1875.] Heredity. 157 
minds of a certain class perceive with alarm that order after 
order of phenomena is being brought within the grasp of 
what the scientific world not very happily terms ‘‘ law,” and 
that the very last strongholds of the arbitrary—the regions 
-where force was supposed to be created, and where events 
arose without any natural sequence—are now invaded. 
The doétrine of heredity, as applied to man, is one of the 
latest conquests of the scientific spirit, and, as such, it is 
still viewed with dislike and suspicion. 
That like produces like has, indeed, been an article of 
popular faith for untold centuries, and has been embodied in 
the proverbial philosophy of all but the merest savages. If 
a son resembles his father in person, in habits, or in cha- 
racter, we are told that he is a “ chip of the old block,” or 
reminded that ‘‘the apple does not fall very far from the 
tree.” But, with curious inconsistency, man often revolts 
at conclusions even when he has loudly proclaimed their 
premises. So long as the law of heredity was tacitly as- 
sumed to apply merely or mainly to racers and greyhounds, 
to short-horns and to créve-cceur pullets, it was admitted as 
a matter of course, and fa¢ts which placed the induction 
upon a yet firmer basis were welcomed. But now the result 
appears: now it is plain that the law embraces not brutes 
only, but man also, and that it extends from his outward 
structure to his intellectual powers, his vices, and his 
virtues ; there is dire confusion, and a wish to retract former 
admissions were it possible. Such men as M. Ribot and 
Mr. Galton, who have collated facéts bearing upon this im- 
portant subject, and who, consistently following up the clue, 
have pointed out the only legitimate interpretation, have 
incurred no small share of obloquy. 
There have been, hitherto, two hypotheses professing to 
account for the varying aptitudes, faculties, passions, and 
tastes of men. The one—to which we may refer hereafter 
—put forward by the revolutionary philosophers of the 
eighteenth century as a corollary of their doctrine of uni- 
versal equality, held that all men were essentially and 
originally alike, and that the diversities which they exhibit 
were due solely to training, education, early associations, 
and other post-natal circumstances. The experience of 
every man is quite sufficient to render any formal refutation 
of this view needless. The other hypothesis, though still 
widely entertained by divines and moralists, and accepted as 
a point of conventional orthodoxy, is, if possible, .still more 
outrageous. It regards every man, at least,* as the creator 
* We are not aware that this dodtrine has been extended to the lower 
animals, who have their differences of character as well as man. 
