WHAT IT MEANS 59 



Mr. Winship in his comparison of the Jukes and Ed- 

 wards families has strengthened our claim in this re- 

 spect. In all environments and under all conditions, 

 he shows the latter family blossoming out into distin- 

 guished citizens, not primarily through anything from 

 without but through the imperious force within. Since 

 we may conclude that none of the Edwards family, 

 who are described by Dr. Winship, were feeble-minded, 

 therefore none of them became criminals or prostitutes. 

 But here again his argument is inconclusive because he 

 does not tell us of all the descendants. 



With equal safety it may be surmised that many of 

 the Jukes family (perhaps the original stock, indeed) 

 were feeble-minded and therefore easily lapsed into the 

 kind of lives that they are said to have lived. 



In the good branch of the Kallikak family there were 

 no criminals. There were not many in the other "side, 

 but there were some, and, had their environment been 

 different, no one who is familiar with feeble-minded 

 persons, their characteristics and tendencies, would 

 doubt that a large percentage of them might have be- 

 come criminal. Lombroso's famous criminal types, 

 in so far as they were types, may have been types of 

 feeble-mindedness on which criminality was grafted 

 by the circumstances of their environment. 



