XXI THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITION AND HEREDITY

1. We are now in a position to attempt an estimate of the relative importance of germinal change on the one hand and of the accumulation of tradition on the other.^[1670] The direct influence of the environment cannot be left altogether out of account; it is, however, already apparent from what has been said on the subject that, although the direct influence of the environment may modify the course of history, it is not an important factor in comparison with the other two. That which renders the problem so difficult is the fact that the manifestations of human characteristics are shaped both by traditional changes and by germinal changes, and that each kind of change reacts on the other. Thus if we observe increasing subservience in the characteristics of a race, we must remember that previous elimination of the more self-assertive may manifest itself in this manner by moulding tradition through a long course of years, that the nature of the environment may set the current of tradition flowing in this direction, or that both factors may be at work; and that, so far as the second factor is at work, it may for reasons to be explained below cause the elimination of the more self-assertive and so accelerate the process. It is in fact very difficult to arrive at any precise conclusions regarding particular problems, but we shall, after considering certain problems, reach a fairly definite conclusion regarding the relative importance of these factors in general.

2. With these problems in view we may first consider the general characteristics of the intermediate period and then those of the three subsequent periods.

It is clear that at the beginning of the intermediate period the ancestors of man were living under those conditions which we 438have seen to be common to all species in a state of nature and that, therefore, if we are to speak of history at all, history was at this time an expression of germinal change alone. We know nothing directly as to what happened within this period, but from such hints as we can get we must apparently make certain deductions. We know that within this long period—many times as long as the whole period which has succeeded it—there was accomplished by far the greater part of the evolution of the human intellect. This is the conclusion we draw from the fact that the intellect of primitive races, which must be taken as representing man in the first period, differs in a small degree from that of modern man relative to the difference which we must suppose to have existed between the intellect of man in the first period and that of the pre-human ancestor. Again the picture we must draw of our ancestors in the intermediate period is that of a species acquiring domination almost solely by its intellect. Further we have seen that the advance to the stage of primitive society was only made possible by an important step in mental evolution—so important a step that none of our ancestors who did not take it have survived. The deduction to be drawn is clearly that in the intermediate period history was founded in the main on germinal change. If we find reason to conclude that germinal change has ceased to play so important a part in the following periods, it should be remembered that the sum of all these latter periods represents but a fraction of the length of the intermediate period. If we regard human history as a whole and date the beginning at the time when our ancestors began to move away from those conditions which govern the existence of all species in a state of nature, then we must conclude that germinal change has been the explanation of what has happened during far the greater part of history as defined above.

3. The course of history from the beginning of the first period to the present day presents certain remarkable features. It has to be remembered that the course of events in the first and second periods has been reconstructed from evidence gathered almost solely in Europe, and even then in large part from one country, namely, France. Europe was not the centre of progress, and it may be that the abrupt replacement of one stage of culture by another, of which we find evidence, would not be what we should find nearer the centre of progress. There the evolution of culture 439may have been more continuous. From time to time waves of migration swept westwards and a higher stage of culture overwhelmed the lower. It may be that the culture systems on reaching Europe followed lines of development of their own which, owing to circumstances being relatively less favourable, did not carry them so far as nearer their point of origin. Therefore the next wave as a rule brought a higher degree of skill which replaced the then existing European system.

However this may be, what we do undoubtedly find is a relatively slow rate of progress in the early part of the first period. Progress became more rapid in the Upper Palaeolithic and in the Neolithic. Finally at the opening of the third period progress was vastly accelerated and has gone on with ever-increasing rapidity subject to certain checks at various times and places. This speeding up of the evolution of skill is the chief outstanding characteristic of history since the opening of the first period, and with it we may associate the facts that progress has not been uniform as between different countries, and has been subject to set-backs within countries especially within the third period. Recalling what was said in the last chapter as to the influence of fertility and contact upon the growth of tradition, we may now note that the main outline at least of these outstanding events is apparently explicable as the result of the working of these factors. We may begin with a consideration of the facts regarding America.

America was apparently peopled from Asia at an early date.^[1671] Putting aside the Eskimos, it is probable that the invaders possessed a simple and fairly uniform type of culture and that the cultural differences found at the time of the discovery as between races in different parts of the continent were indigenous. In other words America is a country in which a section of the human race was early cut off from contact with the remainder—such contact as occurred with the Norsemen and may have occurred with the Pacific Islanders having been without importance. For many thousands of years cultural evolution had proceeded independently in this isolated area. At the time of the discovery it had in Mexico and Peru reached a fairly high level. A form of writing had even been evolved, and in general the level 440of culture was such as we may compare with that attained shortly before the opening of the third period in Eur-Asia. It is possible that at this time the evolution of culture was on the verge of making a great step forward similar to that made in Eur-Asia in the third period. But in any case progress in America had fallen behind progress in Eur-Asia by some thousands of years, and it is thus interesting to compare the endowment of America with that of Eur-Asia.

It may first be noticed that the area is a large one and that it is diversified in that it contains within it many types of geographical and climatic environment. Nevertheless the shape of the area as a whole, and more especially perhaps the absence of relatively fertile areas in proximity differing sharply from one another such as we find in Eur-Asia, renders it less favourably disposed to facilitate contact than are parts of Eur-Asia. In this connexion it may be observed that the Isthmus of Panama is a barrier rather than a means of communication. Apparently the civilizations of Mexico and Peru had no knowledge one of the other.

The differences in respect of fertility are more remarkable. Generally speaking America is not notably less fertile than Eur-Asia, relative to skill in hunting and fishing. The north-west coast of North America is possibly more fertile relative to this type of skill than is any other area in the world. But when we come to examine the endowment of America as a whole relative to skill in the lower forms of agriculture and in the domestication of animals, we find that America is poorly endowed compared with Eur-Asia. Maize and rice are the only important indigenous cereals. All the other valuable cereals were absent from America. This is a very important fact because cereal culture is in many ways a far more profitable art than either root-culture or arboriculture. But America is poor not only in cereals; many plants which play so important a part elsewhere in primitive agriculture are absent—the plantain, yam, banana, breadfruit, and date-palm, for instance. Among the important plants we may note the potato, coco-nut palm, manioc, arrowroot, and the cocoa plant. Brazilian arrowroot is, it may be observed, very easily propagated. ‘Even if the plant is left in the ground when the root has been taken, new tubers grow from its joints after the first shower of rain.’^[1672] Some such plant as this in America 441or as the yam elsewhere must have presumably been that first cultivated.

The poverty of America in animals fit for domestication is even more remarkable. If we except the reindeer, milch animals were entirely absent—a fact of great significance. The Indians had made the fullest possible use of such animals as there were. ‘Setting aside the reindeer, an unprofitable animal on any soil which produces any better crop than moss, the Indians had domesticated every animal in the continent which was capable of domestication.’^[1673] Among them was the llama, an animal of restricted usefulness, as it cannot be used for draught and cannot be milked. The fact that there are several varieties of llama would seem to point to the fact that it had been brought under domestication many centuries before the discovery of America. Turkeys, dogs, pheasants, ducks, and geese were also domesticated as well as a few other animals of little importance.

When compared with Western Asia, America is seen to be poorly endowed in animals fit for domestication and plants suitable for agriculture. But it must be remembered that Western Asia is far richer than any other area. America is not poor compared with Africa or Australia. We may now glance at the endowment of these other regions beginning with Asia.

4. It is often a matter of the greatest difficulty to trace the original habitat of the species of animals and plants which after many centuries of domestication have given rise to the varieties now in use; in some cases it is impossible; the camel, for instance, has never been found wild.^[1674] In some cases the evidence is vague and merely points to the original home as having been within some large and not very clearly defined region. Nevertheless an inquiry into the original habitat of the more important domesticated animals and plants leads to a very remarkable conclusion. We find that with few exceptions Western Asia was the home of the great majority of such species. The chief exceptions among animals are the elephant, buffalo, reindeer, and llama. The llama originated in South America, the reindeer is found in the circum-Polar regions, the elephant and buffalo are Indian. It is probable that the original home of the camel was somewhere in this Asiatic region, and, if this is so, then all milch animals, with 442the exception of the reindeer, whether belonging to the ovine, equine, bovine, or camel group, had their original home in the Asiatic region—a very important fact when the large part played by milch animals is borne in mind. It should be perhaps mentioned that certain species had a wide range and extended beyond this Asiatic region vaguely defined though it is. The wild ancestors of the ox and the pig were indigenous in Europe as well as in Asia.^[1675] The richness of the Asiatic endowment as regards plants is no less remarkable. Practically all cereals of importance with the exception of maize and one or two others originated there. Wheat, barley, oats, rye, millet, and others of much importance at a certain stage of progress in skill are indigenous in that region.

5. Turning to Africa we find that the large majority of domesticated animals and of cultivated plants are not indigenous; when not introduced by Arabs or Europeans, they were derived from Egypt and into Egypt they had probably been brought from Asia. Of those animals now domesticated cattle, goats, sheep, and fowls were derived from Egypt, the dog from Arabia, the cat was brought by the Arabs, while pigs, muscovy ducks, turkeys, and pigeons were introduced by the Portuguese. Sorghum grain, millet, eleusine, colocasia (arum), yam, and the banana were introduced from Egypt; the sugar-cane, rice, wheat, oranges, limes, cucumbers, melons, gourds, onions, and hemp were introduced by the Arabs, while the coco-nut palm came from Asia and the date-palm from the Mediterranean basin. ‘The only doubtful exceptions are ground-nuts ... which may be indigenous, and certain semi-cultivated beans.’^[1676] It may be observed that, although Africa is poor as regards animals and plants fit for domestication, the negro never domesticated with one or two exceptions such species as were capable of domestication. Thus the guinea-fowl and the coffee plant, both indigenous, were not domesticated by the negroes.

6. Of the natural endowment of other regions it is not necessary 443to speak. The absence of all mammals, with the exception of marsupials, from Australia is well known, and the handicap resulting therefrom is obvious. There are, however, certain broad facts with regard to fertility and geographical configuration to which attention may be drawn here. With respect to the fertility of tropical regions in general there are two facts of importance. For the most part cereals are absent, and it is chiefly trees and roots among indigenous plants which lend themselves to domestication. Arboriculture and root-culture, however, do not in many respects give as good a return as does the culture of cereals. Further, fruits and roots cannot be stored as a rule; their food value is not high, and in many ways the problems presented by the cultivation of roots and trees do not afford anything like the same stimulus to skill or require anything like the same advance in social organization and in settled and regulated conditions of life as does the cultivation of cereals. Again, in the general make-up of tropical conditions there is frequently an element of destructiveness. The rapidity with which in tropical Africa products of human handiwork are destroyed is well known, and to a greater or less degree something of the kind is a feature of all tropical regions.

7. Turning to geographical conditions in general as favouring or hindering contact we find America isolated and, as a land mass taken by itself, practically divided into two parts in which the conditions do not markedly favour contact—especially contact between different economic systems in close proximity. The remaining land masses may be thought of as radiating out from one centre. The central area is not only in general favourably located, but is in itself so formed as to favour contact. The diversity of its surface, the inland seas, the steppes, plateaux, mountain uplands, plains, and river valleys render it in this respect richly endowed. Forests were less of a barrier to contact in this region than elsewhere, and in this respect Western Asia was better situated than Europe. Tropical forests and jungles form far more serious barriers than do forests in temperate regions, and the discovery of the use of metals is of less effect in reducing the hindrances due to this barrier in tropical than in temperate countries. Looking at the tracts of land which radiate out from this centre we see how isolated is the greater part of Africa. Egypt is indeed almost a part of the Western Asiatic region, but 444it is nearly cut off from the rest of Africa by desert, being connected with the remainder of the continent only by the valley of the Nile which in its middle regions is almost barren while its upper reaches pass through huge tracts of marsh and swamp. As we approach the south of Africa we come to what in primitive times was a blind alley. So, too, in whatever direction we pass outwards from the heart of Eur-Asia, whether we cross the sea to Australia or travel to the eastern or western boundaries of the Eur-Asiatic land mass, we reach regions where, on account of what we may call their location and of other factors such as the presence of forest or jungle or on account of the configuration of their surfaces, contact is not favoured. We must in addition bear in mind that it is the central region which is the most richly endowed as far as fertility is concerned.

We may remember that there was another factor to which as a stimulus to the formation of skill and to the transmission and storing of tradition we found reason to attach great importance—namely, the replacement of the segmentary by the organic type of social organization. This great change took place in the Eur-Asiatic region and must be traced indirectly to the characteristics of that region as a whole. For we found that, before such a change could come about, a growth in the volume of population was necessary, and growth in volume is directly dependent upon fertility and all other elements in the surroundings which favour the increase of skill.

8. There is, therefore, at the least a very remarkable correspondence between the outstanding events of history since the opening of the first period and the distribution in space and time of the chief factors which influence tradition. We may set events in America up to the time of the discovery against events in the rest of the world. We do not know with what degree of skill the original emigrants were armed; but since, generally speaking, the fertility of America relative to skill in hunting and fishing is not, if at all, inferior to fertility elsewhere, we have no reason to imagine that progress in the first period would be less rapid than elsewhere. Again the presence, though not in great variety, of easily cultivatable plants would facilitate much as elsewhere the transition to the most primitive form of agriculture. But the poverty in cereals and animals fit for domestication and the absence of milch animals indicate an environment which, 445relative to conditions in Western Asia, offers far less stimulus to progress. Further the general configuration of the land does not favour contact as in the latter region. Nevertheless considerable progress in cereal culture and in the domestication of animals had been made, and in Mexico and Peru, where the presence of lakes, the absence of formidable barriers, and the diversity of surroundings offered by the proximity of high and low land rendered contact most effective, there had grown up societies with a relatively high level of skill. But America had lagged behind Eur-Asia, and the degree to which this was so is only what would be expected if we suppose that the innate capacity of the inhabitants of both regions was once approximately equal and that, while some had wandered into less favourable surroundings, others had remained in or migrated to more favourable surroundings. It is at least clear that if we do set the general trend of events in America against events in Eur-Asia there is nothing incompatible with the theory that the constitution of the environment can account in the main for the differences in the growth and accumulation of skill.

Putting America aside, the same may be said of events elsewhere. The rich endowment of Western Asia has been emphasized, and this region appears to have been the centre of progress in the first period and was most certainly so in the second and during the earlier part of the third period. Everything leads us to suppose that at any given time up to a comparatively recent date the level of skill was higher in this region than elsewhere. From time to time waves of migration spread outwards—most often apparently into Europe and less often into Africa and Oceania—carrying with them a degree of skill so much higher than that existing in the outlying areas that an abrupt transition to another culture took place accompanied by varying degrees of extermination of, and mixture with, the races situated there. If we bear in mind the endowment of, and general conditions in, Africa and Oceania, the trend of events in these regions is again comprehensible on the same principles as those indicated above. It may also be observed that the principle of the shifting of the centre of progress owing to the change in relative fertility may be seen at work in Western Asia. At a certain period, for instance, after a particular degree of civilization had been reached, the great river valleys of the Nile and of the Tigris and the Euphrates, which formerly had been 446relatively less fertile, became the most fertile regions. Later the progress connected with the industrial revolution led to another remarkable shifting of the centre of advance—into regions, that is to say, where coal is abundant and easily worked. This shifting of the focus of progress is often overlooked by those who seek an explanation of the fact that the site of the earlier civilizations has not remained the site of the later civilizations. ‘The contrasts’, says Professor Elliot Smith, ‘in the achievements of the various peoples cannot be explained away by lack of opportunities, in face of the patent fact that among the most backward races of the present day are some that first came into contact with, or were even the founders of, civilization, and were most favourably placed for acquiring culture and material supremacy.’^[1677] The shifting of the centre of progress is at least in part an explanation.

Within the third period there took place that remarkable change in social organization already described which so markedly stimulated the growth of skill and facilitated its transmission. This change had the most profound effects on events in Europe and Asia. With it we must associate a remarkable speeding up of the progress in skill which has been the chief feature of the last period of human history. The explanation of the acceleration of progress is thus ultimately based on the endowment of different regions in respect to fertility, location, and the facilities offered to contact. It may also be noted that the further trend of events in Europe and Asia is made comprehensible by this principle of the shifting of the centre of greatest fertility on the one hand and by the imperfect realization of the organic type of society on the other. In India and in China there have been forces working contrary to the full development of the organic type of organization in the shape of devotion, largely on religious grounds, to various forms of a segmentary division of society, and this may prove to be one of the chief reasons why in Eastern Asia we seem to be faced with a backwater out of the main stream of progress.

Further, as tradition became more complex, small differences in the environment often gave a favourable or unfavourable turn to the development of skill. Thus after the invention of writing countries were greatly favoured that possessed suitable 447writing materials. In China writing, owing to the cumbersome form which it has taken, has never been of more than a very restricted usefulness. It has been suggested that the differences between the clarity of Greek thought and the vagueness of Indian speculation are in part due to the greater use made of writing in the former country.^[1678]

9. Thus in general if we survey the outstanding facts we find that explanations based on the influence of the environment in stimulating progress in skill suggest themselves. Racial differences do exist and play a part. We may gain some idea what this part is if we now turn to consider the nature of these differences, and we may first pay attention to the larger differences such as those which distinguish the negro from the European. These differences, it must be emphasized, are only large relative to the differences which exist between European races. Relative to the difference between the ancestor in the intermediate stage and modern man they are almost negligible.

Some analysis has been made of the differences between negroes and white men and with regard to these differences we may observe two things. In the first place they can only in part account for the differences in performance. Before coming into contact with Europeans, negroes had not passed beyond the stage of primitive thought; but it is evident that they are not innately incapable of so doing. The results of educating the negro have been to narrow the conception of the gap which separates him from the white man. Just as D’Alembert and Diderot would not believe that the Russians could be civilized up to the European standard, so a later generation believed that the negroes could not be so civilized; but ‘negroes are now indisputably the equals of white men in categories in which one hundred years ago their masters would have confidently argued that they were naturally incapable of attaining equality’.^[1679] Nevertheless there are differences; the negro is intellectually on the average somewhat inferior, and certainly possesses somewhat different emotional and temperamental characteristics.

In the second place from the end of the first period to the present day the evolution of mental characters shows little correspondence to the evolution of skill. Whereas progress in 448skill has been vastly accelerated, progress in the evolution of mental characters has slowed down and may within the third period have almost ceased. Selection within this last period has, it may be remembered, come largely to be on account of disease.

The nature, therefore, of racial differences and the trend of evolution of mental characters tend to confirm the conclusion derived from a study of the influence of fertility and of contact—namely, that the outstanding events are to be traced to environmental rather than to germinal changes. But germinal changes are not negligible. We have seen how these circumstances which favoured progress in skill in the earlier part of the third period also favoured mental evolution in just those directions in which the white race is superior. Germinal changes may thus be regarded as contributing to the progress which occurred at this time; evolution in the direction of self-assertion and other qualities, which characterize the white races, must have accelerated the cultural changes already in progress. When Mr. McDougall says that ‘in so far as differences of cultural level are associated with differences of level of innate intellectual and moral qualities, cultural superiority must be regarded as the effect, rather than the cause, of innate mental superiority’,^[1680] the above considerations suggest another view. It would appear more probable that cultural changes and germinal changes went hand in hand, and that they were both products of the same environment; no doubt one kind of change reacted on the other, but there seems as little reason for holding that the former were the effect of the latter as for holding that the opposite was the case. Mr. McDougall’s view meets with considerable difficulties when we extend our inquiry to the events within the third period. He attributes the cultural level of the early civilizations to previous mental evolution, but as he thinks that there has been no appreciable evolution since that time, the events of the last five thousand years including the continued progress in skill must be otherwise accounted for. It is surely more probable that this series of events beginning with the rise to the early civilizations and continuing to the present day is in the main based upon one determining cause. This we have found reason to identify with the influence of fertility and contact upon the development of tradition; to germinal change we attribute in the earlier epochs 449no little influence but an influence which is contributory—supplementing for a time the process which continued when germinal change had largely ceased. So far as we find this conclusion to be supported by further inquiry, so far it is correct to say that races with the innate mentality of the negroes would not by themselves have reached the position attained by the white races, though it is not true that the white races progressed directly because of their superior innate mental endowment.

10. We may now inquire into the importance of the lesser racial differences. There are usually recognized in Europe three chief racial types—Nordic, Mediterranean, and Alpine. If innate mental differences exist, we should expect to find associated with each type certain peculiar traditional features; for, as we have seen, innate racial peculiarities tend to set the current of tradition flowing in certain directions, and the association of different institutions and beliefs with particular racial types would suggest that innate mental differences are making themselves felt, though, before this conclusion can be accepted, it must be shown that the play of environmental factors upon tradition has been fairly uniform for all these types. A considerable amount of evidence can be accumulated to show that such association exists. Thus the Nordic peoples are mostly Protestant and the Alpine and Mediterranean peoples mostly Catholic or Greek Church. The fact that during the Reformation a choice was set before most European nations as to what religion should be adopted—the issue hanging in the balance for some time in many places—seems to indicate that the conditions were more or less equalized and that the adoption of the Protestant religion by the Nordic type was influenced by certain innate characters attaching to this type—self-assertiveness and love of independence, for instance.^[1681] The South Germans, who are of the Alpine race, remained Catholic, while in the Netherlands the Nordic Dutchmen became Protestant. Similarly there is a certain correspondence in Europe between the distribution of types of political institutions and that of racial types, and much other relevant evidence could be brought forward. We have seen how sharply negroes are distinguished from Europeans in emotional disposition; similar differences, though on a much smaller scale, are visible as between European races. It can hardly be doubted that the Irish and the 450Scotch differ from the English in disposition and—though this is more doubtful—there may be intellectual differences. There may be some slight difference between the English and the French intellect; it is hardly likely that the French passion for logic and the English aversion to it are altogether traditional characteristics. It would, therefore, appear that there are innate mental differences between European races which tend not so much to thrust races along certain paths as in the course of generations to colour tradition and even at crises in national life, when a choice is presented, to determine which path shall be taken. These differences may be explained—though it is a somewhat speculative enterprise—by supposing that the ancestors of the various racial types were exposed to different surroundings—the ancestors of the Alpine race to patriarchal institutions, of the Nordic race to more individualistic institutions—and that thus subservient and assertive types were respectively favoured.^[1682]

The influence, however, of innate racial differences between races so closely related as those of modern Europe must not be overrated. It is possible to point to many examples of the fact that the distribution of institutions, customs, and so on does not always correspond to that of racial types. In Belgium, to take only one instance, the Walloons are of Alpine stock, that is to say, they are racially similar to the great majority of Germans. But the Walloons are distinctly French in character and sympathy, whereas the Flemings—the other element in the Belgian population—are Nordic and are in certain respects more allied to the Germans with whom racially they have little in common. Either in such a case innate racial differences do not exist of the kind suggested, or, as is more probable, they exist but have been obscured by tradition. That tradition is the predominant factor in shaping those characteristics, of which we think when we have any nation in mind, can be seen when we look at two examples of race formation in modern times. Those characteristics which we find to be distinctive of the Boer race, for instance, can be traced to the peculiar turn given by the environment to the peculiar tradition—remarkable both in its religious and social aspects—brought by the first settlers. The racial elements represented among the Boers of to-day are well known—Dutch for the most part with some admixture of French and English blood. 451But it is not to this peculiar germinal constitution but to the motherhood of the South African veldt acting upon a peculiar tradition that what is distinctively Boer is to be attributed. So, too, there are no mental characteristics as manifested so definite as those which are associated with Americans. But it is impossible to think that they are the product of the influence of the various racial stocks which have gone to make the modern American population. Clearly enough these characteristics are almost wholly traditional, and it can without much difficulty be shown how the peculiar geographical, social, and political environment has given rise to them.

Can we further understand how these distinctive accumulations of tradition are maintained? Let us remember that a man requires not only a home in the usual sense of a roof over his head, but what we may call a home in the world of tradition, and that just as most men find a dwelling-place in the country in which they are born, so most men at the same time find a home in the world of tradition in the same country. Now in any area, where men have for a longer or shorter time acted together, there has been evolved a certain tradition under the influence of those elements in the surroundings enumerated above. If another group of men has been associated together in a very similar area, the tradition there elaborated will show a likeness to that in the former area. But there may be considerable differences. Small differences in the aggregate of influences sometimes have far-reaching effects, and again what we regard in our ignorance as ‘chance’ happenings may have, as we shall point out later, profound consequences. Small differences and apparently unimportant happenings give turns and twists to the direction in which tradition is built up, and the individual differences between one tradition and another become exaggerated by the tendency of tradition to move in grooves. The peculiarities of a tradition become embodied in the sum of all the institutions—using that term in the widest sense—characteristic of a race and, as each man passes under the influence of those traditions, so these peculiarities are maintained. As often pointed out language is of less importance than might be supposed. A common language does not imply a common tradition, and on the other hand a diversity in language does not imply a diversity in tradition. Institutions of another kind are of more importance. It is institutions like 452the public schools of England which embody the distinctive elements in social tradition. The case of the Jews is especially noteworthy. There is no common language, no Jewish state, but one thing a Jew has in common with other Jews—his religion. Round the Jewish religion centres all that is distinctively Jewish, and the clinging of the Jew to his religion has resulted in the maintenance of a Jewish race amidst all the strange vicissitudes to which the Jews have been subject. ‘Qu’est-ce qui a conservé le Juif à travers les siècles et l’empêché de disparaître au milieu des nations? C’est sa religion.... Or ces rites protecteurs, cette cuirasse ou cette carapace d’observances qui l’a défendu durant deux mille ans, et que rien ne pouvait transpercer, notre esprit occidental l’a entamée.... Si le judaïsme, débilité, venait à se décomposer et à se dissoudre, qu’adviendrait-il du Juif? Fermé et sauvegardé par sa religion, le Juif ne risquait-il point de s’évanouir avec le judaïsme?’^[1683]

Again, it has been pointed out that men have often achieved fame as contributors to the civilization or literature of countries other than that to which they by race belonged. It has been said that no one could have been more French than the English Hamilton, the Swiss Rousseau, the Italian de Maistre, the German Heine, or the mulatto Dumas. Great contributions to the building up of what is typically British have been made by men who were not of British blood though of course distinguished British patriots. A string of names from Simon de Montfort to Disraeli can be quoted. On the other hand, ‘natives of the British Isles have helped to create the armies and fleets, and to build up the politics of most European States. In the eighteenth century you might have found an Irishman directing as Prime Minister the fortunes of Spain, and another those of Naples, a third commanding the forces of Austria, and a fourth seeking to rebuild the French dominions in India. Scots as a rule restricted their attention to Protestant countries, but John Law in the early years of that century did wonderful things with French finance. The right-hand man of Frederick the Great was a Scot, and Scots took more than their share in the making of Russia—an article of almost exclusively foreign manufacture. Peter the Great himself had a mother of Scottish birth, and the fact made all the difference between him and his imbecile half-brothers. Napoleon 453himself was not a Frenchman by birth; one of his marshals, an Italian, became king of Sweden, and founded the present Swedish line of monarchs.’^[1684]

This reference to the nature of minor racial differences thus tends to confirm what was said above. Germinal differences are not to be disregarded, but we must reject such theories as those of Gobineau and Houston Chamberlain, who see in race the primary explanation of all national achievement. Mommsen poured scorn upon the Celts and Vacher de Lapouge attributed most of the misfortunes of France to the brachycephalic element in the population.^[1685] But we are now sceptical of any such facile explanations of the course of history.

11. We can now come rather closer to the problem if we go on to examine certain instances of germinal change that we know to have taken place, and ask what effect is to be attributed to them and to such traditional changes as have accompanied them.

Again and again in the course of history certain stocks have been exterminated. This was apparently the fate of the Neanderthal race, and in modern times was the fate of the Tasmanians. But though in this manner the average germinal constitution of the whole species has been altered, and as a rule raised, there has been little or nothing in such events working towards the further evolution of the remaining stocks.

Intermingling of different racial stocks has been of frequent occurrence.^[1686] As we have seen, if the differences are large, vigour may be exhibited in the first cross but will soon disappear; unfavourable combinations of characters on the other hand are likely to arise, and the mulatto thus tends to be a genetically undesirable type. Nevertheless, the undesirable character of the mulatto is in large part traditional. The mulatto is neither of one race nor the other and he knows it. He is an outcast. There is no tradition which he naturally absorbs. He neither grows up with the pride of the white man nor with the feeling of community with his coloured relatives, whose position with regard to other races is generally accepted as something inevitable. In the world of tradition there is no home for him. There are no channels which enable his capacities, such as they are, to develop in a favourable manner, and we have thus to give greater weight 454to tradition than to an unfavourable germinal constitution in producing the results which we see.

When the differences are less, there is again the advantage of hybrid vigour, though this again is transitory. More important is the chance of a favourable re-combination of characters. Many interesting speculations have been made, though they are all very fanciful, with regard to the fortunate blendings which have produced some races, the bringing together of practical capacities and imagination and the like. In general we may regard such crossing as genetically favourable and of considerable importance in history. Its frequent occurrence in Europe and Asia has probably favoured those regions as compared with India, where racial differences have perhaps been too great, and China, where they have perhaps been too small.

Nevertheless, it is probable that too great an effect has been attributed to the genetic results of crossing. When we come to consider traditional changes, we shall see how potent a factor is the contact of traditions which accompanies the intermingling of stocks and to which the greater part of the results observed have to be in all probability attributed.

It has been noticed that to an increasing extent from the first period onwards the selection of mental characters comes largely to be determined by tradition. The trend of tradition sets in a peculiar direction; tradition develops in a groove and the peculiarities tend to become exaggerated. Men are favoured in so far as they are innately adapted to the chief features of the tradition. In an oligarchic society like that of ancient Peru the naturally servile man fares better than the self-assertive man; among the warlike tribes of North America the servile man goes under. It may be argued that so distinctive a religion as the Mohammedan would only gain ascendancy where the average innate mental faculties were of a peculiar kind; however that may be, it is clear that once having gained ascendancy this peculiar tradition would favour a certain mental type and discourage others. Thus again we see the tendency of germinal change to reinforce the trend of traditional change rather than to determine traditional change.

We also saw that under a segmentary organization of society the tendency was towards the preservation of a certain type of mental constitution adapted to the peculiar tradition. Departures 455from the favoured type in any direction are cut off. When organic organization supersedes segmentary organization the whole position changes. It is no longer necessary that a peculiar tradition should be strictly maintained demanding a certain type of mental organization. There is favoured a tradition allowing of the fullest division of labour which not only permits but even encourages various types of innate mental capacity. Various forms of intellectual and emotional capacity thus find a place which would otherwise have gone under. But there are two sides to the picture; though artists and philosophers may survive, even if they do not exactly flourish, the feeble-minded survive also.

12. The selection of mental characters within the third period demands further attention. We have commented upon the incompatibility between group selection and the selection of individuals in the earlier periods. Favourable individual developments may not survive because they are not in harmony with the type necessary to maintain the group. Group selection was active in the earlier part of the third period, and resulted in the evolution of higher types. Later group selection took rather a different form, but though it allowed the survival of variations from the favoured type, it did not altogether cease. There was, however, apparently little tendency towards further evolution of groups as a whole; but germinal changes took place according as to whether circumstances allowed the survival of more departures in an upward or in a downward direction. We may glance at the results of lethal and of reproductive selection. The average germinal constitution of a race may be profoundly changed by the operation of factors that we may place under the heading of lethal factors, though they do not always operate by elimination. In a civilized country with its complicated machinery of social organization, the government may adopt a policy which greatly favours certain types and discourages others; apparently chance happenings may so turn the course of events as to produce the same results. Thus the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes drove out of France men who undoubtedly differed in their innate mental constitution from the average; so too did the setting up of the Inquisition in Spain. The bad management of the liberal movement in Germany in 1848 resulted in the setting up of a régime as a result of which a certain type of German, to whom 456the régime was uncongenial, tended to emigrate. The Bolshevist régime obviously favours a peculiar mentality. From such instances it is clear that the average germinal constitution may be changed in very different directions in neighbouring countries with great suddenness. But in seeking the explanation of what follows in these cases, it is clear that germinal change is following traditional change; it may accelerate traditional change, but it is only a contributory cause of the historical movement that we observe. The lack of enterprise that has marked the Spanish people during the last three hundred years was not caused by germinal change but by traditional change which moulded the outlook and disposition of the people; germinal change doubtless followed in the same direction and contributed to the present position. The true importance of germinal change is not, as some authors would have it, that it sets movements in progress among civilized nations, but that it exaggerates the tendencies of traditional change, and renders it difficult for nations to get out of the grooves into which they have moved.

Just as germinal change may set in different directions owing to lethal selection, so it may do owing to reproductive selection. In the religious celibates of the Middle Ages we have probably to recognize a distinct mental type, though how far a more valuable type than the average it is impossible to say. Some of their peculiar qualities were doubtless valuable, but they presumably lacked other valuable qualities, since they were disinclined to face the difficulties of the normal social life of their time. Even if it is held that their peculiar qualities were on the whole distinctly valuable, we have, before a final judgement is passed as to the effects of celibacy, to remember that it may have had a beneficial influence on tradition. An authority upon the Middle Ages has said that ‘It is more than probable that any real familiarity with the early Middle Ages will lead an unprejudiced student to the belief that the celibacy of the clergy was at that time essential to the setting apart of the clerical order, to the purification of the Church, and to its influence upon the world, that clerical celibacy was in fact a necessary stage in the spiritualization of European society’.^[1687]

Reproductive selection chiefly arises because certain classes make greater contributions to the following generation than other 457classes.^[1688] Generally speaking, throughout the Middle Ages, so far as is known, the so-called upper classes contributed more to succeeding generations than the so-called lower classes. The position is now reversed, and it would appear that in the later days of Greece and Rome also the upper classes contributed less to the population than the lower classes. It is possible that the same may have been the case in other ancient empires. The utmost importance has been attributed to the influence of this form of differential fertility upon the course of history. Mr. McDougall, for instance, writes as follows: ‘Looking at the course of history widely, we may see in the differentiation of the social classes by the social ladder and in the tendency of the upper strata to fail to reproduce themselves, an explanation of the cyclic course of civilization.’^[1689] Clearly a careful inquiry into this subject is needed. There are certain points to which attention may be at once drawn, but we shall not be able to reach any definite conclusion until we have examined farther into the nature of the modifications produced by differences in tradition between the different classes.

Here we may observe that it is altogether misleading to speak, as Mr. McDougall does, of the lower classes as being ‘drained’ by the operation of the social ladder, even in England at the present day where the chance of rising is as great, if not greater, than it has ever been before. A very limited number can and do rise. The ladder is not only steep and difficult to climb; it is also narrow and does not permit of many upon it at the same time. Further, so great is the prestige of class that very few of the descendants of those who have climbed ever sink back, and yet among them the regression to the mean is always in operation. In other words, supposing that the ancestors of those composing the upper social classes to have been distinguished by desirable mental qualities, their descendants, to whose disappearance so much is attributed, are not distinguished by a similar superiority to the average.

Granting for the moment all that has ever been claimed regarding the superiority of those who climb, the above considerations modify the importance to be attributed to differential fertility. It may further be noticed that, although Mr. McDougall 458and others speak of differential fertility as the origin of the cyclical course of civilization, what they in fact attribute to this cause are the periods of decline. Other causes are sought for to account for the equally remarkable periods of advance. Mr. McDougall, for instance, attributes the rise of Greek civilization to a ‘happy blending’ of two races.^[1690] It may be said, on the other hand, that the facts point strongly to the conclusion that both the ‘ups’ and the ‘downs’ are part of the same phenomenon. The ‘ups’ are as remarkable as the ‘downs’; one process seems just the reverse of the other. No one proposes to explain the ‘ups’ as due to the favourable results of differential fertility, and before we can accept unfavourable differential fertility as the chief cause of the ‘downs’ we may ask if the fundamental cause of both processes is not of another kind. If we should find this to be the case, it of course by no means implies that germinal change does not play a contributory part.

13. The greater part of the discussion in this chapter has been devoted to an attempt to estimate the importance of germinal differences and of germinal changes; it is clear that in order to arrive at more definite conclusions we have to consider in rather more detail traditional differences and traditional changes. The influence of the direct effect of the environment must not be forgotten, as it frequently enters as a contributory factor into the moulding of the course of history. It may conveniently be considered here.

Temperament is a characteristic of great importance. Just as among men around us temperament is seen to influence each man’s achievement, and largely to determine failure or success, so racial temperament is important in determining racial achievement. This characteristic is peculiarly sensitive to the direct effect of the environment, and it may very well be that changes in diet and so on may have influenced the course of history through their bearing upon temperament. At the present day the urban conditions under which so large a percentage of the members of western nations live—smoke, noise, vibration, and so on—may have a bearing upon temperament and so upon achievement.

Such considerations are somewhat speculative. More clear are the results of disease upon temperament. It is a remarkable fact 459that disease, which is chiefly noticeable within the third period, upon the whole then takes a lethal form from which the patient either dies or recovers more or less completely. In tropical regions, however, there are a number of diseases of the non-lethal chronic type, such as the hook-worm disease for instance, which affect a large percentage of the population and sap the energy—mental and physical—of those attacked. The prevalence of any such disease must act in an important fashion as a drag upon progress, and the spreading of such a disease into a country previously unaffected may quite conceivably put a stop to progress, and even bring about a condition of decadence. The decline of Greece has been attributed, for instance, to the introduction of malaria. In answering the question, therefore, why certain areas have lagged behind others, we must not forget the influence of chronic disease when it affects a large proportion of the population, and it is a curious fact that in general the working of this factor has been in the same direction as that of other factors which influenced tradition. Where, that is to say, there has been a low degree of fertility in the environment and little stimulus through contact, there also upon the whole the deleterious effect of disease has been most pronounced.

It may further be noticed that the direct effect of the environment has a bearing upon the moulding of tradition. The apathy and listlessness, for example, resulting from the prevalence of a disease like malaria form an element in the environment and give an unfavourable turn to the development of tradition.

14. Something has been said in the last two chapters as to the nature and formation of tradition, and in this chapter as to its influence in determining the main outlines of the course of history in the chief geographical divisions of the world. The part played by tradition may be best further illustrated by a reference to two problems to which allusion has already been made—namely, the cyclical course of civilization and modern differential fertility. When we speak of the cyclical course of civilization we have in mind the alternations of periods exhibiting vigour and energy with periods exhibiting apathy. As within the same culture we see progress along one line and within one atmosphere. At times, more especially when the degree of skill is relatively low, there may be scarcely any progress and the condition is one of stagnation. But under such circumstances any turning back is rare. On the 460other hand, when the degree of skill is relatively high, we sometimes see periods of sudden advance often initiated almost at a definite date, and brought to a climax within a few—perhaps even in one—generations. There often follows a period of stagnation or even of decline. Professor Flinders Petrie has set out in a small book some striking facts regarding this tendency based largely on the history of Egypt. He shows how, taking what is left from various periods of artistic production, this tendency may be illustrated, and it would not be difficult to find many further illustrations in the history of any art in the last few hundred years in Europe, and in a less degree in the history of the various sciences.^[1691] Sir Francis Galton, whose life work has done so much to illuminate the nature and importance of germinal characters, wrote as follows: ‘I have studied the causes of civic prosperity in various directions and from many points of view, and the conclusion at which I have arrived is emphatic, namely, that chief among these causes are a large capacity of labour—mental, bodily, or both—combined with eagerness for work.’^[1692] Now the periods of advance are marked by the exhibition of these characteristics, and we may ask how far they are traditional in nature. Let us take as an example of a period of advance the Renaissance in England. ‘Englishmen of the sixteenth century’, says Sir Sidney Lee, ‘breathed a new atmosphere intellectually and spiritually. They came under a new stimulus, compounded of many elements, each of them new and inspiring. To that stimulus must be attributed the sudden upward growth of distinctive achievement among them, the increase of the opportunities of famous exploits, and the consequent preservation from oblivion of more names of Englishmen than in any other century before. The stimulus under which Englishmen came in the sixteenth century may be summed up in the familiar word Renaissance. The main factor of the European Renaissance, of the New Birth of the intellect, was a passion for extending the limits of human knowledge, and for employing men’s capabilities to new and better advantage than of old. New curiosity was generated in regard to the dimensions of the material world. There was a boundless enthusiasm for the newly discovered art and literature of ancient Greece. Men were fired by a new resolve 461to make the best and not the worst of life upon earth. They were ambitious to cultivate as the highest good the idea of beauty.’^[1693]

Let us look at the other side of the picture when energy is lacking. There was a widely held opinion that the world would end in the year A. D. 1000. All classes shared this opinion and prepared for the end, and it can easily be understood how under these circumstances, whatever the innate capacities may have been, little capacity for labour or eagerness for work would be manifested. Again, in the later days of the Roman Empire there was abroad a spirit of lethargy and apathy. The great Empire was like a clock that had run down; the machinery was all intact, but there was no force to set it in movement. It is said that there was abroad in the minds of men prescience of some coming catastrophe, a feeling that the inevitable end was approaching. If such a mental horizon is contrasted with that set before an Englishman of the sixteenth century or a Greek in the age of Pericles, we can understand how eagerness for work as outwardly manifested is profoundly influenced by tradition.

When our knowledge of the circumstances is sufficiently precise, we can always detect the influence of a powerful stimulus in periods of progress. It often takes the form of a national purpose. ‘A national purpose’, it has been said, ‘is the most unconquerable and victorious of all things upon earth. It can raise up Babylon from the sands of the desert, and make imperial civilizations spring from a score of huts, and after it has wrought its will can leave monuments that seem as everlasting a portion of nature as the rocks.’^[1694] At times the stimulus may arise from an invention of great import, such as the discovery of the use of metals. More often, however, the stimulus takes the form not directly of invention but of friction between different ideas—the coming into the mental horizon not merely of new skilled methods but of strange and foreign ideas of all kinds. Thus contact of cultures is followed by more than the transfer of the elements of one culture to another; it is in itself a stimulus so powerful as to be of the greatest import in history.

In the past when there was little or no contact at a distance, stimuli were most often due to the physical contact of races whose tradition was not too dissimilar. ‘Just as in the mental development 462of the individual a conflict of impressions invites selective attention, so in the spiritual development of society a clash of cultures awakes latent energies of a constructive kind.’^[1695] This fact has led to the error of attributing to war a more direct importance in stimulating energy than there is evidence for.^[1696] Contact usually implied war, but contact is equally effective without war, as can be seen in the example of the Italian Renaissance. The stimulus in this case was largely derived from the rediscovery of the ideals and learning of ancient society, and can only be attributed to war in the far-fetched sense that Greek scholars were disseminated over Europe by the capture of Constantinople. And in more modern times stimulus is often derived from indirect contact in which war plays no part at all—as can be seen often enough in the history of art, in the influence, for example, of Chinese and Japanese art upon European painting.

The effect of a sudden stimulus may be to break down habit, and the importance of habit has been dwelt upon as the characteristic which enables tradition once acquired to be maintained. Such breakings down can be observed in the lives of men and women around us under the influence of sudden stress, and something similar may happen to a nation as a whole. Professor Graham Wallas has, for instance, dwelt upon the importance of the breaking down of habit as accounting for the excesses of the French Revolution.^[1697]

Though a stimulus may always be detected at work during periods of advance, it is by no means always possible to find evidence of favourable germinal change. There is frequently no evidence at all of germinal change at such periods. In the past no doubt contact often implied racial intermingling, and, though in the present state of biological knowledge we are justified in supposing that crosses between two races not too distinct would 463usually have favourable results, there is no sufficient foundation for attributing favourable results to all such intermingling as has been done by some authors—von Luschan, for instance. The conclusion would seem to be that germinal change is never more than a contributory cause of advance, and that traditional change is the whole explanation of some of such periods.

Periods of decline are, as we have seen, sometimes associated with unfavourable traditional changes. Tradition may be of such a nature as to sap rather than to encourage vigour. But directly unfavourable turnings of tradition, such as the belief that the world would come to an end at a certain date, are only occasional causes of decline. There is in the course which the development of tradition takes an almost inevitable tendency for periods of advance to be succeeded by periods of repletion and apathy. What appears to happen so often in the history of art after a time of advance may lead to an understanding of the tendency of events in general. If we watch the flowering of any school of art we reach a period, exemplified in the work of the followers of Raphael for instance, and perhaps, as some would say, in the work of Raphael himself, when the artists appear to be lost in the practice of the technical side of artistic production. The ideal, in order to express which the technique has been called into existence, has been lost. The original stimulus has in fact lost its power, and the means to the expression of the ideal have been mistaken for ends in themselves. The technique becomes a plaything, and, there being nothing to express, art takes the form of variations in technique, and becomes, in a word, conventional. This is what would appear to happen as regards progress in general—due allowance being made in the case of skilled processes for the fact that, since they are designed to achieve practical ends, there is less chance of decadence. But in general we see the fading of the power of the stimulus, the coming of a time of repletion, when men are lost in the mass of what has under the influence of the stimulus been accumulated, and in the case of the arts tend to use the skill achieved as an end in itself. We may trace such a course of events in the history of Greek thought. The course of events may be profoundly modified in a multitude of ways by the appearance of a new stimulus and so on. But we may say that such is the inevitable working of the factors upon the formation of tradition, that periods of stagnation, of repletion, and 464sometimes of decadence tend to occur after periods of sudden advance.

It appears that we should attribute differential fertility, with its possibly serious effect upon the direction of germinal change which marks these periods, rather to the prevalence of apathy than, as Mr. McDougall and others would do, attribute to differential fertility the evidence of decline. For it is the upper classes upon whom the sense of apathy weighs, and it is they who contribute least to future generations. Further, we may remark that decline is not so mysterious a matter as is sometimes suggested. Such complex organizations are vigorous civilizations that, as has been said, ‘the wonderful thing is that they exist at all; what needs explanation is not so much the decay of some, but rather the long persistence of others.’^[1698]

In concluding our reference to this matter, we may notice that in recent times, when the working of tradition is known to us in detail, changes can be traced as due to tradition to which the cyclical changes are similar though of greater magnitude. Attention has been drawn to the moulding of tradition in Germany in a particular direction which so powerfully affected the achievement of that race. These events cannot be explained as due in the main to germinal change, though possibly, as observed, the German régime initiated about 1850 may have resulted in the emigration of a certain type of German, and thus in this way germinal change may have played a minor part. So too England during the Boer War was very different to England at the election of 1906, and the difference which was obviously traditional was enough to affect the achievement of the race. In such examples, which could be multiplied indefinitely, we see how the current of tradition may set in one way or another quite apart from germinal changes, and such changes of current may lead, when they hold good over generations, to periods of advance or of decay.

15. There remains to be discussed the importance of tradition in modern differential fertility. It is first necessary to examine rather more closely than has yet been done the manner in which mental characters as manifested are due to tradition, and then to ask how far the particular traditions, to which the upper and lower classes are respectively subject, account for the mental characteristics manifested by them.

465As pointed out, it is obvious that the direction in which the intellect works and the degree to which it works are very largely determined by tradition. Thought will be in the primitive or common-sense stage according to the nature of tradition. It is not so obvious that the manifestation of the disposition is equally governed by tradition. The negroes are innately placid, good tempered, and un-self-assertive as compared with white men. Yet Americans constantly complain of the ‘sauciness’ and truculence of the negro. These characters are evidently attributable to the surroundings to which the negroes in America are subject; the manner in which they are looked down upon and the irritating minor restrictions to which they are subject evoke in the negroes a reaction which results in their being called ‘saucy’ and truculent. In other words their disposition is so modified by tradition that, as manifested, it belies their innate characteristics. In an earlier chapter reference was made to the subservience of the Egyptian fellah. In the production of this characteristic a centuries-old tradition of oppression plays a large part, though the elimination of the more self-assertive individuals may have produced a low average level of self-assertiveness. If we compare an English public-school boy with an Egyptian fellah in respect to self-assertiveness and self-reliance, those characters as manifested form no guide to the underlying innate differences. Among the former self-reliance is strongly encouraged, among the latter it is inhibited. But if we compare English public-school boys one with another, and Egyptian fellaheen one with another, then the differences disclosed are to some considerable degree a measure of innate differences, because tradition is more or less equalized. Again, let any one observe the attitude of the British private soldier towards our coloured subjects, or for that matter what he can make of the attitude of the latter towards the English soldier, and he will not be in doubt as to the importance of tradition in producing the attitude of command and its opposite—the tendency to submission.

There is no doubt therefore as to the possibility of tradition affecting profoundly the manifestation of all mental characters. When we compare white with black races in their original home, we have to discount the whole tradition. European races, however, have a considerable amount in common, and when we compare them we have less to discount. When classes within the 466same race are compared, there is still less to be discounted; they have both European and racial tradition in common; the differences come in at a higher level. Finally, when we compare individuals in the same class, we have only to discount family and individual differences in tradition. It is therefore clear that we have to gain some idea as to the nature of the differences in tradition to which the classes in England at the present day are subject.

16. We have already remarked upon the curious fact that, although the organization of society on organic lines greatly favoured the transmission of tradition, there have come to be large differences in tradition as between the different component elements of society. This we attribute to the fact that in the first place the different component elements specialize in different kinds of skill; the vastness of the mass of tradition makes it impossible for every man to absorb all of it; so far as skill is concerned, each man absorbs that development of it, the specialization in which characterizes his function in society. This may account for differences as between classes with regard to skill, but why, it may be said, should it account for differences in manners, customs, and mode of life? Whatever functions may be performed by the different elements of society, do not the members of all alike now, in any case, enjoy the same privileges, have they not all homes, have they not access to the same interests apart from their professions? Manners and customs differ, and differ so much that a public-school boy finds himself out of his element as a private in a line regiment, and a university man finds it difficult to establish ordinary human relations with the men he meets in a working men’s club such as he establishes without effort when in company of men of his class.

These differences are attributable to the fact that ownership of property has become a function in society. Further, there has come about the reservation to the property-owning class of certain professions—notably the military and the clerical—which, though they do not afford a high rate of remuneration, do afford, as property-owning affords, ample opportunities for leisure. Property owners as a class have had thus both the time and the means to cultivate the art of living. Some of the results are, as all will admit, of value. Some of the results are harmful; but for the most part cultivation of the art of living results in 467the multiplication of conventions which are neither useful nor harmful, being mere matters of form. The wage-earning class, on the other hand, has neither the time nor the means to elaborate any code of manners. Working long hours for what amounts to little more than a bare subsistence, they could not have evolved such a code of manners nor have they absorbed any considerable part of it. There was no room for it as their lives were lived. Other consequences follow from property-owning. Property-owning is power; in the property-owning class there arises a tradition of self-assertion, a habit of command, whereas in the wage-earning class there arises a tradition of self-abasement and a habit of subservience, traditions and habits so strong as largely to obscure natively given characters. We may note with interest, therefore, that it is on these lines, and not on a theory of germinal differences, that an eminent historian answers the question why military history shows that men of greater age and wider experience will on the field of battle follow to the death a boy of the upper class when they will not follow one of their own class. It may be objected that what has been said scarcely applies to the conditions of the present day and that subservience of the wage-earning class is not very marked at the moment. This is true, but it is a recent change. The reason why the change has come about is surely that the wage-earning class has obtained power and knows it. The change is an illustration of the power of tradition to dominate the outward expression of such important characteristics as assertion or subservience. No one can attribute the difference to germinal change. The wage-earning class has not absorbed the manners and customs of the property-owning class at the same time for a variety of reasons; for one thing they have still little place for such conventions in their lives, and for another thing they tend to regard everything connected with the property-owning class as hostile, while we may also remember that many elements in the upper-class tradition depend for their existence upon the presence of servants.

An insight into the nature of these traditional differences may be gained in rather a different way. Many members of the upper class have attempted to interest themselves in the conditions of life among the less fortunate classes. It is doubtful how far the experience gained in the majority of cases is of value in throwing light upon the problems under consideration. But let any 468unprejudiced person go and live in the working-class quarter of any large town without any object in view other than to experience the conditions. Under such circumstances the conclusions which grow up in his mind will probably be something of the following nature. To all seeming the innate qualities of the boys and girls, in temperament, disposition, and intellect, are very much what they were in the boys and girls he was at school with or formerly associated with himself. The more intimate his acquaintance becomes with the conditions among which these boys and girls grow up, the more striking seem the peculiarities and limitations of the mental horizon outside of which they have little chance of penetrating compared with that which confronts children of his own class. The dullness and drabness, if there is nothing worse, of a home life in two or three rooms, relieved by what excitement can be found in the smaller streets of a large town, or later by picture palaces or an occasional football match, followed by marriage and the struggle to keep up a home under discouraging circumstances—all these features, which are not appreciated in their full weight until they are, as it were, felt by individual experience, seem adequately to explain the differences between the adults of one class and those of another. Any one who has had such an experience will, on the whole, be rather surprised that more sordidness does not exist, than be inclined to summon the hypothesis of innate inferiority to explain the sordidness that does exist.

17. Profound differences in tradition as between the social classes do therefore exist and, as far as we have gone, they might appear to account for all mental differences manifested; they must in any case account for a considerable part of them. But though we could prolong the discussion on the same lines and produce much evidence tending to the same conclusion, we could reach no precise result. We may go on therefore and ask whether there is any evidence of the existence of innate differences between the classes.

Mere observation of the boys and girls of the different classes does not indicate any differences. But mere observation is not enough. The problem may be approached in two ways. We may notice the results of inquiries made regarding the intelligence of children by modern methods, and we may also ask by what characters those who rise to a higher social status are distinguished, 469and further what innate differences may be supposed to underlie these apparent differences. The results of inquiries made to test the relative intelligence of children of parents of different social status are fairly uniform. Bridges and Coles, for example, found as the result of such an investigation that ‘there was very considerable dependence of intelligence upon “sociological conditions”’; they go on to say that ‘when children are classified according to the occupations of their fathers, a striking correlation is shown between intelligence quotient and occupation group. Hence if mental age rather than chronological age were used to determine the time for beginning school, the children of the professional group, for example, would begin school two years earlier than the children of the unskilled labour group; for the former mature intellectually much earlier than the latter.’^[1699] The interpretation of such observations bristles with difficulties. It is not clear what relation earlier maturity bears to adult intelligence. Though the direct effect of the environment is probably negligible, the possibility that tradition may influence the results is certainly not shut out. Indeed, the fact that the correlation is higher for boys than for girls suggests that tradition does come in. Nevertheless, a consideration of these results suggests that the whole explanation cannot be found in tradition and that we have here a sign of some superiority of intelligence in the children of parents of a higher social status. More than that cannot be said.

18. Let us approach the question in another way. Can we discover any characteristics distinctive of those who succeed in modern society, who rise, as it is called, from the ranks of the wage-earning classes, and, if we can, what these characters are and how far we must assume the existence of innate differences to account for them? We may think of the upper social classes in England to-day as falling roughly into three divisions—the professional and the business classes and those whose fathers, grandfathers, or more remote ancestors came into possession of property by one means or another. In the case of a small proportion of the latter class, the position was won under conditions which differ more or less profoundly from these ruling to-day. This section is 470a small section, and we need not further consider it here. A large proportion of the so-called upper classes have attained their position under the conditions which now exist, or their forefathers have attained it under conditions which did not greatly differ from them. What characteristics are they, which, when manifested under these conditions, lead to success?

It has often been assumed that intellect is the chief factor in success. This assumption is not only made in ordinary conversation when a reference to the career of a successful man in any line is almost certain to be followed by the comment that ‘he must be a very clever fellow’ but in serious contributions to the problem. This assumption is certainly wrong. There are many elements in character which contribute more largely to success than the intellectual, such as capacity for work, energy, ambition, desire to dominate, tact, and so on. Furthermore, success in a profession is, to an almost as great an extent as success in business, attributable to such characteristics. Few more remarkable things—remarkable in being in conflict with ideas as commonly preconceived—are learnt from observation and experience than the length to which such characteristics in favourable association can carry a man even in the strictly learned professions where it might be supposed that intellect alone would carry off the prizes. There can be no doubt that those elements in character which are most important as regards success are such as we must attribute to differences in disposition and temperament rather than in intellect so far as we can attribute them at all to innate differences.

This is essentially what we want to know—what innate differences do exist. We have, when trying in the first place to fix upon the outwardly existing characteristics, to remember that tradition may give powerful twists and turns—sometimes of a desirable and sometimes of an undesirable nature—to the simpler characteristics mentioned above, such as ambition. In the business world, for example, the successful man is from many points of view the man who gets his head above the heads of other people, who gets more out of other people than they get out of him. But are we to imagine that there is something in him which impels him so to act with regard to his fellow men, or are we to imagine that the simpler characteristics of ambition and love of power lead to such conduct under the guidance of a particular 471tradition without any definite desire on his part or even perhaps without any clear realization as to what it is precisely that he is doing? The second explanation is that which best fits the facts. It seems clear that, as tradition changes in the course of years, the activities of the energetic ambitious men are led this way and that. At present no doubt to a certain degree they are led in the direction of ‘pushfulness’—by what M. Faguet has called ‘le goût d’arrivisme’. It is always dangerous to read into the activities of men the working of particular innate characteristics. Few things in history perhaps have been as harsh as the conduct of the generation which devised the game laws, and yet these very men did not merely quote the classics with unbounded enthusiasm but were also moved by genuine sympathy and altruism to abolish slavery, the horrors of which were known to them only by report. We should refrain, therefore, from deducing from the activities of the successful men and of the upper classes more than the presence of those simpler characteristics mentioned above as leading to positions of pre-eminence over other men.

These simpler characteristics are in themselves very complex manifestations of many elements, of which tradition is one. But in the case of this particular problem, as we are considering rise from a lower to a higher social status, tradition cannot be held to be the cause of the differences. There are, in fact, unquestionably innate differences in temperament and disposition which underlie the characteristics leading to success, and the temperamental differences which have been curiously neglected are probably the most important and form perhaps half the secret of success. Among the temperamental characteristics leading to success we may note low degree of fatiguability, high power of recuperation, rapidity of response, hopeful nature, vigour, energy, and healthy nervous tone. Among the characteristics of disposition we may note similarly the instincts of self-assertion, of emulation, and of acquisition. The power of forming habits is probably also a considerable aid to success under modern conditions.

What part does intellect play? Judging from the fact that it is certainly an aid to success, though not so powerful a factor as is usually thought, we may conclude that there is some, probably a slight, difference in intellectual capacity between the classes. Intellect, when it accompanies success, is rather more in the nature of an incidentally favourable factor than of a primary 472cause of success. The powerful instinct of self-assertion will make itself felt; its possessor will probably arrive somewhere; a powerful intellect may, in the absence of, or rather with the inadequate development of, other innate qualities, not advance its possessor’s position in the world.

But though considerations based upon a testing of intelligence on the one hand and upon an analysis of qualities leading to success on the other do without question lead to the conclusion that there are differences in innate qualities as between the successful and the unsuccessful, there are grounds for thinking, for the reasons mentioned above, that the differences between the classes are not large. For we must remember that, so far from the lower classes being drained of men of certain qualities, a very small proportion of the men of these classes is ever enabled to set out on the path leading to success in business or in a profession. Also we must not forget, when considering success, the part played by fortunate accidents under complex modern conditions—mere chance happenings which, altering the whole course of a man’s life, may determine whether he is successful or unsuccessful. Again, there is little or no relapse worth speaking of into the lower classes when once a status is gained. Such is the influence of place and status that for the most part, whatever may be the innate qualities, the descendants of men who won their way upwards maintain their position. Therefore the regression to the mean which is always at work must tend to lessen such innate differences as exist between the classes.

19. Lastly, there is a very difficult problem the existence of which must not be forgotten inasmuch as it affects in the most fundamental manner the judgement to be passed on the meaning of these differences. We have to ask what is the value of the differences which exist. Success alone cannot be taken as an indication of the value of the characters exhibited by the successful. There can indeed be no doubt that, other things being equal, a decrease in the average intellect would be an unfortunate thing. Similarly we may regard those temperamental qualities which were indicated as leading to success as on the whole of value. But it cannot be affirmed without more consideration that all temperamental qualities which distinguish the successful are desirable, and more particularly that a further development of the instincts of self-assertion, acquisition, and emulation would be 473desirable under present circumstances; it may even be that we might view a diminution in the average strength of some of the qualities which mark the successful at least with equanimity. The instincts of acquisition and self-assertion were of great value in the past, highly indeed as mankind has paid for the careers of men markedly endowed with these qualities. But, with the present stage of social evolution in Europe in mind, should it not be said that the instinct of acquisition when developed above the average is on the whole harmful, and may it not be that self-assertion is likely to be a source of difficulty in any form of co-operative commonwealth, and to some form of co-operation as replacing or modifying competition we seem to be tending.

We may see this whole problem of value in another light if we ask what it is that we value in the men of our race. Latterly we have had reason to dwell upon the qualities which we feel to characterize the men of our race at their best. Are they not self-respect together with modesty, tenacity together with tenderness? Any one who has served in the ranks of the army is not likely to allow that these qualities are on the whole less developed in the classes from which the ranks of the army are usually filled than in the rest of the nation. In this connexion we should perhaps remember that a sense of comradeship in facing the elemental facts of existence without material wealth may provide an impetus to the expression of these qualities, whereas an absorption in the less immediate necessities of life may militate against their expression. To the degree to which this is so, we should, when trying to estimate the innate capacities in the different classes, make the necessary allowances—in the case of the so-called upper classes for the circumstances adverse to the expression of these qualities and in the case of the so-called lower classes for circumstances which on the whole perhaps favour their expression. However this may be, we feel that these qualities are the most valuable which our race has produced and that upon their preservation and upon greater opportunities for their expression depends our best hope for the future. He would be a bold man, however, who suggested that the possession of these qualities in more than average amount was a characteristic of the successful. The same may be said of good taste, good manners, and of other qualities which, to say the least of them, contribute to the amenities of life.

474It is at least apparent how difficult a problem is the judgement to be passed on the effects of modern differential fertility. There are grounds for thinking that those who see in differential fertility the cause of the cyclical course of civilization both over-estimate the results and neglect certain aspects of the changes involved. Differential fertility is not a factor to be disregarded; the results which it is now producing demand the most careful investigation. Nevertheless, so far as our knowledge extends, we should view it rather as the result than as the cause of the cyclical course of history—the course which historical changes take being due primarily to changes in tradition. This conclusion is in harmony with all that has been said in this chapter as to the relative importance of change in tradition and of change in the germinal constitution. From the first period in history changes in tradition have come to override changes in the germinal constitution; the latter form of change is far from being negligible, but it is a contributory rather than a fundamental cause of the events of history.

475