And while some of these environments are objectionable they are probably much less abnormal than those artifically created for biological experiments. At any rate the degree of influence of inferior human environments would still need be demonstrated.

One of the most serious attempts to prove the importance of the environment was made by Lester F. Ward, who based his conclusions primarily on the material compiled by Odin in his study of the origin of great men, though the researches of Jacobi, De Candolle, and others, were also drawn upon. Ward does not deny inherited differences in men nor the importance of talent, for he admits that without talent men cannot rise to high eminence; but he maintains that the proportionate amount of native ability is approximately the same for all classes, and, for that matter, for all districts and races. The upper classes develop more genius simply because of their superior opportunities. Therefore, inasmuch as genius is a fixed quantity which cannot be affected by artificial devices, and inasmuch as the environment is variable, it is the duty of society to concentrate upon the improvement of the environment, and thus develop latent talent by giving all persons of native ability the best possible opportunity. If this theory is correct, then approximately equal weight should be ascribed to heredity and to environment, for, while talent is a prerequisite necessary for eminence, an unfavorable environment is strong enough to repress talent. In contrast to Ward's theory, Galton believed that a man who possessed great intellectual ability could not be suppressed. If Galton's idea is correct, then environment is not sufficiently strong to suppress talent and should be given less weight in the production of ability.

The validity of Ward's theory depends upon the existence of a proportion of ability in the lower classes similar to that in the higher, a proposition which perhaps can neither be proved nor disproved. The basis for some of his inferences may, however, be examined. Ward first emphasizes the fact that the proletariat class is gradually working upwards from a long period of slavery; that, moreover, this class never fell to its

lowly position because of innate inferiority but through conquest; therefore there is no reason to infer its inferiority now just because of its present position. Discussion would probably be profitless on the question of whether, on the average, the conquered were the equals in ability and energy of the conquerors. The period of conquest is too far distant to extend its influence over the present epoch. More pertinent would be a consideration of the probable effect of social selection under a class system. Since the abolition of slavery it has been possible certainly for individuals of superior ability in the lowest class to work up to higher social levels; and this movement, difficult at first, has grown easier as classes have grown more mobile with the spread of democracy. The result is that the lowest class has tended to lose its talent to the middle class, and no subordinate class exists from which to recruit more. On the other hand inferior persons of the middle class have in the long run tended to sift down to the lowest class, and this class retains also its own inferiors. As a result of this double movement the proletariat would contain a smaller proportion of the talented, and a much larger proportion of inferiors than the upper classes.

In support of Ward's line of argument, however, would be the general agreement that the present stratification of classes is no accurate reflection of differences in ability, and that the proletarian class deserves more training than it receives.

A second argument brought out by Ward from Odin's study contains a fallacy similar to that in the first argument, that is, that native ability is approximately the same in all districts. He shows that centers of population produce a much larger number of persons who achieve a high reputation than do outlying districts. And he argues that, inasmuch as centers of population are also centers of education and culture, the ability produced is the result of superior opportunity. This reasoning, however, ignores the facts of migration. Centers of culture have long been attracting the more able intellects from outlying districts; and their offspring, with their heritage of intellectual ability, increase the proportionate numbers of the highly endowed in the centers of culture. In the United States it is a

well-recognized fact among rural sociologists that seemingly degenerate conditions in rural districts are often the result of a draining of a locality of young people of ability and power of leadership. It would be absurd therefore to suppose that the same proportion of ability still remains in these outlying districts awaiting development as is to be found in cities which act as points of attraction.

Finally Ward points out that a considerable number of men of genius have risen from the lower social levels and therefore talent must exist on those levels. This fact is incontestable; but, instead of accepting it as a proof that talent exists in all classes and races in similar proportions, it would be quite as logical to conclude that if other geniuses existed in any large number in the lower ranks they also would make themselves known. The logic of the situation would seem to be that, inasmuch as geniuses sometimes rise from the lower ranks, then adverse environment is not strong enough to keep them down. In fact, it is reasonable to suppose that in democratic countries environmental conditions are not so bad that superior ability is in ny large degree suppressed. If an able man among the wage earners could not find opportunity for complete development himself, it seems probable that he could at least improve his position sufficiently to give his children means of training. In this way even if individual talent were partly lost, a line of talent would not be wholly suppressed.

Achille Loria 1 is another able sociologist who emphatically asserts that economic classes afford no measure of social worth. He confines his arguments chiefly to the possessors of large fortunes and maintains that the wealthy have not attained their superior status through the exercise of exceptional talent, but rather through chance, or special privilege, or by the use of corrupt and fraudulent practices. Loria maintains, furthermore, that the children of the wealthy show no evidence of having inherited superior ability; and that this fact confirms the original contention that their fathers did not possess it. The reader is forced to agree in a measure with Loria's argument concerning

1 The Psycho-physical Élite and the Economic Elite. International Eugenics Congress, ...

the origin of great fortunes. In fact one would find himself in a very difficult position if he tried to prove any precise correspondence between possession, or income, and ability. Nevertheless one feels that Loria has been unduly impressed with exceptional cases and without sufficient reason has applied the conditions of the very wealthy to all social gradations. Even if his contention concerning the very rich were true, he is still a long way from proving that the lowest class contains as much native ability as the classes above it.

A significant study on this subject was made recently by Alfredo Niceforo," who measured various physical, psychological, and demographic characteristics of representatives of the upper and lower social classes. His comparisons showed that the inferior classes had a lesser development of figure and of cranial circumference, and had inferior sensibility and lower resistance to mental fatigue; that their rate of growth was slower and that they possessed a larger number of anomalies; that their birth and death rates were higher and that certain causes of death were particularly frequent; that they contracted marriage at an earlier age, and showed a predilection for certain forms of crime. Although the average of the characters studied indicated a general inferiority of the lower classes, Niceforo, by comparing the curves of sensibility for the two classes, discovered a certain number of persons of higher sensibility among the poorer classes and a certain number of inferior sensibility among the wealthy classes. Or, as the author says in his concluding words: “ one can therefore demonstrate the existence of a little group of 'superiors' in the inferior classes and a little group of inferiors' in the superior classes."

This study seems to me to indicate accurately the relative values of classes, though it does not show the causes for existing differences. Niceforo attributes them to both heredity and environment; but the fact that superiors were found in the lower class environment would suggest that the differences were largely inborn. The number of the superiors is sufficient, either through chance variation or through favorable combinations of traits, to

1 The Cause of the Inferiority of Physical and Mental Characters in the Lower Classes. International Eugenics Congress, I: 189.

call attention to the fundamental similarity of all classes. But, as these superiors are the members that work up from the lower into the higher classes, the lower social strata come to resemble the towns or districts which have been deprived of their best elements through migration.

Conclusion. The conclusion I would draw from the material on this subject is that the evidence fails to prove that talent is to any large extent suppressed because of adverse environmental conditions, though ability is of course not developed to its utmost in any class in society. The negative method of treating the problem fails to demonstrate that the environment is more important than heredity; while the positive method on the contrary, through careful measurements of individuals and statistical estimates of conditions for large numbers, tends to show that inherited traits are more important than existing environmental influences in determining character and achievement.

While agreeing that the kind of tests that have been made attribute relatively greater importance to nature than to nurture, it must be admitted nevertheless that most of the studies have been confined to groups from the same general class in society and therefore show no marked differences either in individual traits or in environmental conditions. We can only surmise what would be the result, if reliable methods could be devised to measure extremes of ability and also the influence of extremes of environmental conditions as represented by social classes; but the probability is that previous conclusions would not be materially altered. Superior environments provide social amenities which sometimes pass for the external marks of worth, but the form of ability which results in true achievement probably has an inherited basis in whatever class it appears. However, considering the limitations of the studies made, it may be safer to use Galton's statement to summarize the results. He

There is no escape from the conclusion that nature prevails enormously over nurture when the differences of nurture do not exceed what is commonly to be found among persons of the same rank in society and in the same country."

1 Inquiries into the Human Faculty, p. 172.

1

says: 1