Volume 3

Popular science / edited by Arthur Mee.

Date:
1912-1913
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Popular science / edited by Arthur Mee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    739/744 (page 2215)
    individual. In Professor Bateson’s own words, which recent psychology entirely corroborates: “There is as yet nothing in the descent of the higher mental qualities to suggest that they follow any simple system of transmission. It is likely that both they and the more marked develop ments of physical powers result rather from the coincidence of numerous factors than from the possession of any one genetic element.’’ The Complexity of the Elements that Combine in a Fine Character Let us not lack the sense of proportion which will remind us that this is not exactly a discovery of modern science ! It is as old as genuine observation; and a classical instance of the expression of this idea is to be found, we need hardly say, in Shakespeare, where Antony pronounces his few noble lines on Brutus : “ His life was gentle ; and the elements So mix’d in him, that Nature might stand up, And say to all the world, This was a man ! ” Now let us observe what this conception of the genetic constitution 'of fine qualities must mean for eugenics. There may be exceptions to it, no doubt; and there is some evidence to show that musical faculty (or some constituents of a complete musical endowment, which is very rare) may depend upon a single genetic factor. But on the whole this statement of the genetic com plexity of fine qualities must be accepted. 11 gravely qualifies the prospects of positive eugenics. If each unit forming one of these complexes follows the Mendelian law in transmission, we see how seldom our hopes would be realised, for it cannot often chance that all the necessary units come together again in a germ-cell, and then there are all the possibilities that depend upon the particular constitution of the germ-cell with which the first is mated. The Prevalence of Hereditary Ability Admitted, but not of Hereditary Genius Here, of course, is the explanation of the countless disappointments which we suffer when we observe the offspring of distin guished persons, and find how ordinary they are. The various units that met in the rare person, and combined to give him or her the quality we prize, have now segregated or separated ; and in the offspring “ the elements are so mixed ” that there is nothing notable or exceptional at all. The contrast between such cases and those of some disease, say haemophilia, due to a single genetic factor, where the undesirable quality reappears with mathematical regularity, are ironic and deeply significant; and the simple explanation of them is now forthcoming. We now begin to understand the rarity of genius. If it depended upon the presence or absence of a single genetic factor, or even of only two or three, it would be common. We see, also, that we must be very careful as to what we predict and promise from our eugenic activities. Serious harm has been done by the fact that Sir Francis Gal ton, when he put together his early researches in the form of a book, gave it the title of “ Hereditary Genius.” The title conveys a totally wrong impression of what the book really contains. It does largely show the inheritance of ability; and Sir Francis Galton himself observed, in the preface of the second edition, that if possible he would change the title of the book to “ Hereditary Ability.” By just so much as mere ability is commoner than genius may we guess that it depends upon the coming together of fewer genetic factors, and that its appear ance in any stock will therefore be more frequent, though we note that in no case can we expect it to appear in every member of any stock. The Impossibility of Combining Qualities so as to Breed Genius It follows that we shall have no discussion, in the succeeding chapters, of the fashion in which positive eugenics proposes to apply the laws of heredity for the production of Newtons and Shakespeares. This is a delusion to which some Eugenists are prone, and it constitutes a serious obstacle for the sane advocates of eugenics, who are con stantly met with inquiries as to the breeding of genius, and with questions as to this or that case—and their name is legion—where the child of a genius was a mediocrity. Naturally, also, the critics of eugenics do not trouble to distinguish between its responsible and irresponsible advocates, and expend their sarcasm upon proposals and expectations which every sensible Eugenist is constantly repudiating. In a word, we believe that we can breed out feeble mindedness, because that is simple, but we know that we cannot produce genius by any system, not even if we could treat mankind as Mendel treated peas, because genius is complicated, and proportionately beyond our control. Thus, supposing that any particular kind of genius required the com bination of only five factors, it might easily