MR. GALTON ON NUTS AND MEN.

AAR. GALTON contributed a paper to the proceedings of the 1 Royal Institution two or three months ago, which has just been published among the proceedings of the Institution, on the "Nature and Nurture of Men of Science," and supplemented it by a remarkable discussion on the science of classification as illustrated by nuts. In one sense, this paper can hardly be called very instructive, its few facts of interest being a little jejune; but in another sense, it is really instructive, as an illustration of the singular weakness of the physico-scientific method when intruded on subjects to which it is not applic- able. The paper is founded on the answers given to "a long and varied series of questions" asked by Mr. Galion of 180 Fellows of the Royal Society, of whom about half the number (80 or 90) have replied fully and minutely. Mr. Galton has elicited, first, that at least three-fourths of these distinguished men are possessed of a very eminent amount of vital energy. He gives a good many striking instances of this, but we do not dwell upon it, because, as he himself remarks, it is obvious that this is a trait not of men of science as such, but of remarkable men of any order whatever. Mr. Galton has occasion to distinguish sharply between the qualities of men of science and of "commanders, states- men, literary men," &c. Now, of course, energy as such belongs no more to one of these classes than to the others. Mr. Gladstone, who occupies his spare time in cutting down trees ; Mr. Trollope, who for half the year is almost always hunting when he is not adding to the productions of a talent more fertile of works than that of any previous literary man of this or any other age ; Mr. Browning, who rejoices in feats of swimming almost as much as in feats of imaginative analysis of human character,—are, to take one or two prominent examples, not likely to be deficient in vitality or vie. No doubt, in insisting on the astounding power of work and con- centration which the leading men of science can command, Mr. Galton has hit upon one of the most marked criteria of intellec- tual distinction of any kind, not on one of those in any degree peculiar to men of science. Then, again, in like manner, for his second characteristic, that of good health and of descent from healthy parents, Mr. Galton does not claim any special appropriateness to men of science. It has been as marked a characteristic of emi- nent statesmen who have lived to the ages of Mr. Galton's cor- respondents, as of any other class of eminent men, except, perhaps, of poets of the leas simple and more artificial kind. And so, again, of the gift of perseverance and of business habits, by which men of science are distinguished. Coming to the more special qualifications of men of science, as such, Mr. Galton assigns a habit of independence of mind, personal and inherited, as one of the most striking. He finds that they or their parents have very frequently belonged to a great variety of strange, small, or unfashionable sects ; that many of them have had fathers of sturdy, not to say eccentric habits of mind,—that a large proportion had, or inherited, the habit of doing what they judged hest, without deferring to social conventions. Then Mr. Gallon Ends a strong innate taste for some special branch of science to have been possessed by a large number of his corre- spondents. Again, most of their minds are "directed to facts and abstract theories, and not to persons or human interests. The man of science is deficient in the purely emotional element and in the desire to influence the beliefs of others. Thus I find that two out of every ten do not care for politics at all ; they are devoid of partisanship. They school a naturally equable and independent mind to a still more complete subordination to their judgment. In many respects their character is strongly anti- feminine. It is a curious proof of this that in the very numerous answers which have reference to parental influence, that of the father is quoted three times as often as that of the mother. It would not have been the case, judging from inquiries I elsewhere made, if I had been discussing literary men, commanders, or states- men, or still more, divines."

If we add to this the discontent of men of science with the old classical system of education, and their wish for more various and stimulating school studies, we have in brief the substance of what Mr. Galton has distilled for us from the replies re- ceived to his queries. And we do not think that even our inos.t careful readers will find it very instructive. For, in the first place, those of Mr. Galton's facts which look, on the surface of• them, most interesting are quite too vague for any really instructive interpretation. Where, for instance, on Mr. Galton's principle, would he put the late Mr. John Stuart Mill? Among the men of science or the men of emo- tional human interests ? He was a good botanist by innate taste.

His interest even in men and minds was apt to be the interest of men of science in "fads and abstract theories," rather than in their

"human interests." Mr. Mill quotes his father habitually through- out his "Autobiography," and never mentions his motheronce, except to condemn his father for marrying with inadequate means. And yet he makes a great deal more of his wife than of his father, exaggerates (in all probability) her true influence over his intellect

to something like an hysterical extent, cares for politics with a

passion far exceeding the passion of statesmen, and weaves the "emotional element " deep into his theory of society, of wealth, and of government. Again, where are you to rank the late Mr. Buckle, who referred to his mother with the kind of enthusiasm which Mr. Galton thinks scientific men are apt to show for their fathers, and yet who made the evolution of the purely intellectual principle the sole governing element in the history of civilisation, and devoted an almost womanish enthusiasm to the effort to demonstrate that faith and feel- ing have no important influence in determining the course of the world's progress ? The truth is, that Mr. Galton is thinking solely of physical science, when he talks as he does about the character of the scientific man ; and all that he proves is, that when you get a man of first-rate energy and power who is interested in the order of nature, but does not care much for man- kind, his energy and power will be apt to produce results in the sphere to which it is confined. There is no great mystery in that. It is hardly a new discovery, that if you shut off a great force from the channels in which it is ordinarily frittered away, you will have a good deal more left for the particular mill-wheel on to

which you direct it. True, or apparently true, abstract theories of things, are, as a rule, easier to reach than true or apparently true

abstract theories of men ; and hence, other things being equal, the minds of men devoted to physical science are apt to make more way than those devoted to the moral sciences. But nothing seems to be less probable than that mental, or moral, or political science can be cultivated with any real success without human in- terests, and without the " emotional element." That students of Light, or Heat, or even Biology, should be all the more successful for not having had their interests dis- tracted by excursions into the field of modern politics or literature is hardly remarkable. With a finite amount of vital energy to dispose of, every subtraction, however minute, will leave less behind. Mr. Galton's facts, therefore, being founded on a narrow and one-sided notion of science, lose a good deal of their interest on anything like scrutiny. They come to very little more than this,—that discoverers must be original, and that investigators of physical truths will be all the more successful for not having too many and too intense moral interests. Take something appre-

ciable from a given intellectual quantity, and something lass will remain behind,

But Mr. Galion is more instructive in relation to the warnings he suggests, than in relation to the lessons he supplies. He is eloquent as to the principle of classifying the capacities of literary men, whom he proposes to deal with on the same Statistical Scale of averages by the help of which he might designate the size of nuts :—

"The law of statistical constancy may ho taken for granted. It is evidenced by the experience of insurance offices against fire, death, ship- wreck, and other contingencies, always with the proviso that the facts are gathered with discretion, on well-known general principles. Hence we may say with assurance, that although two common nuts may differ, yet the contents of different paCkets, each containing 1,000 nuts, will ho scarcely distinguishable, for the same number of nuts of different sizes will ho found in each. Let the contents of the several packets be each arranged in a long row, in order of size, beginning with the biggest nut and ending with the smallest, and place the rows rank behind rank ; then by the law of statistical constancy the nuts in the same files will in all cases be closely alike (except the outside ones, where more irregu- larity prevails). Again, if we incorporate two rows into one of double length, still preserving the arrangement as to regular gradation in size, the centre nuts of the two original series will still be found at or near the centre of the compound series, the nuts in quarter positions will still be in quarter positions, and BO on. Hence, whatever be the length of the series, the relative position in it of the nut will be a strict criterion of its size. This is of course equally true of all groups of qualities or characters whatever, in which the law of statistical constancy prevails, the series, in each case, being arranged according to gradations of the quality in question. Each individual is measured against his neighbour, and it is quite unnecessary to have recourse to any external standard. As regards a scale of equal parts, I make use of a converse application of the law of frequency of error' [this was illustrated by many ex- periments], which shows that in a row (say as before)of nuts, if we take those which occupy tho three quarterly divisions (1st quarter, centre, 3rd quarter) as three elementary graduations of size, a continuous scale of graduations will be determined by the following series, in which the places of the nuts are supposed to be reckoned from the end of the row where the largo nuts are situated, and to be given in per-thousandths of the entire length of the row. It might be called tho Common Sta-

tistical Seale ' (S.S.) The habit should therefore be encouraged in biographies, of ranking a man among his contemporaries, in respect to every quality that is discussed, and to give ample data in Justification of the rank assigned to him. By the general use of a system like the above, which is universally applicable, social and political science would be greatly raised in precision."

Is it possible to conceive a quainter perversion of a scientific method, really applicable to magnitudes, to the purpose of a description of moral qualities ? It is not difficult by eye or by more artificial mea- surements to arrange a quart of nuts so as to tell, by its place in the scale, the magnitude (approximately) of a particular nut. But the task of arranging a thousand men in relation (say) to their independence of character, or the strength of their "desire to influence the beliefs of others," or the magnitude of their political interests, or even their relative respect for their fathers' and mothers' influence over them, would somewhat overtask, we fear, all the resources of Mr. Galton. Nor do we see how his advice could be followed, unless the biographer of each man arranged the subject of his biography not in one such Statistical Scale, but in a few scores of them at least. What a delightful field to expatiate in, a biography written on such a principle would be ! The late Dr. Arnold, for example, might, perhaps, be aCcepted as about the biggest nut of our time in the Statistical Scale, as regards "wish to influence the beliefs of others." But just conceive the usefulness of a discussion as to whether Mr. Matthew Arnold equals, or exceeds, or falls short of, his father in this quality. Imagine a keen analysis of "Literature and Dogma" or of "The Garland of Friendship" hung on the tablet to the memory of " Arminius," or of his poems, or his book on the German Universities, made with a view to solve

this important problem ; conceive the utility of making a careful comparison between these considerable men and Mr. Gladstone, Bishop Wilberforce, and Lord Salisbury, with a view to determine where they stand between 4° S.S. and —4° S.S. in relation to this same quality, and then consider what a very small proportion of the work to be done would have been done. If Mr. Galton's won- derful principle is to be followed, the scale must be made up not in relation to this quality only, but to most other distinctive qualities. You must say whether Dr. Arnold was 2° S.S. in relation to historical acumen, or —3° S.S., or where. Then you must deal with him as teacher, and place him among the large or small nuts in relation to the power to impart knowledge ; then, again, as preacher, and estimate the point to which he rises in the Statistical Scale as a successful imparter of moral influence. Again, you must deal with his political sagacity

in the same fashion, and determine whether he is a big or a small nut in that ; and when you have done all this, you will have wasted your labour, for you will not have distinguished between a desire to influence beliefs arising from one source, such as earnest conviction, and a desire arising from another source, such as ambition, or between political acumen due to historical enthusiasm, and political acumen due to inti- mate knowledge of the people. In a word, Mr. Galton's attempt to give a scientific turn to biography would spoil literature, without enriching science.

And that is why we say that Mr. Galton's paper is instructive. It shows how helplessly men with the physico-scientific bias upon them flounder about in the region of human and moral influ- ences, if they have not taken care to balance their judgment by the cultivation of the Literm Humaniores. Let them prefer their fathers' opinions as earnestly as they please to their mothers' ; let them despise the old classical discipline with all their hearts ; let them have had a taste for bones or stones from their childhood upwards; let them boast of the most perfect of all combinations between active brains and weight of character ; let them have been educated from infancy to let the opinion of the world run off them as water tams off a duck's back, whenever they think it unreasonable ; but yet let them not attempt to help the world in the estimate of human character, by suggestions derived chiefly from the world of phy- sical science. If they do, they will come to grief, as Mr. Galton has come to grief, by suggesting methods which plunge literary men into wonder and awe at the clumsiness, uselessness, inefficacy, and complete inapplicability to the subject of the tests and gauges suggested. A distinguished surgeon's proposed prayer- gauge produced a great bewilderment and amusement the other day in the minds of all really devotional people.

But it was not nearly so ludicrous as Mr. Galton's sugges- tion for making a Statistical Scale of mental and moral

qualities, on the same principle on which he obtains one .whereby you can assign the magnitude of any given nut. What he has first to do is to suggest any teat of relative magnitude as to matters so complex and delicate as moral qualities, especially where differences of kind invariably accompany and profoundly affect differences of amount. Mr. Galton might almost as well seriously apply the theory of chemical affinities tp moral character, and try to assign chemical equivalents to the qualities of generosity, magnanimity, ambition, and so forth, as recommend us to range a thousand men in the relative order of their share in a given quality, just as you range the nuts out of a quart pot, and so obtain a scale of mental and moral magnitude. Mr. Galton's " Statisti- cal Scale" will never take any hold on the world, because it is wholly and intrinsically inapplicable to the purposes for which he recommends it. But if ever it did attain an unfortunate notoriety, we suspect it would be much more likely to be called the scale of Sham Science, than by the name by which its inventor has proposed to christen it.