E-text prepared by Suzanne Lybarger, Laura Wisewell, and the Project
Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net/)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Transcriber's Note: In this plain text version, italics have been |
| rendered using underscores; both bold and small-caps using |
| all-caps (these never occur near each other, so no confusion |
| should arise); and the surnames of the subjects, which were in |
| bold sans-serif in the original, have been rendered in all-caps |
| with the # symbol on either side. The underscores have been |
| removed from a few italicized abbreviations where they were felt |
| to be a distraction. |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
NOTEWORTHY FAMILIES
(MODERN SCIENCE)
An Index to Kinships in Near Degrees
between Persons Whose Achievements
Are Honourable, and Have Been
Publicly Recorded
by
FRANCIS GALTON, D.C.L., F.R.S., HON. D.Sc (CAMB.)
and
EDGAR SCHUSTER
Galton Research Fellow in National Eugenics
VOL I
of the Publications of the Eugenics Record Office
of the University of London
London
John Murray, Albemarle Street
1906
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTORY NOTE vii
PREFACE ix
CHAPTER
GENERAL REMARKS ix
II. NOTEWORTHINESS xi
III. HIGHEST ORDER OF ABILITY xiv
IV. PROPORTION OF NOTEWORTHIES TO THE GENERALITY xviii
V. NOTEWORTHINESS AS A STATISTICAL MEASURE OF ABILITY xx
VI. NOMENCLATURE OF KINSHIPS xxvi
VII. NUMBER OF KINSFOLK IN EACH DEGREE xxviii
VIII. NUMBER OF NOTEWORTHY KINSMEN IN EACH DEGREE xxxiii
IX. MARKED AND UNMARKED NOTEWORTHINESS xxxv
X. CONCLUSIONS xxxix
NOTEWORTHY FAMILIES:
OF SIXTY-SIX F.R.S.'S WHO WERE LIVING IN 1904 1
APPENDIX:
FATHERS OF SOME OF THE SIXTY-SIX F.R.S.'S CLASSIFIED
BY THEIR OCCUPATIONS 80
INDEX 85
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The brief biographical notices of sixty-six noteworthy families
printed in this book are compiled from replies to a circular issued
by me in the spring of 1904 to all living Fellows of the Royal
Society. Those that first arrived were discussed in "Nature," August
11, 1904.
On Mr. Schuster's appointment by the University of London, in
October, 1904, to the Research Fellowship in National Eugenics, all
my materials were placed in his hand. He was to select from them
those families that contained at least three noteworthy kinsmen, to
compile lists of their achievements on the model of the
above-mentioned memoir, to verify statements as far as possible, and
to send what he wrote for final approval by the authors of the
several replies.
This was done by Mr. Schuster. The results were then submitted by him
as an appendix to his Report to the Senate last summer.
After preliminary arrangements, it was determined by the Senate that
the list of Noteworthy Families should be published according to the
title-page of this book, I having agreed to contribute the preface,
Mr. Schuster's time being fully occupied with work in another branch
of Eugenics.
So the list of "Noteworthy Families" in this volume is entirely the
work of Mr. Schuster, except in respect to some slight alterations
and additions for which I am responsible, as well as for all the
rest.
FRANCIS GALTON.
PREFACE
CHAPTER I.--GENERAL REMARKS.
This volume is the first instalment of a work that admits of wide
extension. Its object is to serve as an index to the achievements of
those families which, having been exceptionally productive of
noteworthy persons, seem especially suitable for biographical
investigation.
The facts that are given here are avowedly bald and imperfect;
nevertheless, they lead to certain important conclusions. They show,
for example, that a considerable proportion of the noteworthy members
in a population spring from comparatively few families.
The material upon which this book is based is mainly derived from the
answers made to a circular sent to all the Fellows of the Royal
Society whose names appear in its Year Book for 1904.
The questions were not unreasonably numerous, nor were they
inquisitorial; nevertheless, it proved that not one-half of those who
were 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. It was necessary
in such a work as this to submit to considerable limitations, while
turning to the fullest account whatever could be stated openly
without giving the smallest offence to any of the persons concerned.
One limitation against which I still chafe in vain is the
impracticability of ascertaining so apparently simple a matter as the
number of kinsfolk of each person in each specific degree of near
kinship, without troublesome solicitations. It was specially asked
for in the circular, but by no means generally answered, even by
those who replied freely to other questions. The reason must in some
cases have been mere oversight or pure inertia, but to a large extent
it was due to ignorance, for I was astonished to find many to whom
the number of even their near kinsfolk 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 inquiry 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. It will be seen that this
deficiency of information admits of being supplied indirectly, to a
considerable degree.
The collection of even the comparatively small amount of material now
in hand proved much more troublesome than was anticipated, but as the
object and limitations of inquiries like this become generally
understood, and as experience accumulates, the difficulty of similar
work in the future will presumably lessen.