likely to be inherited, and, in the absence of intermarriage
between the two colonies, to result in still more
typical difference than that which exists at present.
According to Mr. Darwin, the improved type of the
more successful race would not be due mainly to transmitted
perseverance in well-doing, but to the fact that if
any member of the German colony “happened”
to be born “ever so slightly,” &c.
Of course this last is true to a certain extent also;
if any member of the German colony does “happen
to be born,” &c., then he will stand a better
chance of surviving, and, if he marries a wife like
himself, of transmitting his good qualities; but how
about the happening? How is it that this is of
such frequent occurrence in the one colony, and is
so rare in the other? Fortes creantur fortibus
et bonis. True, but how and why? Through
the race being favoured? In one sense, doubtless,
it is true that no man can have anything except it
be given him from above, but it must be from an above
into the composition of which he himself largely enters.
God gives us all things; but we are a part of God,
and that part of Him, moreover, whose department it
more especially is to look after ourselves.
It cannot be through luck, for luck is blind, and
does not pick out the same people year after year and
generation after generation; shall we not rather say,
then, that it is because mind, or cunning, is a great
factor in the achievement of physical results, and
because there is an abiding memory between successive
generations, in virtue of which the cunning of an earlier
one enures to the benefit of its successors?
It is one of the commonplaces of biology that the
nature of the organism (which is mainly determined
by ancestral antecedents) is greatly more important
in determining its future than the conditions of its
environment, provided, of course, that these are not
too cruelly abnormal, so that good seed will do better
on rather poor soil, than bad seed on rather good
soil; this alone should be enough to show that cunning,
or individual effort, is more important in determining
organic results than luck is, and therefore that if
either is to be insisted on to the exclusion of the
other, it should be cunning, not luck. Which
is more correctly said to be the main means of the
development of capital—Luck? or Cunning?
Of course there must be something to be developed—and
luck, that is to say, the unknowable and unforeseeable,
enters everywhere; but is it more convenient with
our oldest and best-established ideas to say that
luck is the main means of the development of capital,
or that cunning is so? Can there be a moment’s
hesitation in admitting that if capital is found to
have been developed largely, continuously, by many
people, in many ways, over a long period of time, it
can only have been by means of continued application,
energy, effort, industry, and good sense? Granted
there has been luck too; of course there has, but
we let it go without saying, whereas we cannot let
the skill or cunning go without saying, inasmuch as
we feel the cunning to have been the essence of the
whole matter.