 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
The numbers are too small to warrant any very decided conclusion; but
they go far to prove that the female influence is inferior to that of the male
in conveying ability. It must, however, be observed, that the difference
between the totals in the second degree is chiefly due to the nephews—a
relationship difficult to trace on the female side, because, as a matter of
fact, biographers do not speak so fully of the descendants of the sisters of
their hero as of those of his brothers. As regards the third degree, the
relationships on the female side are much more difficult to ferret out than
those on the male, and I have no doubt I have omitted many of them. In my
earlier attempts, the balance stood still more heavily against the female side,
and it has been reduced exactly in proportion to the number of times I have
revised my data. Consequently, though I first suspected a large residuum
against the female line, I think there is reason to believe the influence of
females but little inferior to that of males, in transmitting judicial ability.
It is, of course, a grief to me, in writing this book, that circumstances
make it impossible to estimate the influence of the individual peculiarities of
the mother—for good or for bad—upon her offspring. They appear to me,
for the reasons stated, to be as important elements in the inquiry as those of
the father, and yet I am obliged to completely ignore them in a large
majority of instances, on account of the lack of reliable information.
Nevertheless, I have numerous arguments left to prove that genius is
hereditary.
Before going further, I must entreat my readers to abandon an objection
which very likely may present itself to their minds, and which I can easily
show to be untenable. People who do not realize the nature of my
arguments have constantly spoken to me to this effect: “It is of no use your
quoting successes unless you take failures into equal account. Eminent men
may have eminent relations, but
 |
|
 |
|