that in the production of
men of religion in whose activity emotion is so potent a factor, the
youthful age of the father should prove favorable; while for the
production of genius of a more coldly intellectual and analytic type
more elderly fathers are demanded. If that should prove to be so, it
would become a source of happiness to religious parents to have their
children early, while irreligious parents should be advised to delay
parentage.
"It is scarcely necessary to remark that the age of the mothers is
probably quite as influential as that of the fathers. Concerning the
mothers, however, we always have less precise information. My records,
so far as they go, agree with Vaerting's for German genius, in
indicating that an elderly mother is more likely to produce a child of
genius than a very youthful mother. There were only fifteen mothers
recorded under twenty-five years of age, while thirteen were over
thirty-nine years; the most important age for mothers was twenty-seven.
"On all these points we certainly need controlling evidence from other
countries. Thus, before we insist with Vaerting that an elderly mother
is a factor in the production of genius, we may recall that even in
Germany the mothers of Goethe and Nietzsche were both eighteen at their
distinguished son's birth. A rule which permits of such tremendous
exceptions scarcely seems to bear the strain of emphasis."
The student, however, must always remember that while the study of
genius and exceptionable talent is highly interesting, and even, as is
quite probable, not without significance for the general laws of
heredity, still we must beware of too hastily drawing conclusions from
it to bear on the practical questions of eugenics. Genius is rare--and,
in a certain sense, abnormal. Laws meant for application to the general
population must be based on a study of the general population. Vaerting,
himself, realized how inadequate it was to confine our study to cases of
genius.
Another investigator, Marro, an Italian scientist, in his well-known
book on puberty which was published several years ago, brought forth
some interesting data showing the result of the age of the parents on
the moral and intellectual characters of school-children in Northern
Italy. He found that children with fathers below twenty-six at their
birth showed the maximum of bad conduct and the minimum of good; they
also yielded the greatest proportion of children of irregular,
troublesome, or lazy character, but not of really perverse children--the
latter being equally distributed among fathers of all ages. The largest
number of cheerful children belonged to the young fathers, while the
children tended to become more melancholy with ascending age of the
fathers. Young fathers produced the largest number of intelligent, as
well as of troublesome children; but when the very exceptional
intelligent children were considered separately, they were found to be
more usually the offspring of elderly fathers.
As regarded the mothers, Marro found that the children of young mothers
(under twenty-one) are superior, both as regards conduct and
intelligence, though the more exceptionally intelligent children tended
to belong to more mature mothers. When the parents were both in the same
age-groups, the immature and the elderly groups tended to produce more
children who were unsatisfactory, both as regards conduct and
intelligence--the intermediate group yielding the most satisfactory
results of this kind.
Havelock Ellis makes the following plea for further investigations along
these lines, in the interest of the well-being of the race: "But we have
need of inquiries made on a more wholesale and systematic scale. They
are no longer of a merely speculative character. We no longer regard
children as the 'gifts of God' flung into our helpless hands; we are
beginning to realize that the responsibility is ours to see that they
come into the world under the best conditions, and at the moments when
their parents are best fitted to produce them. Vaerting proposes that it
should be the business of all school authorities to register the ages of
the pupils' parents. This is scarcely a provision to which even the most
susceptible parent could reasonably object, though there is no cause to
make the declaration compulsory where a 'conscientious' objection
existed, and in any case the declaration would not be public.
"It would be an advantage--although this might be more difficult to
obtain--to have the date of the children's marriage, and of the birth of
previous children, as well as some record of the father's standing in
his occupation. But even the ages of the parents alone would teach us
much when correlated with the school position of the pupil in
intelligence and conduct. It is quite true that there are unavoidable
fallacies. We are not, as in the case of genius, dealing with people
whose life-work is complete and open to the whole world's examination.
"The good and clever child is not necessarily the forerunner of the
first-class man or woman; and many capable and successful men have been
careless in attendance at lectures, and rebellious to discipline.
Moreover, the prejudice and limitations of the teachers have to be
recognized. Yet when we are dealing with millions most of these
fallacies would be smoothed out. We should be, once for all, in a
position to determine authoritatively the exact bearing of one of the
simplest and most vital factors of the betterment of the race. We should
be in possession of a new clue to guide us in the creation of the man in
the coming world. Why not begin today?"
Considerable attention on the part of the American thinking public has
been directed toward the investigations and researches of Casper L.
Redfield. Mr. Redfield combats the orthodox scientific position that the
acquired qualities are not transmitted to offspring; and he most
positively states that such characteristics are transmitted to
offspring, and are really the causes which have tended toward the
evolution and progress of the race. But he insists upon this vital
point, namely, that the parent must already have acquired improved
quality before he can transmit improvement to the offspring--and that
before he can have acquired this improved quality, he must have lived
sufficiently long to have experienced the causes which have developed
improvement in himself. Consequently, he holds that DELAYED PARENTAGE
PRODUCES GREAT MEN.
Mr. Redfield several years ago offered a prize of two hundred dollars to
anyone who could show that a single one of the great men of history was
the product of a succession of young parents, or was produced by a line
of ancestry represented by more than three generations to a century. But
no one ever claimed the prize money. According to Mr. Redfield's
doctrine, race improvement is and will be accomplished as the result of
effort, physical and mental, upon the part of prospective parents,
particularly if the period of effort is sustained over a considerable
number of years previous to reproduction.
The following quotations from Mr. Redfield's writing will give a general
idea of his lines of thought and his theories. He says:
"At some time in the past there was a common ancestor for man and the
ape. At that time the mental ability of the man was the same as that of
the ape, because at that time man and the ape were the same person. From
that common ancestor there have been derived two main lines of descent,
one leading to man and the other to the ape of today. In the line
leading to man, mental ability has increased little by little so that
today the mental ability of the man is far above that of the ape. While
it may not be literally true for each and every generation between that
common ancestor and man of the present time, still we will commit no
error if we divide the total increase in mental ability by the number of
intervening generations and say that each generation in turn was a
little superior to that which produced it. Now it happens that mental
ability is something which is inherited--is transmitted from parent to
offspring. Take that fact with the fact that there has been a regular
(or irregular) increase in mental ability in the generations leading to
man, and it will be seen that each generation in succession transmitted
to its offspring more than it inherited from its parents. BUT A PARENT
CANNOT TRANSMIT SOMETHING WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE. Where and how did those
generations get that ability which they transmitted but did not
inherit?"
Mr. Redfield in his writings shows that what is true of the human race
is true of high-bred domesticated animals, namely, the cow of high milk
producing breeds; the fast running and trotting horses; and the highly
developed hunting dogs. To each case he applies his question: "Where and
how did those generations of animals get that power which they
transmitted but did not inherit?" In his investigations he claims to
have discovered the secret, namely, that the ancestors, throughout
several generations, had each acquired the power which it transmitted,
which added to the inherited power raised the general power of the
stock. This arose from careful breeding, and directly from the fact that
the average age of the parent was much higher in the highly-bred stock
than in the "scrub" or ordinary run of stock. In other words, DELAYED
PARENTAGE PRODUCED BETTER OFFSPRING.
Mr. Redfield proceeds to argue from these facts as follows: "At one
time man and ape reproduced at the same average age, whereas now they
reproduce at widely different ages. Going back to the time when man and
ape separated, our ancestors survived by physical and mental activity in
securing food and escaping from enemies. As time went on man reproduced
at later and later average age until now he reproduces at about thirty
years from birth of parent to birth of offspring. When time between
generations stretched out in the man line more than it did in the ape
line, the man acquired MORE MENTAL DEVELOPMENT BEFORE HE REPRODUCED than
did the ape, and he did this because he was mentally active more years
before reproducing. The successive generations leading to modern man
transmitted to offspring more than they inherited from their parents,
and the generations which did this are the same generations which
acquired, before reproducing, the identical thing which they transmitted
in excess of inheriting.
"Coming now to those rare men of whom we have only a few in a century,
how were they produced? It should be noted that each one had two
parents, four grandparents, and eight great-grandparents. Also that they
are certainly improvements over their great-grandparents. If they were
not such improvements, then there would be many 'rare' cases in a
century. In looking into the pedigrees of these great men it is found
that they were sons of parents of nearly all ages, but were
predominantly sons of elderly parents. While we sometimes find
comparatively young parents in the pedigree of a great man, we never
find a succession of young parents. Neither do we find an intellectually
great man produced by a pedigree extending over three generations. The
great man is produced only when the average for three generations is on
the elderly side of what is normal. The average age of one thousand
fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers in the pedigrees of
eminent men was found to be over forty years. Great men rise from
ordinary stock only when several generations in succession acquire
mental efforts in excess amounts before reproducing."
It is the opinion of the present writer that the theories of Mr.
Redfield are in the main true, and that in the future much valuable
information will be obtained along the same lines, which will tend to
corroborate his general conclusions. One's attention needs but to be
plainly directed to the matter, and then he will see that it is absurd
to think of a creature transmitting to his offspring qualities which
neither he or his mate had inherited or acquired. If there were no
transmission of acquired qualities there would be no improvement--and in
fact, we know that the bulk of inherited qualities were at some time in
the history of the race "acquired." And, reasoning along the same line,
we may see that the young parents who have not had as yet an opportunity
to acquire mental power cannot expect to transmit it to their
offspring--all that they can do is to transmit the inherited stock
qualities plus the small acquired power which they have gained in their
limited experience. And, finally, it is seen that offspring produced at
a riper age of parenthood, continued over several generations, tend
toward unusual ability and powers. Consequently, the people or nation
with a higher average age of parenthood may logically expect to attain
greater mental powers than the peoples lacking that quality. And what is
true of a people or nation is of course true of a particular family.
The subject touched upon in this part of our book is one of the greatest
interest to careful students of Eugenics; and is one which calls for
careful and unprejudiced consideration from all persons having the
interest of the race at heart.