Popular Science Monthly/Volume 63/October 1903/The Correlation Between Mental and Moral Qualities




IN the present article I propose to present for the first time, so far as I know, some figures proving a perfect correlation between mental and moral qualities. In addition, I have some data showing, not the birth rate, but what is more to the point, the number of children who have reached adult age, born to ten different groups of parents, arranged according to their moral qualities. Both series of facts taken together give us an insight into the progress of the purely intellectual faculties. They show how the mental level in each generation may be raised by no other force than natural selection.

The complete acceptance of the theory of the 'survival of the fittest' as an explanation of evolution has had for one of its greatest bugbears the disbelief that such a force could of itself be sufficient to explain improvement in the higher human traits. In the lower forms of animal life the advantages of intelligence in the struggle for existence are evident. Cunning and strength mean better sustenance or surer escape from natural enemies. But how can such brute forces as these be of determining significance among individuals of the human species, especially during the latter ages in which man has risen above barbarism? That man has evolved is admitted, that he will continue on the upward road is generally believed, but how is an unsolved problem.

For those who believe in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, the accumulated effects of education and superior outward advantages are the forces on which the present has been built and on which the future is to rely. For those who doubt or deny the old Lamarckian principles, and we believe an increasing number of naturalists belong to this school, no such easy explanation is at hand. Some writers consider that acquired characteristics are probably not directly inherited through the physiology of the hereditary mechanism, but that the accumulated culture of each generation creates a new environment which in each generation becomes the bequest handed on to the next. In this way institutions, scientific improvement and traditions go on from century to century in their work of building up the race. It is difficult to see how men really and essentially improved or superior in natural endowments could ever be produced through the working of such a process, even in an acon of time. And, indeed, it is denied that human nature has at heart changed or ever will change. To the minds of some, civilization is but a gloss and a veneer, politeness and kindliness are maintained while everything runs smoothly, but let danger or necessity arise, and they say man is again thrown back on his brute passions.

For a discussion of the question, 'Is the mean standard of faculty rising?' and the citations from various authors who consider that it is not (Buckle, Bellamy, Ritchie, Gladstone, Benjamin Kidd, et al.), see Lloyd Morgan, 'Habit and Instinct,' where he himself states in his closing paragraph: "Natural selection becomes more and more subordinate in the social evolution of civilized mankind; and it would seem probable with this waning of the influence of natural selection there has been a diminution also of human faculty." Alfred Russel Wallace writes:[1] "In one of my latest conversations with Darwin he expressed himself very gloomily on the future of humanity, on the ground that in our modern civilization natural selection had no play, and the fittest did not survive." Wallace himself insists that there are forces to be counted on for the amelioration of the race, one of which is the process of elimination 'by which vice, violence and recklessness so often bring about the early destruction of those addicted to them.' But it is much more difficult at first sight to see how purely intellectual qualities are to be enhanced through any process of natural selection going on at the present day. Nevertheless, if a mental and a moral correlation can be shown to be a reality the difficulty is overcome.

The following figures, which prove that the morally superior are also the more endowed mentally, were drawn from records of the characteristics of European royalty. They include the entire number who formed the basis of a study of heredity which appeared in The Popular Science Monthly, August, 1902, to April, 1903. These were arranged to the best of the writer's ability, and in consultation with John Fiske and other historians, in ten grades for intellect and ten grades for morality. The latter term is used in its widest meaning and under this head are included all the qualities which may count as virtues. Amiability and kindliness are included, so that only those who have received praise for many good qualities can appear in the higher grades. The highest grade (10) is for those only who have been known as altruists, or reformers, or have devoted their lives to charity or other noble aims for the welfare of their country.

It has been the aim of the writer to take only the opinions of others, following the biographical dictionaries and standard histories as far as possible. If a personal equation may have unconsciously influenced the grading, it can have no possible effect on the results of the present article, because the grading was made with a view to the study of inheritance, without the least idea of carrying forward the present research. It had always been a matter of grave doubt in my own mind whether the exceptionally gifted of earth were better or worse than the ordinary run of mankind. Examples like Napoleon, Bacon, Byron and Catherine II. of Russia come to mind, and then we all have a feeling that the very good are perhaps a little simple-minded, and besides, according to tradition, they 'die young.' This pessimistic view of things is, however, not borne out by the facts.

On looking over the number of individuals in each grade one sees that nearly a half of all concerned fall in the two middle grades (5) and (6). This exemplifies what is known as 'the law of deviation from an average,' and means that when a large number of measurements are taken of any biological characteristic and graded in a numerical series, they will fall so that proportionally more lie in the grades approaching the mean and less and less as the measurements show extreme variation. On this view, then, in any homogeneous group of persons, fools are as rare as geniuses, and may differ much from the mean; but the great mass of humanity are such that in any given characteristic, one is much like another. The social scale is not to be conceived of as a pyramid in which the favored few are represented at the apex, and the masses below, more and more numerous as we descend the scale; but rather as a figure like a Rugby football with the masses occupying the medium zone. Actual paupers are as rare as the very rich. In the tables below we see the frequency in each of the ten grades for moral qualities, the males and females having been studied separately.


Grades. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Frequency. 7 8 18 24 60 42 28 23 16 6 = 232


Grades. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Frequency. 9 19 36 49 73 51 47 44 25 12 = 365

Space will not permit printing an entire list of 597 names or giving bibliographical references. Such details will be included in a work on the general subject of heredity in royalty which I hope will appear shortly. The three upper and three lower grades are, however, given below, and since the results of study of the extreme ends determine largely the conclusion obtained, the majority who lie close to mediocrity may just as well be given less attention.

It is, of course, difficult, indeed impossible, for any one to arrange people according to their reputed virtues in a perfectly satisfactory manner. It is, however, not as difficult as it might at first sight seem, especially if one remembers that by far the majority are to be in the mediocre grades and the presence of some little vice or a reasonable array of good qualities are not to place a man in an extreme grade in either direction. In the case of the women the standard proved to be such that it was necessary, in order to make things balance, to place all excellent, quiet and negative characters in a grade as low as (5) and reserve the upper grades for those only who have had a special reputation for devoting their time to some form of altruism. Those who are familiar with history and court memoires may see how far the grading suits their particular approval, and most who read the list carefully will doubtless object to characters here and there; but I am sure that much of this will be found due to some personal bias, and an acquaintance with all the characters would result in a scheme not very different from the present. It is to be remembered that they are not arranged by the writer from a vague idea of their worth drawn from reading accounts of their lives, but are graded purely on a basis of the adjectives used in describing their traits by the best authorities, several different sources of information having been used for verification. In any case errors would be likely to balance.

The three lowest grades have been reserved for the distinctly vicious, those described as debauched, depraved, licentious, dissipated, cruel or extremely unprincipled. In the three upper grades we find such descriptions as 'Adored by the people as a saint,'[2] 'Gave herself up entirely to works of piety and charity.'[3] 'Heroic virtues and rare abnegations,'[4] 'By his well-known devotion to the best interests of the country he secured the confidence and esteem of all classes,'[5] 'Respect and veneration which the Russians entertained for his character'[6]

In the list following, the persons within each grade are given in the alphabetical order of the country or family name, which is followed by the christian name. When the family name is omitted, it is the same as the preceding. The numbers in brackets which stand before the names are the intellectual grades in each case, and those following, without brackets, refer to the total number of children who reached adult years.

Thus (10) Anhalt, Catherine II., Empress of Russia, 1; means that she was by birth of the House of Anhalt, that she stands in grade (1) for virtues, grade (10) for mental qualities and that she left one adult child. The averages at the bottom are indicated in the same way. Illegitimate children are also included in the number.

In regard to the variability of the two sexes one sees that the conclusion to be drawn is that the males are the more variable. The females fall less often in the extreme grades, which agrees with the generally accepted view. Karl Pearson has, however, doubted the greater variability of the male.[7]


Grade {1).

(10) Anhalt, Catherine II., Empress of Russia, 1; (8) Orleans, Elizabeth, dau. Philip (Regent), 0; (5) Marie, dau. Philip (Regent), 0; (3) Russia, Elizabeth, dau. Peter the Great, 0; (1) Saxony, Anne, second wife Wm. the Silent, 2; (6) Spain, Marie Louisa, wife Charles IV., 6; (4) Queen Urraca, 1; . . . . . . (5.28) Average 1.43.

Grade (2).

(5) Brunswick, Caroline, wife George IV. of Eng., 0; (5) Portugal, Isabella, dau. Don John, married John II. Castile, 1; (5) Mary, dau. Alfonso IV., 1; (3) Russia, Anne, 1694-1740, 0; (5) Savoy, Joanna, dau. Charles Amadeus, 1; (6) Spain, Carlotta, d. 1830, dau. Charles IV., 6; (5) Isabella II., b. 1830, 6; (6) Maria Christina, married Ferdinand VII., 2; . . . . . . (5.00) Average 2.13.

Grade {3).

(7) Austria, Caroline, Queen of Naples, d. 1814, 7; (5) Maria Louisa, married Napoleon; (5) Bourbon, Elizabeth, dau. Louis XV., 3; (6) Brunswick, Caroline, married George IV. of England, 1; (7) Elizabeth Christine, married Frederick William II. of Prussia, 1; (8) Juliana, Queen of Denmark, 1; (4) Conde, Henrietta, dau. Louis III., 0; (5) Louise, dau. Louis III., 2; (4) Marie, dau. Louis III., 0; (5) Conty, Louise, dau. Amand, 2; (5) Medici, Marie, wife Henry IV. of France, 2; (5) Orleans, Charlotte, dau. Philip (Regent), 5; (5) Portugal, Anne, dau. John VI.; (3) Russia, Catherine, wife Peter the Great, 2; (8) Spain, Joan Henriquez, wife John II. of Aragon, 1; (6) Louise Carlotta, b. 1804, dau. Francis of the Two Cicilies, 7; (8) Theresa, dau. Alfonso I. Castile, 3; (5) Sweden, Cecilia, dau. Gustavus Wasa, 3, . . . . . . (5.66) Average 2.50.

Grade (8).

(5) Bourbon, Louise de Blois, dau. Louis XIV., 7; (5) Louise, dau. Duke de Penthièvere, 4; (10) Margaret of Navarre, grandmother of Henry IV. of France, 1; (5) Brandenburg, Anne, Queen of Denmark, 2; (9) Brunswick, Anne, dau. Saxe-Weimar (patron of Goethe, etc.), 2; (6) Elizabeth, married Charles VI. of Austria, 2; (7) Coligny, Louise, wife William the Silent, 1; (7) Condé, Louise Adelaide, 0; (4) Denmark, Caroline, dau. Frederick VI.; (4) Hanover, Caroline Elizabeth, dau. George II., 0; (6) Montmorency, Charlotte, married Condé, 3; (5) Plantagenet, Philippa, Queen of Portugal, 6; (5) Portugal, Elenor, Queen of John II., 1; (4) Marie Isabelle, dau. of John VI., 0; (6) Matilda, dau. Sancho I., 0; (9) Prussia, Amelia, sister of Frederick the Great, 0; (7) Russia, Anne, dau. Peter the Great, 0; (6) Savoy, Maria, Queen of Philip V. of Spain, 2; (8) Saxe-Meiningen, Louise Dorothea, 'the German Minerva,' 3; (8) Spain, Isabella, dau. Philip II., 0; (8) Marie, wife of Sancho IV., 6; (5) Spain, Marie Amelia, wife Louis Philippe, King of the French, 8; (7) Sancha, Queen of Ferdinand I., 5; . . . . . . (6.35) Average 2.41.

Grade (9).

(5) Austria, Elizabeth, dau. Maximilian II., 0; (5) Margaret, dau. Maximilian II., 0; (9) Maria Theresa (the great queen), 10; (9) Bourbon, Jeanne d'Albret, dau. Henry of Navarre, 2; (8) Brandenburg, Caroline, Queen of George II. of England, 7; (6) Brunswick, Charlotte, Czarina of Russia, 2; (4) Elizabeth, wife Frederick the Great, 0; (6) Denmark, Charlotte Amelia, dau. Frederick IV., 0; (9) Hanau, Amalie Landgräfin von Hessen, 4; (8) Hanover, Sophia Charlotte, Queen of Frederick I. of Prussia, 1; (5) Hesse, Charlotte Amelia, Queen of Christian V. of Denmark, 3; (5) Mecklenburg, Charlotte, Queen of George III. of England, 13; (8) Prussia, Charlotte, sister Frederick the Great and Duchess of Brunswick, 8; (8) Russia, Natalia, dau. of Alexy, 0; (8) Spain, Berengaria (famous queen), 5; (7) Stolberg, Juliana, mother William the Silent, 11;  . . . . . .(6.88) Average 4.13.

Grade (10).

(6) Hanover, Queen Victoria, 8; (5) Mancini, Anne, wife of Amand Prince of Conty, 2; (10) Prussia, Louisa Ulrica, Queen of Sweden and sister Frederick the Great, 4; (5) Savoy, Christine, dau. Victor Emanuel I., 1; (10) Spain, Isabella of Castile, 4; (8) Saint Elizabeth, Queen of Diniz I. of Portugal, 2;  . . . . . .(7.33) Average 3.50.


Grade (1).

(1) Brunswick, Ivan, s. Anton Ulric, 0; (3) Condé, Charles de Charlois, s. Louis III., 0; (2) Denmark, Christian VII., 2; (5) Farnese, Ranuccio, 1569-1622, 6; (1) Portuigal, Alfonso VI., 0; (2) Spain, Don Carlos, s. Philip II., 0; (6) Peter the Cruel, 6; (1) Philip, s. Charles III, 0; (2) Russia, Alexy, s. Peter the Great, 1;  . . . . . .(2.56) Average 1.88.

Grade (2),

(2) Bourbon, Gaston d'Orleans, s. of Henry IV., 3; (3) Louis XV., King of France, 6; (2) Hanover, Frederick Henry, b. of George III., 0; (4) George IV., King of Great Britian, 1; (4) Maillé, Urbain, 1597-1650, 2; (8) Medici, Cosimo the Great, 5; (4) Francesco, 1541-1587, 4; (2) Portugal, Cardinal Henrique, s. Emanuel I., 0; (4) Don Miguel, s. John VI., 7; (8) Russia, Constantine, s. Paul I., 0; (3) Paul I., s. Catherine II., 9; (2) Spain, Don Balthazar, s. Philip IV., 0; (1) Charles II., 0; (2) Ferdinand, Duke of Parma, 1751-1802, 4; (5) Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies, 7; (3) Francis I. of the Two Sicilies, 12; (3) Henry IV. of Castile, 0; (5) Philip II, 4; (5) Philip IV., 4;  . . . . . .(3.68) Average 3.58.

Grade (3).

(7) Austria, Francis IV., Duke of Modena, 4; (6) Francis V., Duke of Modena, 0; (5) Rudolph II, Emperor, 0; (2) Bourbon, Charles Duke of Berry, s. Louis the Dauphin, 0; (3) Louis XIII, King of France, 2; (4) Brandenburg, Charles William, d. 1712, 1; (7) Condé, Henry Jules, s. the Great Condé, 4; (7) Hanover, Ernst August, father of George I., 6; (3) Frederick Duke of York, s. George III, 0; (3) Frederick Prince of Wales, s. George II, 0; (3) George II, King of Great Britain, 7; (6) William Augustus, s. of George II, 0; (5) Mecklenburg, Charles Leopold, married Empress of Russia, 1; (4) Orleans, Louis Philippe (Egalité), 4; (8) Philip (Regent), 9; (7) Alfonso III, 6; (7) Alfonso IV. the Brave, 2; (3) Ferdinand, s. Peter the Rigorous, 2; (3) John III, 2; (7) Prussia, Frederick William I, 10; (9) Russia, Peter the Great, 3; (2) Peter III., 1; (7) Saxony, Augustus I. the Strong, 2; (8) Spain, Charles V., Emperor of Austria, 5; (6) Ferdinand IV. of Castile, 2; (2) Ferdinand I. of the Two Sicilies, 7; (2) Ferdinand VII., King 1784-1833, 2; (2) Francis II. of the Two Sicilies, 1; (6) Henrique, 1823-1870, s. Francis de Paula, 5; (6) Henry II. (Transtamare), 1333-1379, 9; (8) James I. of Aragon (the Conqueror), 5; (3) John I. of Castile, 2; (7) John II. of Aragon, 4; (4) Louis, s. of Philip V. and Marie, 0; (7) Sancho IV. of Castile, 8; (6) Sweden, John III. 2; . . . . . . (5.14) Average 3.44.

Grade (8).

(6) Anhalt, Charles William, 1652-1718, 2; (7) Austria, Maximilian II., 8; (6) Bourbon, Duke of Burgundy, grandson Louis XIV., 1; (5) Louis XVI., 1; (6) Louis Jean de Penthièvre, 2; (5) Brunswick, Anton Ulric, 171475, 5; (3) Charles, 1713-80, 8; (7) Ernest Ludwig, 1718-88, 0; (7) Ferdinand Albert I., 6; (7) Frederick August, 1740-1805, 0; (9) Coligny, Gaspard (the great admiral); (7) Condé, Louis Joseph, 2; (8) Denmark, Christian IV., 3; (5) Frederick VI., 2; (5) Farnese, Ranuccio II., 2; (4) Hanover, Duke of Kent, s. George III., 1; (7) Hesse, Philip the Magnanimous, 15; (5) Mecklenburg, Adolphus, 1738-94, 0; (5) Carl Ludwig, 1708-1752, 6; (8) Medici, Ferdinand I., 4; (4) Nassau, William IV., 2; (7) William II (King), 4; (7) Frederick William, b. 1797, 2; (9) Orange, Maurice (celebrated general ), 2; (7) William the Elder, father William the Silent, 12; (9) William III., King of Great Britain, 0; Orleans, Antoine Montpensier, brother Louis Philippe, 0; (6) Poland, Ladislaus, s. Casimier, 2; (7) Portugal, Edward I., 6; (8) Henry of Burgundy, d. 1114, 4; (10) John I "the Great," 8; (8) John II, 2; (5) Joseph, s. John II, 4; (7) Louis, s. Emanuel, 1; (7) Sancho I, 8; (6) Sancho II, 0; (4) Savoy, Charles; (6) Saxe-Coburg, Frederick II, 9; (5) Saxe-Gotha, Frederick IV., 0; (7) Saxe-Meiningen, Anton Ulric, 5; (9) Saxony, Maurice (celebrated Elector), 1; (8) Spain, Ferdinand I., 5; (7) Sancho III., 1; . . . . . . (6.57) Average 3.72.

Grade (9).

(9) Austria, Charles (commander against Napoleon), 6; (5) Ferdinand I., d. 1564, 13; (6) Ferdinand III., 6; (5) Leopold I, 6; (5) Brandenburg, Christian Frederick, d. 1806, 0; (7) Brunswick, Ferdinand, 1721-92 (General), 0; (8) William Adolphus, 1745-70 (author), 0; (8) Conty, Francis, b. 1664 (elected King of Poland), 3; (4) Hanover, Adolphus, s. George III., 3; (4) George III., 13; (7) Lorraine, Leopold, father Francis I. of Austria, 5; (6) Mecklenburg, Adolphus Frederick I., 12; (7) Montmorency, Henry II, 0; (8) Nassau, Frederick, b. 1774, 0; (6) Orange, John, Brother William the Silent, 16; (5) Portugal, Don Fernando, s. John I, 0; (9) Henry the Navigator, 0; (5) Prussia, Frederick William (late Emperor), 7; (9) Henry, brother Frederick the Great, 0; (7) Russia, Alexy, father of Peter the Great, 6; (7) Russia, Michael Feodorvitch, 1596-1645, 3; (5) Saxe-Coburg, Franz F. Anton, 7; (5) Saxe-Gotha, August, s. Frederick III., 0; (6) Ernest II, b. 1818, 0; (10) Sweden, Gustavus Wasa, d. 1559, 6; . . . . . . (6.44) Average 4.48.

Grade (10).

(7) Coligony, Odet, 1515-1571, 0; (10) Orange, William the Silent, 13; (6) Portugal, Pedro II. of Brazil, 2; (7) Pedro V., king, born Saxe-Gotha, 0; (7) Russia, Feodor, the first Romanhof, 1550-1633, 1; Saxe-Coburg, Albert (consort of Victoria), 8; (6) Saxe-Gotha, August, d. 1772, 9; (7) Ernest the Pious, 9; (8) Ernest II. (the astronomer), 2; (5) Frederick III., d. 1772, 4;

(7) Leopold I. of Belgium, 3; (10) Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus, 2; . . . . . . . (7.3) Average 4.09.

Analyzing all the grades, we find that the higher grades for virtues possess a higher average of mental capacity and that this is almost perfect for both the male and female groups taken separately. An average of the two makes a curve that leaves practically nothing to be desired. There is every reason to believe that if the total were great enough the correlation would be perfect.


Grades. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Correlation averages. 5.28 5.00 5.66 5.79 5.20 5.64 5.96 6.35 6.88 7.33


Grades. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Correlation averages. 2.56 3.68 5.14 5.24 5.30 5.73 5.79 6.57 6.44 7.33

Both Sexes. (Averaged.)

Grades. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Correlation averages. 3.92 4.34 5.40 5.51 5.25 5.69 5.88 6.46 6.66 7.33

The average number of children who reached adult (21) years born to each grade is seen below to give figures representing a less smooth curve. This is probably due to an insufficiency in the total number, though I feel that this can not be dogmatically asserted.


Grades. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Av. No. of adult children. 1.43 2.13 2.50 2.44 3.07 3.64 3.08 2.41 4.13 3.50


Grades. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Av. No. of adult children. 1.88 3.58 3.44 2.41 3.58 3.46 3.04 3.72 4.48 4.09

Both Sexes. (Averaged.)

Grades. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Av. No. of adult children. 1.66 2.86 2.97 2.43 3.33 3.55 3.06 3.07 4.31 3.80

Such figures drawn from royalty, in regard to the fertility of different grades, can have, of course, but a slight bearing on the question of race suicide agitated at the present time. They do, however, show that, unhampered by restraint, as is fair to suppose has been the case among royalty where large families are always desired, maximum fertility does on the whole run hand in hand with general superiority. Nearly all the figures which have been heretofore compiled upon the question deal only with the number born and not with the number reaching adult years and are consequently of absolutely no significance. It is a well-known biological principle that the lower the species the greater the number of offspring, but among the different members of any social scale, our foreign immigrants for instance, very likely it would be found on close inquiry that, inter se, the relatively superior are the ones who are parents of the greater number of children whom they are successful in bringing to mature years. There are many reasons, both medical and economic, why the children of the more vicious and depraved should die in the greater numbers. This, in the long run, must raise the moral average, and as mental qualities are correlated with the moral, the intellectual level must at the same time be raised.

Besides these problems touching upon natural selection there is another question upon which I wish to say a few words. I refer to the opinion so generally entertained regarding the psychological effect of the inheritance of great financial wealth. Wallace in his 'Studies Scientific and Social,' Vol. II., p. 519, in a paragraph headed 'Hereditary Wealth Bad for its Recipients,' writes:

There is yet another consideration which leads to the same conclusion as to the evil of hereditary or unearned wealth—its injurious effects to those who receive it, and through them to the whole community. It is only the strongest and most evenly balanced natures that can pass unscathed through the ordeal of knowing that enormous wealth is to be theirs on the death of a parent or relative. The worst vices of our rotten civilization are fostered by this class of prodigals, surrounded by a crowd of gamblers and other parasites who assist in their debaucheries and seek every opportunity of obtaining a share of the plunder. This class of evils is too well known and comes too frequently and too prominently before the public to need dwelling upon here; but it serves to complete the proof of the evil effects of private inheritance, and to demonstrate in a practical way the need for the adoption of the just principle of equality of opportunity.

That instances of this sort do come too frequently before the public I do not deny. The vices of the aristocracy are always made the most of by the polychrome daily press, but if Mr. Wallace or any one else has any data to show that vices among the rich are proportionally more frequent than among people in general, I have never seen such a proof. It is an assertion entirely unwarranted by any facts. It is merely a popular fallacy which will probably be entirely abandoned as soon as sociology has properly collected data bearing on modern life. In the first place, it is unlikely on à priori grounds. Wealth, like most things in life, is essentially relative. To the young man who is to inherit a few thousand dollars, if he belongs in the middle classes, the amount seems as much as the same number of millions to one whose friends all have as much. There are plenty of temptations within the reach of all classes of society and many demoralizing amusements come cheap. Besides, if this view of the evil effects of great wealth were true, royalty, who are among the richest of the world's favored few, should make a poor showing from the general standpoint of morality. Although we may think at first sight that this is the case, I have been able to show in some former articles in this magazine that the bad characters practically always come as close relations of others of the same stamp, and due to heredity with perhaps some influence from environment. They can not at any rate be explained on the ground of riches, as here all are rich. Furthermore, royalty does not make a bad showing when taken as a great group. From the intellectual side they are distinctly above the average and this six hundred contains more great names than probably any other collection of related people that could be gathered together, certainly more than the general run of Europeans. Even the greatest leaders among them were born in all cases to extremely high positions. An idea of their moral standard may best be gained by looking at their mean or (5) and (6) grades. Among the more modern and best known in these grades are the late Humbert, King of Italy, William I., Emperor of Germany, Frederick William IV. of Prussia, Louis Philippe and Francis Prince de Joinville, his son; doubtless men with faults, but at the same time men with certain decidedly praiseworthy traits and in most instances men who led active lives.

Wallace relies much on sexual selection to play an important part in the future, as a causative force in human evolution, and has written some good arguments to this effect. Royal matches, as is well known, are largely determined by reasons of state policy. Nevertheless, even here, in a class of society where any force of sexual selection must be relatively at its lowest, we see the largest number of children on the average belonging to the higher grades. There is also a pretty definite elimination of the worst.

Conclusions.—There is a very distinct correlation in royalty between mental and moral qualities. If this is true among them, there is no reason why it should not be true in every class of mankind. Among society in general it is easy to see how the vicious and depraved are more likely to be eliminated than the domestic and unselfish. Arguments, then, which prove that an improvement is going on in the general morality of any class or race must at the same time prove an increase in the standard of mental faculty. The probability is that forces of natural selection are at work, the value of which we know little of as yet, such that setting aside all influences of environment, whether we will or not, the natural quality of humanity must progress.

  1. 'Studies Scientific and Social,' London, 1900, Vol. 1, p. 509.
  2. Christine, dau. of Victor Emanuel I. of Savoy, and first wife of Ferdinand of Sicily.
  3. Anne, de Mancini, wife of Amand, Prince of Conty.
  4. Pedro II. of Portugal and Brazil, 1825-1891.
  5. Leopold I. of Belgium.
  6. Feodor I. Romanhof.
  7. Conf. 'Variation in Man and Woman,' by Havelock Ellis, Popular Science Monthly, January, 1903, Vol. LXII., No. 3.