THE GREAT MAN 'S SOCIAL INHERITANCE 77 



really be the result of his antecedents, and his few Book i 

 faulty deeds may be all that we are to attribute to 

 himself; whilst, conversely, the criminal's antecedents 

 may have been the cause of all his crimes and vices, 

 and he may himself have done nothing but some 

 acts of unnoticed kindness. It will be thus im- 

 possible to form any true judgment of anybody ; for 

 the real St. Peter may have been merely a false and 

 truculent ruffian, and the real Judas Iscariot may 

 have been fit for Abraham's bosom. And yet even 

 these conclusions deducible from the premises of 

 Mr. Bellamy are sane when compared with those 

 deducible from the premises of Mr. Sidney Webb ; 

 for Mr. Bellamy would allow a man to be responsible 

 for a thousandth part of his actions at all events, 

 whilst Mr. Sidney Webb would not allow that any- 

 body either did or was responsible for anything. 



And now, finally, let us turn to that other Finally, let us 

 argument which seeks to eliminate the causality of men tthatmQst 

 the great man, not by proving that he owes his gleafmandoes 

 superior brain-power to society, but by proving that de P ends on . 



* J * past discoveries 



superior brain - power has little to do with his and achieve- 



. . ..... i i ments, to which 



achievements, their principal cause being the ap- he does but 

 pliances, the opportunities, and the accumulated ac 

 knowledge at his command ; an,d that these, at all 

 events, are due not to himself, but others to the 

 efforts of past generations, and the legacy they have 

 left to the present. This is the argument which is 

 mainly relied upon by Mr. Spencer. He insists 

 on the fact that none of the great inventors or 

 discoverers could have made their discoveries or 



