popular science, like that of mr. blatchford, is in this matter as mild as old wives’ tales. mr. blatchford, with colossal simplicity, explained to millions of clerks and workingmen that the mother is like a bottle of blue beads and the father is like a bottle of yellow beads; and so the child is like a bottle of mixed blue beads and yellow. he might just as well have said that if the father has two legs and the mother has two legs, the child will have four legs. obviously it is not a question of simple addition or simple division of a number of hard detached “qualities,” like beads. it is an organic crisis and transformation of the most mysterious sort; so that even if the result is unavoidable, it will still be unexpected. it is not like blue beads mixed with yellow beads; it is like blue mixed with yellow; the result of which is green, a totally novel and unique experience, a new emotion. a man might live in a complete cosmos of blue and yellow, like the “edinburgh review”; a man might never have seen anything but a golden cornfield and a sapphire sky; and still he might never have had so wild a fancy as green. if you paid a sovereign for a bluebell; if you spilled the mustard on the blue-books; if you married a canary to a blue baboon; there is nothing in any of these wild weddings that contains even a hint of green. green is not a mental combination, like addition; it is a physical result like birth. so, apart from the fact that nobody ever really understands parents or children either, yet even if we could understand the parents, we could not make any conjecture about the children. each time the force works in a different way; each time the constituent colors combine into a different spectacle. a girl may actually inherit her ugliness from her mother’s good looks. a boy may actually get his weakness from his father’s strength. even if we admit it is really a fate, for us it must remain a fairy tale. considered in regard to its causes, the calvinists and materialists may be right or wrong; we leave them their dreary debate. but considered in regard to its results there is no doubt about it. the thing is always a new color; a strange star. every birth is as lonely as a miracle. every child is as uninvited as a monstrosity.
on all such subjects there is no science, but only a sort of ardent ignorance; and nobody has ever been able to offer any theories of moral heredity which justified themselves in the only scientific sense; that is that one could calculate on them beforehand. there are six cases, say, of a grandson having the same twitch of mouth or vice of character as his grandfather; or perhaps there are sixteen cases, or perhaps sixty. but there are not two cases, there is not one case, there are no cases at all, of anybody betting half a crown that the grandfather will have a grandson with the twitch or the vice. in short, we deal with heredity as we deal with omens, affinities and the fulfillment of dreams. the things do happen, and when they happen we record them; but not even a lunatic ever reckons on them. indeed, heredity, like dreams and omens, is a barbaric notion; that is, not necessarily an untrue, but a dim, groping and unsystematized notion. a civilized man feels himself a little more free from his family. before christianity these tales of tribal doom occupied the savage north; and since the reformation and the revolt against christianity (which is the religion of a civilized freedom) savagery is slowly creeping back in the form of realistic novels and problem plays. the curse of rougon-macquart is as heathen and superstitious as the curse of ravenswood; only not so well written. but in this twilight barbaric sense the feeling of a racial fate is not irrational, and may be allowed like a hundred other half emotions that make life whole. the only essential of tragedy is that one should take it lightly. but even when the barbarian deluge rose to its highest in the madder novels of zola (such as that called “the human beast”, a gross libel on beasts as well as humanity), even then the application of the hereditary idea to practice is avowedly timid and fumbling. the students of heredity are savages in this vital sense; that they stare back at marvels, but they dare not stare forward to schemes. in practice no one is mad enough to legislate or educate upon dogmas of physical inheritance; and even the language of the thing is rarely used except for special modern purposes, such as the endowment of research or the oppression of the poor.
