Are there Lazvs of Heredity ? 137 



Thus a scientific idea of the world is formed. The experimental 

 method appeared to be imprisoned in the raw material of the fact, 

 when all at once its range of vision is enlarged, its horizon recedes 

 almost immeasurably, to that mysterious limit where the world of 

 laws comes to an end ; observation attains to the universal, and 

 experience gains the almost idealistic conclusion that facts are but 

 appearances, laws the reality. 



II. 



We must now inquire whether, among the many threads the inter- 

 weaving of which constitutes the facts we have cited, any one is 

 common to this entire group. To speak more clearly, the ques- 

 tion is whether heredity is a law of the moral world, or whether 

 the many instances already quoted are only isolated cases resulting 

 from the fortuitous concurrence of other laws. 



It may be surprising why, after what has been already said, the 

 question is now raised. But the perfect indifference of most 

 psychologists with regard to heredity would seem to show that 

 they do not recognize in it a psychical law. The doctrines of 

 those physiologists who have bestowed more attention on the 

 subject are by no means harmonious on this point, and many of 

 them have roundly denied moral heredity. It is, therefore, im- 

 portant that the question should be studied. To speak frankly, 

 the objections brought against psychological heredity do not 

 appear to be very formidable; they would, indeed, be often 

 inexplicable, did we not know the motive which has inspired 

 them. This is the fear, whether with or without reason, of the 

 consequences which may result from it ; but such a prejudice is 

 neither scientific, since it proceeds arbitrarily, nor moral, because 

 it does not prefer truth to all else. 



Thus it is not possible to accept the doctrine of which Lordat 

 is the most illustrious exponent, and which, while unreservedly 

 subjecting to the laws of heredity the 'dynamism' (or the various 

 modes of psychic activity) of the animal, exempts from them the 

 ' dynamism ' of man. The author's intention is too plain. 1 He 



1 ' If the laws,' says he, 'are identical in the two orders (animal and human), 

 analogy would lead us to suppose that the dynamism of brutes is like our own, 

 and that man is only a nobler and better-developed animal, as Gall and hi s 



