140 Heredity. 



and necessarily, it has invaded the entire field of psychology. 

 This was but the natural consequence of a vague, loose, incon- 

 sistent hypothesis, totally at variance with facts. Yet, as we have 

 said 1 , there is perhaps some ground for this distinction. This, 

 then, is the important point, which the objection has not 

 sufficiently declared or explained. 



Suppose that it has been distinctly proved that all modes of 

 psychical activity the senses, memory, imagination, reasoning, 

 sentiments, instincts, passions, normal or morbid dispositions are 

 transmissible : is the aggregate of these modes the whole sentient 

 and conscious being ; or is there, besides these, a nescio quid called 

 the /, the person, the genius, the character, that inner power 

 which in its own way elaborates all these materials of sentiment 

 and cognition, and impresses on them its own peculiar stamp? 

 Must it be considered that the various modes of psychical 

 activity, by varied inter-relations, constitute in themselves the 

 personality ; or is there something else ? Is the I a result or a 

 cause ? If we consider that like impressions are felt and trans- 

 formed in widely different ways by different individuals, and that 

 between genius and idiocy are found all possible shades of mental 

 activity, one may be inclined to regard as reasonable the 

 hypothesis of a principle of individuation, which explains these 

 differences. And then would arise the question : Is the I, the 

 personality, the constituent element of the individual, transmissible 

 by heredity, as are the various modes of mental activity ? 



Such is, it would seem, the only true way in which to put this 

 objection : and under this form it cannot be denied that it raises 

 a grave difficulty. We do not, however, now discuss it : a better 

 occasion for so doing will hereafter present itself. 



The part played by psychological heredity has been doubted 

 not only by physiologists, but also by so great a philosophic 

 historian as Buckle. It is surprising that so clear a mind, which 

 brought to the investigation of historic phenomena a rare penetra- 

 tion, originality of method and scientific exactitude, should have 

 misconceived a fact of such significance. 



We often hear of hereditary talents, hereditary vices, and 

 hereditary virtues ; but whoever will critically examine the evi- 

 dence will find that we have no proof of their existence. The 



