1

prove that crime and insanity are closely connected.' The number of criminals whose ancestors have given signs of insanity is very great. Verger, the assassin of the Archbishop of Paris, was of this number. His mother and one of his brothers perished, prior to his crime, the victims of suicidal mania.

Dr. Bruce Thompson, in his recent work on The Hereditary Nature of Crime, adopts this conclusion, and supports it by figures. Of 5,432 prisoners, he found 673 whose mental state appeared to him to be unsound, though, according to the general opinion, they were not subjects for a lunatic asylum. Out of 904 convicts in prison at Perth, 440 were recommitted, thus showing the fatal power of the passions. In a house of detention there were 109 prisoners belonging to only 50 families; among them were eight members of one family, and several families were represented by two or three members.

It is beyond our purpose to inquire to what extent passion shares in the fatal character of insanity, or to ascertain the practical consequences of this. The argument simply shows that (1) passions which are inexplicable, so long as they are studied in the isolated individual, find their explanation so soon as we have studied them in their metamorphoses through generations, and brought them under the great law of heredity; (2) that passion is so near insanity that the two forms of heredity are really one: so that the preceding section is, as it were, a chapter, detached and in advance, on morbid heredity.

CHAPTER VII.

HEREDITY OF THE WILL.

I.

THE title given to this chapter is hardly exact, and is only selected for want of a better. Yet it seems to us that in the statesmen and great soldiers of whom we are about to speak, the will must be regarded as the dominant faculty. They must, no

1 Despine, Psychologie Naturelle, ii. 983.

doubt, furthermore, possess a broad and penetrating intellect, passion to rouse men and enforce obedience; but their distinguishing characteristic is action, and that strong, bold nature which commands. It is only through the will one man gains an irresistible influence over others. A lofty intellect excites admiration, but it is only a strong will that demands obedience.

The word 'will' is here used, of course, in its ordinary sense, and as commonly employed. We lay aside for the moment all those philosophical discussions about free-will and its relations to heredity,1 and here consider the will only as the active faculty, without inquiring whether the tendency to action be the result of individual inclination, of a fixed idea, or of an invincible passion.

The ancient moralists distinguished three kinds of life, according as pleasure, action, or contemplation was looked on as the end of man; they thought that a choice must be made between the three. They all, or nearly all, agreed in placing the life of pleasure in the lowest rank; but they long discussed the question whether the active life or the contemplative were preferable. This discussion is infinite, for every man decides according to his tastes, his temperament, and his habits. Men of action and men of thought contribute, each in his own way, to the common weal—the former sway the present, the latter prepare the future. The distinction, however, which lies at the base of this discussion is founded on a true observation of human nature. Except the mere sensualist, every man, from the highest to the lowest, is either active or contemplative: every one is a Cæsar or a Plato, as far as his intellect will allow. He who in some obscure village, in some remote land, takes trouble to conduct some small business, is akin to those who govern great states, or who win great battles. He who prefers leisure, who loves to dream and meditate, who aspires to some rude education as his ideal, is akin to great thinkers and great poets. The more closely we study men, the better we see that they may be brought under these two categories. Even where the contrast is not striking, it still exists, and we detect it when we observe more deeply. The keener the mind, the more men of originality will it discover.'

1 See Part Second, ch. iii.

We have already seen that the contemplative faculties-imagination and simple intellect-are transmissible by heredity. History must answer whether it is the same with the active faculties. However, we must first consider what is meant by active faculties.

So far, we have employed a method of analysis, which, though really artificial, was necessary and sufficiently exact. We have been enabled to examine instinct, perception, imagination, memory, intellect, sentiments, and have inquired whether each of these modes of mental life, taken separately, is hereditary. In the present instance, the analytical method is impossible. With the statesman, the soldier, and, generally, with those who are called men of action, the play of the various faculties must be simultaneous. Their processes are essentially synthetic. In them, the work of each faculty counts only in so far as it concurs in the general result; the aim to which all means are subordinate. In the statesman, moreover, the mental activity must be exerted in every direction. M. Guizot somewhere observes that public life is 'the highest occupation of man's faculties.' If we reflect on the conditions it demands, and the faculties it requires, we may, perhaps, agree with him. The great advantage of public life is that it develops simultaneously our various faculties, and that it is, as has been said, of a synthetic nature. A thinker, a man of science, may isolate himself in the highest regions of intellect, but may be without sentiment, and unsuited for action. An artist may, by his imagination, be enchanted with the most delightful dreams, and yet know nothing of the real world. For politics, on the other hand, is required an intellect capable of grasping at once the universal and the particular, the abstract and the concrete. Is a statesman incapable of generalization ?—he can have no broad views, and is the slave of routine. He cannot, moreover, like the man of science, content himself with general results: he must decide particular and definite cases; hence he must be able to grasp at once the whole, and its details. Furthermore, his reflections must of necessity result in acts. He is no speculative theorizer: for him theory is but a means, action alone is his end. Hence he is characterized by a strong power of will, always exercised, as also by the qualities which this implies; viz. boldness, courage, self-confidence, and mastery over the timid and irresolute

Thus, a talent for observation at once minute, broad, and rapid; a ready and faithful memory, recalling with exactitude and without hesitation the results of theory; a great presence of mind, not to be disconcerted by unforeseen circumstances; an energetic will; and, as a basis, physical strength, and certain bodily qualities -such are the faculties which must be combined, and act simultaneously, with the rapidity and certainty of instinct.

History shows that this sum of qualities is transmissible, as a whole or in part-for it sometimes happens that the original combination is broken up in passing to the descendants, who can collect but fragments (as Pitt and his grand-daughter). Like every other faculty, strength of will may be hereditary. This was observed by Voltaire with regard to the Guises. The physical, which is "father of the moral," transmits the same character from father to son for ages. The Appii were ever proud and inflexible; the Catos always austere. The whole line of the Guises was bold, rash, factious, full of the most insolent pride, and of the most winning politeness. From François de Guise down to that one who, all alone, and unexpectedly, put himself at the head of the people of Naples, they were all-in look, courage, and characterabove ordinary men. I have seen full-length portraits of François de Guise, of Balafré and his son: they were all six feet high, and they all possess the same features—there is the same courage, the same audacity on the brow, in the eyes, and in the attitude." We know not how the will is thus transmitted; but when we see that its energy and its weakness are connected with certain states of the organism, and that physical strength commonly renders men bold and courageous, while physical weakness makes them timid, we can scarcely doubt that this transmission takes place by means of the organs, and that it is, in fact, physiological.2

Not to dwell on this point, we now proceed to note the most important cases of the heredity of the active faculties, quoting historical facts. These fall naturally under the two categories of statesmen and soldiers, though many men have been both. Here

1 Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, Art. 'Caton.'

2 Concerning the will as groundwork of the personality and character, see Part Fourth, ch. iii.

H

we must guard against the error of taking high official position as a proof of personal merit. In letters, science, or art, where every one is judged directly by his works, this illusion is impossible. In political life, the fame of ancestors, alliances, and power previously acquired, count for much, and sometimes supply the lack of all else. To avoid the danger of confounding an external and conventional heredity with that which is internal and natural, we cite none but the most indisputable cases.

II. STATESMEN.

ADAMS, John (1785, 1826), second President of the United States; His son, John Quincey, sixth President of the United States; His grandson, Charles Francis, American Minister to England, author of a Life of John Adams.

ANTONIA (the Gens Antonia) reckoned among its most distinguished members Marcus Antonius, the orator, Marcus Antonius, the critic, and Mark Antony, the rival of Cæsar. ARTEVELD, Jacques, the famous brewer of Flanders;

His son, Philippe, who continued his father's political work. BENTINCK, William, Duke of Portland, Prime Minister of England, 1783, 1784, and 1807-1810;

His son, Henry, Governor-General of India; he introduced there the freedom of the press and abolished Suttee;

His grandson, member of Parliament, eminent financier, and a leading statesman.

CÆSAR. He might equally have been ranked among the soldiers, but is placed here on account of his family;

His mother, Aurelia, seems to have been no ordinary woman. His daughter, Julia, who married Pompey and died prematurely, was remarkable for her wit and beauty. Historians have observed the transmission of certain hereditary characters in the family of the Cæsars. There existed in all the Cæsars,' says J.-J. Ampère, 'a morbid principle. The first was epileptic; his nephew (the Emperor Augustus) was a life-long valetudinarian; an acrid humour disfigured the countenance of Tiberius; Caligula was extraordinarily pale, slept little, and was constantly delirious; Claudius was physically inclined to imbecility; Nero gave unequivocal indications of insanity ; Tiberius, adopted stepson of Augustus, 'had fine and noble