Noteworthy Families (Modern Science) | Page 3

"Modern Science"
must be kept in mind.
Another and a strong motive for selecting the F.R.S. as subjects of
inquiry was that so long ago as 1863-1864 I had investigated the
antecedents of 180 of those who were then living, who were further
distinguished by one or other of certain specified and recognised
honours. My conclusions were briefly described in a Friday evening

lecture, February 27, 1864, before the Royal Institution. These, together
with the data on which they were founded, were published in the same
year in my book "English Men of Science." Readers who desire fuller
information as to the antecedents conducive to success that are too
briefly described further on should refer to the above book.
The epithet "noteworthy" is applied to achievements in all branches of
effort that rank among the members of any profession or calling as
equal, at least, to that which an F.R.S. holds among scientific men. This
affords a convenient and sufficiently definite standard of merit. I could
think of none more appropriate when addressing scientific men, and it
seems to have been generally understood in the desired sense. It
includes more than a half of those whose names appear in the modern
editions of "Who's Who," which are become less discriminate than the
earlier ones. "Noteworthiness" is ascribed, without exception, to all
whose names appear in the "Dictionary of National Biography," but all
of these were dead before the date of the publication of that work and
its supplement. Noteworthiness is also ascribed to those whose
biographies appear in the "Encyclopædia Britannica" (which includes
many who are now alive), and, in other works, of equivalent authority.
As those persons were considered by editors of the last named
publications to be worthy of note, I have accepted them, on their
authority, as noteworthy.
CHAPTER III.
--HIGHEST ORDER OF ABILITY.
No attempt is made in this book to deal with the transmission of ability
of the very highest order, as the data in hand do not furnish the required
material, nor will the conclusions be re-examined at length that I
published many years ago in "Hereditary Genius." Still, some
explanation is desirable to show the complexity of the conditions that
are concerned with the hereditary transmission of the highest ability,
which, for the moment, will be considered as the same thing as the
highest fame.

It has often been remarked that the men who have attained pinnacles of
celebrity failed to leave worthy successors, if any. Many concurrent
causes aid in producing this result. An obvious one is that such persons
are apt to be so immersed in their pursuit, and so wedded to it, that they
do not care to be distracted by a wife. Another is the probable
connection between severe mental strain and fertility. Women who
study hard have, as a class--at least, according to observant
caricaturists--fewer of the more obvious feminine characteristics; but
whether this should be considered a cause or a consequence, or both, it
is difficult to say. A third, and I think the most important, reason why
the children of very distinguished persons fall sometimes lamentably
short of their parents in ability is that the highest order of mind results
from a fortunate mixture of incongruous constituents, and not of such
as naturally harmonize. Those constituents are negatively correlated,
and therefore the compound is unstable in heredity. This is eminently
the case in the typical artistic temperament, which certainly harmonizes
with Bohemianism and passion, and is opposed to the useful qualities
of regularity, foresight, and level common sense. Where these and
certain other incongruous faculties go together in well-adjusted
proportions, they are capable of achieving the highest success; but their
heritage is most unlikely to be transmitted in its entirety, and
ill-balanced compounds of the same constituents are usually of little
avail, and sometimes extraordinarily bad. A fourth reason is that the
highest imaginative power is dangerously near lunacy. If one of the
sanest of poets, Wordsworth, had, as he said, not unfrequently to exert
strength, as by shaking a gate-post, to gain assurance that the world
around him was a reality, his mind could not at those times have been
wholly sane. Sanity is difficult to define, except negatively; but, even
though we may be convinced of the truths of the mystic, that nothing is
what it seems to be, the above-mentioned conduct suggests temporary
insanity. It is sufficient to conclude, as any Philistine would, that
whoever has to shake a gate-post to convince himself that it is not a
vision is dangerously near madness. Mad people do such things; those
who carry on the work of the world as useful and law-abiding citizens
do not. I may add that I myself had the privilege of hearing at first hand
the narrator's own account of this incident,