Noteworthy Families (Modern Science) Part 2

CHAPTER IX.--MARKED AND UNMARKED DEGREES OF NOTEWORTHINESS.

Persons who are technically "noteworthy" are by no means of equal eminence, some being of the highest distinction, while others barely deserve the t.i.tle. It is therefore important to ascertain the amount of error to which a statistical discussion is liable that treats everyone who ranks as noteworthy at all on equal terms. The problem resembles a familiar one that relates to methods for electing Parliamentary representatives, such as have been proposed at various times, whether it should be by the coa.r.s.e method of one man one vote, or through some elaborate arrangement which seems highly preferable at first sight, but may be found on further consideration to lead to much the same results.

In order to test the question, I marked each noteworthy person whose name occurs in the list of sixty-six families at the end of this book with 3, 2, or 1, according to what I considered his deserts, and soon found that it was easy to mark them with fair consistency. It is not necessary to give the rules which guided me, as they were very often modified by considerations, each obvious enough in itself, but difficult to summarize as a whole. Various provisional trials were made; I then began afresh by rejecting a few names as undeserving any mark at all, and, having marked the remainder individually, found that a total of 657 marks had been awarded to 332 persons; 117 of them had received 3 marks; 101, 2 marks; 104, 1 mark; so the three subdivisions were approximately equal in number. The marks being too few to justify detailed treatment, I have grouped the kinsmen into first, second, and third degrees, and into first cousins, the latter requiring a group to themselves. The first degree contains father and brothers; the second, grandfathers and uncles; the third, great-grandparents and great-uncles. The results are shown in Table VI. The marks a.s.signed to each of the groups are given in the first line (total 657), and the number of the noteworthy persons in each group who received any mark at all is shown in the third line (total 329). In order to compare the first and third lines of entries on equal terms, those in the first were multiplied by 329 and divided by 657, and then entered in the second line. The closeness of resemblance between the second and third lines emphatically answers the question to be solved. There is no significant difference between the results of the marked and the unmarked observations. The reason probably is that the distribution of triple, double, and single marks separately is much the same in each of the groups, and therefore remains alike when the three sets of marks are in use at the same time. It is thus made clear that trouble taken in carefully marking names for different degrees of noteworthiness would be wasted in such a rough inquiry as this.

TABLE VI.--COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT MARKS IN THE SIXTY-FIVE FAMILIES.

___________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | First | Second | Third | First | Total | | | Degree.| Degree.| Degree.| Cousins.| | |______________________|________|________|________|_________|_______| | | | | | | | |Number of marks | 225 | 208 | 102 | 122 | 657 | | a.s.signed | | | | | | |______________________|________|________|________|_________|_______| | | | | | | | |Number of marks | | | | | | | reduced | | | | | | | proportionately | 113 | 104 | 51 | 61 | 329 | |Number of individuals | | | | | | | unmarked | 110 | 112 | 46 | 61 | 329 | |______________________|________|________|________|_________|_______| | | | | | | | | Mean | 111 | 108 | 49 | 61 | 329 | |______________________|________|________|________|_________|_______|

Table VII., in the next chapter, affords an interesting ill.u.s.tration of the character of the ignorance concerning the noteworthiness of kinsmen in distant degrees, showing that it is much lessened when they bear the same surname as their father, or even as the maiden surname of their mother. The argument is this: Table V. has already shown that _me bros_ are, speaking roughly, as frequently noteworthy as _fa bros_--fifty-two of the one to forty-five of the other--so noteworthiness is so far an equal characteristic of the maternal and paternal lines, resembling in that respect nearly all the qualities that are transmitted purely through heredity. There ought, therefore, to be as many persons recorded as noteworthy in each of the four different kinds of great-grandparents. The same should be the case in each of the four kinds of great-uncles. But this is not so in either case. The noteworthy great-grandfathers, _fa fa fa_, who bear the same name as the subject are twice as numerous as the _me fa fa_ who bear the maiden surname of the mother, and more than five times as numerous as either of the other two, the _fa me fa_ and _me me fa_, whose surnames differ from both, unless it be through some accident, whether of a cross marriage or a chance similarity of names. It is just the same with the great-uncles. Now, the figures for great-grandfathers and great-uncles run so closely alike that they may fairly be grouped together, in order to obtain a more impressive whole--namely, two sorts of these kinsmen, bearing the same name as the Subject, contain between them 23 noteworthies, or 11.50 each; two sorts having the mother's maiden surname contain together 11 noteworthies, or 5.50 each; four sorts containing between them 7 names, or an average of 1.75 each. These figures are self-consistent, being each the sum of two practically equal const.i.tuents, and they are sufficiently numerous to be significant. The remarkable differences in their numbers, 11.50, 5.50, 1.75, when they ought to have been equal, has therefore to be accounted for, and the explanation given above seems both reasonable and sufficient.

CHAPTER X.--CONCLUSIONS.

The most casual glance at Table VII. leaves no doubt as to the rapid diminution in the frequency of noteworthiness as the distance of kinship to the F.R.S. increases, and it would presumably do the same to any other cla.s.s of noteworthy persons.

In drawing more exact conclusions, the returns must be deemed to refer not to a group of 207 F.R.S., because they are not a fair sample of the whole body of 467, and, for reasons already given, they are too rich in noteworthiness for the one and too poor for the other. They will, therefore, be referred to the number that is the mean of these two limits--namely, to 337. I am aware of no obvious guidance to any better hypothesis.

The value of the expectation that noteworthiness would be found in any specified kinsman of an F.R.S., of whom nothing else is known, may be easily calculated from Table VII. on the two hypotheses already mentioned and justified: (1) That the figures should be taken to refer to 337, and not to 207; (2) that 1 per cent. of the generality are noteworthy--that is to say, there are 3.37 noteworthies to every 337 persons of the generality.

TABLE VII.--NUMBER OF NOTEWORTHY KINSMEN RECORDED IN 207 RETURNS.

__________________________________________________________ | | || | | | Kinship. | Numbers || Kinship. | Numbers | | | Recorded.|| | Recorded. | |_________________|__________||________________| __________| | | || | | | _fa_ | 81 || --- | --- | | _bro_ | 104 || --- | --- | | | || | | | _fa fa_ | 40 || _fa fa fa_ | 11 | | _me fa_ | 42 || _fa me fa_ | 2 | | _fa bro_ | 45 || _me fa fa_ | 5 | | _me bro_ | 52 || _me me fa_ | 1 | | | || | | | _fa bro son_ | 30 || _fa fa bro_ | 12 | | _me bro son_ | 19 || _fa me bro_ | 2 | | _fa si son_ | 28 || _me fa bro_ | 6 | | _me si son_ | 22 || _me me bro_ | 2 | |_________________|__________||________________|___________|

Thus, for the fathers of F.R.S., 81 are recorded as noteworthy, against 3.37 of fathers of the generality--that is, they are 24.1 times as numerous. For the first cousins of F.R.S. there are 99 noteworthies, divided amongst four kinds of male first-cousins, or 24.75 on an average to each kind, against the 3.37 of the generality--that is, they are 7.3 times as numerous.

On this principle the expectation of noteworthiness in a kinsman of an F.R.S. (or of other noteworthy person) is greater in the following proportion than in one who has no such kinsman: If he be a father, 24 times as great; if a brother, 31 times; if a grandfather, 12 times; if an uncle, 14 times; if a male first cousin, 7 times; if a great-great-grandfather on the paternal line, 3 times.

The reader may work out results for himself on other hypotheses as to the percentage of noteworthiness among the generality. A considerably larger proportion would be noteworthy in the higher cla.s.ses of society, but a far smaller one in the lower; it is to the bulk, say, to three-quarters of them, that the 1 per cent. estimate applies, the extreme variations from it tending to balance one another.

The figures on which the above calculations depend may each or all of them be changed to any reasonable amount, without shaking the truth of the great fact upon which Eugenics is based, that able fathers produce able children in a much larger proportion than the generality.

The parents of the 207 Fellows of the Royal Society occupy a wide variety of social positions. A list is given in the Appendix of the more or less noteworthy parents of those Fellows whose names occur in the list of sixty-six families. The parents are cla.s.sified according to their pursuits. Many parents of the other Fellows in the 207 families were not noteworthy in the technical sense of the word, but were reported to be able. It was also often said in the replies that the general level of ability among the members of the family of the F.R.S. was high. Other parents were in no way remarkable, so the future Fellow was simply a "sport," to use the language of horticulturists and breeders, in respect to his taste and ability. It is to be remembered that "sports" are transmissible by heredity, and have been, through careful selection, the origin of most of the valuable varieties of domesticated plants and animals. Sports have been conspicuous in the human race, especially in some individuals of the highest eminence in music, painting, and in art generally, but this is not the place to enter further into so large a subject. It has been treated at length by many writers, especially by Bateson and De Vries, also by myself in the third chapter of "Natural Inheritance" and in the preface to the second edition of "Hereditary Genius."

NOTEWORTHY FAMILIES OF

FELLOWS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

LIVING IN 1904.

#AVEBURY#, Lord. See LUBBOCK.

#BALFOUR#, Right Hon. Arthur James (b. 1848), P.C., etc., F.R.S., Leader of the House of Commons, 1895; Prime Minister, 1902; President of the British a.s.sociation, 1904; author of "The Foundations of Belief." [For fuller references, see "Who's Who"

and numerous other biographies.]

_bro_, Francis Maitland BALFOUR (1851-1882), F.R.S., Professor of Animal Morphology at Cambridge; brilliant investigator in embryology; gold medal, Royal Society, 1881; killed by a fall in the Alps.

_bro_, Right Hon. Gerald W. BALFOUR (b. 1853), P.C., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; President of the Board of Trade, 1902.

_si_, Eleanor Mildred (Mrs. Henry SIDGWICK), Princ.i.p.al of Newnham College, Cambridge.

_si_, Evelyn, wife of LORD RAYLEIGH, F.R.S., and mother of Hon.

Robert John STRUTT, F.R.S. (q.v.).

_me bro_, 3rd Marquis of SALISBURY, Robert A.T. GASCOIGNE-CECIL (1830-1903), K.G., P.C., etc., F.R.S.; eminent statesman; Prime Minister, 1885-1886, 1886, 1895-1903; Chancellor of the University of Oxford; President of the British a.s.sociation, 1894; in earlier life essayist and critic; also an experimenter in electricity.

It is difficult to distinguish those in the able family of the Cecils whose achievements were due to sheer ability from those who were largely helped by social influence. A second _me bro_ and five _me bro sons_ are recorded in "Who's Who."

Sir Robert Stawell #BALL#, LL.D., F.R.S. (b. 1840), Lowndean Prof.

of Astronomy and Geometry, Cambridge; Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; Member of the Council of the Senate; Director of the Cambridge Observatory since 1892; Royal Astronomer of Ireland, 1874-1892; Ex-President of Royal Astronomical Soc., Mathematical a.s.soc., and of Royal Zoological Soc. of Ireland; author of many works on astronomical, mathematical, and physical subjects.--["Who's Who."]

_fa_, Robert BALL (1802-1857), Hon. LL.D., Trinity Coll., distinguished naturalist; Secretary of Royal Zoological Soc. of Ireland; President of Geological Soc. of Ireland; Director of Trinity Coll. Museum, 1844.--["Dict. N. Biog."]

_bro_, Valentine BALL, LL.D., C.B., F.R.S. (1843-1895); on staff of Geological Survey of India, 1864-1880; Prof. of Geology and Mineralogy in the University of Dublin, 1880-1882; Director and Organizer of National Museum, Dublin, 1882-1895; author of "Jungle Life in India," of an elaborate treatise on the economic geology of India, and of "Diamonds and Gold of India."--["Obit. Notice, P.R.S.,"

1895.]

_bro_, Sir Charles Bent BALL, M.D., M.Ch., F.R.C.S.I., Hon. F.R.C.S., England; Regius Professor of Surgery, Univ. of Dublin; Surgeon to Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital, and Honorary Surgeon to the King in Ireland; author of various surgical works.--["Who's Who."]

_me bro son_, Ames h.e.l.lICAR, the successful manager of the leading bank in Sydney, N.S.W.

Thomas George #BARING#, first Earl of NORTHBROOK (1826-1904), P.C., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S.; Under-Secretary of State for India, Home Department, and for War; Viceroy of India, 1872-1876; First Lord of the Admiralty, 1880-1885.--["Who's Who," and "Ency. Brit."]

_fa fa fa_, Sir Francis BARING (1710-1810), Chairman of East India Company, 1792-1793; created baronet 1793.--["Dict. N. Biog."]

_fa fa bro_, Alexander BARING, first Baron ASHBURTON (1774-1848), financier and statesman; head for many years of Baring Brothers and Co.; member of Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet of 1835; raised to peerage 1835; Commissioner to U.S.A., 1842, for Settlement "Ashburton Treaty"

of Boundary Dispute.--["Dict. N. Biog."]

_me me_, Hon. Lady GREY, nee WHITBREAD (1770-1858), prominent in every work of Christian philanthropy during twenty-four years in the Commissioner's house in Plymouth, afterwards in Ireland.--["Record"

newspaper, May 26, 1858.]

_fa_, Francis Thornhill BARING (1786-1866), first Baron NORTHBROOK, double first at Oxford, 1817; First Lord of the Admiralty.--["Dict.

N. Biog."]