ment in one man, to the utter neglect of others perchance in reality equally important. In all ages we have sought for the great men and we usually find that for which we seek, or discover an acceptable substitute.

Francis Galton, to whose studies of genius all students are indebted, came to the conclusion that about 250 men out of a million really belonged in the class called distinguished. His conclusion would divide the million in the following fashion, as worked out by Ammon:

29

b

с

d

e

f

g

X

161279

63563 Poorly equipped and not useful.

15696

2423

233

14
1

On examining Lehr's "Genealogy" of royal and noble families, containing some 3,312 names representing some 32,768 individuals, Woods found only 16 worthy of being placed in his two highest grades, 9 and 10. Ward however believes, on the basis of French studies, that these estimates are entirely too low, and would put the number at 2,000 out of every million. Even if we come to some definition of genius, it seems impossible to get any satisfactory estimate of its prevalence at the present time.

This introduces another great question into which we cannot enter in detail. Galton and the older students made genius and fame practically identical and thus were 29 REIBMAYR, A., quoted by, Inzucht und Vermischung, p. 246.

led to place all the emphasis on heredity. Woods tried to avoid this danger by studying the royal families only where all members were known and could be graded with some accuracy. Yet he came to much the same conclusion. "The upshot of it all is, that as regards intellectual life, environment is a totally inadequate explanation. If it explains certain characters in certain instances, it always fails to explain as many more; while heredity not only explains all (or at least 90 per cent) of the intellectual side of character in practically every instance, but does so best when questions of environment are left out of the discussion." 30 In a later essay Woods has considerably modified this verdict.

"But heredity is not everything, and I will give but two illustrations which show the possibility of separating out environment. Professor E. C. Pickering and myself have recently been measuring the scientific activity in the history of the world, and especially in the natural and exact sciences, by studying the elections to academies and the inclusion of names in the standard English, French and German encyclopedias. It appears that the increase in the total number of men engaged in science in Germany during the nineteenth century surpasses the expectations of heredity, and therefore must be due to something else something we must call environment. Also, I have unpublished material showing that the proportionate number of women, as compared to men, whose eminence makes them noteworthy, has increased measurably in the United States from the first settlement of the country to the present day."

" 31

Against the popular idea that genius rises above the 30 WOODS, F. A. o. c., p. 286.

31 Woods, F. A., in Problems in Eugenics, p. 252 ff.

handicaps environment may offer and overcomes all obstacles, there are many evidences. "The trend of the whole investigation has been in the general direction of showing that great men have been produced by the cooperation of two causes, genius and opportunity, and that neither alone can accomplish it. But genius is a constant factor, very abundant in every rank of life, while opportunity is a variable factor and chiefly artificial. As such it is something that can be supplied practically at will. The actual manufacture, therefore, of great men, of the agents of civilization, of the instruments of achievement, is not a utopian conception but a practical undertaking." 32

This quotation is taken from "Applied Sociology" by Lester F. Ward, in which is to be found the most careful and critical examination of the evidence on this subject with which the writer is familiar. It is particularly valuable because it puts in available form a digest of an important and little known work by a French student, Odin.

Odin found, on studying the French men of letters during a period of several centuries, that neither density of population, nor race, nor social position were determinative; but rather opportunity. As he puts it: "We have thus arrived, by a series of careful approaches and eliminations, at the conclusion that the fecundity of the respective localities in remarkable men of letters rests essentially upon the educational resources that they place within the reach of their occupants." 33 About 98 per cent of the men had enjoyed exceptional training and opportunity in childhood as well as in later life. Odin does not make

32 WARD, L. F. Applied Sociology, p. 220.

33 Ibid., p. 213.

Galton's mistake of ignoring the women, and he finds the same rule to hold. Over half of the women writers of note came from Paris where the greatest opportunities were offered. Clarke comes to similar conclusions in his study of American men of letters.

One needs only to consider the growth in the United States in the last century, the marvelous inventions and discoveries, the tremendous strides, not only in providing education for women, but their advent into fields hitherto closed to them (not only because of their sex but also because of their reputed inability to do the things done by their brothers) to realize that talent, whether rare as Galton thought or common as Ward believed, must de velop in accord with opportunity.

Heredity then furnishes the basis and sets the limits to the development. Environment must furnish the stimulus and the opportunity. Heredity determines what a man may become, but environment determines what he does become. Here biology has one great lesson to teach. Problems of heredity cannot be solved by changing the environment, nor can society wait for some happy variation ere it utilizes the new factors in its own surroundings. The feeble-minded child may be trained to the limits of its capacity but it never becomes normal nor are its children improved. The various factors that enter into that complex we call social progress, will be elsewhere considered.

SUGGESTIONS FOR READING

CASTLE, W. E., et al. Heredity and Eugenics. 1912. CONKLIN, E. G. Heredity and Environment. 1915. DAVENPORT, C. B. Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. 1911. ELLIS, H. A Study of British Genius. 1904.

GALTON, F. Hereditary Genius (2nd Ed., 1892). 1869.

66

Natural Inheritance. 1889.

GODDARD, H. H. The Kallikak Family. 1913.

JORDAN, D. S. The Human Harvest. 1907.

KELLICOTT, W. E. The Social Direction of Human Evolution.

1912.

LOMBROSO, C. The Man of Genius (English text). 1891. LYDSTON, G. F. The Diseases of Society and Degeneracy. 1904.

MOTT, F. W. Heredity and Eugenics in Relation to Insanity. 1912.

PEARSON, K. (Ed.). The Treasury of Human Inheritance. 1912.

Report of First International Conference on Eugenics. Problems in Eugenics, 1912.

Report of First National Conference on Race Betterment. Battle Creek, 1914.

RHODES, F. A. The Next Generation. 1916.

SALEEBY, C. W. Parenthood and Race Culture. 1909.

SCHUSTER, E. Eugenics. 1912.

WARD, L. F. Applied Sociology. 1906.

WHETHAM, MR. and MRS. W. C. D. Heredity and Society.

1912.

WINSHIP, A. E. The Jukes-Edwards Families. 1900.

WOODS, F. A. Heredity in Royalty. 1906.