944 
brain, differs from the Chinaman or Japan- 
ese, with his large brain, not mainly in 
that which is mentally inborn, but mainly 
in that he has lesser power of acquiring 
complex mental characters. If this is true, 
and there is a mass of evidence proving 
that it is true, for children of one race 
reared by another and very different race 
develop the mental features of their educa- 
tors, not of their progenitors (e. g., Europe- 
ans reared by savages or savages reared by 
Europeans), then much of the reasoning of 
numerous thinkers has been founded on 
false premises, and is invalid. They have 
commonly estimated the mental calibre of 
a race by the intellectual feats performed 
by it, but plainly these are wrong criteria, 
since whether these feats be great or small 
depends almost entirely on the environ- 
ment, that is, on education. A South Sea 
Islander, for instance, would, and could, do 
nothing in his ancestral environment com- 
pared to what he would be intellectually 
capable of were he during early life trans- 
ferred and trained in the midst of a learned 
and scientific society. 
In discussing this subject one is embar- 
rassed by the wealth of the material that 
presents itself for criticism. In the light- 
est, as in the weightiest literature, it is 
constantly assumed that various racial 
peculiarities and differences which are 
manifestly acquired are inborn—that this 
or that race is inherently brave or resolute, 
or enterprising, or industrious, or gifted 
with a genius for colonization or empire, 
while this or that other race is timid, 
or irresolute, or indolent, or servile, and so 
forth. To illustrate my remarks and con- 
clude my essay I may cull a few examples 
from an enormous field. Dr. Francis Gal- 
tonsays: ‘The importance to be attached 
to race is a question that deserves a far 
* Consider, forinstance, how different in either case 
would be the contents of memory and all that arises 
out of memory. 
SCIENCE. 
(N.S. Vou. VI. No. 156. 
larger measure of exact investigation than 
it receives. We are exceedingly ignorant 
of the respective ranges of the natural and 
acquired faculties in different races; and 
there is too great a tendency among writers 
to dogmatize wildly about them, some 
grossly magnifying, others as greatly mini- 
mizing their several provinces. It seems, 
however, possible to answer this question 
unambiguously, difficult asit is.”* But, if 
Iam right, as I think I am, in the fore- 
going, surely every writer has too greatly 
exalted the importance of the inborn and 
too much minimized the importance of the 
acquired factor in man. Does not Dr. 
Galton himself exalt vastly too much the 
importance of the inborn factor, as witness 
the following passage, which, in this respect, 
is similar to many others in his work : 
‘« The long period of the Dark Ages, under 
which Europe has lain, is due, I believe, in 
a very considerable degree, to the celibacy 
enjoined by religious orders on their vota- 
ries. Whenever aman or woman was pos- 
sessed of a gentle nature that fitted him or 
her to deeds of charity, to meditation, to 
literature or to art, the social condition of 
the time was such that they had no refuge 
elsewhere than in the bosom of the Church. 
But the Church chose to preach and exact 
celibacy. The consequence was that these 
gentle natures had no continuance, and 
thus, by a policy so singularly unwise and 
suicidal that I am hardly able to speak of 
if without impatience, the Church brutal- 
ized the breed of our forefathers. She 
acted precisely as if she had aimed at select- 
ing the rudest portion of the community to 
be, alone, the parents of future generations. 
She practiced the arts which breeders would 
use, who aimed at creating ferocious, cur- 
rish and stupid natures. No wonder that 
club law prevailed for centuries over 
Europe ; the wonder rather is that enough 
* ‘Hereditary Genius,’ preface to edition of 1892, 
p. xxv. 
