946 
much as our race is above that of the Afri- 
can Negro. This estimate, which may 
seem prodigous to some, is confirmed by 
the quick intelligence and high culture of 
the Athenian commonalty, before whom 
literary works were recited and works of 
art exhibited, of a far more severe character 
than could possibly be appreciated by the 
average of our race, the calibre of whose in- 
tellect is easily gauged by a glance at the 
contents of a railway book-stall.’’* De Qua- 
trefage says: “‘ There can be no real relation 
between the dimensions of the cranial 
capacity and social development.”’ * * * 
“By such an extension the Troglodytes of 
the Cavern of L’Homme-Mort would be 
superior to all the races enumerated in the 
table, including contemporary Parisians.’’} 
But Mill wrote: “Of all vulgar modes of 
escaping from the consideration of the effect 
of social and moral influences on the mind, 
the most vulgar is that of attributing the 
diversities of conduct and character to in- 
herent natural differences ;”?} and Buckle, 
the historian, who, notwithstanding the 
deficient knowledge of his time, had a true 
appreciation of the problem, said: ‘‘ What- 
ever, therefore, the moral and intellectual 
progress of men may be, it resolves itself, not 
into a progress of natural capacity, but into 
a progress, if I may say so, of opportunity, 
that is, an improvement in the circum- 
stances under which that capacity after 
birth comes into play. Here, then, lies the 
gist of the whole matter. The progress is 
one not of internal power, but of external 
advantage. The child born in a civilized 
land is not likely as such to be superior to 
one born among barbarians, and the differ- 
ence which ensues between the acts of the 
two children will be caused, so far as we 
know, solely by the pressure of external 
*Tbid, p. 330-331. 
} ‘The Human Species.’ 
{ Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, Vol. I., 
p. 390. 
SCIENCE. 
(N.S. Von. VI. No. 156. 
circumstances, by which I mean the sur- 
rounding opinions, knowledge, associations, 
in a word, the entire mental atmosphere in 
which the two children are respectively 
nurtured.’’* 
Mill and Buckle, though unacquainted 
with the doctrine of evolution, were surely 
right. The ancient Greeks and Romans 
were certainly of extraordinary mental 
prowess, but it is more than probable that 
they surpassed our more remote ancestors 
only because the environment in which they 
lived was more favorable than the medieval 
to the acquirement of fit mental traits ; 
because, in their free, intellectual atmos- 
phere, they were trained to the perform- 
ance of intellectual feats, which were im- 
possible to the fettered minds of our fore- 
fathers, who could hardly achieve great- 
ness, except as priests or warriors, or as 
painters, sculptors, architects, musicians, 
or as Other laborers in such arts as served 
the grandeur of the Church or the Throne. 
The splendor of the Greek and Roman 
achievements, therefore, does not constitute 
a proof that the Greeks and Romans were 
splendidly endowed, but only that the 
traits which they acquired from their pro- 
genitors enabled them to use their endow- 
ments splendidly. In judging of the men- 
tal capabilities of a people as a whole, as 
in judging of physical powers, it is safer to 
take as a test their corporal structures, 
their bodies and brains, rather than their 
physical and mental feats, for whether 
these latter be great or little depends on 
circumstances which may be favorable or 
the reverse. Had the Troglodytes received 
the same mental training as the Greeks it. 
is possible or probable, since their brains. 
were large, that they would have performed 
feats intellectually as great, but had Aris- 
totle or Plato received the training of the 
cave-men great feats would have been im- 
possible to them. They would have died 
* Buckle’s History of Civilization, Vol. I., p. 178. 
